Can someone post these two articles? Hollinger's Top 70 players: https://theathletic.com/2700529/202...-1-and-why-alperen-sengun-deserves-more-hype/ I feel like John Hollinger has some of the best analysis of players out there. He's not a sportstalk guy, he's an analyst. I've heard his rankings vary from the norm and I'm interested in that, too. ESPN top 30 prospect ratings based on stats and scouting: https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/st...ranking-top-30-prospects-based-stats-scouting Thank you!
He will be a serviceable player pretty quickly and an exciting player to watch immediately...it probably won't translate to wins immediately but I have little doubt in him growing into a Bradley Beal type of player at the worst and if he is really as driven and focused on being the best player in the league as he would lead you to believe in his interviews, then his ceiling could be much higher. I think realistically even if Green is a future yearly all star, we are probably still 3 years away from being a low end playoff team at best unless Houston nails all their picks the next few years(pulls a Boston) or if one of KPJ/Wood make a "leap" in terms of their ceiling before then. That's not throwing shade at Green by the way - even the GOAT LBJ didn't will his garbage Cleveland team to the playoffs in a weak Eastern conference until a few years into the league.
Please God don't make Detroit overthink this and just select Cade. I've grown accustomed to Green being a Rocket and I can't handle it if that isn't going to happen.
Don’t have ESPN Insider so can’t help you there…but Hollinger below: Spoiler Hello again – it’s time to update my update. I last came to you regarding the 2021 NBA Draft three weeks ago, when the combine was happening and we were still finding out which fringe prospects were going to stay in the draft. Now that the deadline to pull out for NCAA players has passed, and now that scouts (and I) have seen most of these players perform on the court at the combine, we can go much deeper into analysis. I posted my top 23 players for the draft three weeks ago, and that list remains below. I’ve now added 47 more players to take the list all the way to 70 – covering the players most likely to be selected (there will be 59 picks on draft day, which is July 29). From my perspective, this draft is a bit different in terms of how its depth shakes out. I’d be really happy to have a pick in the top nine, or something in the mid-20s. However, the depth of this group sort of craters after the top nine picks, leaving a lot of speculative-type selections in the teens, or non-speculative selections on near-certain role players. The 20s and 30s offer less risk in a way, as there are a number of players worth taking a flier on in this part of my board. The fail rate is high enough that it’s not a big worry if they don’t pan out. For now, let’s go back to a basic rule I introduced eight months ago: 20 players. As I scout players during the season, my mission is to try to find the 20 guys in this draft that I think will make it, since that’s usually the number of rotation-caliber players each draft produces. (No, I’m not counting the “rotation” minutes gifted to every lottery pick. I mean players that actually stick around and help.) After those 20 players and three “sleepers” that I’m particularly fond of, we get into the rest of my board. 1. Cade Cunningham, SG/SF, Oklahoma State, Freshman The default that Cunningham is the best player in this draft has perhaps not been challenged enough. I ended up with him No. 1 as well, but reasonable people can disagree among the top four players on my board. Ultimately, the best reason to pick Cunningham is that his elite shooting gives him the highest floor of any player in the draft. Cunningham shot 40 percent from 3-point range and 84.6 percent from the line, and many of those 3s were tough looks off the dribble. His catch-and-shoots look perfect, and he has the size to shoot over any closeout. That perimeter skill set, from a big wing who can handle and pass, makes Khris Middleton-type outcomes seem reasonably likely. Finding big wings with skill of any stripe is also the most difficult thing for any NBA team to pull off. These players are massively valuable — as the playoffs are once again showing us — and should be the priority of any team’s draft process. Where I push back is the idea that Cunningham can be “The Man,” the guy you give the keys to the offense on Day 1 and never look back. For me, he’s much more of a secondary creator who can weaponize his shooting threat rather than the guy you play on the ball for 60 trips a game. In particular, Cunningham’s game off the bounce strikes me as wildly overrated. He has a loose handle that gets away from him fairly often, particularly with his left hand. He also constantly forces passes and rarely makes deliveries that make you go “ooh!” (They’re in there if you look hard enough, but man, there’s a lot of chaff in between the wheat.) He can throw crosscourt passes with his right hand, but they’re not laser beams; the defense has a chance to recover. Between the lost dribbles and wayward passes, Cunningham had a sky-high turnover rate for a prospect of this magnitude (or any prospect, really), giving it away seven times per 100, and a meh assist rate of five per 100. In fairness, we should allow some for context: The surrounding roster was not exactly an offensive juggernaut and was particularly deficient in 3-point shooting, limiting Cunningham’s operating space and assist options. As a scoring threat on the ball, he really struggled to get by defenders. Attempts to blow by bigs on switches often ended with him dribbling straight into a defender’s chest, and he rarely got all the way to the basket. Overall he shot only 46.1 percent on 2s. Again, the limited spacing on this roster didn’t help. I like Cunningham a lot better if he starts with a half-step advantage or can leverage his shooting threat against a closing defender. Luka Doncic he ain’t. Defensively, he’s good enough. He uses his length well and can slide his feet, but he’s not a disruptor or somebody who anticipates for steals. He won’t be NBA All-Defense or anything, but he’ll be able to switch across positions and hold his own. Again, a floor as a high-level 3-and-D guy is pretty darned good. It’s just may not be what we’re used to for the top overall pick. Cunningham is also a cool, unflappable customer with a penchant for big shots. He is clearly an NBA starter from Day 1, and the possibilities of elite shooting gives him Jayson Tatum upside. His inability to beat defenders off the dribble may not matter if he’s rising up for 30-footers against them. Overall, he’s my pick here. But it’s not the home run some make it out to be, and I’m hoping the team drafting him has another playmaker. 2. Evan Mobley, PF/C, USC, Freshman Even when the game is going small, Mobley has an argument to be the top pick. His basic premise is that he can do most of the things perimeter guys can, but he’s the size of a center. You can make an argument that Mobley is better at self-created shots inside the 3-point line than Cunningham is, and is also better at defending the perimeter. We call Mobley a “big” and Cunningham a “wing,” but other than Cunningham’s shooting, Mobley is better at most of the wing stuff, too. In 2021, however, a big has to be pretty darned good to make a case for himself as being more valuable than a wing with size. Surely there are exceptions — Nikola Jokic won the MVP award, and Joel Embiid was the East’s most dominant player this season — but the bar is higher for bigs. Mobley is fortunately the right kind of big because it is going to be very hard to play him off the court in the playoffs. His skinny frame, skill set and defensive mobility almost immediately conjure images of Chris Bosh. In particular, some of his defensive clips had me cackling, as guards embarrassed themselves trying to take him off the bounce. He’s great at keeping his feet moving and using his length to contest shots when picking up guards in switches. That said, you wish Mobley was better at some of the things that actually involve being big. He’s not notably good at posting up, owing in part to his very slender frame. His rebound rate was unimpressive, and he gets pushed around near the basket, where his thin frame becomes a liability. Statistically, he’s a good-but-not-great shot blocker, although that partly results from how often he had to defend on the perimeter. His motor doesn’t always run super hot, either. Offensively, Mobley hints at upside in all kinds of directions but doesn’t have one overwhelming skill at the moment. As noted above, he’s pretty good when he can attack off the bounce, even against guards. He can put the ball on the floor, score off the dribble as a driver from the free-throw area and finish near the cup. He shows rudiments of stretch ability, making 12 3-pointers on the season and shooting 69.4 percent from the line, and his form suggests he can at least become a break-even proposition as a shooter. Mobley has All-Star upside, with shades of Bosh and Pau Gasol in his game, but he has work ahead of him to get there.
Spoiler 3. Scottie Barnes, SF, Florida State, Freshman I’m really surprised Barnes isn’t getting more buzz. He could easily end up as the best player in this draft and has a case for being the top pick. Again, the search for big wings comes first at the NBA level, and everything else comes later — and the playoffs are showing why. Barnes has weaknesses, and we’ll get to them in a minute, but there is early Spurs-era Kawhi Leonard upside here as well. For starters, for a player who is supposed to be terrible at offense, Barnes has offensive numbers that are pretty darned good. He came off the bench for a relatively slow-paced team and that muted his counting stats, but Barnes averaged 23.8 points per 100 possessions — similar to the rate of most other first-round hopefuls — and shot 56.1 percent inside the arc. Both numbers increased in ACC play when the Seminoles played their most difficult competition. Barnes showed an ability to get all the way to the cup under his own steam, something he can do much more on the open floor that the NBA offers. Even against defenders that lay off him, Barnes chews up space with huge strides and, at 6-foot-9, can finish over any guard, which allowed him to generate rim attempts despite lacking explosiveness. Despite his huge size, Barnes loves to play defense and often checked point guards. I don’t mean switches, either; this was his primary assignment. With his long arms and relentless motor, he frequently picked the dribble of ballhandlers on the perimeter. He offers the kind of switchable “checkmate” defensive answer that every team craves, possessing the size to check interior players but also the quickness and hands to switch onto any perimeter threat. All the background on him is fantastic, too. Barnes has warts, particularly in his shooting and his lack of off-the-dribble turbo gear, and that could put a cap on his offensive upside. He doesn’t rebound well for his size and was outplayed by Michigan’s Franz Wagner (see below) in an NCAA tournament game. His downside looms if the shooting doesn’t make him playable at the end of games. That said, I remain amazed he isn’t getting more buzz. For comparison, Patrick Williams came off the bench for Florida State a year earlier and ended up as the fourth pick in the draft, and Barnes’ tools and production dwarf Williams’. As the draft’s No. 2 on-the-ball prospect, he compares favorably to Cunningham on defense and distribution but pales next to him as a shooter. As ever, shooting is the swing skill, and it’s why I rate Cunningham higher. Barnes’ floor is just much lower because of the shooting question. Nonetheless, I happen to think Barnes is so skilled in other respects that he’s still a useful player even if he doesn’t shoot — think a jumbo, rim-threatening version of Bruce Brown. And if he shoots even halfway decently, he has a pretty good runway to being an NBA All-Star. 4. Alperen Sengun, PF/C, Besiktas As I noted a few months ago, Sengun is the pearl of a strong international class, and is still flying somewhat under the radar despite winning the MVP of the Turkish League. That league is probably the second-best in Europe right now after Spain’s, and the history says that when a teenager — Sengun turns 19 on July 25 — crushes a good overseas league like that, the fail rate is basically nil. There are legitimate concerns about Sengun defensively, that he might be the type of guy who gets run off the floor in a playoff series. Overall, I would profile him as similar to Kevin Love — more of a “4.5” than a true five and somebody whose offense will need to make up for non-elite rim protection and mobility. Nonetheless, his offensive skill set is crazy good for a player his age. He has ball skills, passing ability, a good shooting stroke that projects to 3-point range and a dizzying array of spins, pivots and finishes on the low block. I’ll be surprised if he isn’t able to rack up double-doubles relatively early in his career; it’s the defensive question in the modern game that keeps him out of my top three, and even then I still wonder if I have him too low. A lot of not-very-athletic bigs with average tools but advanced feel have ended up being far better defenders than initially projected — Marc Gasol obviously comes to mind for me — and Sengun could be another example. I wouldn’t just write him off at this end of the floor. 5. Jalen Green, SG, G League Ignite A medium-risk, high-reward type pick, Green is a skinny, athletic shooting guard with blast-off quickness and elite leaping ability. You can’t teach this stuff, and it’s why he’s a certain high lottery pick. He’s the one guy who made the most “holy ****” plays in this draft, with fast-twitch hops reminiscent of Zach LaVine. Green got off to a slow start in the G League but really picked up his play toward the end, figuring out how to take advantage of his speed and leaping ability to get to the rim. His weaknesses right now are all skill-based. He has to play off the ball because his handle isn’t advanced; he frequently lost his dribble making relatively basic moves in pick-and-roll. His shooting is decent but hardly great, and he relies too much on stepback 3s because he lacks advanced maneuvers with the rock. As a passer, he’s capable of basic reads, but that part of his game is still coming around. He’s not selfish; he just doesn’t have the whole picture yet. He is decent defensively but not exceptional. Green should be able to dart into passing lines more often than he does, and his first slide actually looks slow — it’s surprising how often he was beaten off the dribble. However, he competed, and he has the athleticism to surprise shooters with shot challenges. Green is only 19 and was a good-but-not-great G League player last season, so we’re talking about a developmental pick here. But his ceiling is high enough to make it worthwhile. 6. Jalen Suggs, PG, Gonzaga, Freshman Suggs reminds me of Jason Kidd in a lot of ways, although the passing is more solid than spectacular. He has pretty good size for a point guard and great end-to-end speed, plus he has absolutely tremendous anticipation at the defensive end. Suggs reads the game almost like a defensive back, closing on the ball with speed to intercept passes. His feet are only average on the ball, and he can get caught reaching, but overall, he projects as a tough defender. Offensively, his pace in transition is an obvious benefit that helps grease the way to easy baskets, but his half-court game remains a work in progress. Suggs shot 33.7 percent from 3 and 75.4 percent from the line, so teams will dare him to prove he can knock down shots consistently. The good news is that Suggs has a quick release that he’s comfortable getting off the dribble, and he shows pretty good footwork getting into pull-ups in the painted area on pivots and up-and-unders. He doesn’t need to improve his percentages that much to turn the shooting from a liability to a strength. Bigger picture, the upside as an elite offensive player is maybe a bit limited by the shooting and the lack of elite pick-and-roll craft. That’s why Suggs is a bit lower on my board than some others. After my top five prospects, however, Suggs is the obvious pick due to his long-term starter potential and fairly high floor for such a young player. 7. Franz Wagner, SF, Michigan, Sophomore The younger brother of Orlando center Moritz Wagner, Franz is a very different kind of player: He’s a huge wing with unusually nimble feet for his size, capable of checking guards on the perimeter and busting out in passing lanes for steals. Wagner stands 6-foot-9 but had one of the better steal rates in this draft class; he’s the classic switchable defender teams covet. Offensively, he projects more as a role player than a star. Wagner can shoot but has a low release point on his shot and hasn’t shown the footwork or off-the-dribble sizzle to be a high-frequency bomber. He’s good in transition and can attack in straight lines in the half court, where his size and stride length give him an advantage even on basic dribble moves. He’s also a good passer with a strong feel for the game, and he rarely screws up, resulting in a better than 2:1 assist-to-turnover rate. The other thing Wagner has going for him is his age. Although listed as a sophomore, he is actually younger than several of the freshman in this draft class, including Barnes, Mobley and Suggs. He doesn’t scream outrageous upside, but the youth, production and positional scarcity all point to Wagner as an underrated player in this draft.
Spoiler 8. Jonathan Kuminga, SF, G League Ignite Kuminga is the next level of big wing shot creator in this class. Right now, he’s a good ways behind Cunningham and Barnes in terms of his ability to read the game and make plays for others, with a skill set more reminiscent of younger versions of Harrison Barnes or Andrew Wiggins. In Kuminga’s G League stint, he showed the size and skill to dribble himself into pull-up 2s and occasionally make them. Unfortunately, he also revealed an almost unslakable thirst for this particular shot and an iffy ability to generate better ones. Kuminga was an ineffective passer and, while a good athlete, doesn’t have the blow-by gear or wiggle that would allow him to generate easier opportunities than the ones for which he routinely settles. One area where he did seem very comfortable, however, was facing up a defender from the free throw line. From there, he could get to the basket with one dribble and finish with his size. Kuminga has the size and lateral quickness to be the multipositional defender teams crave, (he’ll be at a disadvantage against the fastest guards … though, who isn’t?) but his instincts are miles behind. He also was a disappointingly poor rebounder for a player of this ilk. That said, he’s 6-foot-8 with some legit perimeter skill and will be one of the youngest players in the draft, with an October 2002 birthdate. (Yes, virtually every player in this draft was born this century. Sigh …. I know.) 9. Jalen Johnson, PF, Duke, Freshman There are all kinds of questions about Johnson right now, and teams are digging in and doing their homework about how much is genuinely concerning. There are also some basketball concerns; he is not a great shooter, and as a driver and finisher, he was much more effective operating in transition than in the half court. But there is a pretty sharp talent cliff at this point in the draft, and Johnson comes just before the ledge. Whatever the other concerns, it’s inarguable he’s shown the talent to be a starting power forward in the NBA. Watching him reminds me a bit of a player we had in Memphis, James Johnson; like his namesake, this Johnson can play as a big while operating as an on-ball creator on offense, but he also can be plagued by wildness and inconsistent shooting. Johnson put up video-game stats in his limited time at Duke — 30.4 points, 16.4 rebounds and 6.0 assists per 100 possessions, with a 25.1 PER. He had 3.1 steals and 3.3 blocks per 100, with the steal rate, in particular, being pretty insane for a 6-foot-9 power forward. He also made plenty of mistakes, possessing the highest turnover rate of any prospect in this draft. My research, though, indicates that otherwise productive prospects with huge turnover rates aren’t notably worse off in the pros. The eye test is maybe not quite as bullish. Offensively, he has a pretty good first step and ball skills for his size. However, he struggles to adjust the plan when his initial path is cut off. Defensively, he can be a major disruptor as a secondary defender off the ball, but he can be a bit upright and tight-hipped on it. I get the overall concerns, and I don’t want to minimize them. But there is massively more upside here than with any other player remaining on the board. Yes, it feels high for a risk-reward pick like this, except the middle of this draft isn’t strong. The ninth overall pick also bombs a lot more often than people realize (we recently had Dennis Smith Jr. and Kevin Knox go ninth in consecutive years, for instance), so this is where the equation on Johnson starts turning favorable. It’s possible he bombs, but this is as low as I can put him. 10. Josh Giddey, SF, Adelaide Similar to Kuminga, Giddey is 6-foot-8 with perimeter skills. Unlike Kuminga, he only exists in two dimensions. Yes, Giddey needs to pack on a bit of muscle, but his play in a physical professional league in Australia shows that he can be an impact player without looking like Hercules. Again, big wings who can dribble and pass are the gold every scout seeks, which gives Giddey a solid boost up the list here. His upside scenarios are reminiscent of Toni Kukoc or Joe Ingles with a right hand. The reason he doesn’t go any higher, however, has to do with some of the limitations that could prove fail points in this development. For starters, there is his shot. Giddey shot 29.3 percent from 3 and 69.1 percent from the line this season, and while he relied some on self-created 3s, the eye test backs up the numbers in this case. He shoots an awkward, elbow-out jumper flicked off his forehead, and he’s going to need that shot to open up the rest of his game. Giddey doesn’t have the burst to get to the cup on his own steam consistently and, for that reason, was an underwhelming scorer Down Under (10.8 points per game, exactly 50 percent on 2s). His ability to guard on the perimeter is also a question, especially given his thin frame and limited vertical. Giddey wasn’t afraid to stick his nose in and rebound, however, with a 12.8 percent rebound rate in a pretty brutish league. The reason to draft Giddey is for his passing. His ability to make deliveries with either hand at his age is pretty special; he just has to be good enough at the other stuff to where it’s worth putting him on the ball. Unlike the other prospects who have played in Australia, Giddey legitimately impacted winning as a teenager. He’ll also be nearly the youngest player in the draft, with an October 2002 birthdate. The size, passing and youth make for a strong case. Relative to the players above him, however, Giddey has two minuses — athleticism and shooting — and at least one of them needs to turn in his favor. 11. Jared Butler, PG/SG, Baylor, Junior I’m a big fan of Butler, a butter-smooth guard with a sweet handle, long arms, good defensive anticipation and a money outside shot. Butler shot 41.6 percent on 3s on high volume, had a high assist rate for a combo guard, and shot 52.4 percent inside the arc while scoring at a high rate (31 points per 100). All the tools are there for a rotation-caliber combo guard with starter upside. While his teammate Davion Mitchell has gotten more of the praise recently, Butler is two years younger, bigger, had the greater offensive role and profiles as a better shooter. Defensively, he might not be as insanely wired to cut off dribble penetration as Mitchell, but he has long arms that generate deflections and close up passing lanes. Baylor was a high-pressure team, so all of its players’ steal rates are inflated, but Butler’s 4.2 swipes per 100 possessions in Big 12 play were the highest of any prospect in his draft cycle. Butler doesn’t offer elite upside because his size and athleticism are pretty unremarkable — and he was already a junior. He might have the best handle of any player in the draft, and his offensive game is exceptionally well-rounded. I have a hard time seeing how he fails. However, as our Shams Charania reported, medical concerns about Butler could crater his stock. The league flagged him for an undisclosed issue and wouldn’t let him participate at the draft combine. His fate will depen on a review by the NBA’s fitness-to-play panel. 12. Corey Kispert, SF, Gonzaga, Senior Holy crap, a senior! We’re getting into a different strata of player here, because Kispert has near-zero star equity. That said, big wings who can shoot are one of the most valuable player archetypes, and Kispert checks all the boxes for this species. While there remains a pretty big variance between this pick turning out to be more like Doug McDermott (meh) or more like Joe Harris (wahoowa!!), Kispert offers near-certain rotation caliber shooting at the expense of the upside you’d usually want at this stage of the late lottery. Kispert is also 22, which makes him a fossil relative to the other players available here. Defensively, Kispert looked pretty solid for a player of this ilk. He’s not a disruptor, but his strength is an underrated asset, allowing him to match up with some 4s and hold his own against post-ups. On the perimeter, he relies on his length against smalls and will concede space and some jump shots. However, he moves his feet to cut off driving lanes and is very good at using verticality. I don’t think he’ll have a target on his back. We should also talk about some of the upside here as a scorer. I realize Gonzaga didn’t play a tough schedule, but Kispert’s game wasn’t just 3s. He scored 33 points per 100 and shot 64 percent inside the arc; he’s actually a really good finisher off straight-line drives because of his size and strength, and he’s pretty good in transition, too. He weaponized that with his 3-point threat; he hit 44 percent and 43.8 percent from 3 his final two seasons at Gonzaga, so you had better close out on him hard. One thing I didn’t like about Kispert was his low release point. I don’t think he’s the type of guy who’s going to run away from his defense and come off two pin-screens wheeling and dealing; he’s better off spotting up away from the play. But he has the tools to be an elite weak-side offensive player.
Spoiler 13. James Bouknight, SG, Connecticut, Sophomore Pronounced “Bucket.” OK, it’s not, but it should be. He’s a bit undersized for a shooting guard and a bit greedy for a point, but Bouknight’s ability to get this own shot stands out in this class. Bouknight averaged an eye-popping 39.3 points per 100 possessions in nine Big East games as a sophomore at UConn this season, despite a midseason injury that seemed to affect his shooting once he came back. He can take it to the cup and finish with long strides and length (54.5 percent on 2s in the Big East with a high free throw rate), plus he gets off the floor on his jumper and is comfortable shooting pull-ups off the dribble. That doesn’t make him wart-free. You’d like to see more consistency in his perimeter stroke (29.3 percent from 3 this year, 32 percent career, although he’s an 80 percent foul shooter); opponents may just go under screens on him and dare him to bomb way. Bouknight also needs to increase his feel as a passer if he wants to play a prominent on-ball role. His rate of 3.2 assists per 100 was unacceptable for a high-volume guard. Bouknight needs to show a bit more verve defensively. He shows good lateral quickness, has decent length and competes when he’s guarding on the ball, but he also chills out off the ball and doesn’t anticipate plays. He also needs to build up his skinny frame, as opposing 2s will likely try to take him on the block. One encouraging sign: He does rebound, with 10.2 boards per 100 in Big East play. The value proposition here is that high-level shot creation still matters. Bouknight has a lot of Jordan Clarkson in him, both for good and bad, but it’s not hard to imagine him becoming an annual Sixth Man winner. 14. Moses Moody, SG, Arkansas, Freshman Watching Moody’s tape, the two things that immediately strike you are that 1) he has a really good chance of carving out a career as a plus 3-and-D guy, and 2) he has fairly little chance of popping as anything more than that. Moody has good size and length at 6-foot-6 with a 6-foot-11 wingspan and a smooth outside shot. His 3-point rate wasn’t off the charts, however, as he didn’t show the kind of ability to run off screens and fire on the move that you’d want to see from a high-level gunner. He also rarely gets to the basket and doesn’t wow you with athleticism. Where he did show well is on the defensive end. While he wasn’t disruptive off the ball, he gets in a stance, slides his feet and uses his length to distract shooters. He’s also young even for a freshman, and has some instincts as a scorer, so there’s a chance some untapped upside remains. He shapes up as a high-floor, low-ceiling type in spite of his youth, one who makes for a good pick around this point in the draft. 15. Usman Garuba, PF/C, Real Madrid My rule of thumb, as ever: Guys who hold their own as teenagers in high-level European leagues as teenagers don’t fail. Garuba played a total of 86 games (!) for Real Madrid this year as a rotation big at the age of 18, showed fairly steady improvement as the year went on and probably can be an NBA-caliber defender from Day 1 as either a four or a smallball five. However, I can’t put him any higher than this because of the potential limitations on the offensive side. He’s a good athlete but not a freak, and he’s undersized at the five. So where is his advantage? At 6-foot-8 without elite shot-blocking or rebounding numbers on his resume, he’ll have a hard time carving out a role as a full-time center, even in a downsized NBA. Adding enough skill to play some minutes next to a true five is going to be his pathway to becoming a starting-caliber player. On that front, Garuba remains a work in progress. He flies up and down the court in transition and has started to steady his 3-point shot from the corners (31.6 percent this year). He also actually shows some ball skills when his team lets him paint outside the lines. That said, Garuba isn’t a great finisher around the basket. Ultimately, I see a potential comparison for Garuba as a bigger version of Toronto’s OG Anunoby. He can guard on the perimeter, and his switchability means he won’t get played off the floor (at least on defense). He needs the shooting to come around to have starter value, and that’s why he’s just outside the lottery on my board. 16. Davion Mitchell, PG, Baylor, Senior Everyone has a visceral reaction to ball-pressure guys, and Mitchell was probably the best in college basketball last season. His lateral quickness is insane; nobody could get by him off the dribble. Mitchell combines that with a bulldog mentality and a zest for taking charges. He’ll be a Patrick Beverley or Avery Bradley type checking other point guards, a real pain in the ass to play against. Mitchell was also one of the country’s most improved players at the offensive end. He shot 44.7 percent from 3-point range last season and showed real growth as an on-ball distributor, although Mitchell and Butler (above) alternated responsibilities in the backcourt. Mitchell also has a tremendous blow-by gear to the rim and shot a stellar 56.5 percent inside the arc. That said, there are concerns here. Mitchell has a good frame, but he’s going to look small in the NBA. He was listed at 6-foot-2 at Baylor but measured 6-foot in socks at the combine. One other notable red flag is that his rebound rate was embarrassing. He only grabbed 3.9 boards per 100 possessions in Big 12 play, the worst rate of any quasi-significant prospect in this draft. Offensively, his 3-point shooting from last season may be an outlier; he still only hit 64.1 percent from the line, and finished his career at 65.7 percent. Even comparing usage rates this year, Butler had far more of the offense on his shoulders than Mitchell. To add, Mitchell also virtually never draws fouls. He’s also one of the older players in this draft, turning 22 in September. In an offense-first league, I still have a hard time seeing starter upside in Mitchell at that end. His defense will surely keep him on the court, and his work ethic and intangibles will push him up draft boards as well, but today’s NBA is a tough place for ball-pressure guys to shine. 17. Miles McBride, PG, West Virginia, Sophomore I originally had McBride in my “sleepers” area, but when I went back to tape, I kept saying, “this guy is good.” Not that I should be surprised. Every year, the Big 12 is guaranteed to produce at least one high-character guy who plays his tuchus off and knows what he’s doing and ends up having a 10-year career, even though he wasn’t drafted high and doesn’t have elite athleticism. Last year it was Desmond Bane. This year McBride is that guy. Let’s start on the downside. McBride is 6-foot-2 and plays with more of a shooting guard’s instincts. He doesn’t get all the way to the rim as often as you’d like for a point guard and settles for a ton of pull-up jumpers, resulting in a disappointing 43.9 percent mark on 2s – a number that sank to just 40.8 percent in Big 12 play. That’s indicative of some limitations. But the good stuff that offsets it is so plentiful. One reason he depends on pull-ups is that he’s a good shooter with a really comfortable stroke off the dribble, one that should easily translate into off-the-dribble 3s coming off pick-and-roll screens as a pro. McBride shot disappointingly few 3s, actually, but made 41.4 percent of them and hit 81.5 percent from the line. And then there’s the defense. McBride’s feet can be heavy at times, but he plays with tremendous effort and uses his long arms as a weapon, nabbing 3.1 steals per 100 possessions in Big 12 play. He’s not content to ease off ballhandlers, instead going up into the dribbler and betting that his hands and feet will be enough. He’s also surprisingly quick rising up and contesting shots. Despite the high-pressure style, McBride also had an extremely low foul rate: just 2.8 per 100 possessions, nearly the lowest of any prospect and certainly the lowest of anyone who was actually trying. His package screams rotation guard with a high-character background that makes you more confident he can maximize whatever his upside is. McBride has been pegged in the 30s and 40s for most of this draft cycle, but I still wonder if I have him too low here.
Spoiler 18. Keon Johnson, SG, Tennessee, Freshman Most projections have him in the lottery, but I can’t quite get as excited about Johnson as my peers. I understand the basic premise: After the sure things are off the board, maybe the next-best move is to draft an electric athlete who only recently turned 19 and see what happens. Johnson is a high flier who might have the best YouTube dunk clips of any prospect and seems to have decent lateral mobility. But man, there are warts aplenty here. He’s 6-foot-5 but often looked more like an undersized power forward than a shooting guard. His offense consisted mainly of right-hand dribbles into midrange pull-ups that went in just often enough to keep shooting them, and for a guy with pogo hops, his rates of rebounds and blocks were a crushing disappointment. Bizarrely, Johnson couldn’t shoot a pull-up going to his left; he had to stop and spin 270 degrees back to his right to launch. Johnson isn’t a 3-point threat (27.1 percent from 3 on low volume and 70.2 percent from the line), and while you wouldn’t describe his shot as broken, he’s a long way from being an average perimeter weapon. The best thing you could say about his jumper is that he gets into it easily off the dribble and can elevate and release it over nearly anybody. A lot of times you wish he couldn’t. It’s possible being away from a constipated Tennessee offense that seemed intent on strangling itself will give Johnson more opportunities to shine. It’s also possible a lower-usage role (his 26.8 percent usage rate was pretty high for a player of this ilk) would take better advantage of his skill set. And there is some upside here. As an on-ball player, Johnson was able to find open men as a passer and make some genuinely good reads in pick-and-roll. His handle, however, is as basic as they come. He rarely got all the way to the rim and operated almost entirely in straight lines. He also showed some real shortcomings as a finisher, with poor balance and body control once he got moving toward the basket and a need to jump off two feet. In this draft, there are 15 other players like this. Prospects we describe as “young and a good athlete, but about the basketball …”. Of those, Johnson is the best at actual basketball and probably the best athlete, too. There’s a decent chance he fails, but there’s also a right tail where he turns into DeMar DeRozan. 19. Chris Duarte, SG/SF, Oregon, Senior Duarte isn’t for everyone, as he will be 24 when training camp opens. History tells us drafting old guys has often turned out badly, and that there is a lot less upside in picking Duarte versus selecting players who are as much as a half decade younger. That said, this is where the selling proposition on Duarte looks reasonable. He is an NBA rotation wing right now, and may even be a starter. There is no development curve, no having to use our imagination to color in lines that might not be there. Duarte is a good shooter (42.4 percent from 3 on high volume) and a deft operator around the rim who shot a staggering 63.1 percent on 2s, even in a high-volume role that saw him average 31.3 points per 100 in-conference games. He handles the ball well enough to be a secondary operator, finishing with a positive assist-to-turnover ratio, and he can guard 2s and 3s. He also anticipates well off the ball, with a stellar 3.3 per 100 steal rate in Pac-12 play. That combination likely yields a relatively unsexy package of a plus backup wing who can maybe start, but think of this as a free agent move. By nabbing Duarte outside the lottery, a team is basically getting four years of a $10 million player on a $3 million contract for four years. The tradeoff is that they give up on the improbable but still theoretically possible opportunity to pick a teenager and wind up with a $30 million player a few years down the road. 20. Jaden Springer, PG/SG, Tennessee, Freshman I went back and forth several times on Springer, but ultimately lean toward betting on him for two reasons. First, his birth certificate. Springer won’t turn 19 until September, so he still has time on his side to push his development forward. The other reason to bet on him is his defense. Whatever you think of his offensive game, the defense was legit. Springer is a bit short for a shooting guard and a bit slow for a point guard, but he’s strong, competes, moves his feet and keeps his hands active. He’ll need that kind of feistiness and attention to make it at the next level because he’s not a superior athlete, though the defense should buy him time for the offense to come around. As for the offense … the eye test wasn’t as bullish as the stats. Springer made 43.5 percent of his 3s, but it was on extremely low volume for a guard (just 46 all year), and his jumper appears to have a slight hitch (this is where seeing games in person would have been helpful, but c’est la …). Instead, he is hugely reliant on pull-up 2s that he may have a hard time getting to against NBA defenses. Springer is strong enough to body himself some space for his shot at times, and he does elevate pretty well and have a high release point, but at 6-foot-4 without crazy hops, he surely knows that’s a tough shot to count on. More reliably, perhaps, is drawing fouls, which he also did at a high rate, and his free throw shooting (81 percent) offers some hope for his overall shooting. No matter what, he’ll need to cut down on the turnovers that plagued him as a freshman; as with Johnson above, playing in a real offense might help. 21. Roko Prkacin, PF, KK Ciboria History says teams undervalue youth in the draft. So let’s talk about the second-youngest player in the draft — Prkacin, who won’t turn 19 until Thanksgiving weekend. That age is irrelevant unless he can play, obviously, but Prkacin had a good year overseas and shows the physical tools to do more as he gets older. Prkacin is 6-foot-9 with square shoulders and long arms, and he rebounded like a center despite playing on the perimeter in the admittedly not-quite-elite Adriatic League. He could end up being a five or at least a four-five a half a decade down the road. But he also had a solid steal rate for this size, and the eye test backs up the idea that he can move. Offensively, he has a lot of the basic elements and now needs to refine them. His form on 3s still needs tightening, but he managed to make 35 percent of his 160 attempts across competitions this year. A 65 percent mark at the line is a worrisome countertrend. He can handle the ball for his size, however, and shows an unusual knack for runners and floaters. Prkacin has the size and mobility to be a good defender, too, but he still shows some confusion defending in pick-and-roll and switching situations. Again, cut him some slack: He was 17 when the season started. Prakcin’s lack of draft buzz oddly makes him an even better choice; late draft picks are much more acceptably stashed overseas, which would probably be the best development pathway for him in the short term. 22. Neemias Queta, C, Utah State, Junior My membership in the Neemias Queta fan club is already well established, so I won’t go too deep down the rabbit hole this time. Suffice to say that despite my general misgivings about drafting centers, I think the 7-foot Queta can offer a lot of value and some relative upside. Queta still has to get better defending away from the basket, and that’s a concern for any big man in today’s NBA. The Aggies always played him in a deep drop, so he didn’t get many chances to show perimeter quickness, but his rare forays away from the charge circle weren’t tragic. He’s a little slow laterally but not as bad as some other fives getting more draft hype, plus he showed a real ability to close down space and block shots from behind at the basket. Offensively, Queta added something to his game every year at Utah State, and by the end, he was a legitimately good passer who also had a variety of one-on-one moves to score on the block. Utah State’s plodding pace masked just how effective he was: Queta averaged 30 points and six assists per 100 possessions in Mountain West play. For comparison, Cade Cunningham averaged 31 and five. This train is still going up. Queta arrived at Utah State as a raw freshman from Portugal and has added bits and pieces to his game since. His skill level can still go forward from here, but he’ll always be 7 feet tall. 23. Herb Jones, SF/PF, Alabama, Senior Finally, we have Jones, the last guy in this draft that I’d at least feel somewhat comfortable betting on before the real dart-tossing begins. So-called “shutdown corners” aren’t quite as valuable now in the switch-everything era as they were when he could just sic Tony Allen on an opponent’s top scorer and call it a day. That said, defense still matters, and Jones is really good at it. At 6-foot-8 with good feet, piliferous hands and a knack for drawing charges, Jones might be the best perimeter defender in this draft aside from Barnes. As with Barnes, his size and dexterity make him a true defensive chameleon. Jones is capable of checking the other team’s point guard but also line up as a small-ball five in the right matchup. As for the offense, well … that’s why he’s ranked 23rd. It’s possible Jones is just too tragic on offense to hold down a rotation spot. That said, he’s improved quite a bit. Jones even made 20 3s this past season — more than in his first three seasons combined — and improved his handle and decisions enough to finish with a positive assist-to-turnover mark. In a more wide-open NBA floor, Jones’s slashing and size to finish at the basket could also reap some rewards. Jones is one of the few upperclassmen who packs some upside in the form of a still-developing offensive game. But his defense provides a relatively sure thing to at least give some value. He’s projected for the second round now, but I’d grab him earlier.
Spoiler Group 1: Role players with some upside 24. Jason Preston, PG, Ohio, Junior Maybe I’m overrating him because of what he did to my Wahoos in the NCAA Tournament, but I can’t find a good reason to rule this guy out. I’m even wondering if I should have included him in my top 23. Preston doesn’t ooze crazy upside, and he wasn’t exactly dominant in the draft combine games. But he showed an ability to fit in and make the right play that stood in contrast to the heliocentric way he had to play at Ohio. He’s also the one guy in the draft who reminds me most of Malachi Flynn a year ago – just a baller, a guy who knows how to play and feels the game at a really high level. He can score or pass, and reads the situation to choose which. Preston does have some weird weaknesses that could hold him back. He never draws fouls and struggles from the line (59.6 percent last season, 70.3 percent career). He’s really skinny and could get worked over by bigger, more physical players than the ones he faced in the Mid-American Conference. That said, Preston’s physical tools are actually pretty solid. He’s skinny, but he’s 6-foot-3 in socks with a 6-foot-8 ½ wingspan and had a 30.5-inch no-step vert; that’s more than big and athletic enough to play the point. He also rebounds like a power forward (at least he did in the MAC), adding another plus to his scouting report and giving him some real viability at the 2. Overall, I think there are starter-level outcomes here and a decent chance of him being a rotation player given his high feel and multiple strengths. 25. Aaron Henry, SF, Michigan State, Junior Henry was talked up as a prospect his first two seasons in Spartyville but failed to deliver. That changed with a breakout junior season in which he bumped a previously underwhelming scoring rate to 29.6 points per 100 in Big Ten games. Questions remain about his offense: He’s a 33.3 percent career 3-point shooter, doesn’t draw a ton of fouls and he was a bit wild and turnover prone. Defensively, though? Holy moly, this guy can do it. It wasn’t quite in Scottie Barnes’ territory, but Henry’s one-on-one tape from this year was tremendous. He gets into dribblers on the perimeter, rarely gets beat off the bounce and rises up quickly to contest jumpers. Subjectively he had more blocked jumpers on his clips than any other player I watched and forced several airballs from shooters surprised to suddenly have a palm in their intended flight path. His ability as a 1-on-1 defender seems like a really strong bet to translate. If his shooting can develop further, that could even yield some long-term upside beyond just a hellhound defensive role player. But the defense gives him a decent floor as a guy who can fill the wing position on a roster and is guaranteed to do one thing well. Group 2: Right-tail dice rolls 26. Josh Christopher, SG, Arizona State, freshman Of all the dart throws left on the board after my top 23, I think Christopher is the best bet. He plays a useful role as a 6-foot-5 shooting guard with a good frame, he’s a very good athlete with some great highlight clips and he had a solid season in the Pac-12 as a 19-year old. Christopher’s best defensive clips are fantastic, featuring really quick hands, but dig deeper and the fun stops. His motor often conks out after two slides, at which point he’ll just stop and reach for a steal. He also fouls like a madman, with 5.9 personals per 100 possessions – an insane rate for a guard. Offensively, the potential is there if he tries going to the rim more and considers passing once in a while. His tape from Arizona State is all Kobe shots: He either jab steps toward his right and goes straight up for a contested J, or he takes five dribbles and shoots a pull-up after a right-to-left crossover. It’s like an automated sub-routine: He only goes into the shot after the cross to his left, he never really tries to get past his man, and once he dribbles he’s never passing. Making matters worse, it’s not like he’s a knockdown shooter, only making 30.5 percent of his 3s. The shot needs some work, but his 80.0 percent mark from the line offers hope. Christopher helped his stock by playing in the draft combine games and showing more variance in his offense. The player who appeared in Chicago is an interesting one, especially since Christopher supplements his half-court offense with strong work in transition. 27. Santi Aldama, SF, Loyola (Md.), Sophomore A talented Spaniard who bizarrely played in the Patriot League the past two years, at times Aldama’s presence in that league seemed a bit like having Luka Doncic show up at your church league game. He was very obviously the best player in the Patriot, but it’s very difficult to evaluate his tape from there and figure out whether he can play. Added to that is the issue of Aldama being a pretty unusual prospect. He is listed at 6-foot-11 but lacks strength and plays almost entirely on the perimeter, where he has some real feel for playmaking but lacks superior athleticism. Nonetheless, he has a track record that goes beyond destroying the grade-school kickball game that was the Patriot League. In particular, Aldama was the MVP of the 2019 Euro U18 tournament, deservedly, on a Spanish team where likely first-rounder Usman Garuba also featured. Alperen Sengun, Franz Wagner, Aleksej Pokusevski and several major college players also played in that tournament. I couldn’t put him in my top 20 because there are still some eye test things that worry me. He’s not a great shooter, at least yet – 30.6 percent from 3 and 63.9 percent from the line for his college career is worrisome — and his strength and athleticism is unremarkable. But this is a pretty enticing size/skill package if it clicks, and there’s enough track record to take a flier on it toward the end of the first round. There’s also an interesting angle here if a team wants to pursue it: They could draft Aldama and have him develop in Spain for another year or two before bringing him back over. 28. Isiah Jackson, C, Kentucky, freshman Jackson’s stock takes a hit because he’s a traditional 5, but he has a chance to make an impact as a rim-running shot-blocker if he can overcome a lack of muscle and iffy coordination. Jackson is a crazy leaper, blocking 7.5 shots per 100 possessions in SEC games, which is by far the highest rate of any legit prospect in this draft cycle … unfortunately, he also fouled 7.6 times per 100, which is by far the highest rate of any legit prospect in this draft cycle. Therein lies the basic conundrum on the Jackson question. The nice part is that he shows some switchability too. Jackson’s first slide can be slow but he has tremendous “catch-up” speed with his length and leaping ability if a guard at first gets past him. Despite lacking strength, he looked good while navigating screens. Jackson is light and undersized, however; while he skipped the combine, he measured 6-foot-9 ½ in socks with a 7-foot-2 ½ wingspan at Kentucky’s pro day earlier this year, and just 206 pounds. Offensively, he’s mostly rim runs and dunks, but there is some touch lying in the weeds: he shot 73.2 percent from the line and made some floaters. Overall, his lack of height and skill are limiting factors and the positional value of centers dampens his stock too, but if he can overcome the foul issues there is some upside here.
Johnson is a high flier who might have the best YouTube dunk clips of any prospect ______ I've heard enough.
Spoiler 29. Sharife Cooper, PG, Auburn, freshman A small point guard (Auburn listed him at 6-foot-1 but even that seemed wildly optimistic) with a real gift for passing and creating, Cooper would be easier to cement into the top 20 if you could believe in either his shooting or defense. Right now both stand out as weaknesses; he needs to turn at least one of them into a strength to make it at the next level. Let’s start with the good stuff, though. This dude is a pure shot-creator. Give him the keys to the offense, let him run something and watch good shots happen for everyone else. Cooper averaged 13.6 dimes per 100 possessions in his abbreviated season, easily the best of any prospect in this cycle, and the eye test was as compelling as the numbers. More surprisingly, he also drew heaps of free throws on his dribble drives, an absurd 14.1 attempts per 100 in his 12 games. Cooper, believe it or not, had the highest rate of free-throw attempts of any prospect in this draft. Alas, one worries that at the NBA level, teams will just go under screens against Cooper and then swallow him up in the paint. He shot only 22.8 percent from 3, and he looked like a 22.8 percent shooter while doing it. His 82.5 percent mark from the line, however, offers some hope for redemption here. Defensively, he wasn’t atrocious and knows how to draw charges, but his size is definitely going to be a problem. For a little guy you’d want him to pressure the ball more and I didn’t see much of that, while a 1.6 per 100 steals rate is profoundly disappointing for a small guard. 30. Ziaire Williams, SF, Stanford, freshman The Jaden McDaniels of this year’s draft. Williams came into the year with lottery buzz but his lone college season was genuinely bad. While one can argue about some extenuating circumstances (Stanford’s season was particularly trying, with the team forced on the road for over a month), I mean … the basketball part was tough to sugarcoat. Williams struggled to get to his spots in the halfcourt, had a negative assist-to-turnover rate and shot 44.7 percent on 2s and 31.6 percent on 3s. More worryingly, there just weren’t as many athletic flashes as you hoped for. He was pretty good if he got out in transition, but his meh rates of rebounds, blocks and steals and trouble blowing by opponents off the dribble all suggest middling at best athleticism. So why take him here? Long-term upside. He could be a combo forward with guard skills once he fills out. Williams is rail thin but measured 6-foot-8 ¼ in socks and can move his feet pretty well. His arms are short, but his 34-inch no-step vertical, 3.04 shuttle and 10.69 lane agility are all top notch; maybe there’s elite athleticism here after all? Finally, the shooting may have more equity than the stat line from his freshman season shows, as the form doesn’t look bad and he’s comfortable with the footwork on stepbacks. All that said, there’s a decent chance he turns out to be atrocious. This point in the draft seems to be a sensible place to roll the dice on a toolsy teenager. 31. JT Thor, PF, Auburn, freshman Draftniks had circled Thor’s name as a potential top-20 pick for 2022, until he somewhat surprisingly threw his hat into the ring for this season’s draft instead. Thor is a raw, rail-thin teenager a bit reminiscent of Toronto’s Chis Boucher. He measured in at just 203 pounds but standing 6-foot-8 ½ in socks with a 7-foot-3 ¼ wingspan. Those are great dimensions for an NBA power forward, and it appears Thor has the physical tools to play that spot. Defensively his feet can be a little slow at times but he covers a ton of ground with his strides and can close distance with his length. Thor blocked 3.7 shots per 100 in SEC games and rebounded respectably for a four. For a raw, project type, he also didn’t foul a lot. Offensively, he scored at a decent clip and was able to draw fouls despite his thin frame. However, the feel remains highly questionable – 1.8 assists per 100 is pretty pitiful – and the shooting is still iffy. Thor shot 29.7 percent on 3s and 74.1 percent from the line, but the hope is that his development curve makes him a more viable threat from the perimeter in time. As with Williams above, he’ll need a strong development program and a patient franchise, because this project isn’t bearing immediate fruit. He’ll probably have to spend all of next season in the G League. 32. Kai Jones, PF, Texas, sophomore Jones gets a lot of lottery love that I have a hard time understanding, but at this point in the draft he makes a lot of sense as a dice-roll type with Derrick Jones Jr. type potential. Maybe the right team can luck into something more at the offensive end. Jones improved quite a bit in his sophomore season and came to the game late after moving from the Bahamas at 15, so it’s easy to tell an upside story. He’s also easy to imagine in a modern defensive structure, because he’s an agile mover at 6-foot-10 in socks who is very comfortable in switches. He’ll defend guards close enough to block their jumper and pick their dribble, things he did often when you roll through his clips. In particular, Jones’ 2.6 steals per 100 in Big 12 games is pretty notable for a player of this size. Aside from that, however, it’s mostly problems. Jones fouls a lot and is a subpar rebounder for his size, both of which are likely related to his skinny 218-pound frame. As for the offensive side of the ball … he’ll get some freebies on dunks and transitions but the halfcourt game is still pretty raw. He had the worst assist rate of any other prospect on my board (just 1.2 dimes per 100 in conference play) and three turnovers for every assist, indicative of his poor feel. Will he be able to shoot? He made 31.8 percent of his 3s last year and 70 percent from the line, which is at least enough to provide hope. But if he doesn’t shoot, I don’t see how he’s playable even with the defense. 33. Cam Thomas, SG, LSU, freshman Well, this seems like a fun guy to play with. Usually the worst ratios of field goal attempts to assists in a draft class will come from rim-running centers. For example, Tennessee’s Yves Pons averaged 10.9 field-goal attempts per assist in conference games, Kai Jones (above) had 11.7, and Western Kentucky’s Charles Bassey a whopping 17.2. And in the midst of all them? A 6-foot-4 guard! Thomas averaged an amazing 13.2 field-goal attempts per assist, a stat that gets more jaw-dropping when you add in the great many field goal attempts of his that resulted in free throws. He can score, yes, but he might be less interested in passing than any perimeter prospect in memory. Thomas’s defensive outlook is also pretty horrific, with worrying low rates of blocks and steals and cringe-worthy defensive tape. He’ll get beat off the dribble in straight lines even while giving a ton of cushion. Thomas makes the board as a dice roll, however, for the chance he can turn into Monta Ellis. He scored in bunches – 37.9 per 100 as a freshman in the SEC, the highest rate in this draft class. He took some questionable shots, but also drew a ton of fouls and shot 88.2 percent from the line, which makes you feel better about his poor 3-point shooting (32.5 percent for the season) eventually leveling up. He has a pretty strong frame and bounds up easily into pull-ups, so the shot-creation piece should be there. It just can’t be the only piece.
Spoiler Group 3: Role players with less upside 34. Nah’Shon “Bones” Hyland, SG, VCU, Sophomore Hyland won over a lot of people during his scoring outburst in the first game of the draft combine, but this wasn’t a one-day fluke. His statisticals all season at VCU backs up his case as a fringe first-rounder or early second-rounder who could provide instant offense off the bench. Hyland isn’t just a low-percentage heaver either: he shot 37.1 percent on 3s, 86.2 percent from the line, and 53.9 percent inside the arc. That 3-point mark came on pretty insane volume, too – 14.3 flings per 100. That said, Hyland has some areas to tighten up. He has no point guard in him at all, and can be pretty wild with the ball, leading to a high turnover rate. His outside shot is more “solid” than “spectacular,” although that free throw mark offers hope he can become more lethal. His defense is also an issue. VCU pressed all game so he had a superficially impressive steal rate, but when you watch the halfcourt possessions the story is more worrisome. While his plus wingspan at 6-9 can make up ground, he is painfully thin (you don’t get nicknamed “Bones” because you have a potbelly) and not that quick laterally. He’ll give up space to drivers and isn’t that physical, and he isn’t a super athlete (just a 26.5 inch no-step vert). 35. Trey Murphy II, SF/PF, Virginia, Junior I watch a lot of Virginia (Wahoowa!) and I’ve been a little surprised to see Murphy getting mid-first-round buzz. That said, there is definite role player potential here. Let’s start with the positives – Murphy is 6-foot-7 ½ in socks, shot 43.3 percent from 3 and 92.7 percent from the line and displayed some pretty good feet on defense. You can talk yourself into 3-and-D small forward outcomes. It gets trickier once you dig deeper. There is just no shot-creation here at all, and on a Virginia team that was desperate for somebody who could do something off the dribble, it surely would have shown itself. His Rebound Rate was pretty sad for a player this size at just 7.6 percent. With such a thin frame (206 pounds) he’s at risk of getting beasted on post-ups, especially if he slides up to power forward, but if he’s playing on the wing there is very little in the way of ball skills. Sum it all up and he’s likely an extreme low-volume player, one who had a low Usage Rate even as an upperclassman on a college team desperate for shot creation. He’ll be counting on shooting and perimeter defense to provide nearly all of his value, although there is enough athleticism (34-inch no-step vertical) to get the occasional run out, back cut or alleyoop. If somebody else starts trouble he can finish it, shooting 64.8 percent in ACC games on his sparse diet of 2s this year. Overall, there’s a decent chance he makes enough 3s and plays well enough on defense to carve out a 10-year career … but he almost has to make 3s at a high clip to have any chance. 36. Joe Wieskamp, SF, Iowa, Junior Wieskamp helped his stock as much as anyone at the combine, particularly on the second day when he had 26 points and 10 boards on 6-of-7 shooting from 3. There’s a lot to like here on the surface: He’s 6-foot-5 3/4 in socks with a 6-foot-11 wingspan, uncorked a 42-inch max vertical at the combine and shot 49.5 percent from 3 last year. Delve further and the picture gets a little cloudier. Wieskamp profiles more as a good shooter than an awesome one, making just 64.9 percent from the line this year and 34.0 percent from 3 his sophomore season. The best overall barometer is probably his career numbers – 41.9 percent from 3 on not-crazy volume, 78.5 percent from the line – which suggests he’s a capable floor spacer but maybe not the next Duncan Robinson. Wieskamp is a plus athlete with the rebound rate of a combo forward and solid rates of blocks and steals. However, his lateral quickness looks pretty suspect on tape – there were a lot of blow-bys in there, and it seems iffy as to whether he can check NBA wings. Offensively, he looked pretty good when he could play off of other people as a cutter or spacer, but his individual efforts with the ball often ended badly. The other part to consider is that if Wieskamp makes it as a role player, he’ll make it as a valuable role player – everybody is looking for shooting, and if he can combine shooting with plus rebounding and even somewhat competent defense, that’s a compelling package. 37. Rokas Jokubaitis, SG, Zalgiris I wrote about Jokubaitis in my piece on this year’s international crop, but I still think he’s been undervalued. He’s 20 and is already a productive player in the Euroleague, which is the highest level of competition short of the NBA. Playing for Lithuania in the FIBA qualifiers last week, he submitted a strong tournament in a bench role – 36 points in 67 minutes, shooting 60 percent, with just five turnovers in the four games. That’ll do. I get why he isn’t ranked higher because Jokubaitis doesn’t ooze with upside; his ceiling is probably something along the lines of Beno Udrih. But he’s a skillful guard with some size, and he’s already quite effective at a young age. I think he’d be a top-notch stash pick to bring over in a year or two and contribute relatively quickly. 38. RaiQuan Gray, Nose Tackle, Florida State, Junior The Ethan Strauss Memorial Fat Is Potential in Disguise draft pick for 2021, Gray had a statistically solid season at Florida State despite measuring with an eye-popping 17.3 percent body fat at the draft combine. With a body type reminiscent of Zion Williamson, Gray is never going to be some svelte gazelle gliding up and down the court, but it seems there is some low-hanging conditioning fruit that could produce significant gains on the court. Gray’s other shortcoming is his outside shot. He made 26.2 percent of his 3s in his three seasons at Florida State and 73.2 percent from the line, which will make him pretty close to unplayable in the NBA if it doesn’t improve. Set aside the weight and the shooting, though, and there is a lot to like here. Even playing heavy, Gray was a multi-positional defender who could guard on the perimeter; at 6-foot-7, 269, he might even be able to play some junkball 5 in switching alignments. Gray also has some real ball skills and short-range scoring ability that would get a boost if the shooting comes around. He averaged 28.5 points per 100 in ACC games this year while shooting 56.6 percent inside the arc, and he wasn’t just playing beastball – he can dribble and move. Yes, there’s a decent chance the weight and the shooting drag him down and his career never gains traction. But he could be one of the most unique players in the league if everything hits. 39. Ayo Dosunmu, SG, Illinois, Junior Dosunmu managed the difficult feat of becoming one of the best guards in college basketball while never doing anything that got NBA scouts all that excited. In particular, questions about his shooting are likely to dog him, as he made just 34.5 percent from 3 for his career on low volume, and 75.0 percent from the line. Since he’s an older prospect and not a crazy athlete, there’s an understandable limit on the excitement. That said, Dosunmu has some subtle things in his favor. He is crazy long, with a 6-foot-10 ¼ wingspan despite measuring 6-foot-3 ½ in socks. He can jump, too, with a 32-inch no-step vert, and uses that ability to punch above his height on the glass: 10.1 boards per 100 in Big Ten games is pretty sweet from a combo guard. He also improved his numbers quite a bit as a distributor in his junior season; while I’ve listed him as a two, he can play some minutes at the point. Defensively, Dosunmu’s length and build are an advantage but the feet seemed just okay on tape. He’s not a steals generator either, although he also didn’t foul much. Overall, this is what you’re getting at this point in the draft: A guy who is almost certainly good enough to make a roster but probably tops out as a third guard if his shooting comes around.
Spoiler 40. Tre Mann, PG/SG, Florida, sophomore Mann got a lot of first-round buzz over most of the season that I didn’t totally understand, but he offers some interesting value in the second round as a skilled guard who improved quite a bit in his sophomore season. Mann’s height and length measurements won’t help him: At 6-foot-3 in socks with a 6-foot-4 ¼ wingspan, he’s probably relegated to a combo guard more than a true wing. As far as the actual basketball, there is some stuff here to bite into. Mann is a pretty phenomenal rebounder for a player this size with meh athleticism, pulling down 11.0 boards per 100 in SEC games, and his rate of steals (2.8 per 100) also catches the eye. Yet the overall defensive tape is pretty underwhelming, and there is some question whether he has the athleticism to defend either guard position 1-on-1. Offensively, he shot poorly as a freshman but massively improved his sophomore season (40.2 percent from 3, 83.3 percent from the line); scouts will need to weigh how much they believe in his uptick. However, he barely registered more assists than turnovers despite mostly playing on the ball on a fairly talented team, and wasn’t notably efficient inside the arc (49.6 percent on 2s with a middling free-throw rate). So … he’s okay, and might be able to fill a niche as a third guard. But his physical tools don’t scream upside, and he’ll have to make his shooting improvements stick to have much of a chance. 41. Aamir Simms, PF, Clemson, Senior I think Simms might be the most underrated player in the draft. He was a four-year starter in the ACC, but managed to stay entirely under the radar; when people talk about Clemson sports they aren’t discussing the basketball team. Nonetheless, every time I watched ACC tape I kept thinking “this guy is pretty good.“ Simms was quietly solid at the G League elite camp as well, and I was surprised he didn’t get the call to the main combine. Measuring 6-foot-7 1/2 in socks with a 7-foot ¼ wingspan, Simms has the size and frame to play power forward but offers a surprising amount of skill at that spot. He shot 40.0 percent on 3s as a senior and 82.5 percent from the line, and his development as a passer is worth noting as well (5.7 dimes per 100 in ACC games). Simms isn’t an amazing freak or anything; he’s a bit thick and slow and often played at 5 for Clemson. It’s possible he’s just not athletic enough for the league. Nonetheless, he likely can fill the forward position with just enough skill, playmaking and size to get you through 15 minutes a night, and there’s a chance he could develop into more. Group 4: Some dicier dice rolls 42. Josh Primo, SG, Alabama, Freshman A lot of people seem to be talking themselves into Primo lately, but I’m still a bit skeptical. First, let’s start with the good news. He will be the youngest player in this draft, with a Dec. 24, 2002 birthdate. Even the shoddiest research project will show you that the NBA draft has consistently undervalued age, so this matters. Primo also offers the outlines of a 3-and-D wing: His defensive tape was pretty solid, he measured with a 6-foot-9 wingspan, and he hit 38.1 percent of his 3s as a freshman. The rest of this all seems extremely speculative though. Primo did very little on the ball and was basically just a floor spacer, yet still managed to have a pretty high turnover rate. His rate of 2.4 assists per 100 in SEC games is pretty sad for a guard prospect, even a low-usage one. While he was solid on D he wasn’t terribly impactful, with unusually low steal and block rates. Bizarrely, Primo kept his name in the draft after supposedly “proving” himself in a combine game in which he scored 7 points on 3-of-8 shooting. Sorry, but I gotta set the bar a little higher than that. Maybe he makes it – his age certainly is a wind at his back – but right now he’s a long way away. 43. Greg Brown, SF/PF, Texas, freshman A pogo athlete who also wasn’t a terrible shooter as a college freshman (33.0 percent on 3s, 70.8 percent from the line), Brown offers some obvious parallels with a player like Derrick Jones, Jr. In theory, you can see him becoming a significant player a few years down the road, but his feel for the game and overall skill level need major improvement first. Brown needs to learn how to play, though his raw tools on defense are pretty good. He the size and mobility to defend across multiple positions; he’s a bit too twitchy going for fakes and can run himself out of opposition, but if a guard just wants to play with the ball and then try to beat him on a straight line, he will surely block it. Brown had the best shuttle time of any prospect this year, supporting the idea that he has the feet to stay with perimeter players. Brown’s foul rate, however, was pretty phenomenal for a non-center (7.3 per 100 in Big 12 games). Offensively … ehhh. Aside from taking perimeter jumpers and the occasional highlight dunk, there just isn’t a lot there. Brown accomplished the “is-this-even-possible?” feat of averaging four turnovers for every assist in Big 12 games, and even inside the arc he shot just 47.8 percent. Brown weighed in at just 206 pounds at the combine, but at 6-foot-7 ½ with a 7-foot 1/4 wingspan, he has the dimensions for an NBA power forward. He also rebounded like one at Texas. His 33-inch no-step vertical at the combine was impressive but probably less than some would have bet based on his college exploits; more notable was his blazing 2.98 sprint. 44. Isaiah Todd, PF, G League Ignite Todd’s results in the G League aren’t going to get your attention, but watching him go through shooting drills will. Todd has ideal power forward measurements at 6-foot-8 ¾ in socks with a 7-foot-1 1/4 wingspan, and a buttery smooth stroke that starts just below his shoulder and quick flicks out from a spot just above it. He hasn’t totally figured out how to weaponize that shooting stroke yet, especially from beyond the 3-point line, but the 19-year-old shot 36.2 percent from 3 and 14-of-17 from the line in the G League last season. Yes, the “17” is a season total for free throws, and that underscores some of the weaknesses here. He’s not very physical and accomplishes shockingly little inside the paint. He probably needs another year in the G League before he can be much of anything at the NBA level. But at this point in the draft, he’s one of the few players you could talk yourself into having starter upside five years down the road. 45. Brandon Boston, SF, Kentucky, Freshman Boston came into the season with lottery hype but shot 38.4 percent on 2s – that is not a typo – and really never flashed the type of athleticism you’d want to see from a first-round prospect. A 6-foot-6 forward, he blocked three shots the entire season. And his defensive tape is pretty average, although he did manage a high rate of steals. Nonetheless, he’s worth a dice roll at this point. Kentucky’s system is pretty famous for limiting wing players, and the lack of shooting up and down the roster likely hurt Boston’s slashing game as much as anyone else’s on the team. Boston himself isn’t a great shooter, but I’m not sure he’s quite as bad as he looked last season; even then, he ended up at 30.0 percent from 3 and 78.5 percent from the line. Chances are he’s just not good enough, but you can say that about virtually everyone available at this point, and most of them weren’t Mr. Basketball in California a year earlier.
Spoiler Group 5: Some bigs 46. Jericho Sims, C, Texas, Senior Sims never averaged double figures as a collegian and was constantly overshadowed by other more hyped bigs, but Texas always seemed to play well with him in the middle, and his athleticism got people’s attention at the G League combine. First, the negative: there is no skill level here at all. A no-frills, rim-running and shot-blocking center, Sims is a career 45.7 percent foul shooter and averaged 1.1 assists per 100 possessions for his career. Yikes. His shooting range ends at the charge circle, while his rebounding and shot-blocking rates also are disappointing for a guy with a 7-foot-3 ¼ wingspan and a 37-inch no-step vertical. Nonetheless, he’s going to be popular in the second round for the known fact that he can fly down the middle and dunk on people’s heads, sucking in defenses with his lob threat, and that he has the feet to play a switching concept without disaster ensuing. 47. Flilp Petrusev, C, KK Mega Leks Remember him? The former Gonzaga center played overseas last season but wasn’t eligible for the draft until this year, and comes off an overseas campaign that likely solidified him as draftable. Petrusev was strictly an inside player at Gonzaga, but flashed a 3-point stroke overseas that saw him make 43 of his 93 3-point attempts (46.2 percent). Take it with a grain of salt – he still only made 71.4 percent from the line – but adding a pick-and-pop weapon to his low post game is a significant development. Petrusev also has stashability in his favor, as a team picking him could decide to leave him in a favorable development situation in Serbia while he continues to work on his body and his defense. Both of those areas remain issues, which likely puts a second-round ceiling on Petrusev despite his winning MVP of the Adriatic League at age 21. 48. Moses Wright, PF, Georgia Tech, senior As a frequent visitor to Georgia Tech games, I have a lukewarm take that Moses Wright has a better chance of becoming an NBA player than is commonly presumed. Wright broke out as a senior, winning ACC Player of the Year, and was low-key pretty solid in the draft combine games without managing to garner a lot of attention. His draft stock doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of traction yet, and one can see why at a 10,000-feet level: He’s a bit stuck between four and five positionally and turns 23 in December. Defensively, he has decent lateral quickness on the ball but really struggled getting back to shooters when he hedged in pick-and-pops, and at his size he probably has to play the four: He’s 6-foot-7 3/4 in socks with a 7-foot ¾ wingspan. I also don’t think he blocks shots or rebounds well enough to get by as a five. Skill-wise, he’ll have to improve to play four, but he made steady strides at Georgia Tech. Wright can pass from the elbows and handle the ball a bit, and can score on the post against switches. He has long arms, runs the floor very well north to south and shoots it well from shorter range. However, his shooting isn’t up to snuff and he will need to develop this part of his game further to stick as a pro. 49. Day’Ron Sharpe, C, North Carolina, Freshman Sharpe has a couple of things in his favor: he’s really big, he’s a fantastic rebounder, and the eye test says he is a genuinely good passer. I hate betting against bigs who can pass, because a lot of times it indicates a level of feel that allows them to figure the other stuff out even without great athleticism. That said, I think Sharpe has some real obstacles to NBA success and have been surprised to see him in the first round in mock drafts. He’s pretty slow on the perimeter and lacks the “catch-up” ability to block shots from behind once a guard gets past him. He has no shooting range at the offensive end, shooting 50.5 percent from the line, and even as a paint giant he barely made half his 2-point shots in ACC play (50.4 percent). Overall, he’s a bit of a dinosaur in today’s NBA. Even if the defensive issues end up being less severe than I outlined above, he likely tops out as a backup five. 50. Luka Garza, C, Iowa, Senior Look, I get the skepticism. Garza is slow as hell and there is a good chance he gets abused so badly in pick-and-roll that there is just no amount of offense he can provide to make up for it. But at this point in the draft, let me just posit a question: What if we’re wrong? What if he’s at least quasi-passable on defense? Garza annihilates opponents on post-ups, shot 44.0 percent from 3 as a senior, and showed some development as a playmaker from the elbows. Can he be Brad Miller? Or, more realistically, can he be something like a Boban Marjanovic-type situational player? Maybe not. Garza had the worst no-step vertical at the combine and the slowest sprint time by a full 0.16 seconds, and his defensive tape at Iowa is MY EYES! OUCH! BURNING ACID! But again, a lot of the draft is about risk and reward. The odds of any late second-round pick failing are really high. Garza at least gives you a chance to make a case for why he might buck the trend.
