The Athletic: 2025 NBA Draft's top 75 prospects
* * *
I shared my initial list of top prospects just before the draft combine in May, but there are a couple of changes, with Georgetown’s Thomas Sorber rising into my top 10. I’ve also, obviously, added dozens more names to the list. As always, I’m not necessarily betting on these players, but I think it would make sense to select them at a certain point in the draft where the failure rate is relatively high, no matter whom a team takes. I’ve also included several two-way candidates, as that has become an increasingly important roster-building mechanism in recent years.
Duke
Age: 18
Height: 6-8
Position: F
I’m not going to waste a lot of time here, because so much has been written about Flagg already. But suffice it to say that Flagg is obviously the best prospect on the board. That doesn’t guarantee he’ll have the best career – stuff happens! – but anybody who says he shouldn’t go No. 1 is an unserious goofball.
Flagg was quite nearly the youngest player in college basketball this year, with a December 2006 birthdate (he would’ve been draft-ineligible until 2026 if he were born 11 days later) and yet was also the best player by a considerable margin. He won every major award, led the NCAA in BPM and led all non-centers in PER. He’s a multi-position player on both ends, one who had extremely high rates of assists and steals for a player of his size and drew fouls at a gargantuan rate. For a guy whose shooting was a question mark, he also shot 38.5 percent from 3 and 84.0 percent from the line.
Nitpickers will point out a 51.8 percent shooting mark on 2s and a proclivity for spinning into traffic rather than getting all the way to the cup on a straight line. His in-between game and post-ups still need work. Whatever. Flagg’s medium-case scenario is a day-one starter who becomes an All-Star by the end of his rookie contract. The best-case scenario is special.
Read more: How does Flagg compare to top prospects of the last decade?
Rutgers
Age: 19
Height: 6-5
Position: G
I don’t think Harper’s case at No. 2 is quite as ironclad as some others think it is, but at the end of the day, I still give him the nod over Baylor’s VJ Edgecombe for this spot. Harper doesn’t pop athletically and struggled to shoot consistently in his lone college season (33.3 percent from 3, 75.0 percent from the line), but he is a true ball-in-hand, pick-and-roll creator with plus size and instincts.
His nose for the ball makes up for some meh measurables: Despite not being a speed demon, he pilfered 3.1 steals per 100 possessions in Big Ten play and the defensive tape shows him sliding to cut off driving angles. Offensively, he constantly touches the paint and shot 57.4 percent on 2s with a high free-throw rate. Harper did this despite a limited Rutgers roster around him; the surrounding talent likely jobbed him out of several assists.
High-usage, big guards like Harper are among the most difficult and expensive to obtain by other means; in a related story, they are among the most important when it comes to building a successful roster. That’s why he has to be the choice here.
Baylor
Age: 19
Height: 6-4
Position: G
Edgecombe was old for a freshman (he turns 20 in July), he faces questions about his long-range shooting and he might only be a one-position player. That said, he has the talent to be special, and I thought hard about putting him at No. 2. Athletically, he has a different gear, blasting off into drives into the paint and elevating with ease at the cup for his finishes.
Edgecombe also shows flashes of being an absolute monster on defense with his lateral quickness and hands, poaching 3.3 steals per 100 possessions in Big 12 games. Edgecombe’s first slide can be a bit sluggish, but he shocks shooters springing off the floor to contest shots with his length.
Offensively, Edgecombe’s shot looked like a project early in the season, but he seemed to fix a couple of flaws as the year went on. In Big 12 games, he shot 39.1 percent from 3 and 81.7 percent from the line. The vexing part is that he only shot 50.0 percent on 2s for the season, despite his incredible physical tools. Edgecombe has a pretty limited handle at this point, one that likely constrains him to playing off the ball or as a secondary creator, and he needs to refine his finishing package off the dribble and at the rim.
However, the Victor Oladipo comparisons here are obvious, and the background on Edgecombe is off-the-charts positive. If I had the second pick, my war room would spend a lot of time arguing about Edgecombe vs. Harper.
Duke
Age: 19
Height: 6-5
Position: F
Time for my board to radically deviate from consensus!
Let’s start with Knueppel; people don’t seem to trust his production as a freshman at Duke. There’s this notion that he was a spot-up guy drafting off the awesomeness of his team, but nothing could be further from the truth: Knueppel was second on the team behind Flagg in usage rate and mostly lived on self-created shots. That shot diet included a ton of chances at the rim on straight-line drives; he rarely got to pull-ups or floaters because he was so good at playing through contact and finishing at the cup.
Knueppel very nearly went 50-40-90 as a freshman (settling for 47.9 percent from the field, 41.4 percent from 3 and 90.4 percent from the line), but his secondary stats were good too. For a shooting specialist, his rates of steals, blocks and free throws stood out. Duke was comfortable leaving him on the perimeter against smaller guards and his feet seem adequate for an NBA wing. He’ll be hunted at times depending on who else is on the floor, especially because he struggles to challenge shots at the end of a move. But this isn’t the work of a pigeon.
However, let’s circle back to the best part: Knueppel’s shot is butter. Watching him warm up on movement shots from side to side before Duke games, it’s clear there is more to unpack here in terms of using him off screens at the NBA level. I don’t really understand why evaluations like Tre Johnson better; Knueppel offers the same movement showing but appears much better in virtually every other facet of the game. For me, there is a clear drop-off after Knueppel; he’s a lot closer to the Edgecombe/Harper level than to anything after this.
Oklahoma
Age: 18
Height: 6-3
Position: G
The numbers say that we shouldn’t get out over our skis on Fears; he was massively turnover-prone, shot poorly from 3, missed open teammates and struggled on defense. He also measured shorter at the Combine after being listed at 6-4 all year.
But Fears’ best plays are just too good to ignore. He’s a slash-and-burn point-of-attack ballhandler who can break down defense with his handle and execute difficult finishes at the cup. It helps that the draft drops off here in quality, making it easier to take a shot on stardom even if the mid-case scenario is probably more like Jordan Clarkson.
Fears played more as a volume scorer in his lone season, shooting just 44.7 percent on 2s in SEC play, but he also drew fouls at a prodigious rate. His 85.1 percent mark from the line also makes it easier to buy that his 28.4 percent shooting from 3 might eventually level out at something close to respectable. Fears’ stroke needs tightening – bring the elbow in, get more air under it, etc. – but he also took a lot of difficult 3s that dragged on the percentage. Nonetheless, if opponents can just go under screens against him, that’s going to hurt his downhill attacking game.
Defensively, Fears is skinny and needs to compete more, but he also has good hands and, in his best iso clips, showed lively feet. He’ll be hunted early in his career, but it’s not a disaster.
South Carolina
Age: 20
Height: 6-7
Position: F
I don’t know what to do at No. 6. There are four players I really like, one (Fears) I’m willing to gamble on and then I kind of throw my hands up. So, a 6-7 center from a team that went 2-16 in conference? Why not.
Murray-Boyles will need to change his game at the pro level because it’s unlikely he can play center for more than brief stretches. That will involve developing his nascent perimeter game, getting in better shape and improving his rarely used right hand, among other things.
That said, I’ve warmed up to his case. Watching him in the SEC tournament, his jumper isn’t broken. It’s a push shot from his chest, the release is slow and he rarely stretched out to the 3-point line in his role at South Carolina. But yes, he can get to the point where he makes a third of them.
Additionally, he has the feet and hands to guard smaller players on the perimeter; in fact, that part requires no adjustment at all, as he did that comfortably even as a collegian.
What I love about the clip linked above is how close he is to the dribbler at the start; players tell on themselves by how much cushion they give. Murray-Boyles had no fear that he could slide his feet with a smaller player.
Murray-Boyles’ hands, in particular, are notable: His rate of 2.9 steals per 100 possessions is pretty spectacular for a big man. He also shows good feel and instincts at the offensive end, both as a finisher and passer.
Finally, Murray-Boyles is a young sophomore who just turned 20. He suffered from having to be the best player on two horrible South Carolina teams, but he has a role player’s profile. He likely will need an adjustment year at the offensive end – similar to another SEC center, Grant Williams – but he can be a starting power forward if everything breaks right.
Ratiopharm Ulm
Age: 18
Height: 6-8
Position: F
One of my biggest hot takes for this draft is that Essengue isn’t getting nearly enough attention. A Frenchman plying his trade in Germany, Essengue rivals Flagg as the youngest player in the draft with his December 2006 birthdate. Essengue was nonetheless a productive starter for a solid EuroCup team that is playing for the German league championship this week. Essengue’s stats this year stand out for an overseas teenager, with a PER of 18.4, block and steal rates over 2.0 percent and a solid 14.0 percent rebound rate despite barely weighing 200 pounds. (Filling out physically is one of his biggest developmental to-dos.)
Essengue also had 20 points, eight rebounds, three steals and two blocks in a preseason game against the Portland Trail Blazers, while guarding Deni Avdija for much of it; here’s a clip of a pick-six steal and dunk he had in that game.
Essengue’s big swing skill will be shooting; he made 26.5 percent from 3 and 70.2 percent from the line this year; obviously, that won’t get it done. On the other hand, can we talk about his work inside the arc? Essengue shot 64.1 percent on 2s with a James Harden-esque free-throw rate (290 free throws against just 269 2-point attempts), an amazing feat for a skinny teen in a physical league. Even going up a level in the game against Portland, he managed to grift six foul shots.
Statistically, Essengue has a lot of similarities to what the Wizards’ Bilal Coulibaly did in France in his draft year, except that Essengue is further along as a decision-maker (he had a slightly positive assist-turnover ratio, in fact). Coulibaly went seventh in the 2023 draft; it doesn’t seem unreasonable to have Essengue seventh on the board in 2025.
Arizona
Age: 19
Height: 6-7
Position: F
Bryant grabbed my attention during the 2024 Hoop Summit practices. Playing on the scout team scrimmaging against a U.S. squad with Flagg, Harper and others, Bryant made it obvious that he was on the wrong team and should have been selected for the U.S. squad. His freshman year at Arizona started slowly, but by the end, it was clear he was one of the best prospects in his class, even in a low-usage role.
About that: One thing that may make teams skittish about grabbing Bryant this high is that he has a limited handle that may consign him to a low-usage, 3-and-D role. While Bryant can get more buckets off cuts, transitions and general energy at the pro level than he did at Arizona, his shot-creation tools are still pretty rudimentary.
That said, the rest of the package looks ready to go, and he can easily be in an opening-night rotation. Bryant has position size at both forward spots, makes good reads as a passer to offset some of his dribble weakness and has a smooth jumper that he can launch over closeouts.
Defensively, his rates of blocks and steals stood out for a one-and-done wing (2.8 steals and 2.9 blocks per 100), although he needs to chill on the rampant fouling. Among non-center prospects, only Flagg topped him in “stocks” rate. Bryant’s defensive tape in isolation situations is solid but not amazing; he can be a half-beat slow changing directions but makes up for it with elite closing ability on shooters. The fact that his clips included turns checking guys like Flagg and Edgecombe tells you what the coaches thought.
Maybe Bryant isn’t overly exciting. But players in this size-skill category get $20 million a year in free agency, so you always draft them if you have the chance.
BYU
Age: 19
Height: 6-8
Position: F
Coming to BYU by way of Russia and Real Madrid, Demin had some strong initial buzz in November as a 6-8 point forward. That quickly faded during a horrid mid-winter slump; I watched him in person during a miserable 0-for-10 performance at Providence.
For much of the year, Demin seemed reluctant to put pressure on the paint and would turn every pick-and-roll into a cross-court pass to the opposite corner, regardless of what the defense did. It’s cool that he can hit the opposite corner reliably in pick-and-roll, but would you please turn the corner once or twice?
However, his level of play picked up noticeably late in the year, including three double-figure games in the NCAA Tournament. Demin, however, still needs to become more aggressive as a scorer and has to work on his shot; he made only 27.3 percent from 3 and 69.5 percent from the line.
Demin’s offense might have been disappointing, but I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about his defense. He could play a half-step farther off guards than most wings because of his height and length and was able to close late and challenge shots very effectively.
Even when he guarded more closely, he wasn’t necessarily at a disadvantage. Watch here as he shoots the gap for a deflection and then checks an opposing point guard for six dribbles before forcing a miss at the end.
Again, as with Bryant, players of this archetype are difficult to acquire, and you can play multiples of them at once. Demin can dribble, pass and guard the perimeter; if he becomes any kind of shooting threat at all, he should be a valuable player.
Georgetown
Age: 19
Height: 6-9
Position: F
I left Sorber off my initial top prospects list because a) I didn’t think he would stay in the draft, and b) I was concerned about his defensive tape guarding away from the basket. The latter remains an issue, but the fact he stayed in the draft despite a season-ending foot injury tells me that teams aren’t overly concerned about the long-term health implications.
The other thing that happened was Sorber measuring with a gigantic 7-6 wingspan and 9-1 standing reach at the combine; despite not having prototype center height, his measurements support the idea he can be a full-time five. Sorber’s defensive playmaking numbers also bely the idea that he’s just some lumbering big lug, with an eye-popping 2.7 steals per 100 possessions to go with his 7.6 percent block rate.
He still might disappoint. In addition to being a vulnerable switch defender, Sorber’s rebounding was pretty meh for a center prospect (15.6 percent rebound rate). Also, despite a decent shooting touch (including a nice jab-step jumper), his finishing was underwhelming for a big-man prospect; he can shoot with either hand but doesn’t explode off the floor and isn’t the most instinctive guy navigating tight spaces around the cup. Everything looked hard.
That said, of the one-and-dones, it seems to me Sorber has a much stronger argument than the three more prominently mentioned prospects that are the next names on my board. He has positional size (they don’t), he has an offensive skill set, and he arguably had a better freshman season than any of them.
Texas
Age: 19
Height: 6-5
Position: G
Johnson’s profile loosely matches that of many lottery prospects who ended up being crushing disappointments. At the offensive end, the first thing a scout’s eye should look for is “ease,” but Johnson is just the opposite. His highlight reel is a series of tough shots that he’s going to have great difficulty getting off at the next level. He shot 43.1 percent on 2s in the SEC with a low-ish free-throw rate.
His athleticism markers were also poor, with low rates of steals and blocks and a shockingly poor rebound rate for a player of this size (just 5.5 percent in SEC play, the lowest of any legit prospect in this cycle except Gonzaga’s 6-0 Ryan Nembhard). The defensive tape showed good enough effort but perhaps limited feet, with Johnson giving a ton of cushion to dribblers.
So, how is he still in my top 20? Because he profiles as a movement shooter, and you can’t turn your nose up at these guys. Johnson shot 88.9 percent from the line and made 39.7 percent from 3; he also launched 11.4 3s per 100 possessions, getting into his stroke comfortably off either the catch or the dribble. Additionally, Johnson displayed some secondary passing skill for when defenses inevitably trap his catch coming off screens. Scouts weren’t overly fond of Texas’ offense, and more of that skill might pop in a different system.
Overall, I have a hard time getting too high on Johnson and think his mid-case scenario is as a bench sniper, but there’s a scenario where the shooting is so lights-out that the other stuff just ends up not mattering.
Rutgers
Age: 18
Height: 6-8
Position: F
Bailey came into the year as the third-highest rated prospect according to most evaluators, and man, were they been stubborn in adjusting their priors. About the best that can be said for Bailey’s freshman year at Rutgers is that he managed halfway decent efficiency (53.6 percent true shooting) despite arguably the worst shot selection in college basketball.
I mean … what is this? I’m not cherry-picking either; there are at least 20 clips like this you can choose from.
Bailey is in my top 20 because the good plays were mouth-watering. He has an advanced handle for his size, some rim-protection instincts and can look smooth pulling up for his jumper (34.6 percent from 3 on decent volume from a teenage big man is nothing to sneeze at). But the fact that Bailey can sometimes make difficult shots doesn’t mean he should routinely attempt them as Plan A. On the flip side, he struggled to get all the way to the cup due to a lack of first-step explosiveness and lower-body strength.
Between that and his total lack of feel, he profiles more as a long-term project than an immediate contributor. Somewhere in here there’s a mobile stretch four who can guard one through four on the perimeter and post up smalls in switches, but right now, he’s a half-baked version of Jabari Smith Jr. Bailey’s basketball education will need to continue at the pro level, and you might want to be his second team rather than his first one.
Maryland
Age: 20
Height: 6-9
Position: C
Queen’s best clips ooze talent, and sometimes with bigs, the tape tells you more than the numbers. He can handle the ball, drop cross-court passes in transition and shoot from a variety of angles. In the half court, he plays almost as a left-handed player, constantly looking to either drive or spin in that direction and finishing comfortably with his left as well. Witness his game-winner in the NCAA Tournament against Colorado State.
That said, Queen has work to do. He got himself in much better shape in his freshman season at Maryland but still has a ways to go. He showed flashes of being able to guard on the perimeter situationally, but he probably has to be a full-time center at the NBA level. That brings other issues into play, such as his limited rim protection.
Additionally, some of his defensive tape is tragic. While he used his hands to get deflections in some situations against smaller ballhandlers, other times, he was barely there. Watch here as he plays 15 feet off the man he’s guarding (Michigan’s Danny Wolf, a possible first-rounder) and mostly watches as Wolf drives in for a layup.
Offensively, it’s easier to believe in Queen if he develops stretch capability, but he’s not there yet. He’s an OK shooter from 15 feet who shot 76.6 percent from the line; more range would make his ballhandling threat more compelling, as teams could run through him at the elbows profitably.
The other issue with Queen is his age. He was born in December 2004. History says that matters; the future growth you might graft onto this one-and-done is a bit less than for some of the others.
Overall, I’m really interested to see how this movie ends. Queen has tremendous ball skills for his size, but his positional fit questions and lack of defensive chops make it a challenge to slot him into a winning team’s rotation.
Michigan State
Age: 19
Height: 6-1
Position: G
The numbers say Richardson is a lottery pick. The eye test? I’m not quite as sure. The guy can only dribble with one hand, had low rates of steals and assists for a player of this size and shot a low volume of 3s for a shooting guard.
In particular, his extreme left-handedness seems to loom as an issue at the next level; I’m not sure I can remember a prospect of his size who was so limited with his weak hand. That’s a problem because it makes it extremely difficult to get him point guard reps; he has to slot in as a sniper next to a big wing who can handle.
With all that said, Richardson’s ability to get 2-point buckets at his size stood out. He converted 58.1 percent of his 2s in Big Ten play, drew fouls at a fairly high rate and hardly ever turned the ball over. There’s a scenario where he’s so efficient that he turns into a really good player despite not having prototype size or a point guard’s handle, similar to Jared McCain a year ago.
Ratiopharm Ulm
Age: 19
Height: 6-5
Position: G
Ignore the shooting motion for a second and just look at everything else. Saraf is a big guard who plays hard, defends, makes good decisions on the ball and can run an offense. He’s an instinctive player who gets his hands on a lot of balls (2.5 percent steal rate), and he and his teammate Essengue above are already two of the best players on a team that may win the German league. (Ratiopharm is currently playing in the German league finals,, which kept Saraf and Essengue from coming to the Draft Combine and team workouts.) It’s pretty easy to envision a floor for him as a serviceable backup guard, with a much higher potential ceiling if he can consistently make perimeter shots.
I can’t get Saraf higher than this because I can’t ignore the shooting, a wonky lefty motion that has the benefit of a high release point but is hard to believe beyond that; he might not ever generate more than 30 percent accuracy from distance without some modifications. (Saraf shot 29.6 percent from 3 and 75.4 percent from the stripe this year.) Getting him to a team with a good shooting coach and cleaning up his release will be critical. It’s doubly important because Saraf isn’t explosive or athletic enough to be a plus finisher inside the arc; he has to be able to make some jumpers off the dribble to keep defenses honest and leverage his ability to snake pick-and-rolls.
Georgia
Age: 19
Height: 6-9
Position: F
Newell’s biggest draft question is what, exactly, is he? He’s 6-11 but doesn’t have the rim protection or rebounding numbers (just a 14.0 percent rebound rate in SEC games) of a true center. He also doesn’t pop off the floor as a rim runner; you’d call him more “fluid” than “explosive.”
On the other hand, the lefty shows some perimeter skill. He isn’t yet a money 3-point shooter (29.2 percent) or a guy who is comfortable taking more than a couple dribbles, but watching him before Georgia games, the stroke is repeatable and likely to improve as it becomes a bigger part of his game.
That said, his tape guarding the perimeter is pretty good, and Georgia used him mostly as a power forward in his freshman season. I think that’s his best position, especially as he develops stretch capability. Sticking with smaller players on the perimeter will be a challenge for him at the next level, but he might be able to handle it. This is a pretty nifty steal for 6-11.
In the short term, scouts are likely to see Newell as a positionless tweener. Long term, however, there’s a chance he can be one of the rare “Horfords” – guys who are switchable and skilled enough to play power forward in a playoff game but still have enough size to play center. More likely, Newell tops out as a serviceable third big.
Marquette
Age: 23
Height: 6-3
Position: G
I’ve had Jones rated as a first-rounder for the last three years and have just been waiting for him to declare, which he finally did after his senior year at Marquette. Jones will be 23 on draft night, making him four years older than most of the one-and-dones on this list, but he was also massively more productive in college than all of them except Flagg.
That said, I did move down Jones from 10th in my orginial board to 17th on my final one, after he measured small at the combine (6-3 in socks with a 6-6 wingspan), posted just a 24-inch standing vertical and underwhelmed in the on-court portion before departing with a hamstring injury.
Jones combines plus finishing in the basket area with elite passing, making him either a tricky secondary scorer or a plus bench creator. His career 59.3 percent mark on 2s is exceptional for a small guard, and he moved to point guard this season and handed out more than three assists for every turnover.
Those numbers came even in a shooting-starved lineup that deprived him of both spacing and assists, and his work on the ball provides encouragement for scouts worried that he’s too small to play shooting guard full-time and too left-handed to play point guard. Instead, the opposite appears true: He’s a pure combo who can slot in at either spot.
I’d be more bullish on Jones were it not for his questionable shooting. He slumped to 31.1 percent from 3 this year and made just 67.1 percent from the line in his four-year career. The eye test in warm-ups when I saw Marquette was similarly discouraging. He did make 40.6 percent from 3 a year earlier playing next to the Knicks’ Tyler Kolek and had to take tougher 3s off the dribble this season, but players of his size need to make 3s off the dribble consistently.
Illinois
Age: 19
Height: 6-5
Position: G
Jakučionis had top-five buzz at points during the season but struggled during Big Ten play. Looking at the totality of his season, it’s harder to get super excited. He had very low rates of defensive event creation for a guard, committed a ton of turnovers (6.5 per 100 possessions) with the help of some curious shot-pass decisions and struggled to knock down 3s. The defensive tape in one-on-one defense is … not great.
That said, I can make an upside case that he can eventually be a starting guard. Let’s start with the shooting piece; players tell on themselves by how often they launch from 3, and Jakučionis took 9.0 per 100 possessions. Several were difficult off-the-dribble tries, as he loves to shake a defender (especially a big on a switch) and then pull up. Additionally, Jakučionis was very effective inside the arc, shooting 55.4 percent while drawing heaps of fouls.
Overall, his combination of handle, wiggle, positional size and ability to read the game, combined with a plus left hand, could make him a potent enough offensive player to offset the defensive concerns. I just wouldn’t make that bet in the lottery.
Duke
Age: 18
Height: 7-1
Position: C
I’m not a huge fan of drafting true centers because you can only play one at a time and the position has become somewhat devalued, but for a team in need of quality size, Maluach has a good chance of being a rotation player. While he’s limited offensively because he doesn’t display much feel or low-post game, and his stretch game is still in the developmental stages, Maluach does present a huge lob target who plays hard and is a monster offensive rebounder (21.3 percent offensive rebound rate in ACC games).
Defensively, Maluach isn’t quite the level of rim protector of other centers from recent drafts, sporting a 6.0 percent block rate as opposed to the double digits of guys like Walker Kessler, Robert Williams and Donovan Clingan. However, for a player of his size, he is relatively comfortable guarding on the perimeter, and he hustles changing ends.
There’s a point in the draft where Maluach makes sense, but size like this has been a siren song that has lured many a GM onto the rocks. For me, his most likely scenarios are as either a fifth option or a plus backup, and I’m only willing to go so far on draft capital to get that at the center spot.
Auburn
Age: 22
Height: 6-9
Position: C
Broome still hasn’t received enough respect as an NBA prospect. He had a very solid showing at last year’s draft combine, and when he couldn’t get a first-round promise, he went back to Auburn and destroyed college basketball.
He’s out of eligibility and will be 23 in July, but his dominance of a loaded SEC last season should prove beyond any doubt that he’s a first-round pick. Broome doesn’t easily check NBA boxes because he’s neither an above-the-square lob-jammer, nor a 3-point shooter, nor an elite rim protector, nor a switchable defender against guards.
Instead he’s … just kind of good. Broome is reminiscent of Domantas Sabonis in that he’s left-hand dominant, has great touch around the rim and absolutely destroys smaller players in any switch situation. He also has a good feel as a passer and operator around the elbows, allowing him to facilitate a lot of offense even if he doesn’t directly create it.
Finally, Broome has long arms, fast hands and catches everything. That’s part of why he’s been a dominant rebounder (19.4 percent in SEC games last year) with outstanding steal rates for a big man and surprisingly strong shot-blocking rates. (He actually out-blocked Maluach in all five of his college seasons.)
Again, I’m not super fired up about drafting centers, especially since Broome may profile more as a plus backup than a starter, but I can’t believe a player this productive isn’t getting more love as a top-20 pick.
Le Mans
Age: 20
Height: 6-8
Position: F
Welcome to my favorite international sleeper. Penda is a 20-year-old combo forward whose athleticism doesn’t pop off the page, but he’s been one of the most productive players in France, with eye-catching rates of blocks and steals. The tape shows a high basketball IQ and good feel as a passer, both important traits for somebody who likely slots in as a role player. Meanwhile, the data shows a productive overseas player with a PER of 16.2 as a 20-year-old in a decent league (though not the best); I’m continually surprised teams don’t use this information more in their evaluations, because it has pretty strong predictive value.
The fly in the ointment here is the shooting. If he can’t knock down perimeter shots consistently, he’ll have trouble establishing a role at the NBA level, but Penda’s shooting stats over the past two seasons (29.3 percent from 3, 66.8 percent from the line) are rather sobering. He’s still young enough to make considerable progress and his form doesn’t seem irretrievably broken. At this point in the draft, he seems to be a good bet. If he hits, Penda fills an important positional slot that it’s impossible to have too many of, so gambling on this archetype is always preferable to picking guards and centers.
Washington State
Age: 21
Height: 6-5
Position: G
Coward intrigued teams with his measurements and was the big winner at the combine despite not playing a game since November. He measured 6-5 1/4 in socks but with a 7-2 1/4 wingspan, making him a rare “plus-9” in scouting circles. (Most regular people’s wingspan is roughly equal to their height; among NBA players, the norm is more like plus-4.) Coward also posted a stellar 32.5-inch standing vertical and ripped off a 3.06-second three-quarter sprint.
Coward’s shooting numbers also stand out. He shot 38.8 percent from 3 and 88.3 percent from the line for his college career, although he was not a high-volume 3-point shooter. But the part that jumps off the page is what he did inside the arc: a 72 percent 2-point shooting mark for his college career.
Some of that came against overmatched Big Sky Conference competition in his first two years at Eastern Washington (Coward only played six games at Washington State before suffering a season-ending shoulder injury). Still, Coward went a combined 14-of-17 on 2s in back-to-back games against Ole Miss and Cincinnati, 20-win teams from power conferences.
A heat map of his shot chart helps explain why; he has a near-perfect Morey-ball heat map of 3-pointers, shots at the rim and hardly anything else. He can get to a pull-up going left if he has to (he mostly drives left), but he’s a downhill driver who hunts layups and elevates well around the rim for finishes. He also finds a lot of free points for himself on cuts, runouts and mismatch post-ups; it helps that he has a great feel for drop steps and using both his body and the rim to protect finishes.
That said, he works off assisted baskets. The 3-point attempts were all pure catch-and-shoots with his toes on the line. And while Coward can drive in straight lines, he has a high, awkward handle; even at this level, his self-creation attempts were hard on the eyes.
That’s why I’m listing him as a small forward; his skill profile fits the position better, and his wingspan allows it. Think of him more as a 3-and-D guy who offers a lot more plus finishing inside the arc than you typically see in this role. That said, he has clear starter upside, and if he can polish the handle, the ceiling gets exciting.
Florida
Age: 22
Height: 6-2
Position: G
I’m always a little leery of NCAA Tournament Guy getting too much of a bump from a few games in late March, but Clayton’s performance en route to Florida’s national title underscored some elements of things that were in the scouting report all season.
He gets great elevation on his jump shot and can get it off in a variety of situations and platforms; his career mark of 38.6 percent on 3s is only part of it. The others are that he took those shots with great frequency (13.5 attempts per 100 possessions) and that his elite free-throw shooting also stamps him as a likely plus shooter at the next level (87.9 percent over his four-year college career).
Clayton’s play in other facets isn’t quite as alluring. He’s a small guard with an unexceptional steal rate, and his work on the defensive end leaves something to be desired. He’s just OK as a distributor and plays more as a scorer, but he has the size to be a full-time point guard.
Overall, Clayton profiles as a strong backup point guard candidate because of his combination of shooting accuracy and volume, with starter upside if it all clicks.
Saint Joseph’s
Age: 20
Height: 6-8
Position: F
A good shooter who also measured with a 7-5 wingspan and a 9-1 standing reach, Fleming is a rare mid-major late bloomer whom the power conferences failed to poach with NIL money before he turned pro. While Fleming has limited ball skills – even on an NIT team in the Atlantic 10, he was only the third-leading scorer – he can finish what others start and knock down open 3s, making 39.0 percent this past season.
Fleming is also notable because he really puts the “jump” in jump shot; while some players barely get off the floor on catch-and-shoot attempts, Fleming rises high before letting it rip. Between that and his size, shooting over closeouts should be no problem.
Defensively, he also helped up in switches and had high rates of blocks and steals. He played center at times, and with his measurements, one could imagine him there in switch-heavy small-ball lineups.
Because of the limited shot-creation profile and questionable feel, Fleming feels more like a role-player bet than somebody with elite upside. That said, his ability to check the boxes that NBA teams need from off-ball players gives him a rotation floor as long as the jumper connects.
Arkansas
Age: 21
Height: 6-6
Position: F
Thiero had a breakout junior season at Arkansas after two years at Kentucky; scouts had always been enamored of his defensive talent, but he showed a lot of progress as a scorer and finisher at the offensive end. Thiero made 60.5 percent of his 2s and coupled it with a massive free-throw rate (13.7 freebies per 100 possessions in SEC play, or nearly one for every 2-point field goal attempt). He can be overwhelming once he gets a head of steam or a defender on his hip, with a solid frame and athleticism, and that should translate well to the more open court of the NBA.
What may not translate as well is his outside shot. Thiero shot 26.3 percent from 3 and 67.7 percent from the line; the eye test isn’t quite as bad as these results, but he has work to do to become a perimeter threat. He also doesn’t grade out well as a playmaker for others, something that could better leverage his driving ability.
On the defensive side, Thiero is a plus with fast hands, good mobility and a real knack for shot blocking for a player of his size (career 3.8 percent block rate). At the NBA level, he projects as an energy guy for defense and easy baskets to start his career, with starter upside if he can ever shoot consistently.
Michigan
Age: 21
Height: 6-11
Position: C
A late bloomer who started his career at Yale (I guess he couldn’t get into Virginia), Wolf has a lot of promise as a 7-footer who can handle the ball, but he’s not a true center, and I question how much he’ll play with the ball in his hands at the NBA level. While he occasionally cooked on drives, he was also extremely turnover-prone (6.0 miscues per 100), and some of the passes were atrocious. Wolf also doesn’t check the “stretch big” box yet; he only made 33.4 percent from 3 and a horrific 59.4 percent from the line.
Defensively, Wolf didn’t have huge rates of blocks and steals, but his defensive tape looked pretty solid. Teams tried to get him switched onto guards with regularity, but Wolf rarely conceded blow-bys and used his length to get late challenges on stepback jumpers. As a secondary shot blocker, his 4.6 percent block rate while playing mostly at power forward is pretty impressive.
Watch here , for instance, as he gets Purdue’s Braden Smith on a switch with a live dribble, cuts off his first driving angle and blocks his stepback jumper.
Overall, Wolf is a player if the 3-point shooting comes around, and the ability to steal some minutes as a junk-ball center is a nice bonus. This is around the part of the draft where the gamble feels worth it.
North Carolina
Age: 19
Height: 6-5
Position: F
Powell is 6-5 but measured with a 7-foot wingspan and blasted off a 37 1/2-inch no-step vertical at the combine, the highest of the camp by 4 inches. That’ll get people’s attention.
Powell looks like somebody who should be a good defender, but the numbers and tape didn’t bear that out. He had a pretty low steal rate for this archetype of player (only 1.4 thefts per 100 possessions in ACC play), and the tape showed him as something of an irrational confidence guy on that end; he’d crowd guards like he was prime Jrue Holiday but get cooked on the first step and end up chasing the play. Since everyone loves Cooper Flagg highlights, here’s an example.
There might be some easy technique fixes that could help Powell along; certainly, his late-play shot challenges were NBA-caliber. However, other question marks pop up from his lone season. For somebody with his length and athleticism, the rebounding is shockingly bad (7.5 percent rebound rate in conference), and the offense is a work in progress.
That said, Powell is a threatening off-ball player without needing to self-create a lot of shots, just because he’s such a threat to rise up and score in the paint on cuts or catch-and-gos. He made 59.2 percent of his 2s, and the 3-point shooting (36.2 percent on low-ish volume) was respectable enough from an 18-year-old freshman.
Powell has a wide outcome variance, but his wingspan and athleticism are rare enough that he’s good developmental play late in the first round.
Saint-Quentin (France)
Age: 19
Height: 6-3
Position: G
The French league isn’t good enough for teams to use high picks on players who only post middling numbers over there, something the league still doesn’t seem to have totally figured out. Traoré, however, seems like a case where the scouts have it right, moving him sharply down boards after a disappointing season in France. (His strong performance at the 2024 Hoop Summit initially had scouts pegging him for the lottery.)
Shooting, in particular, remains in issue; Traoré now has a pretty large sample over two seasons that suggests he’s quite below average in this area. In that time, he’s shot 30.6 percent from 3 on 385 attempts and 73.5 percent from the line. It’s not like he was anything special inside the arc, making 46.7 percent of his 2s. More encouragingly, he had a high assist rate with two dimes for every turnover. Overseas scorekeepers don’t hand out assists like Halloween candy the way they do over here, so a 3.11 pure point rating for a teenage point guard in a European pro league is impressive.
Traore’s anemic rebound rate at this level (5.5 percent) and his relatively low steal rate (1.7 percent) also stand out as concerning; maybe he’s just not as athletic as we thought. On the other hand, if the shooting turns the corner, he’s a big point guard (6-3 with a 6-8 wingspan) who can run an NBA offense at a backup-level at worst.
Connecticut
Age: 19
Height: 6-7
Position: F
I can’t quite hate on this guy despite the rough numbers from his freshman season. Let’s start here: McNeeley shot only 31.7 percent from 3, and I straight up reject this as a summary of his shooting ability.
I saw UConn in person twice, and both times McNeeley’s pregame warm-ups were a series of buttery splashes of on-the-move catch-and-shoots from beyond the 3-point line. He shot 86.6 percent from the line, and analytics gurus will tell you his 10.4 3-point attempts per 100 possessions were a better tell on his ability than the number that went in.
Defensively, his very low steal rate (just 1.1 per 100 possessions in Big East play) is a concern for his projection going forward. Opposing guards tried him often, but McNeeley usually did a good job sliding his feet, staying in front and using his size to contest. Usually. He has a habit of sometimes sitting up in his stance, and anytime that happened, it was an instant blow-by.
He may also play some power forward as he develops. McNeeley has a strong base with thick legs and posted an 11.4 percent rebound rate as a freshman. He also jumped 30.5 inches from a standstill at the combine, a good omen for him to take frontcourt minutes.
There may be some bumps along the way, but I believe too much in the shooting to keep McNeeley out of my first round.
Duke
Age: 21
Height: 6-4
Position: G
Everyone kind of forgot about Proctor once the lottery hype faded during his freshman season, but he’s made considerable progress as a shooter in his three years at Duke and now profiles as a potential Landry Shamet-type combo guard as a pro.
Proctor has a skinny frame and doesn’t have the blast-off athleticism to get all the way to the cup with regularity, but he’s always been very good at using ball screens and getting to pull-ups, which should make him a useful secondary operator. Additionally, can we talk about the 3? Proctor hit 40.5 percent from distance on high volume (11.6 per 100 possessions), and while we can’t totally trust that yet given his free-throw shooting (76.8 percent career) and previous history, it’s a tremendous omen for a guy whose likely NBA role is mostly off the ball.
As a defender, Proctor is handsy and active and slides his feet pretty well, but offensive players had no problem either going through his body to get to a finish or pulling up and playing over the top of him. He’s not a plus athlete, will give up size to NBA wings and doesn’t have great ballhawking instincts. You’re mainly hoping he won’t bleed too much on this end so that his shooting and ballhandling can fortify the second unit.
Colorado State
Age: 23
Height: 6-5
Position: G
Clifford got better every year in college, and he’s highly believable as a role player who defends, rebounds and makes the right play to keep things moving offensively. He’d be easier to rank in my top 20 if I had more faith in his jump shot, but that is going to be a swing skill. Clifford made 37.7 percent from 3 in his fifth year at Colorado State and notably increased his volume from outside, but the eye test on the stroke is less convincing; his being a 72.4 percent career foul shooter doesn’t help the argument.
Clifford isn’t going to live on self-created shots, although he has some post game against smaller guards that likely won’t be a thing at the next level. However, he is a good straight-line driver who should be able to thrive on “grab-and-gos” and has enough bounce to finish in traffic once he gets going to the rim. His court vision and basketball IQ to make a play against rotations are above average.
Defensively, he could end up being good. He’s not a ballhawking pest, but he has a solid frame, moves fairly well laterally and is a go-and-get-it rebounder who could steal minutes as a small forward or even power forward because he’s so good on the glass. There is some Josh Hart DNA in here if he had more of a handle to push his own rebounds.
Of course, Clifford was a 23-year-old fifth-year senior playing in a mid-major league; his numbers should be really good if he’s an NBA player going against that level. Most likely, he translates as a fringe rotation player, but there is starter-ish upside if the shooting clicks and becomes a real threat.
Florida State
Age: 23
Height: 6-5
Position: F
Watkins got scouts’ attention at the combine with his suffocating ball pressure, and the tape shows this was not a one-off event. He had some of the best one-on-one defensive tape of any player in this cycle, especially in the second half the season. Watkins picks up full court, has pesky hands for steals and walls off drivers to draw charges. He can play close and still beat his man to the spot laterally, like this.
Watkins can get a little overzealous and pick up fouls; his rate of 5.8 personals per 100 possessions is a lot for a wing. But he should be a defensive stopper from the word go.
I can’t put him higher than this, however, because of worries about whether his offense will come along for the ride. Watkins played a high-usage role at Florida State but still may be a fifth option as a pro, which should ease some of the transition. That said, he shot 32.5 percent from 3 for his college career and had more turnovers than assists. He wasn’t a whole lot better inside the arc; while there is enough size and athleticism to create shots and he can make some cross-court passes out of pick-and-roll, the overall feel for scoring and playmaking just isn’t NBA-caliber.
Nonetheless, Watkins seemed to show at the combine that he had bought into the idea of being a defensive monster and worrying about the offense later. He could be an impact energy guy right away if it all clicks.
Creighton
Age: 23
Height: 7-1
Position: C
A huge center who mostly played in Grand Canyon-deep drop coverages and will be challenged guarding in space at the next level, Kalkbrenner nonetheless has enough size and skill combination to be an effective backup center.
He measured 7-1 with a 7-6 wingspan at the draft combine and uncorked a solid 29-inch no-step vertical, indicating there also may be some untapped potential as a vertical threat in the half court. He isn’t just dunks and layups either, showcasing an emerging 3-point threat (31.4 percent career) while leading the Big East in both shooting percentage and effective field goal percentage four years in a row. He doesn’t turn it over either; he’s just an efficient, not terribly flashy offensive player who converts a lot of short-to-midrange paint shots.
On the downside, Kalkbrenner doesn’t always play as big as his height. His rebound rates have been persistently disappointing; he can be pushed around in the paint by physical post players, and the shot blocking is good but not as elite as you might think from a huge center playing a deep drop.
I don’t see a starter here, and I’m not a massive fan of drafting centers in general, but Kalkbrenner’s size, touch and productivity suggest a floor as a backup.
Northwestern
Age: 23
Height: 6-4
Position: F
Barnhizer is a below-the-radar second-round draft prospect after a foot injury cost him most of his senior year. However, there are a lot of things to like if he can make 3s. Barnhizer has great size for a wing, with a strong frame and a 6-11 wingspan. He had a 2.5 percent career block rate and rebounds like a power forward (13.2 percent career in Big Ten games). Despite his listed size, he can probably play a lot of minutes at small forward.
On tape, Barhizer seemed to have his hands down a lot and was just OK sliding laterally, but his high steal rate underscores the fact that his length makes him a pest.
As for the offense … Barnhizer shot 35.0 percent from 3 and 76.6 percent from the line, pretty meh numbers for a player whose catch-and-shoot 3s will be his primary weapon at the next level. He didn’t shoot 3s with great frequency, but they’re a better plan than having him operate inside the arc (46.1 percent career on 2s in Big Ten games).
Teams will also do their homework on his season-ending foot injury, although there are no smoke signals yet that it’s a problem for anyone. If he can be enough of an offensive threat to keep defenses honest, Barnhizer has a great chance to be a rotation wing.
Sydney Kings (Australia)
Age: 21
Height: 6-7
Position: F
It was easier for me to buy into the idea of Toohey after watching him at combine scrimmages; he didn’t get much attention for it, but to me, he was one of the best players. In 45 total minutes over two games, Toohey had 24 points, 10 rebounds, four steals and shot 8 of 13 from the floor.
If we could just go off that, Toohey would be a first-round pick, but we have an entire season of data from Australia that suggests the offense will be a bit more of a bumpy ride. Toohey is a theoretical floor-spacing forward who unfortunately hasn’t shot particularly well yet; he only made 34 percent of his 3s last season in the Australian National Basketball League and 73.7 percent from the free-throw line. You might overlook that if he had shown more class as a finisher, but he lacks explosiveness and is not particularly adept at finishing near the cup.
Where Toohey stood out was with his defensive playmaking, with 70 “stocks” (steals + blocks) in just 751 total minutes; his rates in both categories were considerably higher than the positional norm and predictive of greater potential in other areas. While in theory he’s not a lockdown individual defender, he’s such a good team defender and overall ballhawk that he’s likely additive on that end, especially at 6-8 with the ability to guard multiple positions.
KK Cedevita Olimpija (Slovenia)
Age: 18
Height: 6-9
Position: C
Beringer had a 12 percent usage rate in Slovenia. I have a hard time buying that somebody who is this much of an offensive zero in this low level of a league is going to make an impact at the NBA level.
Beringer’s size and shot blocking are notable; he’s 6-11 and posted an 8.4 percent block rate last year. However, it’s not like we’re talking about prime Hakeem Olajuwon here; Goga Bitadze played in the same league at the same age and had a 9.4 percent block rate.
The same thing goes for rebounding. If Beringer is such an awesome specimen, why did he only grab 16.8 percent of missed shots in the Adriatic League? In their same age-year seasons in that league, Bitadze nabbed 16.7 percent, and he was shooting 3s on offense; Marko Simonović grabbed 22.3 percent, and Karlo Matković 17.4 percent. I’ve seen comparisons to a young Clint Capela, but similar analysis applies: Capela nearly led the French league in PER as a teenager. NBA-caliber bigs, even “raw” ones, almost always dominate lesser leagues like the Adriatic.
Maybe I’m just being dense and missing all the potential. To me, Beringer’s best case is that he turns out like Yves Missi, where the offense turns the corner enough that he becomes a viable pro center. More likely, he’s Jericho Sims. I can’t get excited about a center like that in the middle of the first round, where many projections have him going.
Illinois
Age: 19
Height: 6-8
Position: F
Collegians who profile as tough-shot makers don’t tend to translate really well to the NBA, especially if they couple it with a suspect jump shot as Riley does. He only made 32.6 percent from 3 and 72.4 percent from the line, and the eye test supports the idea that the shooting form needs a little work. Even inside the arc, he only shot 50.2 percent, although he had solid playmaking numbers for this archetype and a low turnover rate.
Riley combines that with nonexistent event creation on the defensive end, which will be a red flag in analytics models. He has no strength and gives way too much cushion at times, although the tape showed that his feet are decent. Riley doesn’t have long arms for his height, but as a tall wing, he can probably be OK one-on-one if he can figure out how to give ground and then contest late.
Maybe I’m being too cynical; I’m generally a fan of drafting tall wings, and Riley has some ball skills to pair with his size. But between the lack of defense and the iffy shooting, there are too many suspect lines in the resume for me to believe in him as a first-rounder.
Real Madrid (Spain)
Age: 19
Height: 6-6
Position: F
NBA teams, in general, underestimate the predictive value of stats from European leagues. I call it Hezonja’s Razor: Usually if a player’s numbers aren’t good over there, it’s because he’s … not good. Maybe González is good enough defensively to become an exception, but a 9.8 PER with more turnovers than assists and a 28.7 percent mark from 3 is discouraging.
González is a good athlete with a solid frame who might be able to play some power forward, even at 6-6 – he had a 10.1 percent rebound rate and 3.0 percent block rate in the highest-level European league. However, he also fouled like crazy, committing more than one every six minutes.
One benefit to taking González in the second round, however, is that he does have some potential stashability. With a steep buyout on his Real Madrid deal, a team with head-count issues could park him off the roster for a year before bringing him over.
Stanford
Age: 22
Height: 7-1
Position: C
I’ve seen a lot of first-round projections on Raynaud, and I don’t really see the fascination. He’s a theoretical stretch five who shot a fair amount of 3s at Stanford, but he didn’t shoot them notably well (34.7 percent).
Watching his pregame work before the Georgia Tech game, this was not a dude raining fire; he can make a 3, but you don’t fear him taking one. I’d describe him as more generally skilled, however; he’ll be fine in dribble -handoff and elbow concepts away from the basket.
Defensively, I’d describe him as mildly switchable; they let him do it a lot, and he held up mostly OK. He’s not a notably good rim protector, but he does rebound, leading the ACC in rebound rate.
Overall, there might be a backup center in here somewhere, but I don’t get super excited about drafting centers in general and don’t think he warrants an exception to the rule.
Penn State
Age: 22
Height: 6-11
Position: C
One of the big winners of the draft combine, the Swiss center was a mile deep on draft boards until he showed out at the G League Elite camp; from there, his measurements and play in scrimmages put him firmly into the second round for most analysts.
Niederhauser is quite athletic for his size, posing an impressive 33-inch no-step vertical while measuring 6-11 with a 7-3 wingspan at the combine. A late-bloomer who hardly played his freshman season at Northern Illinois, he posted a massive 10.2 percent block rate in Big Ten games at Penn State. His rebound rate is still disappointing for a player of his size and leaping ability, and I have some questions about his hands, but the defense is what will get him drafted. He showed competence guarding in switches on tape, and he is a true rim protector on the back line.
The hard part is figuring out how much offense will come along for the ride. Niederhauser is a rim-running dunker but doesn’t have great feel or much shooting ability at this point, and again, I worry about the hands. There is some hope that he can find the range from 15 feet; his career 64.8 percent mark from the foul line offers glimmers of hope.
Relative to a player like Beringer (above), Niederhauser is older and probably offers less right-tail upside. Most likely, he’s a third center, but scenarios where the shot blocking makes him a plus backup aren’t too hard to envision.
Georgetown
Age: 23
Height: 6-6
Position: F
It’s easy to be leery of a breakout by a fifth-year senior, but Peavy had been a “next year” guy in scouts’ notebooks since his freshman year at Texas Tech. In 2024-25, next year finally happened – he hit 40.0 percent of his 3s on offense and took his inner bulldog to another level on defense.
Defense is his best selling point at the pro level; Peavy is an in-your-grill perimeter defender who knows he is there to make your life miserable. His 3.3 steals per 100 possessions in Big East games offered proof of concept, but the tape was more convincing. Peavy is up on his man and offering no quarter for scorers trying to iso, and he slides his feet to keep dribblers in front. That part of his skill set should translate right away.
Peavy comes with more offensive questions than most other players on this list. While he’s a good passer who has had very high rates of assists for a secondary player (5.2 dimes per 100 possessions in Big East games), the shooting and overall scoring ability remain questions. Yes, he shot 40 percent from 3 last season, but it wasn’t on huge volume, and it raised his career mark to … 32.3 percent. He’s also a career 60.6 percent marksman from the line … yikes. You would bet more on “non-shooter” than “shooter” if you were handicapping this, and that hurts his stock.
Peavy’s pathway to minutes is as a low-usage defensive specialist, with the variable being whether his shooting threat can get to the point that his defense keeps him on the court.
Wake Forest
Age: 22
Height: 6-3
Position: G
Sallis mostly fell off draft radars this season because he shot a bunch of bricks from 3 (27.7 percent), but underneath that is an athletic guard who can stay in front of point guards at the point of attack rather well.
The tape of Sallis in one-on-one defense against little, fast guys is impressive; he needs to get better at navigating screens and buy into the role more, but he could be the rare guy who becomes a go-to defender against the Darius Garlands and De’Aaron Foxes of the league. Getting him in an NBA strength program could also help fill out his 180-pound frame and survive those screens better.
Sallis also has some explosiveness at the offensive end, surprising defenders by going for pogo dunks at the end of drives or elevating in the paint to complete plays; shooting 55 percent on 2s in ACC games in back-to-back seasons at his size is pretty impressive. However, he’s not a real point guard, and his outside shooting comes and goes, so it’s not clear what his go-to skill is as an offensive player. At the NBA level, he might be able to eat as a secondary option on cuts, fast breaks and catch-and-gos, but he has to make enough perimeter shots to keep defenses honest.
It seemed he had achieved that level when he made 40.5 percent of his 3s as a junior on decent volume, but he regressed in his fourth season. A career mark of 33.3 percent on just 6.8 attempts per 100 possessions isn’t scaring anybody. One nugget of hope: a career 78.7 percent mark from the line, including 80.4 percent in his senior year. If he makes perimeter shots, Sallis can probably crack the back end of a rotation.
Louisville
Age: 22
Height: 6-1
Position: G
Are we completely sure this guy isn’t a player? I get all the reasons to discount Hepburn – he’s 6-1, he only jumped 26 inches at the combine and he shot 32.6 percent from 3 last year. “Short, unathletic and can’t shoot” is not a titillating start to a draft profile.
But he just does stuff. In particular, his steal rate is wild. Hepburn pilfered 4.0 percent of opponent possessions last season, and this wasn’t a system thing on a pressing team; his steal rate was more than double that of any teammate. The disparity between Hepburn and his teammates was similar a year earlier at Wisconsin. The tape shows that Hepburn gets into the ball and really puts effort into pressuring dribblers, plus he rises up on shot challenges more capably than his vertical would make you think. He does foul a lot, however, and despite the pure effort, I’m not sure he’s that quick laterally.
Offensively, Hepburn needs to be a secondary player. His turnover rate spiked when he went to Louisville and had more offensive responsibility, and his outside shot is middling at best. He can see the floor and make the right dish, but even in college, he worked better as an accessory.
As a pro, he can be an energy guard off the bench who provides ball pressure and general defensive mayhem, especially if he tightens up the shooting a bit more and gets his percentage into the mid-to-upper 30s.
St. John’s
Age: 22
Height: 6-5
Position: F
Similar to Peavy above, I was lukewarm on Luis until I went back through his defensive tape. He was a beast on that end, and it was particularly impressive because he was also his team’s go-to offensive player. Luis slides his feet to stay with dribblers and has some real juice contesting and blocking shots, with the help of a 6-11 wingspan and a 31 1/2-inch no-step vertical. For a skinny guy, he also punches above his weight as a rebounder (13.5 percent rebound rate in Big East games).
I’m more concerned about Luis at the offensive end, where he’s a classic “trying to do too much” guy, something that was perhaps even more noticeable at combine scrimmages. Luis isn’t much of an outside shooter – 31.4 percent career from 3 on low volume – but he also only shot 48 percent on 2s in conference games each of the past two seasons. I’m not sure where else there is for him to shoot from. Additionally, Luis doesn’t see the floor well, with very low assist rates for a high-usage player.
There’s some hope that a 75.9 percent career foul shooter can straighten out his stroke from distance, and there’s an argument that Luis’ slashing style works better in the NBA’s more open floor. Improving his shot selection could also improve some of those percentages. At the start, however, Luis projects as a minus offensive player who will be trying to defend his way onto the floor.
Gonzaga
Age: 22
Height: 5-11
Position: G
Nembhard has many overlapping traits with those of his brother, Andrew, who plays for the Indiana Pacers. The key difference is that he is half a foot shorter. It is just so hard for small guards in the NBA; they need to excel in a wide variety of areas just to stay on the floor. Measuring at 5-11 immediately puts Nembhard behind the eight-ball.
That said, we have some reasons to bet on Nembhard as an exception. He had an off-the-charts assist rate (15.9 per 100 possessions) and nearly four dimes for every turnover; he’s a much more natural distributor than his brother. He also had a high rate of steals, as you might expect, and is a smart cookie on the defensive end, just like Andrew. He might not hold up well one-on-one, but in a team concept that makes use of scram switches, Nembhard might be less negative than you’d think.
As ever, that takes us to shooting as a swing skill. Nembhard shot 3s incredibly rarely for a player of his size, taking only 4.4 per 1200 possessions in his senior year at Gonzaga. He has to shoot them more, and he has to make the ones he shoots. A 40.4 percent mark from 3 his senior year is encouraging, but it still only lifted his career rate to 34.7 percent. His 78.4 percent mark from the line isn’t terribly encouraging either.
Teams might be fond of Nembhard late in the second round for another reason: He’s a third point guard his team can put on a two-way, and his presence guarantees that their G League team can run a real offense.
KK Mega Basket (Serbia)
Age: 19
Height: 6-10
Position: C
Marković showed enough skill in the Hoop Summit to remind teams of his long-term upside, spacing the floor as a big man, making plays off the dribble and scoring 16 points on seven shots. Of equal importance, perhaps, was that he had zero turnovers after being wildly miscue-prone in his season at Mega with a loose handle and a risk-taking tendency that left him flying too close to the sun. I’ll also note that Markovićwasn’t as impressive in the practices leading up to the event, with finishing at the basket a recurrent problem.
Marković has big-man size but is only 215 pounds with matchsticks for legs and has near-zero lower body strength; his best position is one of the forward spots. He’s not quite a money long-range shooter, but you can see how he could get there; Marković hit 38.8 percent from 3 this past season and 76.5 percent from the line. That’s going to be his best skill as a pro.
Defense is another concern, especially since he can’t play center. He has some mobility, but having to guard NBA-caliber perimeter players will leave him operating at the limit of his abilities.
The nice thing about Marković is that teams are comfortable with the development environment at Mega, which has been an incubator of some of the best young talent in Europe for the past decade. That makes stashing him overseas and putting him on an all-steak diet for a few years a palatable option in the second round.
Qingdao (China)
Age: 20
Height: 7-1
Position: C
Yang made an impression at the draft combine, showing that his skill set was no joke and that his height and broad shoulders will be tough to deal with even for pro bigs. Yang isn’t just a big oaf; he has a real feel for the game that shows especially in some of the spicy passes he throws. He isn’t a knockdown shooter, but his jumper is a real threat, and he can mash smalls on the block.
As long as the game stays around the rim, he’s OK on the defensive end too, controlling boards and blocking shots. However, his ability to guard anywhere in space is a major deficiency. He is neither quick nor instinctive, and his lack of athleticism at the most important defensive position offers him no place to hide. Teams will probably try to get by with him playing either a deep drop or stuffing him into the middle of a zone.
I’ve listed Yang as a stash pick here because I presume a two-way contract isn’t rich enough to get him to leave a pretty cushy situation overseas, and he is not yet worth bringing over on a roster contract. Leaving him in China is likely a suboptimal development scenario, however, so a team with open roster spots and little win-now pressure might consider importing him immediately.
Brisbane Bullets (Australia)
Age: 18
Height: 7-3
Position: C
There’s a point in the second round of the draft where it probably makes sense to select an ambulatory 7-foot-3 teenager regardless of what his stats were for the previous season. That’s especially true in a draft like this one, where the normal blooms of sophomores and juniors entering early has been so defoliated by NIL money.
Enter Zikarsky. He has been on draft radars for a while, even though it’s his first year of eligibility, and although he only played 12 minutes per game in the Australian NBL, his production wasn’t disqualifying. Scouts will want to see increased rates of blocks, dunks and rebounds from a player of his size, but it’s important to remember that he doesn’t turn 19 until two weeks after the draft, and he’s playing in an extremely physical league.
Big picture, Zikkarsky has a massive 9-7 standing reach and can get up and down the court. Picking him and letting him develop overseas is a half-decade-into-the-future bet from a pick position that is probably dead money otherwise.
Illawara (Australia)
Age: 21
Height: 6-8
Position: C
The only stash guy who is also a stache guy, Olbrich moved himself up draft boards with his play at the combine, where he racked up double-doubles in both scrimmages despite not checking the ideal boxes for a center’s height and skill set.
Olbrich is a knuckleball pitcher in a fastball league. He has to play center because he can’t shoot (54.6 percent from the line last season, three made 3-pointers in 40 games), but he doesn’t have a center’s size and offers near-zero rim protection. In theory, that should be disqualifying, and yet somehow, it’s not.
Olbrich is a really smart and skilled player and a very good ballhandler and passer for his size, with tremendous feel for the game. He can make plays in transition, dribble himself into easy finishes or short floaters and is a savvy screener. Not all of that translates to the defensive side, where he’s more vulnerable, but he has potential as a change-of-pace big with a second unit. That’s particularly true if he could partner in the frontcourt with a Myles Turner-type who blocks shots and stretches the floor.
For now, the best bet is to leave him overseas and see if he can develop an outside shot in the offseason. If it happens, he’s almost instantly a useful player.
Auburn
Age: 23
Height: 6-10
Position: C
Cardwell was pushed into a secondary role because the second-best player in college basketball plays the same position on his team, but he’s a big body who blocks shots at an extremely high rate, crashes the offensive glass and shows some passing acumen.
Cardwell cannot shoot at all – he’s a career 45.0 percent foul shooter – and he basically only shoots within 5 feet of the rim. However, further out on the floor, he’s surprisingly adept at setting up others – try finding another 260-pound center who hands out three assists for every turnover.
Defensively, his activity rate includes a guard-like steals rate, although he achieves that in part by fouling on every other play. His work on the defensive glass has also been underwhelming – last season he joined the rare ranks of players with a higher offensive rebound rate than defensive rebound rate.
Big picture, we’re talking about a fifth-year senior who averaged five points a game. But the defense might allow him to be a roster player who fills a role as a fifth big.
West Virginia
Age: 22
Height: 6-1
Position: G
It seems like every year some high-effort scrappy guard from the Big 12 ends up being way better in the NBA than people expected. I’m wondering if Small might be that guy this year.
The name is appropriate – he measured only 6-1 at the combine. However, his 33-inch no-step vertical allows him to play bigger than his size on finishes in the paint and on the glass. Additionally, a lot of the small guards who have made it are fire-hydrant-type bodies, and Small is strong and powerful.
Small is a decent distributor but nothing special; he is, however, a pesky defender who really battles on the perimeter against ballhandlers. At times, he can’t do anything about it when they get him closer to the rim and shoot over the top of him, and he’s not particularly handsy.
Small’s 3-point shooting numbers are forgettable (35.3 percent career), but two factors augur well for him.. First, he took a huge volume of 3s in his final year in college (12.5 per 100 possessions). Second, he’s an 87.1 percent career foul shooter; usually guys who are this accurate from the stripe eventually find the range from farther out. If the 3-point percentage comes up and he can hold his own on defense, he could be a solid backup.
Texas
Age: 23
Height: 6-6
Position: F
I can’t quit this guy (I hear my colleague Sam Vecenie giggling). Kaluma has prototypical small forward size (including a 7-1 wingspan) and an awesome shot fake but has never quite put it together as an offensive player.
His feel for the game is iffy, but he shot better in his final college season (35.9 percent from 3, 78.4 percent from the line), plus he rebounds like a power forward (15.8 percent rebound rate in SEC games) and offers some secondary rim protection as a shot blocker. He also doesn’t turn it over much, even if some of the shoot-pass decisions can be … suboptimal.
At the very least, I would love to see what this guy could do on a two-way in the NBA’s more open floor. Maybe the decisions and skill level just aren’t up to snuff, but in a league that’s constantly battling a paucity of wings in this size range, there’s a chance he can fill the role.
Duke
Age: 22
Height: 6-4
Position: G
James has a tremendous frame for an NBA wing; he’s strong, athletic and handles the ball well enough to pinch-hit as a point guard, and he won’t turn it over. He’s not a particularly accurate shooter, and the eye test on his shot is that it still needs some work at the top … but it’s not “he wit’ us” territory either. He only takes the wide-open ones, but James made 35.8 percent for his career on low-ish volume, including 41.3 percent as a senior.
James’ frame makes you think he might be an elite perimeter defender, but the tape doesn’t really show it. He’s not great laterally defending in space and fouled a lot for a perimeter player. He’s a bear on shot contests when he can line up his steps in time to get off the floor, but against drivers, he rarely found himself in the right spot to get off the floor.
James also had an extremely low usage rate his entire college career, even at Tulane before he transferred to mighty Duke; most eventual pros are go-to players on their college teams, especially backcourt players. James does enough things juuuust well enough to perhaps be an exception, but mostly likely tops out as a fringe rotation player.
Missouri
Age: 22
Height: 6-4
Position: G
A “young” senior with a February 2003 birthdate, Bates has a skinny frame and is not notably tall, but he is an efficient shooter. He shot 39.7 percent from 3 as a senior at Missouri but probably could stand to lean into the 3 more; we’re talking about somebody with a ridiculous 92.4 percent career mark from the free-throw line. He missed 14 free throws over his final 101 college games, spanning three seasons.
Somehow, he only tried 8.5 3s per 100 possessions last season; I get that he’s better with his feet set and more comfortably attacking the paint in straight lines once he dribbles, but man, it feels like there is some money left on the table there. That said, Bates is also quite efficient inside the arc (59.1 percent on 2s last season). He just can’t create off the dribble for himself or others.
Bates has a 6-10 wingspan and had a high steal rate as a senior, helping offset some of his physical disadvantages at that end, but his calling card will be as an offensive player. There is some Isaiah Joe potential here if he can hunt 3s more efficiently, and he might still be undervalued.
Nebraska
Age: 23
Height: 6-5
Position: G
A late-bloomer who hardly played his freshman season at Charlotte, Williams emerged as a go-to guy for Nebraska’s run to the newly created CBC tournament title. He has good size for a wing, with the help of a 6-11 wingspan, and can shoot, handle the ball and score. Williams’ career marks of 38.5 percent from 3 and 84.0 percent from the line bode well for his utility as a floor spacer at the next level, and he also shoots well on self-created pull-ups.
While his talents as a distributor are more pedestrian, Williams at least doesn’t turn it over. His three-level scoring means he can probably be an efficient play finisher at the next level, despite a lack of one-on-one chops, and might be effective in second-side actions.
Williams is also 24 and might be underpowered athletically at the next level, particularly on defense. He likes to give some cushion to dribblers and then use his length to contest jump shots late, but this is a less effective strategy against pros, and he’ll need to get into the ball more or give up a hailstorm of 3s off the dribble.
As with Bates above, there’s a chance Williams is effective enough as an offensive player that the subpar defense and athleticism aren’t too great a concern. He’s older than Bates, though, and the shooting track record isn’t quite as potent.
Nevada
Age: 23
Height: 6-7
Position: F
If there’s nothing overwhelming in Sanders’ résumé, there’s also nothing disqualifying. We’re at the point where that’s a positive. Sanders is a tall wing who can handle, pass and slide his feet on defense. He doesn’t have long arms, but he measured 6-7 in socks and posted a 30-inch no-step vertical leap at the combine.
Sanders is also a late-bloomer – he’s 23, but two years ago, he put up a meager 9.6 PER for Cal Poly in the not-even-mid-major Big West Conference. Then he erupted in his fourth and fifth college seasons. His shot is still a question mark (34.2 percent from 3 last season, 32.9 percent career), but he makes foul shots, and the larger arc of his career direction suggests this train might still be going up. His success as a passer at this size, in particular, suggests a feel for the game that might translate into other areas.
Maybe that ride ends with him being the third-best player on his G League team. But if the shooting, in particular, can go up another level, Sanders has a chance to be a helpful rotation player.
Kentucky
Age: 23
Height: 6-10
Position: C
One of my cardinal rules is to always give the benefit of the doubt to bigs who can pass. Williams has a giant 7-6 wingspan and a real feel for delivering the ball to teammates, doling out 8.6 assists per 100 possessions in SEC play, and history tells us that’s sometimes a signal of much greater latent ability. Williams’ length also makes him a real factor on the glass, where his 20.4 percent rebound rate led the SEC.
The rest of the résumé is markedly less exciting. Despite his size, Williams doesn’t block shots at a notably impressive rate, and he will be hunted mercilessly any time he ventures away from drop coverage onto the perimeter.
Offensively, he doesn’t pair his passing ability with any kind of floor-stretching component, which makes his ability to deliver from the elbows and out of dribble handoffs much less exciting. Williams is also relatively unathletic and not much of a vertical threat; he did draw heaps of fouls at Kentucky, but his finishing was unremarkable for a big man.
Kentucky
Age: 23
Height: 6-1
Position: G
Butler only measured at 6-1, but he’s a powerful 200 pounds and he posted a 32 1/2-inch no-step vertical at the combine. More importantly, his hands are super fast, often picking the ball away from opposing drivers who didn’t even know the ball was in danger. His rate of 3.4 steals per 100 possessions in SEC games is impressive, but he’s not just a steals merchant; Butler slides his feet and uses his strength to ward off ballhandlers without gambling. The bigger cost of his handsiness is in fouls (4.9 per 100 in SEC play), but as a likely low-minutes player at the NBA level, that’s less of a concern.
The worry with Butler is at the offensive end, where his career marks of 33.3 percent from 3 and 69.1 percent from the line are a clear negative for a player of his size. Butler can get some things done in transition and will move the ball to the open man, and he can get to pull-up jumpers in half-court settings (such as the memorable one to beat FAU in the NCAA Tournament semifinals when he was at San Diego State), but his offensive game isn’t scaring anyone.
Drafting Butler is a bet on the shooting improving to the point that he can be on the court for his defense, where his strength, frame and bounce could make him much more imposing than your typical 6-1 guard. He’s probably a two-way guy, but there’s a right-tail possibility of a mini-Marcus Smart in here.
Kentucky
Age: 22
Height: 6-5
Position: F
Brea might be the best standstill shooter in the draft, knocking down 49.8 percent and 43.5 percent from 3 over the past two seasons and hitting 91.4 percent of his rare free-throw attempts. That would make him a compelling draft target as a 3-and-D wing if he could just hold up on the “D” part, but a quick look at the tape in one-on-one situations and AGGGGHHHH, MY EYES!
Brea might be the single-worst perimeter prospect I’ve seen in terms of on-ball defense, giving ballhandlers miles of cushion and still getting cooked by virtually anybody with a first step. His extremely low rates of steals support the idea that he was an impact-free defender. The only positive is that Brea didn’t foul much; he was rarely close enough to hack his man’s arms without the help of a fruit picker.
In today’s NBA, somebody probably will draft him anyway. The premium on shooting is that high. Brea has decent size and rarely forces shots or turns the ball over; there’s a chance some team can get him in their player development lab and improve the defense enough to turn him into another Duncan Robinson. By the end of draft night, it’s a dart worth throwing.
Alabama
Age: 23
Height: 5-11
Position: G
As with Nembhard, Sears will be an extremely popular guy for teams that want two-way point guards to run their G League team. He’s a natural, left-handed, pick-and-roll player who operates as something of a destitute man’s Jalen Brunson – he’s not as big, not as strong and not as good, but he knows what he’s doing with a ball screen. He’s a good shooter, too, which forces opponents to go over screens against him and concede advantages as he uses the pick.
Sears played as a scorer as a collegian but almost certainly needs to tilt that balance much more heavily to distribution against NBA length and defenses. If he’s taking 21 field goal attempts per 100 like he did in college, something has gone very, very wrong.
At 5-11, Sears’ size is also an obvious disadvantage, and he doesn’t offset it on the defensive end with notable athleticism or instincts. He’ll be a target as soon as he takes the court. For that reason, he projects as a two-way point guard hoping his offensive utility pushes him into a roster spot.
Mississippi State
Age: 23
Height: 6-7
Position: F
Nobody is using a draft pick on a fifth-year senior forward who averaged 9.6 points and shot 24.0 percent from 3. But watch out for this guy stealing minutes while on a two-way because of his defense against apex wings. There are some Luguentz Dort parallels here: Matthews has brutish strength, lightning fast hands and can move his feet on the perimeter. He also fouls a lot, but his rate of 7.6 “stocks” (steals + blocks) per 100 possessions is pretty phenomenal.
Matthews also showed good feel as a distributor, averaging 7.1 dimes per 100 possessions despite being a very secondary offensive player. About that last part … Matthews shot 20.0 percent from 3 and 55.4 percent from the line for his career. All at once now: Yikes. Teams will likely need to stash him in the dunker spot to give him an offensive role; he did shoot 60.0 percent on 2s as a collegian. If he develops his 3-point shot into a one-in-three proposition, he’s an instant rotation player, but the odds don’t favor it.
Florida
Age: 22
Height: 6-3
Position: G
Some of the excitement about the allegedly 6-5 Richard fizzled when he measured 6-3 at the combine with a 26-inch no-step vertical, but his 6-10 wingspan allows him to survive as a wing even without great height or hops. Richard is strictly an off-ball player, but you can’t strictly call him a 3-and-D guy either. He’s great at getting out in transition or finding cuts for easy buckets, and amazingly for his size, he shot 60.6 percent on 2s over the course of his college career.
Richard shot a high volume of 3s his last two seasons but only made 35.5 percent for his college career; however, an 82.5 percent career mark from the line suggests there’s more upside. Defensively, he was a low-key playmaker with a solid 2.3 percent steal rate, although Martin (see below) was the team’s stopper.
Overall, I see a case where Richard isn’t superb in any one category but just solid enough across several to establish a foothold in the league. The margins are thin here given his size and meh athleticism, but I can’t help but think that every time I saw Florida, Richard just did stuff, even if he was never the main character. I wonder if he’s a bit slept on.
VCU
Age: 23
Height: 6-4
Position: G
Shulga’s no-show in the draft combine scrimmages likely raised some red flags among those already questioning the level of competition he faced at VCU. But going back through the tape against the higher-caliber teams the Rams faced, Shulga still looks like a draftable player. He’s a somewhat thickly built combo guard who can shoot, knocking down 39.2 percent of his career college 3s and shooting 82.1 percent from the line.
Shulga also has some pop off the floor, helping overcome short arms, and that’s how he posted a 10 percent rebound rate in his final season. Defensively, he won’t be a plus at either guard spot, but he’s active, posting a 3.2 percent steal rate. His on-ball tape doesn’t blow you away, but he is competent on the perimeter and has enough strength to deal with bigger players inside.
Shulga’s likely role is as a fifth guard who mostly plays off the ball. While he was a solid passer in college, the shot creation and finishing is more suspect; he shot 50 percent or less on 2s in each of his final three college seasons despite playing in mid-major leagues. As we get to the end of the draft, his name should come up frequently; if he goes undrafted, he’ll be a priority two-way.
Clemson
Age: 23
Height: 6-10
Position: C
Lakhin had a good enough senior season that he has a decent case for sticking in the NBA as a third center. The 7-footer demonstrated more skill than in past seasons, making 24 3-pointers in 34 college games and having as many assists as turnovers for a second straight season.
Defensively, Lakhin isn’t explosive, but he was an effective shot blocker at Clemson (7.3 percent block rate), a much higher rate than his first three years at Cincinnati. On the perimeter, he tends to play upright but does a good job with angles; the tape showed guards had trouble beating him cleanly when he was left on an island. While I wouldn’t recommend this as a primary strategy against NBA talent, he’s not complete toast out there.
The intrigue here is that, if he can continue developing the perimeter shot, he has enough craft as a passer and dribble-handoff guy to provide plus offense as a backup center. More likely, he settles in as a killer in the G League who isn’t quite good enough to play center against pros.
Tennessee
Age: 23
Height: 6-4
Position: G
The best shooter left on the board, Lanier isn’t quite as deadly from 3 as Brea and still presents a lot of the same weaknesses. Still, Lanier shot 49.2 percent from 3 over his college career and 82.4 percent from the line, and he played as a scorer who wasn’t just getting to those percentages on catch-and-shoots. He’s a better athlete than Brea and has a chance to stick as a movement shooter.
The bad news is just about everything else. Aside from shooting, Lanier basically did nothing at an NBA level; he’s not a point guard, he puts no pressure on the rim, he’s a minus defender, and he doesn’t draw fouls. About the best that can be said is he rarely turns the ball over.
Lanier is small for a wing at 6-4, but a 6-9 wingspan and a 33-inch no-step vertical will at least give him some chance at the defensive end. He was a minus defender, but his tape wasn’t the carcass-laden hellscape of Brea’s either.
UCLA
Age: 22
Height: 6-6
Position: G
Johnson got a lot of talk in draft circles a couple years ago, and then everyone just kind of forgot about him. He’s not a wild athlete, and he’s an underwhelming shooter, but Johnson has a great nose for the ball that makes him a role-playing 3-and-D wing candidate.
Johnson’s rates of steals, in particular, have been consistently phenomenal, with a rate of 4.0 swipes per 100 possessions for his career; he does this despite lacking great length or turbo athleticism and has done it in two different programs. His 1.9 percent career block rate is also unusually high for a player of his size, and he punches above his weight on the glass as well. For somebody who only jumped 24 1/2 inches from a standstill at G League Elite camp, this is incredible stuff.
Johnson is also a good passer who averaged over six assists per 100 possessions in each of his last two college seasons, while at two different programs. The shooting is underwhelming and will need to improve (33.9 percent career from 3 on fairly low volume, 7.7 percent from the line), and he doesn’t have a lot of juice for self-created shots, but there might be enough here to be a roster player as a fifth wing.
Tennessee
Age: 22
Height: 6-9
Position: F
In a draft where every other player seems to be a 6-5 shooting guard, there aren’t that many players in Miličić’s size cohort. He’s a true power forward who offers some secondary rim protection (3.6 percent career block rate) and finishing ability (62.6 percent career mark on 2s), plus he can rebound. On the other hand, the case against him is that he might just get big-boy’d by true post players but doesn’t quite have the lateral ability to hang with perimeter players.
Can Miličić fill in the skill dimension well enough? He shot 34.5 percent on 3s for his college career, including just 31.4 percent in his senior year, but he had a high assist rate for a perimeter player. In most cases, this archetype tops out as a plus-starter in the G League, but finding big forwards who are truly capable of playing on the perimeter in an NBA game is a hard business. Miličić at least has a chance to become one.
Michigan
Age: 24
Height: 7-0
Position: C
A center with a giant wingspan (7-5 1/4 at the combine), great hands and at least some degree of skill outside the charge circle, Goldin can be a functional offensive center. He doesn’t get off the floor that quickly and doesn’t read what’s happening around him that well, but he can easily finish what other people start.
The more difficult part for him is at the other end, where he shows shot-blocking prowess but disappoints on the glass and is uncomfortable guarding in space. The overall package is probably good enough to survive some second-unit minutes, especially if he can add a bit more mobility. But as a fifth-year senior, Goldin probably is what he is at this point.
Florida
Age: 23
Height: 6-2
Position: G
Martin is a good athlete, a good defender and fairly steady outside shooter. The problem is that he can’t dribble and doesn’t read the floor particularly well as a passer. Those weaknesses consign him to playing off the ball, and as a 6-1 1/2 wing, his selling proposition becomes much dicier.
That said, he’s been a key player on two different wildly successful teams – FAU’s 2023 Final Four squad and Florida’s 2025 national champion. He can finish at the rim despite his size because he has such good elevation on the move, and while his 3-point percentages aren’t amazing, he’s shot them at a very high volume – as a result, he should have some gravity. Realistically, we’re probably talking about a fifth guard who is filling a 3-and-D role minus wing size, but Martin can crack the back end of a roster.
Mexico City Capitanes (G League)
Age: 19
Height: 6-6
Position: F
Pate might get drafted just because of the upside dice roll he represents late in the draft; pretty much everyone else available is 23, and Pate is 19. He also has prototypical wing size at 6-6, can handle the ball well enough to play point guard and changes ends with ease.
The issue is that Pate lacks both skill and explosion. The shooting is the most obvious expression of that, with Pate making just 24.0 percent of his 3s and 64.5 percent of his free throws over the last two seasons in the G League. Coming out of the G League Elite non-development program likely didn’t help matters, and drafting teams might think they can do better with his shot than his last two environments.
Pate wasn’t good inside the arc either. He only jumped 24 1/2 inches from a standstill at the combine and made 45.1 percent of his 2s in the G League. Similarly, his rates of blocks and steals were unimpressive; you just didn’t feel him in the course of the game unless he was making shots, and that didn’t happen real often.
Overall, he had a 7.9 PER last year in the G League … yikes. The arrangement that makes sense is a two-way with the signing team understanding that it’s taking a zero in the first year while it reworks his shot and hopes for some kind of payoff in Year 2 and beyond.
Arizona
Age: 23
Height: 6-2
Position: G
Finally turning pro after a 16-year college career, Love is only 6-2 but has a 6-9 wingspan and a 30-inch no-step vertical. As a result, he is capable of some spectacular in-game dunks. Otherwise, you don’t really feel his athleticism in the course of a game. He shot just 43.2 percent on 2s in his college career, didn’t draw a high rate of fouls and had unremarkable rates of steals and rebounds. He did block a lot of shots for a small guard, though.
As a shooter, Love may have more promise than his raw percentages indicate. He made only 32.3 percent from 3 in his college career, but on very high volume his last two seasons (over 13 attempts per 100 possessions), and he was an 83.5 percent career foul shooter who shot 88.9 percent from the stripe as a senior. He might be a good bet to shoot better as a pro from 3 than he did in college, especially because his role as a pro won’t allow for some of the shot selection he displayed as a collegian.
Love would have an easier pathway to rotational relevance if he could be a full-time point guard, but that doesn’t appear to be in the cards. He’s an OK distributor on the second side but not a pure shot creator off the dribble and prone to bad shot-pass decisions. His best role might be as a guy who guards the other team’s point guard while playing off the ball next to an apex wing.
Villanova
Age: 24
Height: 6-8
Position: F
I’m wondering what kind of player Dixon could be if he shed about 20 pounds and added a bit more speed and quickness to his game. The lefty is a big perimeter threat who shot 40.7 percent from 3 in his senior year and 38.7 percent from this career while weighing 259 pounds. Dixon has a big frame with a lot of muscle stacked on, but he’s still dragging all that around with him from end to end.
Playing lighter might even allow him to add some energy on the glass, where had a pathetic 9.0 percent rebound rate in his final season; it would definitely let him make more impact on defense, where he was a very vanilla big forward.
Dixon has a little bit in his bag beyond shooting 3s; he can post-up smalls in switches and make a pull-up after a shot fake; he also drew a ton of fouls for a 3-point specialist.
Nonetheless, he has no chance guarding NBA players on the perimeter at his current weight, and that relegates him to being a badly undersized stretch five. The possible opportunity is if he can play lighter and faster.
Wisconsin
Age: 24
Height: 6-5
Position: G
The 24-year-old Tonje is older than seven players on the NBA champion Oklahoma City Thunder after completing his sixth college season. It’s hard for me to get too excited about an old, bully-ball guard who spent his true senior year as the second-best player on a team that went 15-18 in the Mountain West. But let me try.
Tonje can shoot, and that’s everything in today’s NBA. He made 38.8 percent of his 3s on high volume last season and shot 90.9 percent from the line. That latter number was on a staggering 254 free throws, too; if he doesn’t have a 3, he tries to bulldoze his way into the paint and either overpower an opponent for a bucket or get fouled.
Needless to say, that approach doesn’t have a great history of translating against NBA athletes, but it’s possible he can be enough of a floor-spacing threat to sort of make it work. Tonje offered little in terms of defense or passing; this would basically be a bet on shooting and bucket-getting.
Kansas State
Age: 23
Height: 6-8
Position: F
Hawkins was invited to the 2024 combine but not to 2025’s event, despite playing fairly well in the 2024 combine scrimmages. He didn’t have a great year at Kansas State after playing four seasons at Illinois, but the overall body of work hasn’t really changed; he just had outlier bad shooting percentages.
Hawkins is a skill forward, in theory, who can shoot and pass. The problem is that both those skills are mercurial, at best. He shoots a decent volume of 3s but only made 31.5 percent for his career. Similarly, he can throw some genuinely spicy passes but has an unacceptably high turnover rate due to all the shaky decisions he makes along the way. Inside the arc, he’s not a great finisher around the basket for his size and only shot 52.6 percent on 2s for his career.
Defensively, Hawkins doesn’t have the size or hops to play the five, but he’s a playmaker who gets his hands on the ball and has a knack for shot blocking despite not being a leaper.
Most likely, you’d bet against Hawkins making it, but there are scenarios where his playmaking turns the corner and he becomes a useful offensive cog.
Perth Wildcats (Australia)
Age: 20
Height: 6-10
Position: C
I don’t really think he’s good enough, which is why I didn’t list him with the stash picks, but Almansa is another potential stash pick at the end of the second round. He was once regarded as a potential lottery pick before a forgettable 2023-24 season with Overtime Elite, and his performance in Australia this past year didn’t do a ton to change minds.
That said, he wasn’t awful, and he’s only 20. Maybe he will get better. Almansa’s problem is that he lacks a core skill; he doesn’t shoot nearly well enough to play as a stretch big, but he doesn’t have the explosion of a rim runner. He also only blocked 11 shots all season, which is a problem for a theoretical rim protector.
Underneath all that is some funky skill that maybe turns the corner someday. He can make little runners and paint shots that most bigs can’t access, he had more assists than turnovers and he doesn’t foul a lot. Relative to what else is available, you might choose to let Almansa develop on someone else’s dime.
John Hollinger ’s two decades of NBA experience include seven seasons as the Memphis Grizzlies’ Vice President of Basketball Operations and media stints at ESPN.com and SI.com. A pioneer in basketball analytics, he invented several advanced metrics — most notably, the PER standard. He also authored four editions of “Pro Basketball Forecast.” In 2018 he was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. Follow John on Twitter
