First of all, you're way overreacting to this. Second of all, two players who are both 4-year seniors, playing PG, both 6'3/6'4", 190 lbs, with comparable shooting splits are somewhat comparable entering the league. The transition from NCAA to NBA is significant enough, that you can't overreact to what a player does in college, or think he's limited to that role. For Clayton to make it in the league, he's going to start as an off-ball shooter, playing off of the primary initiator, with some ability to drive and score on bigger defenders and secondary playmake. He may also be able to play more of a lead-guard role off the bench (backup point guard). That's how Nembhard started. Nembhard didn't become a regular starter until his 3rd year, and that's due to his ability to play off of Haliburton in a fairly egalitarian offensive system. The fact that Nembhard is as effective as he is in these playoffs might bode well for Clayton if he can follow a similar path.
So these are the kind of comments that make me wonder if we’re talking about the same player. Nembhard became a starter his rookie year and it had nothing to do with his offense. He was a really bad offensive player and you could argue he still is. Nembhard is a defensive combo guard and that’s why he’s on the court. He’s a very bad shooter for an NBA guard but makes up for it with his defense. He may have had a good offensive game recently, but don’t create fan fiction about his entire career because of it.
Clayton is complete opposite. If he makes his way in the NBA it won’t be because he’s a great defender and terrible shooter. He will make it because he’s a great shooter and if he makes it big it’s because he’s becomes an excellent off the dribble shooter. If you listed out each guys strengths and weaknesses they’d basically be a direct opposite of each other.