Beyond the Grades: The Lessons of the 2026 NBA Draft
No offense but I look at if you different if you're dropping draft grade pieces already.
This is not a draft grade piece.
If this was, the Washington Wizards would have an A+, the Utah Jazz and Chicago Bulls would have an A- and everyone else would have a “Did you ever think about just getting the first overall pick” grade.
What has always personally fascinated me about the draft isn’t the players and where they were taken but instead the logic and decision making behind selections. Sam Vecenie of The Athletic had a really good point: it is never really about being right when it comes to mock draft projections. Rather, it is the importance of understanding range and the influence it has.
Long as the process is right and the intel that’s in there is correct, it is what it is.
In the first real draft significantly impacted by the NIL, front offices navigated uncharted waters in a way that is very much worth documenting. Notably, not everything here will be translatable across multiple years — an example being what felt like one of the largest point guard classes we’ve seen in recent memory even though point guards selected in the first round range typically between 6-81.
We could even start there.
There was always the hidden expectation that the point guards would be drafted in clusters:
Cluster 1:
Keaton Wagler (5)
Mikel Brown Jr (6)
Darius Acuff Jr (7)
Kingston Flemings (8)
We could even lump in Darryn Peterson (2) and Brayden Burries (10) here, although both were primarily play the two in college despite the likelihood that they will adopt the combo guard moniker in the NBA.
Cluster 2:
Bennett Stirtz (16)
Ebuka Okorie (17)
Christian Anderson Jr (18)
Labaron Philon Jr (22)
We’re continuing to see the trend of sizing and positional flexibility be some prominent when it comes to top guard talent. Not a shock to many was Darius Acuff Jr, the projected best natural point guard in this class, fall to 7. But upon immediate reflection, witnessing Acuff go behind Wagler and Brown does make one pause — similar to looking at puzzle pieces that connect but don’t quite match the projected image.
The rise of he combo guard has broken the brains of the majority of the NBA. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander being a shooting guard out of Kentucky and transforming into one of the most polarizing guards in NBA history with back-to-back MVPs under his belt continues to be this shooting star — while also acknowledging the brilliance of players like James Harden, Cade Cunningham, many others who I will not list for the sake of brevity.
It also makes sense from a developmental prospect — more roles you can realistically play, the more opportunities to get meaningful minutes as a NBA talent.
Does it make sense though with your team construct?
Keaton Wagler in Los Angeles is going to be incredibly fascinating to watch given the history of his new backcourt running mate Darius Garland, who previously was involved in a backcourt situation that challenged the philosophy of the double-ball handler backcourt not once but twice with Collin Sexton and Donovan Mitchell. Similarly, Mikel Brown Jr is entering the already comedic guard landscape of the Brooklyn Nets — although it does make a little bit more sense with the knowledge that Egor Demin can play the two while Nolan Traore and Ben Saraf haven’t necessarily earned the uncontested starting point guard spot. Meanwhile as you dip lower into the point guard pool, suddenly those same characteristics become less valuable. It inverses. The traditional table setter in Stirtz becomes a top commodity.
It is also making the conversation surrounding wings incredibly fascinating.
Despite the first overall pick being a wing in AJ Dybantsa, Nate Ament at 13 is the next qualifier for a true wing, quickly followed by Dailyn Swain at 15. Overall, we saw 6 wings go in the first round, compared to roughly 6 going in the lottery last season.
This is heavily available talent related and overall need but it was a little bit strange to monitor, especially with the combine performances of Cameron Carr along with the general public’s interest in the likes of Allen Graves and Alex Karaban.
The draft did not favor perimeter shooting compared to the years of old — despite a wealth of teams searching for the perimeter shooting that would be a much needed boost to their overall dynamic. Carr’s move to Los Angeles immediately replaces a catch-and-shoot hole that may be left by a departing Rui Hachimura. Meanwhile San Antonio went double size after Jayden Quaintance and Tarris Reed Jr for Victor Wembanyama backfill despite three point shooting plaguing the team in the NBA Finals.
We’re not here to say one way of thinking is right or wrong. Just pointing it out.
Some of these questions also get resolved in the second round, where there is more of a “commitment” aspect rather than a "“draft” aspect. The most widely discussed example is Henri Veesaar — a projected first round talent — being selected 52nd by the Atlanta Hawks to provide some depth at the center.
The Veesaar situation is the perfect illustration of how the second round has quietly become an extension of free agency rather than a continuation of the first round.
For years, the second round has been treated as a lottery ticket. Teams would swing on upside, stash an international prospect or simply take the best player remaining. NIL has complicated that equation. Players projected in the 35-to-60 range now possess genuine leverage. If a prospect believes they can earn more money returning to school than accepting a non-guaranteed NBA contract, suddenly every team drafting in that range has to ask a different question.
We should also probably talk about the league is responding to draft age.
Again, this was a draft that saw a significant amount of talent return to college that could have been first-round level talent or in cases like Braylon Mullins or Tounde Yessoufou, lottery consideration talent.
Did they likely have information to confirm their probable rankings and draft hobbyists may have been a little bit too high on them? Sure.
It became a question of how teams would react to maybe having less freshman talent that normal — or even more sophomores and juniors throwing their hat into the fold at perceived maximum value. Morez Johnson Jr would be the first non-freshman taken at nine — exact same spot as last year’s first non-freshman in Collin Murray-Boyles. Two of his Michigan teammates would also see their names called in the lottery — Yaxel Lendeborg at 11, Aday Mara at 12.
Last year saw the average age of first round picks be 19.3. This year, it was 20.5 with this year’s lottery averaging out to 20.1.
That may not sound like a dramatic jump. In NBA Draft terms, it is seismic.
For years, the league has operated under one prevailing assumption: if a player stayed in college too long, there was probably a reason. Every additional birthday was viewed as another opportunity to poke holes in a prospect’s ceiling. Teams were comfortable betting on an 18-year-old who couldn’t yet shoot because, theoretically, there were four or five years of untapped development waiting to happen.
NIL has complicated that calculus.
The best underclassmen are no longer forced to enter the draft the moment they receive first-round feedback. Returning to school is no longer viewed as settling for less—it can be the financially smarter decision while allowing players to continue developing in featured roles. The result is a stronger college product and, consequently, an older draft class.
That doesn’t necessarily mean teams suddenly value age more than they did twelve months ago. It means the supply has changed.
If fewer elite freshmen declare, the market has to adjust accordingly.
Michigan became the perfect case study. Morez Johnson Jr., Yaxel Lendeborg and Aday Mara all heard their names called before the midway point of the lottery despite each following a very different developmental path. None fit the traditional “one-and-done” mold, yet all filled specific archetypes NBA teams have increasingly prioritized: physicality, size, defensive versatility and immediate rotation value.
The same principle extended well beyond Ann Arbor. This draft felt noticeably less concerned with maximizing theoretical upside and more interested in minimizing uncertainty.
That doesn’t mean upside disappeared. AJ Dybantsa still went first overall followed by three star freshman while several other teenagers still occupied premium real estate on draft night. But once those obvious swings came off the board, organizations appeared much more willing to bet on players with longer résumés than longer projections.
One final thing to look at is the center position. This was a small center class. Not necessarily in terms of quantity, but in archetype.
Five centers2 heard their names called in the first round, yet only one measured as a true seven-footer. Henri Veesaar and Ugonna Onyenso would eventually join that group in the second round, but the traditional “enormous rim protector” has become less of a prerequisite than it once was.
Instead, teams continue searching for centers that can solve multiple problems.
Can you switch for a possession? Can you make the extra pass? Can you survive on the perimeter without your defensive scheme collapsing? Can you finish above the rim while also keeping the offense flowing?
Height is still valuable. Functional versatility is becoming mandatory. It maybe explains why Mara wasn’t the first center off the board compared to his power forward teammate3.
This was dependent on the talent available — one could wonder if Arizona’s Mo Krivas would have become a much higher projected selection if he did declare in this year’s draft. Still, organizations weren't drafting "centers." They were drafting specific defensive identities.
And perhaps that’s the best way to summarize this entire draft.
The 2026 class wasn’t defined by one overwhelming positional trend. It wasn’t “the year of the point guard” — although it may get billed as such and I am hypocrite for that — or “the year of the wing.” Instead, it felt like the first draft where front offices fully embraced a post-NIL landscape while continuing the league’s larger evolution toward versatility.
The questions being asked in draft rooms have changed.
Instead of “Who’s the youngest?” teams are asking, “Who’s the most adaptable?”
Instead of “Who’s the best shooter?” they’re asking, “Can he stay on the floor in May?”
Instead of “What’s his ceiling?” they’re increasingly asking, “How many different lineups does he make better?”
Those are subtle changes, but they’re meaningful ones.
Maybe next year’s class swings back toward freshmen — probably not given the general concerns of the class. Maybe another wave of elite wings floods the lottery. Maybe the second round becomes less predictable if NIL economics shift again. Draft trends are rarely permanent.
What is permanent is that every draft tells us something about how NBA organizations think. This year’s message was remarkably clear.
Teams are becoming less obsessed with finding unicorns and more obsessed with finding connectors. Players who can wear multiple hats. Players whose games don’t require perfect circumstances to succeed. Players whose versatility gives coaches options rather than problems.
That’s why looking back at a draft a few days later is often more interesting than reacting to it in real time.
The grades will change. The players will develop. But the philosophy behind the selections—that’s the part that tells you where the league is headed next.
Don’t check my math.
This accounts for players who declared as PF/C. Somehow, Zuby Ejiofor did not do this but Izaiyah Nelson did
It still makes no sense why Steinbach wasn’t taken higher.