- Jan 20, 2006
- 28,177
- 41,783
Highly doubt it. What are the odds of even having a guy better than Lee or Poole next year?
2026 NBA Draft Thread
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by addict4sneakers,
- Start date
- Apr 5, 2017
- 22,188
- 63,111
My thoughts exactly. It took Poole two years to get up to speed. Moses Moody or James Bouknight THAT much further ahead than him that they'd push him for minutes? I can't see it.
- Sep 5, 2010
- 113,546
- 172,355
Hollinger updated his list to include his top 24-70. Breaking this into multiple posts because it's over the character limit.
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 where 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 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 flyer 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.
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 is 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 a age 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 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.
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 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, shooting 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 suggest 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 years old 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 a 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.
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 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 weight 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 played 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 where 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 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 an 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 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.
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 where 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 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 flyer 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.
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 is 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 a age 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 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.
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 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, shooting 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 suggest 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 years old 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 a 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.
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 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 weight 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 played 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 where 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 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 an 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 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.
- Sep 5, 2010
- 113,546
- 172,355
Part II, #45-70 prospects.
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 made 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 up 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, my lukewarm take is 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 is 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.
Group 6: More role players
51. A.J. Lawson, SG, South Carolina, Junior
Somebody will take a chance on Lawson because of his defense and athleticism. Lawson was clearly the best athlete on the floor at the G League elite camp and among the best in the combine, plus he shot well all week in Chicago. That may be an outlier – we’re talking about a 34.9 percent career marksman from 3 at South Carolina, one who also shot 69.7 percent from the line – but you’re not drafting him for the shooting.
Lawson’s athleticism is his best selling point. He had a 33-inch no-step vert at the combine and ran a 2.98 sprint, the latter being the fastest at the combine. However, he measured with short arms (a 6-foot-6 ¾ wingspan for a player who stands 6-foot-5 ½ in socks).
More importantly, there are the basketball games. His defensive clips are good, and he bolstered that with a high steal rate (2.6 per 100 in conference games), although oddly few blocks for a player of this ilk (just seven, total, over 52 games in his sophomore and junior seasons).
Offensively, it remains to be seen if he can provide enough skill and playmaking. He scored at a high rate and shot 3s with particularly high frequency for somebody who wasn’t terribly accurate, but had a negative assist-to-turnover rate and only shot 42.3 percent on 2s in conference play.
52. Justin Champagnie, PF, Pitt, Sophomore
A smart college player who was able to play much bigger than his 6-foot-6 height despite average athleticism, Champagnie may have a tough translation to the next level. For starters, he’s a 28.3 percent career 3-point shooter, which immediately puts his career on life support since he almost certainly has to play the wing as a pro. He doesn’t add much playmaking to that picture either, with just 2.6 dimes per 100 in ACC games despite a high-usage role.
However, he has some real strengths. For starters, he’s a crazy-good rebounder for his size, despite modest leaping ability and average length. Champagnie pulled down 17.8 boards per 100 in ACC games, which would be good for a center and is absolutely phenomenal for a wing. He has great instincts for getting his hands on balls defensively and is able to do it without fouling at a high rate. While you’d like to see more overall defensive impact from him and a bit more juice as an on-ball defender, his sticky fingers are helpful.
Offensively, he draws fouls and sneaks his way to enough buckets off cuts, putbacks and other random plays that he’s able to score without being a great 1-on-1 player. How all this translates is still a major question, but he was able to play his game at the combine. He still probably has to jump another level as a shooter to make it as a rotation player, but he’s at least interesting.
53. David Johnson, SG, Louisville, Sophomore
Johnson had lottery buzz at the start of the season on the heels of a pretty interesting freshman season where he put up huge per-minute stats but massive turnover rates and horrific shooting splits. All those extremes softened in his sophomore year, but the overall package left over wasn’t that exciting. Johnson rebounds well for a guard and has shown playmaking ability but remains a wild ride when he puts it on the floor (5.5 turnovers per 100 after averaging 7.0 as a freshman), plus he shot poorly inside the arc (42.6 percent for the season), and didn’t draw many fouls.
The best thing about his season was the 3-point shooting, which he pushed to 38.6 percent after a woeful 21.7 percent freshman mark, but Johnson is a career 65.0 percent shooter from the line and the 19-game sample isn’t huge. Smart teams will take his 3-point numbers with an entire pillar of salt.
Defensively, Johnson wasn’t good. Watching him on tape, I was shocked how heavy his feet seemed – Louisville would try to hide him on 3s and 4s, and he’d get beat off the dribble even while giving considerable cushion. At 6-foot-3 ¼ in socks, he has to check 2s and 3s at the pros (a giant 6-foot-10 ½ wingspan helps), and based on the tape I’m not sure he can do it.
54. Quentin Grimes, SG, Houston, Junior
Grimes boosted his stock with two strong games at the draft combine, coming off a year where he very quietly led Houston to a 28-4 season and a Final Four berth.
He is an odd confluence of strengths and shortcomings, a let-it-rip 3-point shooter who is also a plus rebounder and can defend some, but one with very little playmaking savvy and some pretty scary numbers shooting inside the arc. He shot 39.8 percent on 2s in the AAC – yikes! – and had just a 1-to-1 assist-to-turnover rate for this college career. Also, his long-range shooting remains a bit questionable. Yes, he made 38.9 percent this season on crazy-high volume (15.4 attempts per 100), but he also shot 64.7 percent from the line for his college career and hadn’t shot nearly this well from 3 before this season.
Overall, looking at the whole package and not overreacting to one particularly strong game the second day of the combine, Grimes seems like he has back-end rotation upside if the shooting is real and the playmaking comes around.
55. Joel Ayayi, SG, Gonzaga, Junior
Ayayi is a tough eval for scouts because he played off the ball so much, operating as a fourth option for a loaded Gonzaga team. Most upperclassman fourth options in college basketball aren’t worth scouting for the pros, but the Zags had so much talent that Ayayi is an exception. With a Usage Rate of just 16.1 percent while playing the guard position, teams really need to bear down on what he can and can’t do at the next level.
One thing he certainly can do is rebound, despite being listed at just 6-foot-5, 180 pounds (he did not participate in the combine). Ayayi pulled down 12.0 boards per 100 possessions in his three college seasons and turned many of them into easy put-backs; he’s a high-energy runner and cutter who found himself enough lay-ups to shoot an absurd 68.3 percent inside the arc. Some of that owes to the strength of the team around him, but in any context that’s impressive.
As for the rest of his offense, it gets sketchier. Ayayi shot 36.0 percent from 3 on low volume and 77.6 percent from the line over his college career, so he has to prove he can be a reliable perimeter weapon. As a playmaker, he didn’t turn the ball over, but rarely made incisive passes or broke down defenders.
Finally, there’s the defense. Ayayi can be an energetic pest at times off the ball, but on the ball his clips are pretty bad. He’s thin, doesn’t seem to slide well laterally, and overall just didn’t offer a ton of resistance. There are scenarios where he breaks through as an energy guy who feasts on high-percentage shots, but he’ll need the D to come around.
56. Chris Smith, PF, UCLA, Senior
Smith missed nearly the entire year after tearing his ACL, but scouts haven’t forgotten about him. A 6-foot-9 power forward who can get a bit out of control. Smith nonetheless has some shot creation talent that could perhaps be exploited better at the next level. Despite his size he has some first-step quickness to him that lets him get to the basket and finish, and his shooting started to come around in his junior year after he was a walking brick his first two seasons in Westwood.
Again, at this point in the draft, we’re dealing with odds. Smith could easily end up being too out of control to be redeemable, or his shot too unsteady. But there is something here to build on.
Group 7: Overseas stash guys
57. Yoan Makoundou, C, Cholet
How do you say “Greg Brown” in French? Makoundou had some awesome highlights, but is relatively new to organized basketball and his game is raw as sushi. There is some obvious long-term upside here – he’s long, athletic and can jump – but he just has no idea how to play right now, and even some of the things you might expect an athletic, toolsy guy to master quickly (rebounding, shot-blocking) haven’t completely clicked for him.
Nonetheless, he has a passport, and that is an advantage in the second round. A team that drafts him could leave Makoundou overseas for however long they want until he develops … or, if he never develops, just include his rights in trades for the next two decades as the Ricky Sanchez of a new generation.
58. Juhann Begarin, SG, Paris Basketball
Begarin is nothing to write home about at the moment, but is one of the youngest players in the draft (born August, 2002) and offers some clear upside as a stash pick in the 50s because of his length and athleticism.
Begarin participated in the G League Elite camp and measured 6-foot-4 ¾ in socks with a 6-foot-11 3/4 wingspan. On the court, he looked raw as a playmaker but showed enough athleticism to pique the interest of scouts. His data from his season in the French League is similar; he still has a long way to go as a shooter and playmaker but his defense and athleticism in transition can keep him on the court while he develops.
59. Ariel Hukporti, C, Kedanai Nevis
Hukporti comes off a tremendously disappointing season in Lithuania and didn’t exactly wow people at the draft combine, but the 7-foot teenager showed enough to stay on the radar and likely gets selected in the back of the second round. However, the big takeaway is that he’s just not all that athletic. Hukporti had just a 24.5-inch no-step vert, the second-worst at the combine, and didn’t have any moments that popped on the court either. To stick as a pro at this level he’ll have to show a skill level from the center spot that we just haven’t seen thus far.
60. Vrenz Bleijenbergh, SF, Oostende
There is at least a 20 percent chance that this isn’t a real person but a name that Sam Vecenie made up and decided to roll with after an accidental pocket tweet.
In all seriousness, Bleijenbergh offers a glimmer of hope as kind of a poor man’s Aleksej Pokusevski. He’s a tissue-soft 6-foot-11 forward with a bad body, and even playing in a bad league in Belgium he struggled with defense, physicality and getting much of anything accomplished inside the paint. However, he can shoot, pass, and handle the ball, which is what generates some of the Poku comps.
Again, his passport likely vaults him over several guys who are objectively better players right now; a team can leave Bleijenbergh to develop for half a decade and check back in later to see if they have a player or not.
While we’re here, a couple of other players to watch that I suspect won’t keep their names in the draft, but in case they do: Nikita Mikhailovski, a 6-foot-7 Russian forward with some shooting skill and hints of playmaking chops, and Olek Balcerowski, a Polish 7-footer who plays (for good and bad) a bit like Andrea Bargnani.
Group 8: My top 2-way guys
61. McKinley Wright IV, PG, Colorado, Senior
A tough defender who knows how to run an offense, Wright did a solid job at the combine but his lack of size and iffy shooting combine to make it an uphill battle for him to crack a rotation. Most players of this ilk end up playing in the NBA, but in 10-day increments. Wright is 6-foot ¼ in socks and shot just 32.8 percent from 3 in his four seasons at Colorado. He wasn’t a frequent 3-point shooter and his form wouldn’t suggest to you that he should be, although he did muster an 80.3 percent career mark from the line.
The solidness of the rest of his offensive game is a stronger selling point. Wright is a good distributor and penetrator, has some craft in the paint as a finisher and gets into the ball defensively. If the shooting comes around, you can see him turning into another Monte Morris.
62. David Duke, SG, Providence, Junior
Duke is a big guard with a strong frame and handles the ball well enough to run the point, which at times can make you think you’re watching a poor man’s Joe Johnson. Alas, he’s a minus athlete who really struggles to explode and finish in the paint, and as a result, plays as an inefficient volume scorer. There are aspects of a 3-and-D game here too, ones that could perhaps be realized in a lower-usage role, and he’s a plus passer. Nonetheless, the overall impression is of somebody who is not quite draftable because of his athletic limitations.
63. Kessler Edwards, SF, Pepperdine, Junior
A robotic mover, but one who can hit some 3s and play some defense, Edwards has now possibly become overrated for being underrated. There are some real limitations to his game, both skill-wise and athletically, but there’s a chance he sticks as a low-usage 3-and-D guy.
64. Jeremiah Robinson-Earl, PF, Villanova, Sophomore
You don’t want to completely count out Robinson-Earl because he was a productive college player with good feel, but his translation to the pros feels iffy at best. He’s a below-average athlete, has a short wingspan for his height, and has yet to prove himself as a 3-point threat. So what’s his advantage at the next level?
65. Aaron Wiggins, SG, Maryland, Junior
Andrew’s younger brother was one of the better players at the G League Elite camp after quietly having a solid year at Maryland. He’s not amazing at any one thing, but he’s a wing defender with a 6-foot-9 ¾ wingspan and has enough offense to not kill you.
66. Duane Washington Jr., SG, Ohio State, Junior
Impressed at the combine by knowing exactly what he is as a player, a small guard looking to carve out a Bryn Forbes-type career as a bench gunner. Biggest issue is the simplest one: Can he really shoot? Only made 36.1 percent in three college seasons.
67. Daishen Nix, PG, G League Ignite
He’s still really young and has some playmaking craft to him, but Nix struggled in the G League last year and was arguably even worse in the combine. The hope was that the Chicago setting and a visibly improved body would allow him to perform better, but he struggled mightily in both games. Nix isn’t much of a shooter, and the concern is that he’s also not an NBA athlete. He really needs to spend another year in the G League and try again.
68. Jordan Schakel, SG, San Diego State, Senior
He’s almost surely not an NBA athlete, but Schakel will get some looks because he can flat-out strooooke it. He made 46.1 percent of his 3s as a senior and shot 90.8 percent from the line – do I have your attention now? That skill alone will likely get his foot in the door.
69. Dalano Banton, SF, Nebraska, Sophomore
File this one under “just weird enough to be interesting.” Banton can’t shoot, but he has a point guard’s handle and passing ability at 6-foot-9, and one wonders how that might look in a more open NBA floor and separated from an atrocious Nebraska team. Banton made a positive impression at the G League elite camp and I suspect he’ll be high on teams’ 2-way lists as a developmental project.
70. Sandro Mamukelashvili, PF, Seton Hall, Senior
Another interesting guy because of an unusual skill set, Mamukelashvili is 6-foot-11 but likes to handle the ball and create for others. Chance are, he isn’t stout enough physically to defend the five, and he hasn’t quite shown enough floor-spacing ability to make a respectable case as a four. If one of those things changes, however, he could be a player.
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 made 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 up 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, my lukewarm take is 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 is 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.
Group 6: More role players
51. A.J. Lawson, SG, South Carolina, Junior
Somebody will take a chance on Lawson because of his defense and athleticism. Lawson was clearly the best athlete on the floor at the G League elite camp and among the best in the combine, plus he shot well all week in Chicago. That may be an outlier – we’re talking about a 34.9 percent career marksman from 3 at South Carolina, one who also shot 69.7 percent from the line – but you’re not drafting him for the shooting.
Lawson’s athleticism is his best selling point. He had a 33-inch no-step vert at the combine and ran a 2.98 sprint, the latter being the fastest at the combine. However, he measured with short arms (a 6-foot-6 ¾ wingspan for a player who stands 6-foot-5 ½ in socks).
More importantly, there are the basketball games. His defensive clips are good, and he bolstered that with a high steal rate (2.6 per 100 in conference games), although oddly few blocks for a player of this ilk (just seven, total, over 52 games in his sophomore and junior seasons).
Offensively, it remains to be seen if he can provide enough skill and playmaking. He scored at a high rate and shot 3s with particularly high frequency for somebody who wasn’t terribly accurate, but had a negative assist-to-turnover rate and only shot 42.3 percent on 2s in conference play.
52. Justin Champagnie, PF, Pitt, Sophomore
A smart college player who was able to play much bigger than his 6-foot-6 height despite average athleticism, Champagnie may have a tough translation to the next level. For starters, he’s a 28.3 percent career 3-point shooter, which immediately puts his career on life support since he almost certainly has to play the wing as a pro. He doesn’t add much playmaking to that picture either, with just 2.6 dimes per 100 in ACC games despite a high-usage role.
However, he has some real strengths. For starters, he’s a crazy-good rebounder for his size, despite modest leaping ability and average length. Champagnie pulled down 17.8 boards per 100 in ACC games, which would be good for a center and is absolutely phenomenal for a wing. He has great instincts for getting his hands on balls defensively and is able to do it without fouling at a high rate. While you’d like to see more overall defensive impact from him and a bit more juice as an on-ball defender, his sticky fingers are helpful.
Offensively, he draws fouls and sneaks his way to enough buckets off cuts, putbacks and other random plays that he’s able to score without being a great 1-on-1 player. How all this translates is still a major question, but he was able to play his game at the combine. He still probably has to jump another level as a shooter to make it as a rotation player, but he’s at least interesting.
53. David Johnson, SG, Louisville, Sophomore
Johnson had lottery buzz at the start of the season on the heels of a pretty interesting freshman season where he put up huge per-minute stats but massive turnover rates and horrific shooting splits. All those extremes softened in his sophomore year, but the overall package left over wasn’t that exciting. Johnson rebounds well for a guard and has shown playmaking ability but remains a wild ride when he puts it on the floor (5.5 turnovers per 100 after averaging 7.0 as a freshman), plus he shot poorly inside the arc (42.6 percent for the season), and didn’t draw many fouls.
The best thing about his season was the 3-point shooting, which he pushed to 38.6 percent after a woeful 21.7 percent freshman mark, but Johnson is a career 65.0 percent shooter from the line and the 19-game sample isn’t huge. Smart teams will take his 3-point numbers with an entire pillar of salt.
Defensively, Johnson wasn’t good. Watching him on tape, I was shocked how heavy his feet seemed – Louisville would try to hide him on 3s and 4s, and he’d get beat off the dribble even while giving considerable cushion. At 6-foot-3 ¼ in socks, he has to check 2s and 3s at the pros (a giant 6-foot-10 ½ wingspan helps), and based on the tape I’m not sure he can do it.
54. Quentin Grimes, SG, Houston, Junior
Grimes boosted his stock with two strong games at the draft combine, coming off a year where he very quietly led Houston to a 28-4 season and a Final Four berth.
He is an odd confluence of strengths and shortcomings, a let-it-rip 3-point shooter who is also a plus rebounder and can defend some, but one with very little playmaking savvy and some pretty scary numbers shooting inside the arc. He shot 39.8 percent on 2s in the AAC – yikes! – and had just a 1-to-1 assist-to-turnover rate for this college career. Also, his long-range shooting remains a bit questionable. Yes, he made 38.9 percent this season on crazy-high volume (15.4 attempts per 100), but he also shot 64.7 percent from the line for his college career and hadn’t shot nearly this well from 3 before this season.
Overall, looking at the whole package and not overreacting to one particularly strong game the second day of the combine, Grimes seems like he has back-end rotation upside if the shooting is real and the playmaking comes around.
55. Joel Ayayi, SG, Gonzaga, Junior
Ayayi is a tough eval for scouts because he played off the ball so much, operating as a fourth option for a loaded Gonzaga team. Most upperclassman fourth options in college basketball aren’t worth scouting for the pros, but the Zags had so much talent that Ayayi is an exception. With a Usage Rate of just 16.1 percent while playing the guard position, teams really need to bear down on what he can and can’t do at the next level.
One thing he certainly can do is rebound, despite being listed at just 6-foot-5, 180 pounds (he did not participate in the combine). Ayayi pulled down 12.0 boards per 100 possessions in his three college seasons and turned many of them into easy put-backs; he’s a high-energy runner and cutter who found himself enough lay-ups to shoot an absurd 68.3 percent inside the arc. Some of that owes to the strength of the team around him, but in any context that’s impressive.
As for the rest of his offense, it gets sketchier. Ayayi shot 36.0 percent from 3 on low volume and 77.6 percent from the line over his college career, so he has to prove he can be a reliable perimeter weapon. As a playmaker, he didn’t turn the ball over, but rarely made incisive passes or broke down defenders.
Finally, there’s the defense. Ayayi can be an energetic pest at times off the ball, but on the ball his clips are pretty bad. He’s thin, doesn’t seem to slide well laterally, and overall just didn’t offer a ton of resistance. There are scenarios where he breaks through as an energy guy who feasts on high-percentage shots, but he’ll need the D to come around.
56. Chris Smith, PF, UCLA, Senior
Smith missed nearly the entire year after tearing his ACL, but scouts haven’t forgotten about him. A 6-foot-9 power forward who can get a bit out of control. Smith nonetheless has some shot creation talent that could perhaps be exploited better at the next level. Despite his size he has some first-step quickness to him that lets him get to the basket and finish, and his shooting started to come around in his junior year after he was a walking brick his first two seasons in Westwood.
Again, at this point in the draft, we’re dealing with odds. Smith could easily end up being too out of control to be redeemable, or his shot too unsteady. But there is something here to build on.
Group 7: Overseas stash guys
57. Yoan Makoundou, C, Cholet
How do you say “Greg Brown” in French? Makoundou had some awesome highlights, but is relatively new to organized basketball and his game is raw as sushi. There is some obvious long-term upside here – he’s long, athletic and can jump – but he just has no idea how to play right now, and even some of the things you might expect an athletic, toolsy guy to master quickly (rebounding, shot-blocking) haven’t completely clicked for him.
Nonetheless, he has a passport, and that is an advantage in the second round. A team that drafts him could leave Makoundou overseas for however long they want until he develops … or, if he never develops, just include his rights in trades for the next two decades as the Ricky Sanchez of a new generation.
58. Juhann Begarin, SG, Paris Basketball
Begarin is nothing to write home about at the moment, but is one of the youngest players in the draft (born August, 2002) and offers some clear upside as a stash pick in the 50s because of his length and athleticism.
Begarin participated in the G League Elite camp and measured 6-foot-4 ¾ in socks with a 6-foot-11 3/4 wingspan. On the court, he looked raw as a playmaker but showed enough athleticism to pique the interest of scouts. His data from his season in the French League is similar; he still has a long way to go as a shooter and playmaker but his defense and athleticism in transition can keep him on the court while he develops.
59. Ariel Hukporti, C, Kedanai Nevis
Hukporti comes off a tremendously disappointing season in Lithuania and didn’t exactly wow people at the draft combine, but the 7-foot teenager showed enough to stay on the radar and likely gets selected in the back of the second round. However, the big takeaway is that he’s just not all that athletic. Hukporti had just a 24.5-inch no-step vert, the second-worst at the combine, and didn’t have any moments that popped on the court either. To stick as a pro at this level he’ll have to show a skill level from the center spot that we just haven’t seen thus far.
60. Vrenz Bleijenbergh, SF, Oostende
There is at least a 20 percent chance that this isn’t a real person but a name that Sam Vecenie made up and decided to roll with after an accidental pocket tweet.
In all seriousness, Bleijenbergh offers a glimmer of hope as kind of a poor man’s Aleksej Pokusevski. He’s a tissue-soft 6-foot-11 forward with a bad body, and even playing in a bad league in Belgium he struggled with defense, physicality and getting much of anything accomplished inside the paint. However, he can shoot, pass, and handle the ball, which is what generates some of the Poku comps.
Again, his passport likely vaults him over several guys who are objectively better players right now; a team can leave Bleijenbergh to develop for half a decade and check back in later to see if they have a player or not.
While we’re here, a couple of other players to watch that I suspect won’t keep their names in the draft, but in case they do: Nikita Mikhailovski, a 6-foot-7 Russian forward with some shooting skill and hints of playmaking chops, and Olek Balcerowski, a Polish 7-footer who plays (for good and bad) a bit like Andrea Bargnani.
Group 8: My top 2-way guys
61. McKinley Wright IV, PG, Colorado, Senior
A tough defender who knows how to run an offense, Wright did a solid job at the combine but his lack of size and iffy shooting combine to make it an uphill battle for him to crack a rotation. Most players of this ilk end up playing in the NBA, but in 10-day increments. Wright is 6-foot ¼ in socks and shot just 32.8 percent from 3 in his four seasons at Colorado. He wasn’t a frequent 3-point shooter and his form wouldn’t suggest to you that he should be, although he did muster an 80.3 percent career mark from the line.
The solidness of the rest of his offensive game is a stronger selling point. Wright is a good distributor and penetrator, has some craft in the paint as a finisher and gets into the ball defensively. If the shooting comes around, you can see him turning into another Monte Morris.
62. David Duke, SG, Providence, Junior
Duke is a big guard with a strong frame and handles the ball well enough to run the point, which at times can make you think you’re watching a poor man’s Joe Johnson. Alas, he’s a minus athlete who really struggles to explode and finish in the paint, and as a result, plays as an inefficient volume scorer. There are aspects of a 3-and-D game here too, ones that could perhaps be realized in a lower-usage role, and he’s a plus passer. Nonetheless, the overall impression is of somebody who is not quite draftable because of his athletic limitations.
63. Kessler Edwards, SF, Pepperdine, Junior
A robotic mover, but one who can hit some 3s and play some defense, Edwards has now possibly become overrated for being underrated. There are some real limitations to his game, both skill-wise and athletically, but there’s a chance he sticks as a low-usage 3-and-D guy.
64. Jeremiah Robinson-Earl, PF, Villanova, Sophomore
You don’t want to completely count out Robinson-Earl because he was a productive college player with good feel, but his translation to the pros feels iffy at best. He’s a below-average athlete, has a short wingspan for his height, and has yet to prove himself as a 3-point threat. So what’s his advantage at the next level?
65. Aaron Wiggins, SG, Maryland, Junior
Andrew’s younger brother was one of the better players at the G League Elite camp after quietly having a solid year at Maryland. He’s not amazing at any one thing, but he’s a wing defender with a 6-foot-9 ¾ wingspan and has enough offense to not kill you.
66. Duane Washington Jr., SG, Ohio State, Junior
Impressed at the combine by knowing exactly what he is as a player, a small guard looking to carve out a Bryn Forbes-type career as a bench gunner. Biggest issue is the simplest one: Can he really shoot? Only made 36.1 percent in three college seasons.
67. Daishen Nix, PG, G League Ignite
He’s still really young and has some playmaking craft to him, but Nix struggled in the G League last year and was arguably even worse in the combine. The hope was that the Chicago setting and a visibly improved body would allow him to perform better, but he struggled mightily in both games. Nix isn’t much of a shooter, and the concern is that he’s also not an NBA athlete. He really needs to spend another year in the G League and try again.
68. Jordan Schakel, SG, San Diego State, Senior
He’s almost surely not an NBA athlete, but Schakel will get some looks because he can flat-out strooooke it. He made 46.1 percent of his 3s as a senior and shot 90.8 percent from the line – do I have your attention now? That skill alone will likely get his foot in the door.
69. Dalano Banton, SF, Nebraska, Sophomore
File this one under “just weird enough to be interesting.” Banton can’t shoot, but he has a point guard’s handle and passing ability at 6-foot-9, and one wonders how that might look in a more open NBA floor and separated from an atrocious Nebraska team. Banton made a positive impression at the G League elite camp and I suspect he’ll be high on teams’ 2-way lists as a developmental project.
70. Sandro Mamukelashvili, PF, Seton Hall, Senior
Another interesting guy because of an unusual skill set, Mamukelashvili is 6-foot-11 but likes to handle the ball and create for others. Chance are, he isn’t stout enough physically to defend the five, and he hasn’t quite shown enough floor-spacing ability to make a respectable case as a four. If one of those things changes, however, he could be a player.
- Dec 14, 2001
- 12,435
- 2,256
If they want to be a championship contending team, if Klay is back? No. Almost no rookie has that type of impact, they will just be a depth piece.
I mean Wiseman is the perfect case. Rookies need playing time, when you are trying to win, winning takes precedent
- Nov 5, 2012
- 80,691
- 55,641
Nothing crazy just some fluff from jalen Johnson didn’t know he was klutch
- Nov 5, 2015
- 10,824
- 9,418
Y’all telling me there’s no way in hell Scottie falls to 7?
- Sep 5, 2010
- 113,546
- 172,355
- Mar 31, 2011
- 80,401
- 131,728
Don’t see him getting past 6 at all. Orlando might even take him at 5.
- Jan 20, 2006
- 28,177
- 41,783
Seems like he’s locked into the Top 6 and could pass Kuminga.
- Jan 8, 2006
- 31,266
- 35,328
I have no idea what Kuminga will end up being. I was pretty high on him going into this past season and that first game he played, then the more I watched the more I saw there's a lot of development to be done still.
- Aug 11, 2012
- 59,025
- 157,150
- Apr 5, 2017
- 22,188
- 63,111
Emoni looking wild regular down the Peach Jam 
Going back to his dad's team wasn't a good look. He looks disinterested, bad body language and his team getting drilled
Going back to his dad's team wasn't a good look. He looks disinterested, bad body language and his team getting drilled
- Aug 11, 2012
- 59,025
- 157,150
Emoni looking wild regular down the Peach Jam
Going back to his dad's team wasn't a good look. He looks disinterested, bad body language and his team getting drilled
Super talented. But man, the bad habits he picked up and general approach to the game he’s developed are a flag at this point.
And this is in no way a compression to the Ball bro’s philosophy and output. Cuz their approach was largely correct, and basketball philosophy centered around winning.
I long got the feel that Emoni’s development wasn’t about that. It’s about making the best individual prospect you can make…that fully centers on that prospect without taking into account anything else.
The higher the talent level rises and things even out, it shows more with the mentality and approach.
You can marvel in drills/workouts all day, and still not recognize situational and spatial awareness. That’s what Emoni is lacking right now.
- Jul 13, 2005
- 36,008
- 27,580
Lack of motivation and bad body language can be seen in literally every teenager. It's a problem when it happens often though.
Does Emoni come from a well off family? I feel like once he realized he's gonna be a top pick and make life changing money all damns went out the window.
Does Emoni come from a well off family? I feel like once he realized he's gonna be a top pick and make life changing money all damns went out the window.
- Aug 11, 2012
- 59,025
- 157,150
This some real low hanging, borderline racist analysis man
Emoni is a special talent. And is highly motivated. KD has terrible body language, claps his hands and is moody too. His APPROACH and basketball teaching and understanding is what made him who he is.
With Emoni, it’s all about approach to the game, and building a consistent view on what it Means to be a great player. Right now for him, it’s all about ranking, being the best prospect and showcasing that. That ultra individualism that has tried to create the perfect environment for a prospect. Individually. Think Todd Moranovic
- Jul 13, 2005
- 36,008
- 27,580
This some real low hanging, borderline racist analysis man
Lol chill. No idea how that would be racist.
Lack of motivation and bad body language is being thrown around his name so my thought process was more so how someone that talented, yet that young, can have zero motivation. Didnt know his situation, every kids situation is different so chasing the bag is a legit factor. Big reason why a lot of kids are choosing the G League route too.
If his environment is toxic, why is he going back to play with his fathers team? Wasnt his father the distraction? Why doesnt he change his trainers? There are a lot of factors in his control.
- Apr 5, 2017
- 22,188
- 63,111
This some real low hanging, borderline racist analysis man
Not his first rodeo either
- Aug 11, 2012
- 59,025
- 157,150
Anit no chill.
You should question what went off in YOUR head, for you to equate bad body language and “disinterested” at Peach Jam…..into “lack of motivation” and questions about Emoni Bates financial situation and upbringing.
We live in a time where it’s not obscure to see teens from well off families be super motivated. Or vice versa. The idea that you’re questioning a 17 year old elite prospect’s “motivation” and using words like:
is INTERESTING, to put it mildly. Do some self reflection my guy.
- Jul 13, 2005
- 36,008
- 27,580
I dont even know what Peach Jam is outside of it maybe being a summer tournament.
Never would I think that chasing the bag as a teenager or parents securing a bag would be considered racist.
But if it is, my apologies.
Never would I think that chasing the bag as a teenager or parents securing a bag would be considered racist.
But if it is, my apologies.
- Apr 5, 2008
- 46,857
- 105,241
Bates Fundamentals should have been dissolve in spring
Team Final was great for him winning and was playing well with talent around him
Also his temper get's flip into being viewed as a passionate competitor
Team Final was great for him winning and was playing well with talent around him
Also his temper get's flip into being viewed as a passionate competitor
frshstunna
Supporter
- Jan 30, 2010
- 27,775
- 52,378
VARNELL HILL
Bates still taking wild shots n chillin letting his teammates do everything else but shoot ? …That’s what yo usually looks like when his pops involved, so I can’t analyze it too much I want him to go pro but going from the bubble he plays in to pro would be a rough 1st couple years of adjustment…Let the youngin do his own thing for a season, it would take a catastrophe to change his guaranteed money prospects so it won’t hurt much playing for somebody else full time
- Mar 31, 2011
- 80,401
- 131,728
- Nov 5, 2015
- 10,824
- 9,418
I been cool on bates since I seen he had a appreciate video or something thanking his fans. Kid was like 10 or 12 lol.
wavy said it perfectly; Skill wise of course it’s all there but the understanding of basketball winning play, mental strength and team understanding is so damn important.
On another note the amount of pressure this kid(and others before and after) has to deal with to sustain the consistency of being the big dog is sad. We forget that he’s 16 or 17 or whatever. I’m surprise how so many of these kids hold it together.
wavy said it perfectly; Skill wise of course it’s all there but the understanding of basketball winning play, mental strength and team understanding is so damn important.
On another note the amount of pressure this kid(and others before and after) has to deal with to sustain the consistency of being the big dog is sad. We forget that he’s 16 or 17 or whatever. I’m surprise how so many of these kids hold it together.
- Nov 5, 2015
- 10,824
- 9,418
I caught a couple of the high school games and he had some cold *** guards with him especially the lefty going to MSU. Bates was screaming like **** on them. Lol. Like rattling his own teams mates. Guards completely clock out on the team.
Last edited:
Similar threads
