After six years of incompetence, complacency, and a love-hate relationship with play-in games, the sun finally shone in the Windy City when it was announced on April 6th that the Chicago Bulls were firing former President of Basketball Operations, Arturas Karnisovas, and General Manager, Marc Eversley.

Fans rejoiced as the team entered a clear rebuilding phase for the first time in years — now they just needed to know who’d be leading them into the future.

That question was answered a month later when the Bulls announced that they’d hired 39-year-old Bryson Graham as Executive Vice President.

Graham has been a part of NBA organizations for over 15 years, transitioning from an intern with the New Orleans Pelicans to becoming the team's eventual General Manager. He spent last season as the Senior Vice President of Basketball Operations for the Atlanta Hawks.

Graham comes to Chicago with years of experience in player development and scouting. During his introductory press conference, he introduced his draft and teambuilding philosophy focused on size, length, athleticism, and physicality, or SLAP for short.

Four days later, the Dark clouds that had loomed over the organization continued to dissolve.

When the lottery balls bounced for their final time, the Bulls were rewarded with the fourth pick, jumping five spots to give the team their highest pick since Patrick Williams.

How ironic for the fourth pick to end the last rebuild and to begin the next one.

Now that we know what picks Chicago will have, fans have spent the last week debating which prospects the Bulls should take and how they fit Graham’s philosophy.

With that in mind, I had the bright idea of creating a metric to try to measure each prospect’s SLAP relative to their position. This project was my most ambitious yet.

Methodology

To bring Graham’s SLAP philosophy to life, I built a composite metric that aims to measure how well each prospect fits the physical profile he described: size, length, athleticism, and physicality.

Pillars

Size: Average of a player’s height z-score and weight z-score.

Length: Average of a player’s wingspan z-score and standing reach z-score.

Athleticism: Average of a player’s dunks per 100 possessions z-score and block percentage z-score.

Physicality: Average of total rebound percentage z-score and fouls drawn per 40 z-score.

Final SLAP Score =Average of the four:

SLAP = (S + L + A + P) ÷ 4

All z-scores are calculated relative to their position group in order to make the metric position-adjusted rather than a single universal scale.

SLAP Percentile indicates where a prospect ranks within the dataset. Position Percentile shows where a prospect ranks only against players at his own position.

This metric measures how functional their tools were during gameplay, not while running or jumping around in an empty gym.

Here are the results:

Limitations / Caveats

This isn’t a perfect measurement of athleticism, and it is far from it. Athleticism can be measured in about a hundred different ways, depending on what you value. I chose dunks per 100 possessions and block percentage because they capture explosiveness and vertical athleticism, but they don’t account for lateral quickness, acceleration, deceleration, flexibility, coordination, etc.

Physicality might be the hardest trait to quantify in Graham’s SLAP framework. We don’t have great, publicly available metrics to measure Strength, toughness, motor, screen setting, fighting through screens, and finishing through contact. I used foul drawing and rebounding as proxies, but they still have their flaws.

Position labels matter. A lot. Since this study calculates z-scores relative to positional peers, a player's categorization can dramatically change the outcome.

Keaton Wagler is the biggest example of this. He is the biggest listed point guard in the class, rebounds well, and draws fouls, but if he were listed as a shooting guard, his measurables would not be nearly as impressive; he would fall down the rankings.

I used the position label NBA.com uses for prospects, for uniformity and consistency, but many of them, like Yaxel Lendeborg, will play multiple positions in the league. If listed as a small forward, the position he played second most this season, he ranks #1 in the entire class.

Additionally, SLAP isn’t independent of team context. For example, Lendeborg played more four while at UAB and wasn’t playing next to two of the most physically imposing players in the country, which, along with a bump in competition, likely hurt some of his rebounding and dunk numbers.

This is not a historical study. Right now, this stat only compares prospects against this class. So when someone lands in the 95th percentile, that means they’re in the 95th percentile of this specific group, not every draft class we’ve ever seen.

The smaller pool leaves some room for outliers. The long-term goal is to expand this historically so that we can compare this year’s prospects with those of previous classes.

The weighting is subjective because, well, I made it up. Graham said he values size, length, athleticism, and physicality, so I weighted each pillar equally. Maybe that’s accurate. Maybe he values length twice as much as physicality. Maybe athleticism is the real separator. Maybe I can interview Graham one day and ask him.

Draft Board

The Bulls are bereft of talent and in no position to draft for fit, so I’ll aim to target the best player available at every spot, with the SLAP philosophy and their core of Josh Giddey (right now), Matas Buzelis, Noa Essengue, Leonard Miller, and Jalen Smith in the back of my mind.

At every pick, I will try to focus on players I believe will be available within the range of the pick, based on publicly available, intel-based mock drafts.

Pick 4

1. Cameron Boozer

School: Duke

Class: Freshman

Position: Power Forward

Height: 6’8.25

Weight: 252.8 LBS

Wingspan: 7’1.5

Drat Day Age: 18.9

SLAP Percentile: 82

If the Grizzlies, who are widely known for their love of analytical models, decide to pass on Boozer at three, the Bulls should sprint to the podium and draft the best player in the class. Boozer pairs his size, length, functional athleticism, and physicality with a superb feel for the game and outside shooting.

He’s shown versatility across different playtypes, effectiveness in different roles, and has historically had the highest impact on winning of any player in the class.

His handle, middle of the floor counters, and burst are concerns for his offense, while his hip mobility and vertical explosions are concerns defensively, but how poetic would it be to have a Boozer back in Chicago?

2. Caleb Wilson

School: North Carolina

Class: Freshman

Position: Power Forward

Height: 6’9.25

Weight: 210.8 LBS

Wingspan: 7’0.25

Draft Day Age: 19.9

SLAP Percentile: 88

Wilson to Chicago is one of the most likely picks in the entire class, and he is the epitome of what Graham describes in his SLAP philosophy. He is arguably the best athlete in the class, with good length, and he plays with tenacious energy. Wilson was one of the most productive freshmen in the country this season and impressed me with his ability to handle high usage and maintain elite effiency.

Currently, Wilson is a tweener who functions as a five on offense and a four defensively, which could lead to lineup constraints down the road, but the Bulls don’t have the luxury to worry about that, and Wilson’s age-adjusted production, role malleability, and two-way potential are too good to bet against.

Pairing Wilson with Buzelis would make for one of the better combinations of nail defense and weakside rim protection in the league.

Pick 15

1. Ebuka Okorie

School: Stanford

Class: Freshman

Position: Point Guard

Height: 6’1.25

Weight: 186 LBS

Wingspan: 6’7.75

Draft Day Age: 19.2

SLAP Percentile: 81

Some will be surprised to see Okorie take my top spot at 15, but he’s worth the selection. Okorie has the best combination of speed, athleticism, handle, and counters of any guard in the draft, and it has largely gone overlooked.

He handled extremely high usage in a poor context without turning the ball over, and he remained efficient and impactful for Stanford’s offense. His passing/assist numbers have been underwhelming for his usage, and he needs to improve his ability to make advanced reads, but he’s not a poor passer by any means.

With a guard of his size, defensive viability will always be a concern, but he surprised at the combine with a near 6’8 wingspan and gives effort at the point of attack. The fit next to Josh Giddey could raise some short-term questions on both ends, but the Bulls desperately need his creation juice.

2. Jayden Quaintance

School: Kentucky

Class: Sophomore

Position: Center

Height: 6’9

Weight: 253.4

Wingspan: 7’5.25

Draft Day Age: 18.9

SLAP Percentile: 64

Quaintance was out for most of the season recovering from an ACL injury that he suffered in February of 2025.

His injury, temporary return, and a loud contingent of disgruntled Kentucky fans have overshadowed the fact that he was one of the best defenders in the country as a 17-year-old freshman in a power conference. His combination of strength, length, athleticism, and motor makes him arguably the best defender in the class, and that alone would make this a potential homerun selection at 15.

He’s quite rough around the edges offensively, as he needs to improve his touch and decision-making, but playing with higher-quality playmakers (even relatively) in a smaller role should maximize his effiency on play-finishing playtypes.

3. Morez Johnson

School: Michigan

Class: Sophomore

Position: Power Forward / Center

Height: 6’9

Weight: 250.6 LBS

Wingspan: 7’3.5

Draft Day Age: 20.4

SLAP Percentile: 93

Johnson is a tenacious defender with a relentless motor who can guard up and down the lineup. He’s what I call a positive tweener. A player that can add value at both the four and the five and not hurt lineup construction.

His ability to play-finish, run in transition, offensive rebound, protect the rim, and potentially space the floor is exactly the type of skill set the Bulls need.

4. Cameron Carr

School: Baylor

Class: Junior

Position: Shooting Guard

Height: 6’4.75

Weight: 184.4 LBS

Wingspan: 7’0.75

Draft Day Age: 21.7

SLAP Percentile: 96

If the Bulls selected Carr here, they’d add much-needed shooting, athleticism, and play-finishing. Carr was the only high-major player in the country with 50 threes, 40 dunks, and a 3-block percentage or higher.

However, there is some risk here. Carr didn’t break out until he was 20 years old, is fairly light for his size, is heavily assisted, is not a good passer, and struggled to finish from 2 against tougher competition, but he was overtasked. In a scaled-down role, his shooting, cutting, closeout attacking, and weakside rim protection should provide value.

5. Dailyn Swain

School: Texas

Class: Junior

Position: Wing

Height: 6’6.5

Weight: 211.2

Wingspan: 6’10

Draft Day Age: 20.11

SLAP Percentile: 67

Swain has shown the ability to scale up and down throughout his collegiate career. His measurables, especially his weight and wingspan, were underwhelming — relative to what we thought they could be — but the application of his tools matters the most.

He has jumpshot concerns, and his turnovers spiked when he handled higher usage in conference play this season, but in a scaled-down role, his slashing, passing, and defense would be extremely useful for Chicago.

Pick 38

1. Malachi Moreno

School: Kentucky

Class: Freshman

Position: Center

Height: 6’11

Weight: 242.8 LBS

Wingspan: 7’1 1/2

Draft Day Age: 19.7

SLAP Percentile: 51

I was surprised to see Moreno declare for the draft this season, and there is even a chance he ends up as a late first-rounder. If he is on the board for the Bulls, he would be a good option for Chicago if they do not grab a center at 15.

Moreno was thrust into a weird situation this year, where he was supposed to be the third-string center but ended up playing 56.4 percent of Kentucky’s minutes. The freshman took his opportunity and ran with it, showcasing his ability to offensive rebound, block shots, and facilitate in the Wildcats offense.

He struggled to finish at the rim and needs to keep getting stronger, but he is an intriguing long-term play for a team desperate for talent.

2. Bruce Thornton

School: Ohio State

Class: Senior

Position: Point Guard

Height: 6’0

Weight: 223 LBS

Wingspan: 6’5

Draft Day Age: 22.9

SLAP Percentile: 68

Despite being an older prospect, Bruce Thornton has shown consistent year-over-year growth. He has put together multiple seasons in high-usage offensive roles without turning the ball over at an alarming rate. He was one of the biggest winners in the combine measurements, checking in at 220 pounds with a +5 wingspan, which helped ease some of the physical concerns evaluators may have had.

There are still athletic questions, particularly his ability to consistently get to the rim, but he dramatically improved as a two-point scorer over his final two seasons, which helps alleviate some of that concern.

He’s also one of the better bets in this class to become a reliable bench creator thanks to his shooting, strength, and decision-making. For a team that could use more shot creation and perimeter shooting in just about any form, this makes plenty of sense.

3. Trevon Brazille

School: Arkansas

Class: Senior

Position: Power Forward

Height: 6’9.5

Weight: 225.6 LBS

Wingspan: 7’3.75

Draft Day Age: 23.5

SLAP Percentile: 79

Because of injuries and a different role, it took five years for the player that many has a first-round pick in 2023 to come to fully realize, but Brzile’s production this season warrants a look at 38.

At the fourth, he provides athleticism, rim finishing, versatile defense, outside shooting, and the ability to attack a closeout and drive to the rim.

Pick 56

1. Richie Saunders

School: BYU

Class: Senior

Position: Wing

Height: 6’5

Weight: 208 LBS

Wingspan: 6’8.75

Draft Day Age: 24.9

SLAP Percentile: 74

Saunders is an older prospect who suffered a major injury this season. Those two facts will likely hurt his stock a great deal, but the player on the court deserves a pick much higher than 56.

Saunders is a tough, hard-nosed wing who is a much better and willing defender than given credit for. He’s also an excellent shooter and a good rebounder for his position.

His injury virtually ended BYU’s season, and though it came in unfortunate circumstances, his time away from the court proved how valuable he was to the team.

2. Rueben Chineylu

School: Florida

Class: Junior

Position: Center

Height: 6’9.25

Weight: 259.4 LBS

Wingspan: 7’7.50

Draft Day Age: 22.8

SLAP Percentile: 78

Chineylu is an older junior, but he didn’t begin playing basketball until he was a teenager. In the years since, he’s grown tremendously and refined his game. The player he is today is one of the best rim protectors and defenders in the class, whose freakish measurements were somewhat overlooked during the combine.

This past season, Chinyelu swept every major defensive player of the year award and provided a clear baseline of rebounding, play-finishing, and rim protecting. Theres a chance the Bulls would be more inclined to draft him at 38 than 56.

3. Ugonna Onyenso

School: Virginia

Class: Senior

Position: Center

Height: 6’11

Weight: 236.8 LBS

Wingspan: 7’4.75

Draft Day Age: 21.8

SLAP Percentile: 66

Onyenso’s stifling of Boozer in the ACC tournament put his skill set on display in front of millions of eyes, but he was having a historic season before that dominant performance.

Onyenso finished the season with the second-highest block percentage of any high major player since 2008 and completely shut teams’ water off at the rim at times.

It took three schools and four years for Onyenso to maximize his impact, and he needs continued offensive development, but in a center class that became much weaker after players returned to school, Onyenso could return value at pick 38 or 56.

In medieval times, the Knights of the Round Table were considered the most noble men in the land.

King Arthur created the Round Table to promote equality amongst his barons, but of course, history rarely honors equality.

We remember the tales of the stars: Sir Lancelot, Sir Percival, and Sir Tristan.

The 2026 NBA Draft point guard class feels like its own Round Table.

It’s a group scouts have been raving about for the last six months and touting as a potentially historic collection of lead guards. In June, we could see half a dozen selected in the lottery, and up to ten selected in the first round.

Despite the talk of depth, a hierarchy has unquestionably formed amongst consensus.

Darius Acuff, Keaton Wagler, Kingston Flemings, Mikel Brown, and Labaron Philon have received the loudest acclaim as the draft’s defining floor generals.

However, I find that despite his production, Stanford point guard Ebuka Okorie goes under-discussed and overlooked in these conversations.

He not only deserves a seat at the table, but has an argument to be at its head.

And when it’s all said and done, he could go down in history as one of the knights we tell stories about.

When Aesthetics Marries Impact

The basis of any star bet for Okorie is his ability to carry high usage while maintaining relatively positive effiency and minimizing turnovers. This season, he posted the lowest turnover percentage of any high-major freshman player with 30 percent usage since 2008 — a feat that puts him in company with the top three consensus players in the class.

Though unlike Peterson, he was on-ball more with much more playmaking usage, and unlike Dybantsa and Boozer, he didn’t share the court with other future NBA players.

A quick additional filter to adjust for initiators that saw significant playmaking volume puts into perspective how teflon of a creation season Okorie put on wax this year.

The ability to be an innings-eater while limiting individual and subsequently team turnovers is one of the prerequisites for potential primary initiators, and Okorie has passed that benchmark with flying colors.

According to CBB Analytics, the freshman had the greatest impact on team turnover percentage in the country. With Okorie on the floor, the team had an 11.9 turnover percentage (94th percentile) compared to a 20.5 turnover percentage with him off the floor (1st percentile).

Okorie was the sun for the Cardinals, and teams guarded him like it. He was often face-guarded, blitzed, or flat-out doubled in pick-and-roll actions, yet he still got downhill and to his spots.

Despite all of the attention from defenders, he used his speed, change of pace, dynamic handle, low center of gravity, and excellent contact balance to generate 0.992 points per drive, a 47.4 rim rate, and 6.4 unassisted rim attempts per 100 possessions.

As much as I am against aesthetic bias when evaluating basketball players, Okorie does have the “look” of a star guard going against competition he’s too good for. For my money, he is one of the five best advantage creators in the class.

He was often driving into a cramped paint, as the Cardinals routinely played two non-spacing bigs, which forced him to finish amongst the trees a ton. He was able to find success because of his ability to embrace contact, finish with either hand, and draw fouls (45.9 free-throw rate).

Okorie was also one of the most dynamic players in transition in the country last season, which was integral to keeping Stanford's offense afloat amid a lack of ball-handling and playmaking talent.

According to Hoop Explorer, 15.9% of the Cardinals’ plays were in transition (45.2 percentile), and they scored 1.36 points per play (96th percentile) with him on the court. Whenever he sat, their transition production plummeted to 12.3 plays per 100(6th percentile) and 1.16 points per possession (37th percentile).

Okorie’s first inclination is to get downhill and put pressure on the defense, but he routinely hurts defenses as a shooter, finishing the season shooting 35.4 percent from three on 9.7 attempts per 100 possessions.

Those figures aren’t great on their face, but far more palatable considering that he created nearly 59 percent of his three-point makes and shot 35.3 percent on above-the-break attempts (70th percentile).

Okorie’s efficient shot creation, turnover avoidance, and transition influence are the driving factors of why the Cardinals’ offense is 13.1 points better with him on the court compared to when he’s off (95th percentile swing).

But, there’s always a level of opportunity cost when investing in a small guard who is best with the ball in his hands.

The number of viable primaries of Okorie’s size (6’2, 186 LBS, 6'7.75 wingspan) that command heavy usage is dwindling by the season, and the barometer for offensive brilliance is higher than ever before. I believe Okorie to be one of the better star bets of the vaunted guard group, but his profile is far from bulletproof.

The 1.5 Guard Conundrum

The biggest issue with Okorie’s profile is that, though he soaks up so much usage without turning the ball over, he’s not a great passer or playmaker.

Without improvement, he could be this class’s example of a “1.5 guard”. A “1.5 guard”, not to be confused with a combo guard, is a score-first guard who is point guard-sized (6’5 and under) but doesn’t have the playmaking ability required of a primary initiator without diminishing returns.

However, said players are also too small to play at the two without a high risk of defensive issues in the backcourt.

A few examples of this idea in the league are Donovan Mitchell and Tyrese Maxey, or on a lesser scale, Coby White and Collin Sexton.

As previously mentioned, Okorie handled 30% usage but posted just a 23.9 assist percentage. His 0.80 AST/USG ranks in the 29th percentile for guards in the country.

My initial inclination was to grant Okorie some bail because his circumstances are poor. He played with two bigs that weren’t very athletic, nor good pick-and-roll partners, nor quality two-point scorers. Stanford, in general, was one of the worst two-point scoring teams in the country (241st in 2PT% and 277th in 2PT Rate), and none of its players generated rim assists.

However, this issue has been present in Okorie’s profile since before he arrived on campus. During his junior AAU season and his final season at Brewester Academy, he posted a 1.1 AST/USG rate and an assist percentage of just 19.

So sure, he gets a bit of slack for operating in a poor context, but he’s never profiled as a high-volume playmaker.

Though Okorie isn’t a black hole whatsoever.

He’s a willing passer and pretty comfortable making simple reads, such as drive-in kicks or punishing the low man for tagging rollers.

He does have plays where he probes well in the pick-and-roll and manipulates the defense with his eyes, but the vast majority of his playmaking is reactive, taking advantage of defenses that sell out to limit him as a scorer.

Where Okorie needs to improve is making more advanced interior reads, especially when passing on the move. He struggled at times to get the ball to his rollers in advantageous spots, and his size limited passing angles, most notably against double teams and aggressive ball pressure.

The lack of high-end playmaking puts more pressure on his scoring to be flawless, yet there are some concerns.

Okorie is elite at getting to the rim, but his finishing was subpar in the half-court. The guard finished just 50 percent at the rim (17th percentile) and shot 45.2 percent from two in overall (27th percentile).

Furthermore, his volume of rim attempts relative to his non-rim attempts is concerning for his scoring outlook in the NBA, where he will face much better rim protection than he saw in the ACC.

A year ago, my mutual Laz, who does great work, conducted a preliminary study on suboptimal shot diets for guards with a three-point rate below 40 and a rim-to-non-rim ratio above 1.5 (Okorie’s ratio is 2.8:1).

Essentially, too much of anything can be a negative. Getting to and finishing the rim (especially as a small guard) is much harder in the league, so guards without a viable mid-range counter or high three-point volume struggle to score efficiently.

He has a shot diet pretty similar to Ja Morant’s when he played at Murray State, except without the 40+ inch vertical.

I believe some of Okorie’s finishing struggles stemmed from being tasked with creating everything and driving into crowded lanes, but the bigger issue is that he needs to work on his deceleration and get to his floater more. A ton of his failed drives are plays where he’s not creating quality rim attempts, launching his body into a bigger player, and trying to finish tough layups.

The second facet of the “1.5 guard” teambuilding dilemma is that they’re too small to guard most twos and wings, and ideally need to be paired with a bigger backcourt mate who can.

Okorie put in a ton of effort on defense this season, especially given his usage. His core strength, low center of gravity, and speed on the offensive end also translated to the other side of the ball, allowing him to cut off drives and absorb contact in the paint. His wingspan also came in handy, as he used his length to get into the paint and into the passing lanes, posting a 2.7 steal percentage.

But even with consistent effort, his size was limiting. Bigger guards were able to finish over the top of him, even if he was in a decent guarding position. A prime example is the play below, where he’s matched up against Virginia’s Davin Hall.

Despite Okorie’s current flaws, I’m still buying him as a lottery-level talent and believe he should be one of the first point guards off the board because many of his issues feel more malleable than inherent — particularly as a scorer.

This idea is largely based on his priors, which suggest that positive regression is a realistic possibility in a more favorable context.

The Importance of Priors

For Okorie to thrive, he nees needs to build a more optimal shot diet. His efforts there should be twofold.

First, he needs to get to his floater and mid-range game more often, because when he actually leveraged those counters, they were productive looks. He shot 16-of-31 (51.6 percent) on runners this season and 40.9 percent on mid-range attempts in the half-court.

That matters because right now, too many of his possessions exist in binary form: rim attempt or three.

In theory, that sounds like an analytical dream (pour your liquor out for Darryl Morey). In practice, a smaller guard without elite vertical pop can lead to inefficiency if too slanted towards the rim.

A reliable in-between game would give Okorie another way to punish drop coverage, weaponize his change of pace, and preserve his body from the repeated collisions that currently define too many of his drives.

Second, he needs to push his three-point attempt rate closer to 45-50 percent.

I think that’s entirely obtainable once his offensive burden scales back a tick.

At Stanford, necessity forced him into a style of play that prioritized creation volume over shot optimization. There weren’t enough secondary advantages being created elsewhere for him to play off the ball at all, and defenses blitzed and trapped him so much that it kept him from accumulating enough three-point volume.

But in his final season at Brewster, we saw a more scalable version of his profile. Okorie shot 34.5 percent from three (38 percent on catch-and-shoot threes) while posting a 50 3PAR, and, more importantly, he displayed significantly more comfort operating without the ball.

Okorie displayed excellent floor sense, relocating in the flow of the offense, and ran off screens to create looks for himself. As a senior, he generated 1.085 points per spot-up (87th percentile) and 1.077 points per possession coming off of screens (72nd percentile).

In a better context at Brewster, with better talent around him relative to the opposition, and better spacing, Okorie was able to be more efficient, especially at the rim (63.4 percent) when he wasn’t tasked with creating everything.

Ultimately, Okorie’s standing amongst consensus will likely cause him to land in a better developmental environment than some of his peers — and that may be the best thing that could happen for him.

If he were selected in the high lottery and immediately handed the keys to a dysfunctional offense, he may survive it. This season proved he can shoulder absurd responsibility without the wheels completely falling off.

But survival and development are not the same thing.

That path likely means early inefficiency, bad habits, and the kind of statistical ineptitude that can test organizational patience.

Instead, Okorie could land in a situation (Timberwolves, Hawks, Pistons, Raptors) where he begins in a secondary or tertiary role alongside other creators.

Think of the case of Tyrese Maxey, during his first few seasons in Philadelphia, where his speed, downhill pressure, transition dynamism, and scalable shooting provided immediate value without forcing him into a role he isn’t fully ready for.

Then, as his shot diet crystallizes, the burden can gradually increase.

That’s why I remain bullish.

The flaws are real. The archetype concerns are real. Betting on smaller guards is always risky business.

But so are hand-waiving players who consistently generate advantages, protect possessions, collapse defenses, and produce despite adverse conditions.

I’d advise teams to bet on Okorie’s age-adjusted production, or risk becoming a slain villain in fables told to the end of time.

For many, Sunday is supposed to be the day of rest, either for religious purposes or savoring the last day of the weekend before the dreaded work week begins.

However, this Sunday, NBA fans were restless, anxious, and chomping at the bit as judgment day approached — the annual NBA Draft Lottery.

In a matter of minutes, teams received their placements in a draft that could, for better or worse, drastically alter their franchise’s outlook for the next decade.

This year’s Lottery featured every outcome you can think of: Dreams were crushed for tanking teams, while others benefitted one last time before an overcorrecting rule change, some poor trade process was punished, and a few of the league’s mediocre teams were rewarded for playing the middle.

When it was all said and done, this was how the Lottery shook out, and now that we know the order, it is time for my first mock draft of the cycle.

DISCLAIMER: This mock is based on what I would do. It is not a prediction. The mock is based on my personal rankings of prospects + my evaluation of a team’s needs.

1. Washington Wizards - Cameron Boozer

School: Duke

Class: Freshman

Position: Forward

Height: 6’8.25

Weight: 252.8 LBS

Wingspan: 7’1.5

Drat Day Age: 18.9

The Wizards have routinely been at the bottom of the standings this decade and have finally been awarded the first overall pick after striking out on two other occasions where they had the worst record. Though well before the ping pong balls fell in place, Washington’s General manager, Will Dawkins, made buy-low moves to bring in Trae Young and Anthony Davis to add some proven talent to their horde of young players.

Even with the additions of Young and Davis, the nation’s capital has starved for a blue-chip talent and should be drafting the best player available. In my estimation, that is Cameron Boozer (more on why he’s ranked #1 below).

Boozer is a versatile offensive piece who is proficient in every play type, displayed scalability and role malleability, and has the most impact on winning of any player in the class. He’ll be able to be the roller/popper in ball screen actions with Young, be the ball handler in 4/5 ball screens with Alex Sarr and Davis (if they keep him), and weaponize Kyshawn George and Tre Johnson as off-ball shooters/scorers. He has his weaknesses, especially defensively, but Sarr could theoretically mask some of his flaws on that end while Boozer covers for his on the other.

2. Utah Jazz - AJ Dybantsa

School: BYU

Class: Freshman

Position: Wing

Height: 6’8.5

Weight: 217 LBS

Wingspan: 7’0.25

Draft Day Age: 19.4

The writing has been on the wall for Dybantsa to be a member of the Utah Jazz since he transferred to Utah Prep two seasons ago, and then became one of the highest-paid players in the NIL era and enrolled at BYU. But I’m not placing him here because of that connection; he’s being drafted here because I think he fits a need for the Jazz, and they have the infrastructure to alleviate some of his weaknesses.

Dybantsa is one of the best-scoring prospects that I’ve ever watched. For my money, the best-scoring wing since Kevin Durant was drafted in 2007. He’s an incredible two-point scorer, with unorthodox, unpredictable movement patterns and a relentless aggression, making him a nightmare to guard — especially without fouling.

However, as you look deeper into his profile, it becomes a bit murkier. The three-point shot mechanics, volume, and effiency need refining, and he was inconsistent as a passer, decision maker, and defender.

Luckily, the Jazz have a big man duo of Walker Kessler and Jaren Jackson Jr., who could set a high floor for the defense and immediately make Utah one of the best interior defenses in the sport, and two players, Keyonte George and Lauri Markkanen, who historically get up a ton of threes.

The genius of Will Hardy has made Utah one of the more effective off-ball offenses in the league, but they need a premier half-court creator to slot next to George. At the two, Dybantsa’s length and athleticism would be more valuable defensively, and he’d immediately be a plus physical rebounder.

With Dybantsa in Utah, Ryan Smith’s money will be well spent.

3. Memphis Grizzlies - Caleb Wilson

School: North Carolina

Class: Freshman

Position: Forward

Height: 6’9.25

Weight: 210.8 LBS

Wingspan: 7’0.25

Draft Day Age: 19.9

Four years ago, the Grizzlies were doing dances in the hallways before playoff games and were the hot, up-and-coming team in the West. Now, Desmond Bane is in Orlando, triple J is in Utah, and Ja Morant has spent more time in street clothes than in uniform over the last three seasons.

The 2020s version of the Grit and Grind era is over, and whatever’s next starts with the selection of Caleb Wilson third overall.

The Grizzlies' identity this season was to move the ball, get out in transition, force turnovers, and shoot a ton of threes. Whether they move Morant or not, Wilson, who I view as a top-four player in the class, addresses a major need for quality two-point scoring and rebounding while fitting the team's identity.

Wilson provides a baseline of athleticism, play-finishing, passing, defensive playmaking, and rebounding, but if he can improve his ball-handling and/or perimeter jumpshot, his two-way potential is sky-high. If healthy, he should solidify their front with Cedric Coward and Zach Edey.

4. Chicago Bulls - Darryn Peterson

School: Kansas

Class: Freshman

Position: Guard

Height: 6’4.5

Weight: 198.8 LBS

Wingspan: 6’9.75

Draft Day Age: 19.4

After years of refusing to commit to a rebuild fully, the Bulls hit the reset button, trading away all their veteran pieces and firing Vice President of Basketball Operations Arturas Karnisovas and GM Mark Eversley after six seasons of mediocrity.

Their new Vice President of Basketball Operations, Bryson Graham, has publicly stated that Chicago is in a rebuild and will be acquiring talent with his Size, Length, Athleticism, and Physicality (SLAP) philosophy in mind.

When healthy, Darryn Peterson, who is 6’5 with a 6’10 wingspan at minimum, embodies three of the pillars of SLAP, while adding much-needed shooting and scoring talent to a roster barren of young talent.

Peterson would be an ideal pairing next to Josh Giddey in the backcourt (at least temporarily), allowing Giddey to handle most of the playmaking duties. At the same time, he focuses more on off-ball actions and perimeter defense. A quartet of Giddey, Peterson, Matas, Buzelis, and Noa Essengue would give Chicago some of the most positional length in the league and continue its fast-paced, ball-movement, transition, and high three-point rate style of offense.

5. Los Angeles Clippers - Aday Mara

School: Michigan

Class: Junior

Position: Center

Height: 7’3

Weight: 259.8 LBS

Wingspan: 7’6

Draft Day Age: 21.2

The Clippers were easily one of the biggest winners of the Lottery after the Pacers’ pick fell out of the top four, and now find themselves in a position to add young talent and fully commit to a retool/rebuild around Darius Garland after the Kawhi Leonard-Paul George era proved to be a failure. I am a proponent of trading back with teams like Charlotte, Dallas, or OKC to acquire more assets for the future, but if they don't trade down, they can select Mara at five, which should help them in the short-and long-term.

Mara is the best rim protector in the class, who improved his touch inside the arc this season while continuing to flash excellent passing and feel for the game. These 7-foot, rim-protecting bigs that are quality screeners, rollers, rebounders, and rim protectors have been a few of the best players in their draft classes recently, and Mara could continue that trend immediately. He addresses a clear need for the Clippers after trading Zubac at the deadline.

6. Brooklyn Nets - Mikel Brown

School: Louisville

Class: Freshman

Position: Guard

Height: 6’3.5

Weight: 190.2 LBS

Wingspan: 6’7.5

Draft Day Age: 20.2

Brooklyn Nets fans are in shambles after falling three spots and missing out on a top-five pick again this season, and that’s understandable, but selecting Mikel Brown at six could be a great consolation prize. Brown’s injuries split his season in two, making his evaluation more difficult and a top ten selection more risky.

Through his first ten games (mostly vs weaker opponents), he was a dominant driver and playmaker, but couldn’t buy a bucket outside the paint.

When he returned, the competition was stronger; his driving came back down to earth somewhat, and he turned the ball over much more.

However, his three-point shot returned to form, and he was more productive and efficient overall.

The question is: Can he harness the good of both samples and turn flashes of offensive brilliance into consistent dominance? If he can, he could have one of the highest ceilings in the class.

I think Jordi Fernandez will give him the best opportunity to do so.

7. Sacramento Kings - Darius Acuff

School: Arkansas

Class: Freshman

Position: Guard

Height: 6’2

Weight: 185.8 LBS

Wingspan: 6’7

Draft Day Age: 19.6

Kings fans have every right to be disappointed after failing to move up. They are a franchise that hasn’t had a blue-chip talent in a very long time, and their closest semblance of it is now better off on contending teams.

Their roster is made up of aging talent that doesn’t fit together, run by a historically bad front office. Their current roster has a glaring hole at point guard, and they’re rumored to be interested in Arkansas guard Darius Acuff — the most polarizing prospect in the class.

Though Acuff isn’t my 7th-ranked prospect in the class, and any lineup of Acuff / Lavine / Derzoan / Sabonis would be terrible defensively and questionable offensively, I think it would be beneficial for his career to land in a spot where he’s not expected to handle 30 percent usage right out the gate.

I’m a fan of Acuff’s ability to toggle on and off the ball, dictate pace, and make quality decisions in the half-court or transition. Acuff is one of the best interior passers in the class, displaying historic turnover aversion considering his usage and shot the cover off the ball.

More on his strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement below.

8. Atlanta Hawks - Jayden Quaintance

School: Kentucky

Class: Sophomore

Position: Center

Height: 6’9

Weight: 253.4

Wingspan: 7’5.25

Draft Day Age: 18.9

The Hawks quietly made one of the smarter long-term moves in the league when they acquired this pick swap from the Pelicans in one of the most bizarre draft day trades that I can remember. While the Lottery didn’t break their way, maneuvering into a top-ten selection is still a major win.

Atlanta’s clear needs are in their back court and front court, and with Mara off the board, they’ll select Kentucky’s Jayden Quiantance and get the defensive anchor they’ve been seeking since Clint Capela fell out of his prime. Quaintance was out for most of the season recovering from an ACL injury that he suffered in February of 2025.

Quaintance’s injury, temporary return, and a loud contingent of disgruntled Kentucky fans have overshadowed the fact that he was one of the best defenders in the country as a 17-year-old freshman in a power conference. His combination of strength, length, athleticism, and motor makes him arguably the best defender in the class, and that alone warrants a top ten selection.

He’s quite rough around the edges offensively, as he needs to improve his touch and decision-making, but playing with higher-quality playmakers (even relatively) in a smaller role should maximize his effiency on play-finishing playtypes.

9. Dallas Mavericks - Keaton Wagler

School: Illinois

Class: Freshman

Position: Guard

Height: 6’5

Weight: 188

Wingspan: 6’6.25

Draft Day Age: 19.4

Dallas missed out on lottery luck after stealing Cooper Flagg last season, but even from this position, they have an opportunity to continue building intelligently around Flagg. In Kyrie Irving’s absence, the Mavericks were starved for ball-handling, secondary creation, and shooting, which they’ll receive with their selection of Keaton Wagler.

Wagler was one of the biggest breakout stars in college basketball this year, evolving from a complementary piece into an offensive engine while leading Illinois on a deep tournament run. He’s a very high feel player who handled high usage without turning the ball over and was lights out from three both on and off the ball.

Wagler is a riskier pick inside the top ten than some think. He has clear strength and athleticism concerns, which showed in his dunk and 2-point scoring numbers (especially against tougher competition). His combine measurements were underwhelming relative to what had been rumored. Still, his intersection of shooting/passing and possession-maxxing and overall age-adjusted production could be worth taking a bet on.

10. Milwaukee Bucks - Kingston Flemings

School: Houston

Class: Freshman

Position: Guard

Height: 6’2.5

Weight: 183.4 LBS

Wingspan: 6’3.5

Draft Day Age: 19.5

The Bucks are finally taking calls for Giannis Antetokounmpo and entering a rebuilding/retooling phase. Their goal should be to draft the best player available, and at ten, that would be Kingston Flemings.

Flemings was my fifth-ranked prospect for a good part of the cycle, as he dominated non-conference play, displaying his ability to create paint touches, create without turning the ball over, and defend both guard spots.

However, in Big 12 play, he struggled to finish at the rim frequently, and his inability to create three-point shots and draw fouls significantly hurt his efficiency. A portion of his struggles has to be attributed to playing in a poor offensive context, but Fleming’s mid-range heavy shot diet and contact avoidance aren’t ideal for his NBA translation.

Still, he’s one of the best playmakers in the class who’d be able to create a bunch of quality shots for whatever is left of the Bucks team after the Antetokounmpo trade.

11. Golden State Warriors - Yaxel Lendeborg

School: Michigan

Class: Senior

Position: Forward

Height: 6’8.75

Weight: 241.4 LBS

Wingspan: 7’3.25

Draft Day Age: 23.7

The Warriors announced an extension for Steve Kerr a few days ago, which signals they’re likely to give the Stephen Curry era one more shot. With that in mind, selecting Yaxel Lendeborg would be their best bet to get day one production, and contrary to popular belief, his upside may not be capped despite being a 24-year-old player.

Lendeborg’s ability to make quick decisions, move without the ball, knock down spot-up threes, attack closeouts, and run in transition would thrive in the Warriors’ offense, and his defensive versatility and rebounding are a much-needed bonus for Golden State.

If healthy, Curry-Butler-Lendeborg-Draymond-Porzingis lineups could wreak havoc on the league.

12. Oklahoma City Thunder - Hannes Steinbach

School: Washington

Class: Freshman

Position: 6’10.25

Height: 248

Weight: 7’2.25

Wingspan: 9’0

Draft Day Age: 20.2

The Thunder are on their way to the Western Conference Finals and yet are still reaping the rewards of the Paul George trade. Oklahoma City doesn’t have a ton of holes, but it does have too many good players for the CBA to allow. Even if they repeat and win the championship this season, they could still look to move Isaiah Hartenstein or Lu Dort as the roster becomes more expensive when Chet Holmgren and Jalen Williams max contracts get on the books.

Hartenstein feels like the most likely to be moved, and by drafting Hannes Steinbach, they get a big man who could one day play the double big lineups with Holmgren. Steinbach was one of the most productive players in college basketball, doing it while playing in a very poor context. He’s arguably the best offensive rebounder in the class, drives from the perimeter, rolls to the basket, and scores in the post. Steinbach also has shooting upside (34% from 3, 44.8 percent on far twos + 76% FT) and is an underrated passer.

The bulk of his concern for Steinbach comes on the defensive end, as he struggled to both protect the rim and guard on the perimeter at times, but with the best defensive personnel in the league around him and a top-three defender in the world as his partner in the front court the value he provides to the Thunder’s offense, espeically as an offensive rebounder, is enough to outweigh any potential defensive pittfalls.

13. Miami Heat - Ebuka Okorie

School: Stanford

Class: Freshman

Position: Guard

Height: 6’1.25

Weight: 186 LBS

Wingspan: 6’7.75

Draft Day Age: 19.2

Pat Riley still has the Miami franchise in the palms of his wrinkled hands, and he’s still intent on not tanking. Well, the Lottery did not reward him for his commitment to mediocrity, so they’ll have to continue their trend of hitting on talent in the late Lottery to mid-first range.

Luckily for Heat fans, the NBA world is still sleeping on Ebuka Okorie, and they’ll have an opportunity to draft one of the best advantage-creating guards in this class. Okorie has the best combination of speed, athleticism, handle, and counters of any guard in the draft, and it has largely gone overlooked.

He handled extremely high usage in a poor context without turning the ball over, and he remained efficient and impactful for Stanford’s offense. His passing/assist numbers have been underwhelming for his usage, and he needs to improve his ability to make advanced reads, but he’s not a poor passer by any means.

With a guard of his size, defensive viability will always be a concern, but he surprised with a near 6’8 wingspan and gives effort at the point of attack. The fit next to Tyler Herro could raise questions on both ends, but Miami desperately needs his creation juice.

14. Charlotte Hornets - Morez Johnson

School: Michigan

Class: Sophomore

Position: Forward / Center

Height: 6’9

Weight: 250.6 LBS

Wingspan: 7’3.5

Draft Day Age: 20.4

The Hornets looked like they were destined for another top-five pick to begin this season, but then they completely turned it around and were one of the best teams in the NBA from December on.

They ultimately got bounced in the play-in, but the season was a success. Fans got to see what the team could look like with Lamelo and Brandon Miller healthy, and Kon Knueppel had one of the best rookie seasons this century.

However, their failures in the play-in exposed a clear need for interior presence on both sides of the ball.

To start addressing that flaw, at 14, they’ll select Morez Johnson, one of the biggest winners from the early Combine measurements and drills. Morez will fit like a glove in Charlotte. His ability to play-finish, run in transition, offensive rebound, and protect the rim and potentially space the floor is exactly the type of skillset that the Hornets need to become a comfortable playoff team.

15. Chicago Bulls - Chris Cenac

School: Houston

Class: Freshman

Position: Forward / Center

Height: 6’10.25

Weight: 239.6 LBS

Wingspan: 7’5

Draft Day Age: 19.4

By selecting Chris Cenac at 15, the Bulls would continue to follow Graham’s SLAP philosophy. Cenac’s measurements were known to be ridiculous before the combine, but seeing the official numbers definitely raised his stock a bit.

The freshman is one of the best rebounders in the class. He posted a 26.1 rebound percentage while spending the vast majority of his time on the court with another big man. Taking him here would definitely be risky, but the rebounding, play-finishing, defensive versatility, and shooting “upside” could be worth the swing.

Cenac needs to turn a ton of his mid-range shots into more three-point attempts and improve his awareness on both ends of the floor, but he convinced me that he was coachable during his one year at Houston.

16. Memphis Grizzlies - Brayden Burries

School: Arizona

Class: Freshman

Position: Guard

Height: 6.3.75

Weight: 215.4 LBS

Wingspan: 6’6

Draft Day Age: 20.9

After drafting Caleb Wilson, the Grizzlies would likely be one of the winners of the draft if Burries were to fall this far (he won’t).

Burries is an extremely well-rounded player, but does not have an elite skill. He’s improved into a quality three-point shooter, and is the best rebounding guard in the class, and is a nightmare in transition. The freshman can toggle between ball and guard spots.

Burries would fit cleanly next in Memphis’s lineup and could add value from day one while potentially being a false ceiling prospect.

17. Oklahoma City Thunder - Cameron Carr

School: Baylor

Class: Junior

Position: Wing

Height: 6’4.75

Weight: 184.4 LBS

Wingspan: 7’0.75

Draft Day Age: 21.7

Pick 17 feels like a luxury for the Thunder. With it, they’ll add much-needed shooting, athleticism, and play-finishing around their primary creators. Carr was the only high-major player in the country with 50 threes, 40 dunks, and a 3-block percentage or higher.

There is some risk here because he didn’t break out until he was 20 years old, is fairly light for his size, is heavily assisted, is not a good passer, and struggled to finish from 2 against tougher competition, but in a scaled-down role, his shooting, cutting, closeout attacking, and weakside rim protection should still provide value.

18. Charlotte Hornets - Dailyn Swain

School: Texas

Class: Junior

Position: Wing

Height: 6’6.5

Weight: 211.2

Wingspan: 6’10

Draft Day Age:

With their second pick in the first round, the Hornets add a dynamic creator in Dailyn Swain to continue to improve their athleticism and two-point scoring. Swain has shown the ability to scale up and down throughout his collegiate career. His measurables, especially his weight and wingspan, were underwhelming, but the application of his tools matters the most.

He has jumpshot concerns, and his turnovers spiked when he handled higher usage in conference play this season, but in a scaled-down role, his slashing, passing, and defense would be extremely useful for Charlotte.

19. Toronto Raptors - Bennett Stirtz

School: Iowa

Class: Senior

Position: Guard

Height: 6’2.5

Weight: 186.2

Wingspan: 6’6

Draft Day Age: 22.8

The Toronto Raptors exceeded expectations this season, comfortably making the playoffs and pushing a more talented Cleveland team to seven games. Still, their offense was clearly flawed and relied on creating turnovers and getting out in transition to create quality offense.

Getting Bennett Stirtz, the draft’s best half-court operator, would be a complete steal if they’re able to pull it off. After moving from Division II, Stirtz dominated college basketball first at the mid-major level at Drake, then at the high-major level at Iowa, leading them to an Elite Eight appearance. No matter the competition, Stirtz has handled high usage without turning the ball over and scored effectively from all three levels.

There are valid concerns about his age, on-ball defense, and ability to beat better athletes off the dribble (especially without a screen), but ultimately, this will be a prospect we look back and think, “How did people miss this?”

20. San Antonio Spurs - Nate Ament

School: Tennessee

Class: Freshman

Position: Forward

Height: 6’9.5

Weight: 210.8

Wingspan: 6’11.5

Draft Day Age: 19.6

The Spurs are locked in a battle with the Timberwolves, but are the favorites to meet the Thunder in the Western Conference Finals. Despite their success this year, they have a clear need at the 3/4 spot, and that’s where Nate Ament comes in. Once a consensus top-five recruit, Ament slipped down a lot of draft boards after struggling mightily to begin the season.

The freshman turned it around a bit in conference play, but many of the same concerns remained: poor rim finishing, a mid-range-heavy shot diet, and underwhelming athleticism.

There should still be some appeal for a 6’10 player with better shooting priors than he displayed at Tennesee, who can rebound well and guard wings and forwards, but Ament is unquestionably a risky pick, even at 20.

21. Detroit Pistons - Labaron Philon

School: Alabama

Class: Sophomore

Position: Guard

Height: 6’2.5

Weight: 176.2 LBS

Wingspan: 6’6.25

Draft Day Age: 20.6

Whether the Pistons make it out of the second round or not, it has been clear they need secondary creation, shooting, scoring, and ball-handling alongside Cade Cunningham. Their first opportunity to do so will be in the draft, and grabbing Labaron Philon would be an excellent start.

In his two years at Alabama, Philon showed the ability to scale up as a high-usage creator or scale down as a secondary ball-handler and point-of-attack defender. This season, he not only scaled up but he kept turnovers down, increased his three-point volume and effiency and improved his rim finishing dramatically.

Philon does have limitations as an athlete; his defense fell off a cliff with higher usage, and he didn’t use the extra year in college to gain a significant amount of weight, but in the right situation, he could provide immense value and heavily outplay this selection.

22. Philadelphia 76ers - Allen Graves

School: Santa Clara

Class: Redshirt Freshman

Position: Forward

Height: 6’7.75

Weight: 225.6 LBS

Wingspan: 7’0

Draft Day Age: 19.9

The Sixers shocked the world, coming back from a 3-1 deficit, only to be boatraced by the Knicks. Though even in their wins, it was clear they lacked size and a quality power forward, and that’s where analytics darling Allen Graves comes in.

Graves undeniably has one of the best statistical profiles that I’ve seen. He’s an extremely high feel prospect, which is apparent in his humbers on both ends. He’s a great passer and rebounder and has shown an ability to space the floor.

He played out of position a ton at Santa Clara, which led to some foul trouble, and he needs to work on his conditioning, but this would be a quality player to insert next to Joel Embiid.

23. Atlanta Hawks - Christian Anderson

School: Texas Tech

Class: Sophomore

Position: Guard

Height: 6’0.75

Weight: 180.4 LBS

Wingspan: 6’6.25

Draft Day Age: 20.2

The Hawks use their second pick in this class to get a much-needed perimeter ball handling and creation. Christian Anderson is one of the best shooters in the class, and he combines his shooting with quality passing and elite decision-making in the pick-and-roll.

Anderson struggles against athletics and didn’t perform well against traps, switches, and hard hedges. There are valid concerns, but there aren’t too many guards in this class with his shooting and passing intersection that should be valuable to Atlanta.

24. New York Knicks - Karim Lopez

Team: New Zealand Breakers

Class: Sophomore

Position: Wing

Height: 6’8.25

Weight: 221.8

Wingspan: 6’11.5

Draft Day Age: 19.2

The Knicks are chilling in the ECF without many holes on their roster, but could benefit from another wing and a backup center. At 24, they add Karim Lopez, one of the youngest players in the class who has produced for two seasons in the NBL.

Lopez is a jack of all trades, master of none, who could provide value as a rotational piece with his slashing off the catch, rebounding, connective passing, and weakside rim protection.

25. Los Angeles Lakers - Tounde Yessoufou

School: Baylor

Class: Freshman

Position: Wing

Height: 6’4 1/4

Weight: 219.8

Wingspan: 6’10

Draft Day Age: 20.1

The Lakers overachieved a bit without Luka in their win over the Rockets, but it is clear they are far away from championship contention. One of the best ways to build around Luka is surrounding him with length and athleticism, and the Lakers could add to that by selecting Tounde Yessoufou.

In a scaled-down role, Yessouou can be more impactful and efficient than he was at Baylor, where he struggled with shot selection and creating for others. His spot-up shooting, closeout attacking, rebounding, and transition play are the ideal modes of a player to put next to Doncic. Think Lu dort.

26. Denver Nuggets - Joshua Jefferson

School: Iowa State

Class: Senior

Position: Forward

Height: 6’7 3/4

Weight: 246.2 LBS

Wingspan: 6’10 3/4

Draft Day Age: 22.7

Joshua Jefferson is an extremely high-feel prospect who excels as a passer, rebounder, defender, and foul-drawer. Denver desperately needs more size, athleticism, and scalable complementary talent around Nikola Jokic, and Jefferson helps address some of those concerns. He won’t fix all the issues exposed in their embarrassing loss to the Timberwolves, but simply adding good players who can contribute in multiple ways is how strong teams improve on the margins.

27. Boston Celtics - Malachi Moreno

School: Kentucky

Class: Freshman

Position: Center

Height: 6’11

Weight: 242.8 LBS

Wingspan: 7’1 1/2

Draft Day Age: 19.7

The Celtics clearly need big depth, but probably are not in a position to get a day-one starting center at the back end of the first round, especially after the center class thinned out with players such as Patrick Ngongba and Flory Budinga returning to school.

Moreno struggled with his touch finishing around the rim, but showed flashes of excellent positional passing, shot-blocking, and rebounding while maintaining great effiency.

28. Minnesota Timberwolves - Tyler Tanner

School: Vanderbilt

Class: Sophomore

Position: Guard

Height: 5’10.75

Weight: 166.8 LBS

Wingspan: 6’4.25

Draft Day Age: 20.4

The Timberwolves clearly need another ball handler next to Anthony Edwards. Mike Conley is aging, and the Rob Dillingham experiment failed miserably. One would think that failure would dissuade them from selecting a smaller guard, but Tyler Tanner is an outlier guard for his size in every way imaginable.

He is a great athlete with high feel on both sides of the ball and holds his own defensively despite his size. Tanner needs to increase his three-point volume and consistency, and develop his non-rim counters, but outside of that, this is as good as an under-6-feet guard gets.

29. Cleveland Cavaliers - Henri Veesaar

School: North Carolina

Class: Junior

Position: F/C

Height: 6’11

Weight: 227.2 LBS

Wingspan: 7’2

Draft Day Age: 22.2

The Cavaliers could clearly use additional frontcourt help, whether that comes in the form of a legitimate third big or another versatile wing, and Henri Veesaar helps address some of that need. He brings shooting, rebounding, passing, and efficient interior scoring, giving Cleveland a skilled offensive frontcourt option who can complement their existing bigs. Rim protection remains a concern, and his defensive limitations may cap some of his upside, but the offensive versatility makes him an intriguing fit this late in the first round.

30. Dallas Mavericks -Bruce Thornton

School: Ohio State

Class: Senior

Position: Guard

Height: 6’0

Weight: 223 LBS

Wingspan: 6’5

Draft Day Age: 22.9

Despite being an older prospect, Bruce Thornton has shown consistent year-over-year growth. He has put together multiple seasons handling high-usage offensive roles without turning the ball over at alarming rates. He was one of the biggest winners in the combine measurements, checking in at 220 pounds with a +5 wingspan, which helped ease some of the physical concerns evaluators may have had.

There are still athletic questions, particularly his ability to consistently reach the rim against NBA players. Still, he dramatically improved as a two-point scorer over his final two seasons, which helps alleviate some of that concern. He’s also one of the better bets in this class to become a reliable bench creator thanks to his shooting, strength, and decision-making. For a Mavericks team that could use more shot creation and perimeter shooting in just about any form, this makes plenty of sense.

University of Washington forward Hannes Steinbach came into the season as one of NBA Draft Twitter’s favorite players to rank above consensus and place inside the top ten — and it made sense.

Steinbach was fresh off a season in which he’d produced in Germany’s A and B leagues (BBL) and then dominated the FIBA U19’s, averaging 17 points, 13 rebounds, and 1.3 blocks en route to a championship appearance.

When he touched down in Seattle, the production continued — Steinbach recorded a double-double in his first six games of college — and he looked well on his way to living up to all of the preseason hype.

Then, somewhere in December, things went radio silent.

The forward kept producing, but it began to be overlooked and underdiscussed by consensus and the faction of draft Twitter that heralded his talent heading into the season.

Whether it was because there were a ton of other freshmen and upperclassmen producing at a high level, which made the masses realize how strong the class could be, or because the Huskies were one of the worst teams in the Big Ten, Steinbach didn’t get a typical amount of recognition for a player who averaged nearly 19 and 12 on 63.6 true shooting percentage.

But, despite the hype around Steinbach being low relative to his blanket production, I think he has pathways to providing value—even in a deep class.

Below, I’ll discuss his strengths, areas for improvement, and NBA outlook.

Midas Touch

Stein\bach is unique in that, unlike most prospects, his strongest trait is his great hands. Steinbach has one-of-a-kind ball skills, hand-eye coordination, and a strong motor, which make him one of the best rebounding prospects of the last decade.

Since 2015, 24 NBA players (in their underclassmen seasons) have played at a high-major school and have an offensive rebound percentage of at least 14 and a defensive rebound percentage of at least 20. When Steinbach is inevitably drafted, his freshman season will rank 20th in offensive rebounding and 13th in defensive rebounding. This feat is even more remarkable when you consider that the freshman has spent a large percentage of his minutes with another big man on the floor.

Steinbach’s offensive rebounding is particularly impactful for Washington, a sub-optimal first-shot offense that’s able to tread water thanks to being one of the best offensive rebounding teams in the country.

Steinbach’s suction cups for his hands enable him to score as well.

He resembles a tight end in the red zone in the way he can box players out, make a catch in traffic, and score a touchdown — or in this case, a bucket. The forward has a knack for doing a lot of the work needed to score before he gets the ball. His understanding of leverage is pristine. Once he gets a player on his hip, he uses his size to seal them and create easy looks around the rim.

On pure creation reps (in the post), Steinbach is excellent as well. He has an array of post moves, including drop steps, hooks, and fades. Steinbach’s intersection of post feel, footwork, and great touch has led him to generate 1.047 points per post-up (79th percentile).

Steinbach’s ballerina-esque footwork, balance, coordination, and mobility also help him score as a roller despite average vertical athleticism.

These skill intersections have enabled him to be a high-level finisher in the half-court, even with inconsistent guard play and limited spacing. According to CBB Analytics, Steinbach is finishing 69.7 percent at the rim and 50.9 percent on non-rim paint twos.

Additionally, Steinbach is also a force in the open court. While the Hustkies have struggled mightily at times in the half-court, they rank in the 90th percentile in both transition points per game (7.4) and transition points as a percentage of total points (10.1). The Huskies’ freshman star is a big reason for this. He’s great at beating other bigs down the floor or can trail the play and take them off the dribble in semi-transition.

According to Hoop Explorer, with Steinbach on, Washington runs in transition on 17.2 plays per 100 possessions and generates 1.35 points per play, compared to 14.9 plays per 100 possessions and 1.12 points per play with him off.

The forward’s rebounding, rim finishing, and overall effiency at this age in a high-major conference have not only made him extremely impactful for Washington’s offense but also put him in company with a ton of successful NBA players. The query below features outcomes from future Hall of Famers to quality backup big men. The goal of the query is not to directly compare those players to Steinbach, but to identify a trend in his skill set that leads to league-level productivity.

I believe that Steinbach has the potential to positively impact linueps by helping his team win the possession battle, one of the foremost aspects of winning a game. A quick look at his impact on the Huskies’ offense depicts how his offensive rebounding, rim finishing, and propensity to run the floor and create easy offense will aid NBA teams.

However, I don’t believe Steinbach has slipped on draft boards because of major qualms about his offensive game. It’s the other side of the ball that has drawn the most concern.

To be a tweener or not to be

Steinbach’s biggest area of improvement, and main reason for his “fall from grace,” is his rim protection. He played most of his minutes at the four this season, which sparked questions about his viability as a center in the league. Those questions were answered whenever the fellow big man Franck Kepnang was off the floor, and Steinbach was forced to anchor the defense.

As the graphic below shows, teams attacked the rim more when Steinbach was at the five and scored at an extremely high rate compared to when he was off the floor entirely or playing the four next to Kepnang.

Individually, Steinbach can struggle to affect shots around the rim and is vulnerable on the perimeter when guarding in space. In order for him to play the five, he’d need to see major improvements in his timing on contests and positioning when guarding in drop to make up for a lack of elite vertical pop.

While not completely hopeless on the perimeter — due to the aforementioned mobility that helps him be so dangerous offensively — Steinbach struggles to stay in front of quicker and more dynamic guards and wings when placed in a switch. There are also a fair number of plays where his 6’11, 220lb frame isn’t big enough to stop true centers. Sequences in his matchups versus Michigan’s Aday Mara and UCLA’s Tyler Bilodeau come to mind as to what it could look like against larger bigs.

Steinbach finished the season with a modest 3.9 blocks and 1.8 steals per game. While these numbers are not the end-all, be-all, they have trended towards underwhelming defensive impact in the NBA. Below is a query for drafted players of Steinbach’s size with similar defensive playmaking figures.

Because Steinbach tends to struggle on defense and is likely not viable as a center, there’s more pressure on his offense to be special in order to warrant starter-level minutes. Currently, Steinbach is a tweener — stuck between operating as a five on offense, with the bulk of his scoring playtypes coming from pick and rolls, post-ups, and put-backs. However, he’s most optimal defensively with a rim-protecting center in the lineup to cover for his deficiencies.

This justaxposition puts a strain on team-building and lineup construction, especially deep in the playoffs. To ease these concerns, Steinbach needs to either space the floor or be paired with a center who can, while simultaneously defending the rim. And, unforutnately those are a dime a dozen.

Fortunately for Steinbach, he does have the potential to shoot the ball. This season, he shot 34 percent from behind the arc on three attempts per 100 possessions, 44.8 percent on far twos, and 75.9 percent from the charity stripe. Below is a query for players 6’9 and above who attempted fewer than 5 3PA per 100 possessions, made 40 percent of their far twos, and shot 75 percent from the free throw line.

The hit rate for players in this query who have translated into meaningful three-point shooters is low, but players such as Dean Wade, Nikola Vucevic, Kelly Olynyk, Karl Anthony Towns, and Mike Muscala have.

Steinbach looks most comfortable and confident as a shooter when he’s able to set a screen, pop, and catch the ball in rhythm before his shot. According to CBB analytics, he is shooting 35.6 percent on above-the-break 3’s, which ranks in the 73rd percentile for bigs. He oddly struggles the most in the corner and on wide-open shots.

The murky shooting projection and rim protection worries would be more palatable if you could project him as a legitimate post hub with plus passing, a la Domantas Sabonis, or an outlier advantage creator, such as what Derik Queen profiled last cycle.

At the moment, Steinbach seems to be neither. He’s been an efficient post scorer this season, but on over 50 percent less volume than Sabonis had in 2016. Steinbach has also been an efficient driver, averaging 1.175 points per drive, but he drives on just 8 percent of his team's possessions, compared to 26.8 percent for Queen.

Additionally, he has the passing chops of neither. Steinbach is a good passer with a solid feel for a big man (9.1 AST%, 0.8 A: TO). He often makes quick decisions in the short roll, can pass out of double teams from the post, and has flashed a few high-level skip passes, but needs to improve his accuracy and ability to make advanced reads more consistently to project him as a secondary or primary creator.

But, Steinbach doesn’t need to be in either of those roles in order to find a role on an NBA team. If drafted to a team with a need for his strengths and the personnel to equalize his weaknesses, Steinbach has the potential to return lottery value in this class, as so many of his benefactors thought heading into the season.

NBA Outlook + Ideal Landing Spots

Steinbach’s median outcome is a rotational big man who can come off the bench and dominate the glass, play finish, run the floor, and move the ball within the flow of an offense. Defensively, he’ll be best at the four next to a competent rim protector, allowing him to operate as a help-side presence where his length, mobility, and hand-eye coordination can generate blocks and steals.

Though it’s an area he needs to improve, I feel that Steinbach’s defensive woes have been somewhat overstated. The vast majority of his value will come from being a dominant defensive rebounder, but there are plenty of reps where he’s held up on the perimeter or created turnovers in passing lanes. Over the final two months of the season, his block percentage improved to 4.9 while maintaining a 1.8 steal percentage. While not eye-popping numbers, they are a vast improvement from where he began the season.

If he can continue to improve as a passer and/or shooter, his higher-end outcomes could resemble players like Domantas Sabonis or Nikola Vučević—talented offensive bigs who lack rim protection at the five, which can limit championship equity, but still return top-ten value in their class.

The best landing spots for Steinbach are teams like the San Antonio Spurs, Oklahoma City Thunder, or Washington Wizards—organizations that either already have ( more in theory for Washington) a rim-protecting, floor-spacing five to complement him. He’d also make sense on teams like the Golden State Warriors or Philadelphia 76ers, who are starving for his rebounding and have the defensive fives to cover for his limitations (especially if Porzingis can stay on the floor).

In the end, Steinbach profiles as a situational prospect due to his limitations, and that rightfully caps his draft stock below players who don’t carry the same lineup constraints—especially in playoff settings. However, his consistent production across multiple levels at such a young age is too strong to overlook at a certain point, and I’d be comfortable selecting him in the late lottery to mid-first round.

It’s a well-known fact that head coach John Calipari is the best collegiate coach in the country (and maybe ever) at finding and developing guard talent for NBA success.

Shai Gilegeous-Alexander, Derrick Rose, John Wall, Tyrese Maxey, Devin Booker, and De’Aaron Fox are just a few of the names that have learned under the tutelage of coach Cal.

In short, there aren’t many better wagers in life than betting on a Calipari guard to earn multiple contracts in the NBA, and his best one, since Wall, from a blanket production standpoint, has been one of, if not the best, point guards in the country this season.

That point guard is Darius Acuff, who, despite leading the Southeastern Conference (SEC) in both scoring and assists as a freshman, has become the most polarizing prospect in the class.

His proponents, mostly passionate Arkansas fans, say he’s the next coming of Stephon Marbury, destined to be an offensive superstar in a game that has begun to move away from smaller point guards. In contrast, his skeptics say he’s more akin to Michigan’s Trey Burke, who, despite having a legendary career at Michigan, couldn’t find nearly the same success in the NBA.

Amongst consensus boards, he’s a lock to be a top ten pick, but there are plenty amongst amateur scouts that have him as a late first round pick or completely out of the first round.

I say that when two sides of an argument are so extreme, the truth often lies somewhere in the middle, and in my evaluation of Acuff, I’ll try to find that truth, with a healthy blend of film and analytics.

He looks the part

Under any post critiquing Acuff’s translation to the NBA using analytics, a comment or quote tweet saying some iteration of “watch the games” will follow close behind.

My favorite is the meme with a calculator and the message “time to watch some basketball.”

Though I don’t agree with the anti-intellectualism that often coincides with the abrasion to analytics, especially because you can make a good case for him using numbers, after re-watching all of Acuff’s games, I kinda get where they’re coming from.

He’s an entertaining watch and one of the more aesthetically pleasing players in the class, who looks the part of an NBA guard.

His standout trait on tape is decision-making. Acuff is undoubtedly one of the best processors in the class. He has a knack for finding the best-quality shot for Arkansas’s offense, whether that’s for himself or his teammates.

As a scorer, Acuff is primarily looking to get downhill, whether in transition or the halfcourt, and uses his intersection of strength and handle to score at the rim.

The guard is a weapon in transition. While he doesn’t usually start the break with a steal, block, or rebound, more often than not, he’s creating his opportunities for himself; they’re not cherry-picked handouts. Acuff’s 1.200 points per possession in transition ranks 42nd in the country amongst players with at least 85 possessions.

His willingness to push the ball on the break is a trait he shares with his teammates, but I don’t think he’s a product of the system he plays in. He maximizes it, as Arkansas ranks third in the country in transition points per possession.

In the halfcourt, he has to tame the aggression he displays on the open floor and play with more pace. Acuff has a strong propensity to explode in and out of dribble moves, keep his dribble alive, and use an understanding of leverage, keeping his shoulders below his defender’s waist to generate angles towards the rim.

When he can’t get all the way to the rim, Acuff is equipped with counters in the mid-range. He’s adept at using his pull-up jumper or a floater when attacking against drop coverage, which he’s hitting at a 40 percent and 47 percent clip, respectively.

Acuff’s driving ability is his biggest strength, but his most significant development as a scorer this season has been tied to his three-point shooting.

Coming out of high school, Acuff’s shooting indicators — 33 percent from three, 39.4 3PAR, and a 77 percent free-throw percentage — were middling and cast doubt over his shooting projection.

Nearly 30 games into the season, his jumper, on and off the ball (47.5% on catch-and-shoots, and 36.5% on pull-up threes), has been a legitimate threat to defenses, and due to improvements in his process, I’d lean towards the side of growth as a jumpshooter than a random 30-game hot streak.

Acuff is shooting 43 percent from behind the arc on 9.0 3PA per 100 possessions, though 73.5% of them are assisted (more on the significance of assisted % later).

The Detroit native blends his scoring and passing ability harmoniously, supplemented by a cast of excellent athletes and playmakers up and down the lineup.

He has a clear feel for the game and poise in the pick-and-roll. He reads coverages in an instant, doesn’t over-dribble, and consistently takes advantage of low-hanging fruit within the offense. He’ll punish a low man's indecisiveness or a center who hedges too hard.

It’s within the pick-and-roll that I find him to be the most dangerous as a creator, and the numbers reflect it. Ball screens that he’s involved in are generating 1.102 points per possession, which ranks third in the country for players with at least 300 pick-and-roll possessions.

Acuff has a variety of passes he can access (pocket passes, dump-offs, skip passes, lobs), and he rarely is off target, which leads to excellent shot quality for Razorback’s offense.

According to CBB Analytics, Acuff ranks fourth in the country in rim assists per game, which is widely viewed as the most risky yet most efficient type of assist.

Given the guard’s usage, both as a scorer and playmaker, and the amount of attention he draws from a defense, it’s remarkable how well he takes care of the ball. He currently boasts a 31.3 AST% with a 3.2 AST/TO ratio, and his 11.2 turnover percentage would be the lowest of any drafted Calapari guard with a 25 percent usage rate.

For context, it's worth noting that turnovers are down across the country. However, Acuff’s turnover aversion, given his usage, is still outlier-good relative to other guards this season. Because of that, Arkansas has been the best team in the country at avoiding turnovers.

Acuff’s intersection of three-level scoring, efficiency, playmaking, and turnover aversion builds the framework of an excellent offensive prospect. Below is a query for high-usage creators who pass the ball at a high level and mitigate turnovers, highlighted by the top two picks in last year’s NBA Draft, Cameron Boozer, my top-ranked player in the class, and Kingston Flemings, another player I view as a top ten pick.

Acuff is averaging 22 points and six assists on a 61.2 true-shooting percentage, leading a top-three offense in the country in a top-three conference. His blanket production and effiency is rare to see in a freshman point guard, in fact, it’s only happened 39 times for any guard in NCAA history. Arkansas’s freshman sensation finds himself on a list with legends such as Steph Curry, Steve Nash, and even his uncle and agent, Rashad Phillips!

Yet, blanket college production doesn’t guarantee translation to NBA impact, and in a league where the margins for smaller guards are at an all-time high, Acuff has a few red flags.

If the “Nerds” are right, here’s why

The biggest hole in Acuff’s profile is undoubtedly his defense. He doesn’t generate steals, doesn’t block shots, or rebound the ball particularly well. I know some have grown tired of seeing the word “stocks” float across your Twitter timeline, but it is undeniable that the vast majority of players who generate steals and blocks in college have turned out to be capable defenders in the NBA.

In short, stocks are not what make you a good defender, but a strong signal that you are one. Defensive playmaking production is an indicator of cognition and defensive activity. Grabbing steals ends an opponent's possession and creates one for your team, which is paramount for smaller guards like Acuff to achieve neutral defensive value at the next level.

Acuff currently sits at an intersection of less than 2 steal percentage, 2 block percentage, and less than 10 defensive rebound percentage, and he is well below those figures. That places him in the list below, where you have to strain to find a net-neutral defender.

Even if you despise stocks and think this query means nothing, Acuff struggles to defend when put into action on film. He frequently concedes drives, falls asleep off the ball, or is just too small to contain his opponent. Additionally, he has poor screen navigation.

To make up for the defensive shortcomings that are generally synonymous with existing as a 6’3 and under guard in the NBA, Acuff has to clear an extremely high bar offensively to be a high-minute player in high-leverage situations, much less an all-star like his proponents think he can be.

In the chart below, you’ll notice that players such as Donovan Mitchell, Stephen Curry, Jalen Brunson, and Tyrese Maxey — a few of the best offensive players in the world — sit at the intersection of playing time and impact.

You’ll also notice that the vast majority of guards (with significant playing time) under 6’3 fall below a neutral estimated plus-minus (EPM).

Acuff is talented enough offensively to have a shot at providing immense offensive value in the league. Still, a few of his statistical indicators raise some skepticism about his status as a high-impact lead guard.

One of Acuff’s biggest strengths — his ability to score in transition — doubles as a point of critique for him. Because he’s in transition so much, just 79.5% (29th percentile) of his FG attempts come in the halfcourt, and his 2P% when he’s not in transition falls to just 46.8 percent.

The question is, will he be able to maintain his transition production at the next level, considering he’s not directly creating the stops or turnovers, and if so, to what extent? Will he be in a system that emphasizes getting out and running as much as Arkansas does?

I think these are all valid questions and worth monitoring in the future. Still, I find myself higher on Acuff’s transition influence translating to the NBA because he’s often grabbing the ball, going end to end, and either scoring or getting the ball to his teammates.

However, he has room to grow in the halfcourt in terms of technique as a driver and overall process as a scorer. Acuff is shooting 58.7 percent at the rim in the halfcourt on the season, which is more than fine for a freshman point guard, but he is generating just 0.838 points per possession and shooting 41.6% from two on drives.

The guard can sometimes struggle against longer, more athletic defenders, and as a guard without great vertical pop, he isn’t able to get enough on some of his layup attempts. He also tends to fade away from the rim and shy away from contact on drives, which limits his ability to draw fouls on his drives and partially explains why he draws a free-throw attempt on just 37 percent of his drives.

Acuff can also refine his shot diet/scoring process a bit to maximize effiency in the halfcourt. As the graphic from CBB analytics shows, just 18.2 percent of his half-court shots are at the rim, which ranks in the 23rd percentile. He often opts for, or is forced into, non-rim 2’s, which he is pretty efficient at, but the volume in which he shoots them instead of a rim attempt drags down his 2-point percent to 47.0 percent in the halfcourt (34th percentile).

Though I recognize mid-range shots as the least efficient shot in basketball, I am fine with players taking them as a counter to their rim scoring, especially in pick-and-roll possessions against drop coverage, but for the sake of efficiency, Acuff can stand to cut out the mid-range shots early in the shot-clock, over two defenders or outside of the flow of the offense and it would help his inside the arc scoring tremendously.

As an average-sized guard who is a below-the-rim finisher if his goal is to be a lead guard and/or offensive engine, it is very important that he either take threes at a higher volume or draw fouls at a higher volume to maximize his effiency Acuff currently sits at a 36.0 three-point attempt rate and a 32.8 free throw rate, which is a dangerous intersection for guard prospects to sit and has historically trended towards lackluster effiency in the NBA.

Since 2015, there have been 61 drafted guards 6’5 and below to have an FTR and 3PR of 40 and below in a singular season. 24 of the players have failed to reach 1000 minutes in the NBA; the others are pictured in the chart below. The query and subsequent graphic aren’t meant to say he’ll be a bad player, or fizzle out in the league like some of these guys; it just explains why not drawing fouls or shooting 3’s at volume can limit a scorer’s ceiling.

Despite Acuff’s flaws, I am not going to fade him out of the first round as some have. I respect everyone’s process, especially those who put a ton of thought and reasoning behind their work, but I think Acuff can have pathways to return lottery value in this class.

Finding Balance instead of Fading

Acuff’s scoring process/shot diet is a common concern amongst his skeptics, who rightfully point to the historical trends mentioned above, but it’s worth noting that he’s simply a much better offensive prospect than many of the players that pop up in said queries.

He’s younger, more productive, more efficient, and takes better care of the ball than the vast majority of players who fall within the trend, and I think that must be acknowledged more fully to paint the full picture.

Additionally, there’s a prevailing view that the only way Acuff can work or be effective in the NBA is by having the ball in his hands. While that is somewhat true, I don’t think he’s the typical high usage lead guard that’s useless without the ball. I’ve been incredibly impressed with his willingness to move off the ball, and I think that’s a part of his game that has untapped potential, ready to be unlocked by the right coaching staff.

This season, Acuff has generated 1.133 points per possession on spotups ( 105 possessions), 1.083 points per possession coming off dribble hand-offs (36 possessions), and 1.522 points per possession off of screens ( 23 possessions). Coach Calapari has found creative ways to get him involved with other guards on the floor, and what he’s shown this season speaks to potential scalability (offensively) next to other guards at the next level.

His ability to play on and off the ball and thrive in transition reminds me of Tyrese Maxey, who also found himself below the 40 FTR and 3PR intersection, yet has found a way to have a positive playtype-weighted relative true shooting percentage for the past five seasons. As a high-end outcome, I believe Acuff can mirror his 2024 scoring playtypes and efficiency with added playmaking.

And there are even lessons in Acuff’s higher-end outcomes.

Two of the more successful smaller guards in the NBA — Tyrese Maxey and Jalen Brunson, who both fall under the >40 FTR +3PR Query (Brunson for his career at Villanova)— didn’t begin their careers with high usage. They played alongside all-world offensive engines, showed scalability, and eventually took the reins when the ecosystem made sense (Brunson in New York, Maxey post-2024).

Their ascension wasn’t rushed, and a process like that could matter for Acuff.

If he’s handed a 25+ percent usage rate, a rebuilding team from day one, and asked to manufacture offense against defenses without spacing or structure, there’s a world where he falls into the familiar trap: high box-score production, flashes of brilliance, but neutral (or negative) impact.

We’ve seen that movie before with small guards.

But that doesn’t mean the alternative outcome is failure.

Acuff doesn’t have to become a sure-fire All-Star guard to justify a first-round selection, nor is he doomed to become a ball-dominant empty-calorie player.

There is a very real and valuable archetype in between those extremes — the offensive-minded guard who can toggle on and off the ball, run second units, and provide a much-needed spark off the bench.

That’s closer to where I view his median outcome, and the pathway there is tangible.

Acuff’s age-adjusted production in the SEC is elite. His ability to handle usage while avoiding turnoverers and to get his teammates involved is valuable.

And if you don’t buy the numbers or don’t like his film, I get it.

Small guards are scary bets. The margin for error is razor-thin.

But a Calipari guard with this level of production?

I wouldn’t bet against it.

In the wake of Peterson v. Dybantsa volume 1, one of the most anticipated prospect matchups this century, my Twitter (or X) timeline was filled with tweets about how Peterson’s dominant first half had secured the talented freshman’s status as the clear #1 pick.

The hype around Peterson doesn’t surprise me — he’s one of the best guard prospects of the last decade, and had a ridiculous two-way performance in front of millions of fans.

However, the discourse that he’d somehow ended the #1 pick discussion after 18 minutes of play and the subsequent debate that we’d just watched the top two picks battling it out baffled me.

A few hours earlier, Duke’s Cameron Boozer dominated Virginia Tech, scoring 24 points on 84.5 true shooting percentage, while grabbing eight rebounds, and dishing out five assists in what felt like his fifteenth excellent game in a row.

Boozer’s excellence being overshadowed on Saturday is the continuation of a trend that has somehow disqualified him from top-pick consideration among the consensus.

In fact, 20 NBA scouts were polled on who they’d take #1, and Boozer did not receive a single vote.

In my confusion and some annoyance with the discourse, I posted the tweet below, which reached over 200,000 people and reminded me of the pros and cons of a somewhat viral tweet.

Dozens of people filled the replies with different iterations of player comparisons (mainly derogatory), comments about Boozer’s lower ceiling in comparison to Peterson or Dybantsa, or insinuated that his collegiate production wouldn’t translate to the NBA.

The responses to my tweet opened my eyes to how misunderstood a prospect Cameron Boozer is, so below, I’ll be countering the most common misconceptions that reared their ugly heads in my mentions last weekend.

Misconception 1: Boozer is Tyler Hansbrough

I decided to start with this misconception and will spend the least time on it because it was one of the most prevalent comments under my tweet and the easiest to debunk.

With all due respect to the legendary player, Hasbrough was at North Carolina; he doesn’t compare whatsoever as an NBA prospect. Both are listed at 6’9, 250lbs, physically imposing forwards who love to post and face up, but that is where the similarities end.

By the time Boozer reaches the age Hansbrough was as a rookie, he’ll be on his second NBA contract. Furthermore, Boozer’s 33 three-pointers in 22 games are more than Hansbrough made in his entire career, and his 89 assists nearly double Hansbrough’s highest total in any year of his collegiate career.

He’s not Hansbrough, and for good measure, he’s not Jahlil Okafor, Christian Laettner, or Luke Garza, either.

Misconception 2: He’s a traditional/ Undersized big

I was shocked to see several people under the impression that Boozer is a traditional and/or undersized player for his position.

The truth is, he is neither. Boozer is closer to illustrating the evolution of basketball than to playing like a traditional big man. He’s one of two players, 6’9 or taller since 2008, to have an assists percentage above 25, shoot at least seven three-point attempts per 100 possessions at a 35 percent clip.

The other averages 31.2 points, 9.8 rebounds, and 4.4 assists, with a 59.2 true shooting percentage over his last five games. Boozer’s intersection of feel, touch, and ball-handling is about as far away from traditional as you can get.

The second misconception is that Boozer is an “undersized big”. Boozer is a forward and not a center. This misconception is flat-out objectively wrong, as the average height/weight of power forwards who play 15 minutes or more is 6’9 and 227 lbs. At 6'9, 250lbs, according to Duke’s website, Boozer clearly exceeds this threshold.

Misconception 3: He’s just a Bruiser

One of the biggest misconceptions about Boozer’s game is that he’s just a bruiser whose game won’t translate well to the NBA. The people who have this take either haven’t watched enough or don’t know what they’re watching.

Sure, Boozer is an excellent strength-creator who's adept at finding leverage and using his frame to score in the interior, but he’s not strictly a post-scorer whatsoever.

Below is a chart that illustrates Boozer’s most-used play types as a scorer. The chart shows how versatile Boozer is as an offensive player and how he maintains efficiency across different play types.

When watching him, it’s clear this isn’t just a player picking on kids he’s bigger and stronger than. He has legitimate skill as a scorer, and that’s before diving into his passing acumen.

I find it baffling that one could watch a player of his size function as the handler in ball-screen actions, drive from the perimeter, and take and make pull-up threes (41%), and the takeaway be anything other than he’s one of the most unique offensive prospects we’ve seen.

When evaluating Boozer, his skeptics cite that he’s too small/not athletic enough to be a post-scoring big, and that the NBA has moved away from that playstyle, but who's to say that will be Boozer’s most-used playtype and not simply a button he presses against a mismatch?

His history of play-type infallibility dates back to high school, when he completely transformed his game from freshman to senior year.

I firmly believe one of the key signals of being conducive to winning basketball, especially offensively, is being pliable across different contexts and playstyles while not needing to dominate usage. Boozer is the paradigm of this idea, but alas, we love our heliocentric, ball-dominant, and often flawed creators.

Misconception 4: He has College production, not Pro potential

In my tweet, I point out that Boozer is having one of the best freshman seasons in college history, and the most-liked comment said that means absolutely nothing about how he projects at the next level.

I believe that to be both untrue and a misunderstanding of what age-adjusted college performance says about NBA translation. Simply put, players this young who dominate much older players have an extremely high hit rate of becoming not only good NBA players but, more likely than not, all-star level players. Being the best player in the country before your 19th birthday is not the norm, but it is a significant indicator of future stardom.

The biggest reason Boozer’s skeptics believe his game won’t translate to the NBA is his lack of vertical athleticism. That concern isn’t unfounded. It can limit him on both sides of the ball, but I find it to be dramatically over-indexed.

Closely tied to that concern is the belief that Boozer won’t be able to overpower NBA bigs the way he has at the collegiate level, and that his scoring efficiency will suffer as a result. This is also a perfectly reasonable concern. However, Boozer is already a 250-pound 18-year-old and could become even stronger as he matures.

Expecting the jump to the NBA to mute his scoring inherently ignores both physical development curves and how Boozer actually creates offense. As previously mentioned, he will still have a significant size advantage over the average four. If guarded by centers, he can draw them out of the paint with his shooting and use inverted pick-and-rolls as a release valve to drive to the paint.

As for his lack of vertical athleticism, it’s not as if Boozer is chained to the ground. There’s a persistent notion that he “can’t dunk,” even though he’s already thrown down over 26 dunks this season. He may not be a pogo-stick athlete, but the gap between “not explosive” and “non-athletic” is massive, and Boozer comfortably sits closer to the former.

Vertical athleticism is unquestionably a valuable trait, but NBA history is littered with players who succeeded without fitting the traditional athletic archetype, winning with strength, touch, processing, and shooting. Boozer checks all of those boxes at a good-to-great level. His ability to generate advantages without relying on vertical pop — through strength, leverage, and footwork, is precisely why his lack of elite explosion isn’t disqualifying.

The Reality

The one part of Boozer’s profile that has come under scrutiny — and fairly so — is his defensive viability. This is where the athleticism concerns are most likely to show up at the NBA level. His defense has been inconsistent and, at times, outright poor, particularly when he’s asked to switch onto quicker perimeter players who are much faster than he is.

Stiffer hips and slower foot speed limit his mobility and lead to blowbys, to which he doesn’t have the athleticism to recover. Additionally, he doesn’t have the size or vertical pop to function as a true defensive anchor and can find himself out of position, occasionally late on a close-out or rotation, or simply unable to deter a shot at the rim. He has just a 1.0 block percentage against top-100 teams.

That said, Boozer isn’t devoid of defensive value. Most of it will come from ending possessions with defensive rebounding and from leveraging his feel for the game and strong hand-eye coordination to generate steals and deflections.

He’s never going to be a scheme-proof defender, and he’ll have to be proactive with his positioning and become more disciplined, but he has pathways to being a neutral or slight plus defender.

Offensively, there’s still room for growth as well. Boozer has yet to develop a consistent midrange counter; his handle can tighten and become more dynamic, and he can improve as a passer on the move. These are real limitations, not nitpicks — and acknowledging them is essential.

But here’s where the conversation around Boozer often goes wrong.

He isn’t the high-floor, lower-ceiling prospect he’s frequently framed as when compared to his two peers in this class. Boozer’s skeptics claim that his ceiling is lower in comparison to Boozer and Peterson because of his lack of athleticism, but they often speak about him as if this 18-year-old player, who is younger than the other two, has somehow capped his development because he’s grown into his body already.

To those people, I ask: Can his shooting not continue to improve? He’s already shooting at a high clip on good volume for his size and position. Can his handling not improve? What if he develops a mid-range counter or shoots the mid-range more as he did in high school?

Today, he’s an exceptionally talented offensive player whose playing style should make him one of the more versatile stars. He’ll be able to thrive in different contexts and scale up and down.

On his tough shooting nights, he still adds value because of his impact on the four factors, which Dean Oliver, a pioneer of modern basketball analytics, deemed the four most important stats for winning a basketball game. Boozer’s ability to not only score efficiently for himself but also create for others while taking care of the ball and extending possessions through offensive rebounding leads to immense offensive influence.

The reason many struggle to see him as a legitimate #1 pick is simple: what he does isn’t flashy. It doesn’t look like the archetype of a player who’s been the first option on a championship team. And while I said earlier that this discourse confused me, I do understand where it comes from. It is how I used to think just 18 months ago.

Yet, I still think the broader basketball world must move away from this monolithic view of stardom rooted solely in the eye test and aesthetic bias. The goal isn’t to draft the player who looks the part — it’s to draft the player who most consistently impacts winning.

And by that standard, Cameron Boozer belongs squarely in the #1 pick conversation.

In fact, it should start with him.

In Kelvin Sampson’s 11-year tenure at Houston, he’s accomplished about as much as a coach can achieve short of winning a national championship.

He is a multiple-time conference and national award winner, earning four AAC Coach of the Year honors, back-to-back Big 12 Coach of the Year awards, and being a consistent Naismith Coach of the Year finalist across multiple seasons.

In his time leading the Cougars, they’ve been a perennial title threat, winning over 75 percent of their games and making multiple trips to the sweet 16, the elite eight, and the final four.

Yet, throughout all his success in H-Town, he’s failed to balance it with developing freshmen into premier NBA talent, instead opting to build through retention and, eventually, the transfer portal.

That was until last offseason, when Sampson secured three top 25 recruits for the first time in his career. Of those three, freshman point guard Kingston Flemings has undoubtedly been the best and projects to be Sampson’s best prospect in his very long career.

Here’s why.

World-Bending Driving

If you’d never watched Flemings and turned on his tape for the first time, the first thing that would stand out is his driving ability. Flemings has Sonic the Hedgehog-esque speed, which he uses to constantly bend defenses.

Despite his speed and unparalleled burst, Fleming stays composed as a driver, never looking out of control, and is adept at changing speeds in an instant. The freshman’s body control and touch intersection, understanding of driving angles, and unorthodox one-foot finishes are the foundation of his viability as a driver, but it’s his counters in the mid-range that demarcate him.

Whenever Flemings ins’t able to create a lane to the rim or a team is playing drop coverage, he’s able to stop on the dime and rise up in the mid range to the tune of 44.6 percent on non-rim twos. Flemings can seemingly access a mid-range jumper from anywhere inside the arc. His elevation on his jump shot and ability to square his shoulders, despite occasional fluky footwork, allow him to problem-solve in the paint in a way reminiscent of T.J. McConnell.

Fleming’s solution in the mid-range maxes out his productivity as a driver, making for a driving profile that is not simply good, but historical.

Below is a chart comparing Fleming’s drive frequency and efficiency to those of a few notable slashing guards. His 27 percent drive percentage and subsequent 1.000 points per possession are paramount amongst guards 6’5 and under, though it is essential to note that the average points per possession was lower 15 years ago.

Fleming's dominant driving enables him as a passer as well, and his ability to collapse a defense, create paint touches, and then find his teammates makes him one of, if not the best, playmakers in the class. He boasts a near 35-assist percentage with just below 25.6 usage and has a 3:1 AST/TO ratio.

Though a significant portion of Fleming’s playmaking ability stems from his ability to get downhill, he derives value from simply quickly processing defense. Flemings is cerebral in the sense that he can toggle between quickly making a read off the catch and being patient and probing in the pick-and-roll.

He’s a gifted interior passer, but has also shown the propensity to make advanced reads, such as skip passes to the opposite slot/corner to find shooters.

Flemings’s ability to collapse defenses, score at the rim and in the midrange, and create for others without turning the ball over has led to Houston’s offense being drastically better with him on the court, even when he’s not scoring efficiently.

Below is a chart with data from CBB Analytics detailing Fleming’s impact on Houston’s offense.

As the chart shows, the Cougars' offense is taking far more shots at the rim with Fleming on the floor, with similar efficiency to when he is off the floor, and shooting much better in the paint. Houston’s overall offensive rating is much higher with Fleming on the court; they take care of the ball more (though in a relatively low turnover environment) and shoot better from behind the arc as a result of his playmaking.

Though Flemings is efficient and a conduit for elite offense for the Cougars, his scoring process raises significant red flags for his NBA translation.

Disqualifying Queries?

As you can probably tell, Flemings is an interior slanted guard that thrives at getting into the paint, but he does not draw fouls nearly as much as his profile would suggest he should. Flemings has a 28.9 FTR and a 25.0 FTR on drives, drawing a shooting foul on just 8.8 percent of his drives.

More importantly, his three-point rate is just 27.6, which is incredibly low for a perimeter creator, much less a sub-6’5 guard in the modern era.

Below is a query of drafted guards 6’5 and under who find themselves within an intersection of fewer than seven three-point attempts per 100 possessions and below 30 FTR in their pre-draft seasons. Three-point attempts per 100 is used as a proxy because Bartorvik does not allow sorting by 3PAR, but many of these players fall within the <30 3PR / <30 FTR intersection.

The list is filled with players who either couldn’t stick around in the league or have been underwhelming scorers. 16 of the 35 players listed met this criterion in their pre-draft seasons (and throughout their collegiate career for the players who spent multiple years in college), and nearly all of them who’ve played significant minutes in the NBA fall below the average true shooting percentage.

The reason for the inefficiency of players who fall under this query is a simple concept — players who don’t get to the free-throw line at volume nor draw fouls at volume struggle to be efficient because of their sub-optimal shot diet.

Many will point to the fact that no one in Houston draws fouls (6th percentile in FT attempts per game according to CBB Analytics) as a reason to look past Fleming’s inability to get to the line, which is a fair point, but this issue started much earlier than his arrival on campus.

According to Cerebro Sports, over a 156-game sample, encompassing high school and AAU, Flemings had just a 32.2 FTR, which would get him above the threshold but is not overly positive given how much he drives.

Flemings collegiate shot diet has historically pointed to an inefficient process in the NBA. Outside of the FTR and 3PR rate concerns, he has a 1.02 rim-to-non-rim two ratio. Extrapolating Fleming’s shot diet out to a 38-game sample (If Houston were to make the national championship) is on pace to take 170 rim attempts, 166 non-rim two attempts, and just 128 three.

That shot distribution would put him in line with the nine players listed below.

Despite Fleming’s suboptimal scoring process, I still find myself very high on his potential as an NBA player, and he has avenus to drive + value on both sides of the ball.

Somehwhat Ignoring the Red Flags…

Compared to the 16-player sample in the first query I pulled, Fleming has a lot going for him. He’s amongst the youngest, most efficient, highest-feel, and defensively impactful of the players that qualify for the query.

When evaluating the data, the first thing that stands out is Fleming's production in defensive playmaking. His 4.0 STL% ranks in the 100th percentile. Though Houston is one of the best contexts for getting steals and blocks because of its agressive defensive coverages (27.1% Hakeem Percent ~98th percentile), Fleming's films align with his impact.

Flemings’s feel on the offensive end shows up as an off-ball defender. He has a clear understanding of where his opponents want to go with the ball, frequently detonating pick-and-roll actions from the weak side. Flemings pairs this cognition with excellent timing and hand-eye coordination, leading to the cougars' steal percentage being 2.3 percent better with him on the court, per CBB Analytics.

Flemigs also does well at the point of attack. He has good screen navigation and moves his feet well, keeps his hips low, and beats opponents to the spot, though he’s not perfect by any means. His relatively light frame allows stronger ball-handlers to overpower him, and he does give up an occasional turnover, but his turnover creation and abilities on the ball signal that he’ll be at least passable on defense.

Secondly, while his three-point volume is low, all of his indicators of touch are great (44.6 on non-rim 2's + 80.6 FT%), and he is making his threes at a 39.1 percent clip with equity on and off the ball.

Despite his flaws as a scorer, Fleming’s intersection of playmaking, feel, athleticism, and defensive production is unrivaled in this class, making him a blue-chip prospect worth a top-five pick in the 2026 NBA Draft.

One of the most prevalent phenomena in the NBA and NBA Draft space over the last 15 or more years is the devaluing of small guards.

This season, just 57 players in the NBA are 6’2 and under, and only 42 of them play 10 minutes or more.

Essentially, the bar for smaller guards to be impactful is at an all-time high as players have become bigger, more athletic, and more skilled. Coaching has become so advanced on both sides of the ball that employing a small guard, especially in the playoffs, can bleed an immeasurable amount of value.

In the chart below, you’ll notice that players such as Donovan Mitchell, Stephen Curry, Jalen Brunson, and Tyrese Maxey — a few of the best offensive players in the world — sit at the intersection of playing time and impact.

You’ll also notice that the vast majority of guards under 6’2 fall below a neutral estimated plus-minus (EPM).

The level of offensive impact needed to be a high-minute player in high-leverage situations is difficult to project for the vast majority of prospects, and maintaining it over a career is rare.

Take Ja Morant and Trae Young, for example, both of whom peaked as offensive engines capable of driving +5 offenses that are now viewed as, at best, neutral assets around the league.

Young was traded to the Wizards for CJ McCollum and Korey Kispert this week, with no additional draft capital, and Morant appears to be on the way out of Memphis any day now.

The year’s cycle features several small guards — notably Darius Acuff, Christian Anderson, Labaron Philon, Bradoen Smith, Tamn Lipsey, and Tahaad Pettiford, who will test the limits of how high evaluators can rate this seemingly dying breed of players.

Yet even among this class, testing the modern tolerance for size, no guard strains those boundaries more than Vanderbilt’s Tyler Tanner—a 6’0”, 170-pound guard who, through sheer production and the Commodores’ 16–0 start, has forced his way into NBA Draft conversations that players built like him are no longer supposed to enter.

But can he beat the odds?

A disqualifying query?

Since 2008, just 23 players, 6’0 and under, have been drafted. Only three have been first-round picks.

Of those 23, only seven players — Isaiah Thomas, Ty Lawson, Patty Mills, DJ Augustin, Trey Burke, Shabazz Napier, and Isaiah Cannaan played more than five seasons in the NBA.

Outside of a few outliers, it’s simply not a list that you’d want a potential first-round pick to find himself in.

However, I firmly believe that Tanner is a better prospect than each of the names listed here, and that starts with his athleticism.

Outlier traits to overcome the obstacles

For a guard built like Tyler Tanner, the margin for error is nonexistent. Size-based disqualifiers mean he cannot simply be good—he must be meaningfully different from his peers in ways that translate to the NBA.

For Tanner, those differences are twofold: functional athleticism and an innate feel for the game. Together, they fuel a profile that is historically unprecedented for guards of his size.

Of the 23 guards listed above who measured 6’0” and were drafted since 2008, just two—Russ Smith (19) and Peyton Siva (15)—recorded more than 10 dunks in a single collegiate season. Tanner has already registered 13 in 16 games, putting him on pace to shatter those benchmarks entirely.

Tanner possesses a lightning-quick first step that consistently blows by defenders, paired with short-area explosiveness that allows him to change directions and speed in an instant. There’s a suddenness to his game—a jitterbug quality—that bends defensive coverages and forces rotations. To this point in the season, the guard has generated 1.18 points per drive, has a 57.0 free-throw rate when attacking the basket, and is finishing at 63 percent (31-49) at the rim in the half-court.

These marks place him among the class's best half-court drivers, with a high rim frequency and a rim field goal percentage.

His functional athleticism doesn’t just show when creating paint touches. It has also translated defensively in ways that few guards of his size have ever matched.

Tanner stands alone as the only high-major guard under 6’0 to post at least a two-block percent and a four-steal percent.

However, it must be noted that over the past two seasons, Vanderbilt has been an excellent context for generating defensive playmaking numbers.

The Commodores rank in the 97th percentile in Hakeem percentage (steal% + block%) and maintain that level with him off the floor, but on film, his defensive awareness is evident.

Tanner consistently reads actions one step ahead, allowing him to jump passing lanes before windows fully open and contest shots that most guards his size couldn’t fathom disrupting. The steals often turn directly into transition opportunities, and his six blocks on the season speak not just to rare verticality, but to timing and motor.

At the point of attack, he’s a tenacious defender who frequently picks up ball-handlers as they cross half-court in an effort to start possessions with chaos. Tanner is adept at getting low in his stance, flipping his hips, and sliding his feet to beat his opponents to the spot and get around screens.

That aforementioned cerebral processing is present on the offensive end as well. Tanner boasts a 3.0 assist-to-turnover ratio and has emerged as one of the most effective pick-and-roll ball handlers in the country, generating 1.011 points per possession.

He derives the bulk of his playmaking value from his ability to get downhill, bend a defense, and then find an open teammate. He reads where help will come from extremely well and consistently makes his decision before it gets there. Tanner is a gifted interior passer (3.5 assists per 40 inside the paint) who can deliver passes with both hands.

The Commodores have offered him an excellent context for playmaking production with bigs who can roll and pop and multiple shooters along the perimeter.

Overall, Tanner’s impact on the game is undeniably an outlier for his size. He plays much bigger than his size and weight, and is arguably the highest feel guard prospect in the class, as seen by his AST/TO and steal percentage integration.

Below is a chart that illustrates how rare a start to the season Tanner is having.

Vanderbilt’s star is the epitome of an outlier and is arguably the best prospect at his size in the Bartovik era, but he does have limitations that could hold him back from success.

Cost of Admission

Before entirely buying into Tanner as a legitimate NBA prospect, especially one that has been mocked as high as the lottery by multiple evaluators, it’s necessary to confront the most glaring questions in his profile—questions that historically have disqualified guards of his size.

The first, and most pressing, is his shooting profile.

Despite his offensive production, Tanner does not take and make enough threes to be generally required to offset his size disadvantage. He’s attempting just 7.6 three-point attempts per 100 possessions, placing him in the 48th percentile among drafted guards listed at 6’0 and under, and has a 37.4 3PAR.

Tanner has yet to prove himself a reliable pull-up shooter. He’s shooting 5-17 on pull-up threes, and during his freshman season, he converted just 26.6 percent of his total three-point attempts.

For a guard whose margin for error is low, lukewarm shooting indicators are not ideal.

To Tanner’s credit, he has drastically improved as a shooter this season, upping his percentage to 38.8 and increasing his free-throw percentage to 85.7 from 75 percent last season.

Though he’s struggled as a pull-up shooter, he’s been ample enough (40.8 percent) off the catch.

The next layer of concern comes on the defensive end.

Even with Tanner’s gaudy playmaking numbers and apparent willingness to defend, he is still likely to be a target for opposing offenses—particularly in playoff environments where matchups are optimized. While his height places him at a disadvantage, it’s his 170-pound frame that raises the most significant red flags at the NBA level.

Tanner does somewhat make up for his small frame in length, with a rumored +5 wingspan, but he’ll still be susceptible to getting overpowered by bigger and stronger guards and be a target vs teams who frequently mismatch hunt.

To his credit, Tanner competes. He plays more like 6’5 than 6’0 and is willing to engage physically despite his disadvantage. But effort alone doesn’t eliminate functional concerns. Without substantial weight gain, his defensive viability may be reliant on how aggressively opponents choose to involve him.

NBA Projection: Lead Guard

I’m not yet ready to project Tanner as a star guard at the next level, as there are still some offensive indicators that need to trend in the right direction. In addition to increasing his three-point volume, I think it would be beneficial for Tanner to develop his mid-range counters, as paint touches become harder to come by in the NBA.

I believe this will be especially crucial as he operates against drop coverage. To this point in his career, he’s shooting 30.4 percent on mid-range jumpers and 32 percent on runners, which has drug down his two-point percentage in the pick and roll to 50 percent.

However, given his ancillary tools, I believe he can be an impactful NBA player without looking like what we generally think a star should. Tanner projects as a lead guard who can run the offense and have a positive impact on turnover differential on both sides of the ball.

Unlike most point guards, he doesn’t need high usage to be impactful and is viable off the ball, not only because of his catch-and-shoot ability, but also because of his ability to attack closeouts and attack against shifting defenses.

He’s also shown the ability to scale up in a limited sample size without back-court partner Duke Miles off the floor. In the three games where he’s shoulder 30+% usage, he’s averaged 24 points on a 59 true-shooting percentage and maintained a 1.9 AST/TO ratio.

Ultimately, Tanner has the makings of a moderate-usage lead guard bet (a la Fred Vanvleet) who has a strong influence on a team winning the possession battle (arguably the most important key to winning a basketball game), who can be slotted next to another high-usage creator and toggle on and off the ball on offense.

His value is not dependent on the use of a rigid, heliocentric offense. Instead, it’s rooted in possession maximization — his ability to generate and protect advantages without monopolizing the ball, to pressure defenses as a driver, to create extra possessions with steals, and to minimize wasted ones with elite decision-making.

Those traits will scale. And they matter most in the margins where games are decided.

In a league that has steadily raised the cost of admission for smaller guards, Tanner’s profile reads less like a bet on archetype and more like a bet on process.

He’s an outlier in every meaning of the word and the best bet among the smaller guards in this class to overcome size concerns. He should comfortably be the first guard 6’0 and under to be selected in the first round since Trey Burke in 2013.

All the rave out of Urbana this offseason centered around Brad Underwood’s international recruiting prowess.

The Illini field a team with 36 percent of its players whose last names end in “ovic” or “isic”, and added another foreign player, Croatian forward Toni Bilic, a week ago.

Underwood has cited foreign players “caring more” and playing more “fundamental” as reasons why they fit what he wanted to build at Illinois.

But arguably, his best player, and arguably best NBA draft prospect through 12 games, is a former three-star recruit from Shawnee, Kansas, a suburb of Kansas City with a population just under 70,000.

Enter freshman guard Keaton Wagler, one of the most unique prospect evaluations that I’ve ever seen.

The NBA Draft space is no stranger to miraculous risers. Every year, there’s a player who plays extremely well in the first ten games of the season and finds themselves on scouts’ radar.

But transparently, I had no idea who Wagler was before his 18-point debut against Jackson State, as he had no accessible high-school priors and didn’t play on a major AAU circuit.

What did I miss?

Wagler was an unranked three-star recruit before 247 re-evaluated him and ranked him as the 150th recruit in the 2025 class.

In his senior season, he averaged 18.5 points, 6.6 rebounds, and 4.2 assists per game to help Shawnee Mission Northwest win its second consecutive state championship.

Wagler’s scoring, rebounding, and facilitating have translated immediately to the collegiate game. As I type into my keyboard, he’s averaging 15.7 points, 5.1 rebounds, and 3.3 assists on 63.1 true shooting percentage.

But maybe I should have expected this?

Before the season started, Underwood remarked that Wagler was in the same class of prospect as former Illini Freshman, and current NBA players Kasparas Jakucionis and Will Riley.

Ultimately, I still had to sit down and watch the film, because what coach wouldn’t speak highly of their players?

What I found has me intrigued by Wagler’s potential as a first-round pick, but it raised even more questions about his NBA translation.

A Case of Possession Maximization

The first thing that stands out on Wagler’s tape is his shooting ability. He has a relatively quick, fluid stroke and isn’t afraid to attempt shots well beyond the three-point line. He’s shooting 43.3 percent on 9.2 3PA per 100 possessions and has a 50.8 3PAR.

Wagler has shown the ability to shoot on and off the ball, often crossing into stepbacks to create space from his defender, or relocating off the ball into catch-and-shoot threes. The freshman is shooting a blistering 44 percent (8-18) on pull-up threes and 42.9 percent (18-42) on catch-and-shoot attempts.

When Wagler has handled the ball more for the Illini, he’s displayed a level of pace, poise, and control that’s rare for a freshman. It’s been quite difficult for defenses to speed him up. Wagler has been one of the best pick-and-roll handlers in the nation, converting ball screens into 1.250 points per possession, which ranks ninth among handlers with at least 30 scoring possessions.

As a driver in the pick-and-roll, he’s adept at using his intersection of size, balance, and footwork to carve out angles near the rim while being a below-the-rim athlete who lacks above-average speed or burst. He routinely punishes smaller guards and executes wrong-hand, wrong-foot finishes to keep his finishing somewhat unpredictable, and has shown a capability to play off of two feet.

The Illini have a system in which essentially all of their ball-handlers get to make decisions. When Wagler had the opportunity to run the show, he processed the floor exceptionally well.

Wagler has excellent synergy in the pick-and-roll with twin brothers Tomislav Ivisic and Zvonimir Ivisic, who both can roll and pop, routinely hitting the two in advantageous spots on the court. The guard is a gifted interior passer who can make deliveries with both hands and sports a 2.5 AST/TO ratio.

Through 12 games, Wagler has a 9.1 offensive rebounding percentage and leads the team in total offensive rebounds. At 6-foot-6, he combines his size with an excellent motor to grab boards over the smaller guards that are usually defending him. Wagle routinely crashes the glass and creates more possessions for the Illini, one of the country's best offensive rebounding teams.

Simply put, Wagler’s a possession maximizer. He does not over-dribble, turn the ball over, or take ill-advised shots. He routinely makes the extra pass, is an excellent decision maker in the pick and roll, and extends possessions with offensive rebounds.

However, my questions about his viability in the NBA start with his defense.

Potential Red Flags

At 6-foot-6, with what looks to be a plus wingspan, Wagler has the length to bother shots and guard both guard spots, but he can be a streaky defender. Right now, he sits at below two steal percentage and two block percentage, which isn’t the end-all be-all, nor does it rule out any future growth, but there aren’t many examples of a freshman with these defensive playmaking numbers grading out as good NBA defenders. Below is a query for lottery picks who meet this criteria.

It is worth noting that the Illini, as a whole, don’t force many turnovers or get many steals or blocks—their 5.6 steal percent ranks as one of the worst marks in the nation, and their Hakeem percent (steal + block percent) ranks in the 52nd percentile. These low figures may be because the Illini run a ton of conservative drop coverage, without sending a lot of agressive help to force turnovers. Their defense focuses on limiting three-point attempts.

However, even with that added context, Wagler’s film does raise some concerns about his viability as an impactful NBA defender.

He’s had some excellent moments defensively, most notably his game against Missouri, where his effort, activity off the ball, and positioning were consistently up to par in Illinois’ blowout win.

At times, though, it’s been the inverse. Wagler can struggle to get around or through screens, recover on plays when he’s beaten, or fall asleep off the ball. The lack of attentiveness at times and the screen navigation are common issues for freshmen and contrbitue to his low steal and block numbers. But I find his lack of athleticism to be most damaging to his outlook as an NBA defender.

While he does have plus length for the position, he lacks strength, foot speed, and lateral quickness, so quicker, more athletic guards may be able to blow by him and force defenses to collapse at the next level.

The lack of athleticism is apparent on the offensive end as well. Despite his size, Wagler has zero dunks on the season and has shot 29.4 percent on 2-pointers on his drives this season. The guard lacks the burst or strength-creation to cleanly create advantages consistently when getting downhill. He somewhat makes up for his straight-line speed with his aforementioned creativity and footwork, but when he can’t carve out a clean look, he tends to settle for tough short mid-range twos.

Wagler’s interior-scoring shot diet has been quite concerning to this point. Through 12 games, he has a 1.1 rim-to-non-rim two ratio and is shooting 25.9 percent on non-rim twos. In short, he’s not getting all the way to the rim a lot, and his counters in the mid-range haven't been an efficient shot. The short mid-range looks he’s attempted or been forced into by the defense have dragged his half-court two-point percentage down to 47.2.

Wagler’s athletic shortcomings and struggles as an interior scorer to this point cause me to question his viability as an on-ball or high usage guard in the NBA, but that’s not to say he can’t carve out a role as a secondary ball-handling guard that offers lineup versatility.

Closing Remarks

It’s still early, but based on his play so far, Wagler is deserving of a selection in the mid-to-late first round.

The shooting is real, and his innate decision-making and overall feel for the game are excellent. Players who maximize possessions offensively the way Wagler does—by taking care of the ball, extending plays on the glass, and consistently making the correct read—tend to find ways to provide at the next level, even if they don’t fit traditional athletic thresholds.

That said, there’s still meaningful room for growth. A larger sample will help validate the shooting numbers, especially off the dribble. Improving his efficiency inside the arc—either by getting all the way to the rim more often or improving his efficiency on short mid-range counters—would go a long way toward solidifying his offensive projection. Defensively, consistency will be the key factor.

If Wagler’s track record tells us anything, though, it’s that he has a habit of outperforming evaluators’ expectations. I wouldn’t be surprised if, once again, Wagler forces evaluators—including myself—to rank him higher.

Kentucky head coach Mark Pope looked like a broken man as he sat before the media.

Forty-five minutes prior, the Wildcats had gotten embarrassed in front of thousands at Madison Square Garden.

Sulky and Dejected, Pope gave short answers and stammered as reporters sought explanations.

His actions, as bizarre as they were, considering it was the third game of the season, said far more than any response he gave.

He was in danger of losing the locker room.

Sixteen days later, Kentucky was dominated again, this time by Gonzaga, to fall to 5-4 on the season.

At this point, the alarms began to sound in Lexington, and fans began to look for hypothetical replacements.

The house that coach Calapari built was crashing down, and there were whispers that maybe the Wildcats moved on too fast.

But Pope doesn’t have to worry about his job security — at least this season.

Kentucky will be fine. His prayers have been answered.

Because he’s back.

A 6-foot-9, 255lb, 7-foot-5 wingspan is back.

A chisled frame, with freak athleticism, is back.

An 18-year-old, who, at 17, posted one of the best freshman defensive seasons in NCAA history before an ACL injury ended his year prematurely, is back.

Pope’s fiercest wildcat, his crown jewel of the transfer portal, is back, and in his first action of the season, Jayden Quaintance showed why he’s considered one of the five best prospects in the 2026 NBA Draft.

Are we surprised?

300 days.

That’s the last time we saw Quaintance on the floor. He left the court dominating. 18 points, seven rebounds, two steals, and a block, to lead Arizona State to a win vs. Kansas State.

Ten months later, and Quaintance has swapped his scarlett and gold for blue and white, but not much has changed.

He’s still the Tasmanian Devil.

A tenacious competitor with the highest motor of any player on the floor, the sheer will to be impactful on every rep.

In Quaintance’s return from injury, he finished with 10 points, eight rebounds, and two blocks. The Wildcats had a 149.2 offensive rating, an 86.7 defensive rating, and a net rating of 62.4 with him on the court.

But are we surprised?

I think many expected some rust to show, or maybe his twitch would be gone. And it’s too early to say that those things won’t happen, but this is who Quaintance is.

Last year, he transformed one of the worst defenses in the country into a top 50 unit with him on the floor.

I think Quaintance can do similar things for the Wildcats. They’re already an elite defense (24th in defensive efficiency and 95th percentile defensive rating), but the sophomore big man could transform the Blue Blood into the best unit in the nation.

It’s plays like the few below that display the defensive value Quaintance brings. I implore you to watch him detonate plays. He routinely blows up actions, shows at the level, alters shots at the rim, and secures contested rebounds. He has one of the highest motors of any prospect I’ve ever seen, especially for a guy that should go top five.

Even when he’s away from the ball, you can see him bouncing on his toes as if he can’t stand still and has to be involved in a play.

Not to mention, he completely ate Zuby Ejifor's lunch, a player three years his senior.

His tenaciousness and motor translated to the offensive end as well. His second bucket of the night came on a straight-line drive from the top of the key, in which he displays what looks to be a tighter handle, and then used his brute strength and broad shoulders to knock Ejifor off of his spot.

The next two are sheer motor and positioning, as he has the wherewithal to hover around the rim, track the ball, and use a quick second jump to grab and finish three offensive rebounds. With Quaintance on the court vs. St. John’s, Kentucky had a 52.9 offensive rebounding percentage.

In 16 minutes, we got a tiny glimpse of the Quaintance’s potential. Strength-based driving, determined offensive rebounding, and world-bending defense. In his absence, the draft world had somewhat forgotten about Quaintance, and I don’t blame them. This year has been headlined by a ton of shiny new toys — freshman phenoms taking the college world by storm, or breakout upperclassmen making their draft cases later in their careers.

But we must not forget that Quaintance found himself on lists that included Anthony Davis and Joel Embiid last season, even though he was still supposed to be in Pre-Alegrbra.

Now that he’s returned from injury, I’ll be watching to see how his handle has developed, if he can improve his touch (especially at the free-throw line), and if he still possesses the same twitch he had before the ACL injury. Additionally, I’m monitoring his scoring efficiency. It was suboptimal at Arizona State, but Kentucky should offer a better context, especially if Jaland Lowe can stay healthy.

After the final horn, after the noise settled, and State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia, finally exhaled, Quaintance stood beside Mark Pope for a CBS interview.

He smiled as he went to answer a question, but Pope Interjected.

Next to him was a coach who looked nothing like the man who once slumped behind a podium, searching for words he couldn’t find.

This Pope smiled.
This Pope laughed.
This Pope interrupted.

He couldn’t help himself — cutting in mid-answer, with the kind of joy that had been missing for months.

“He was trying to get me to let him play in September!”

As Quaintance finished answering, Pope looked toward him, eyes glossing, watching in admiration.

It didn’t feel coincidental.
It felt ceremonial.

The broken man was gone.
A new Pope had been coronated.

Sixteen days earlier, alarms rang in Lexington. Whispers grew louder. Doubt crept in. The house that Calapari built felt fragile, and the weight of a $20 million NIL budget felt insurmountable.

But now, Pope’s prayers had been answered.

Because his fiercest Wildcat is back — restless, relentless, ready to hunt.

Every NBA Draft Cycle, there’s a mystery box player who nobody had on their preseason boards but explodes onto the scene in November.

This season, a few players fit this mold, but none are more recondite than Baylor’s Cameron Carr.

The junior had appeared in just 18 games and played 102 minutes in his first two collegiate seasons at Tennessee. Now, just seven games into the season, he’s increased that figure by 223% and, with that, has seen increased production.

As I type into my keyboard, he’s averaging 23 points on 70.1 true shooting percentage, grabbing five rebounds a game, and adding 2 stocks. His production makes me wonder how a player this talented struggled to get on the court for Rick Barnes two seasons ago.

So naturally, I went back and watched his high school film to see what I missed.

What I found gives me even more questions about his outlook as an NBA wing.

Off-Ball Oriented

Carr spent his senior season in Missouri at Link Academy alongside Toronto Raptors guard Jak’obe Walter and Michigan guard Elliot Cadeau. He was a consensus four-star recruit and helped the Lions finish with a 28-1 record, averaging 11.1 points on 61.1 true shooting percentage.

During his time at Link, Carr operated as an off-ball wing who got up a ton of threes and thrived in transition. He finished the year with a 67 percent 3PAR, knocked them down at a 33 percent clip and wasn’t shy about taking them from well beyond the line.

However, outside of the catch-and-shoot three-point shot-making and finishing plays in transition, there isn’t a ton from his pre-NCAA sample that suggests he’d be a starter-level wing. His shooting profile wasn’t versatile. Ninety-one percent of his three-point shots were catch-and-shoot attempts; he took just 11 shots at the rim in the half-court, and the vast majority of those looks were assisted as well.

Carr also didn’t create for others or put the ball on the floor. He had a six percent drive frequency and finished with a 1.04 assist-to-turnover ratio.

Heading into Tennessee, he profiled as an off-ball wing that didn’t draw fouls (18.9 FTR), didn’t rebound well (especially for his size and length) and did not create turnovers (0.8 stocks per game).

After watching his film, it felt abundantly clear why he didn’t play as a freshman at Tennessee. He needed to put on weight, improve his handle to create off the dribble, and would have likely struggled with the physicality of the SEC.

But now he’s at Baylor—stronger than ever, creating on the ball a bit more and off to an explosive start.

The question is: How much better has Carr gotten since high school?

Blossoming at Baylor

Evaluating a player whose last tangible sample was three seasons ago is difficult, especially so early in a season, but it’s clear that Carr has improved.

He’s gone from rotational piece (before injuring his thumb and transferring) to the Bears' most impactful player. According to Hoop Explorer, Carr has a +23.6 adjusted net rating, which I suspect stems from weak competition and ridiculously hot shooting so far.

He won’t shoot 50 percent from behind the arc for the entire season, but his volume (39.1 3PAR), shot difficulty, and confidence are those of a knockdown shooter. Additionally, Carr is creating more of his three-point shots off the dribble. 41.6 percent of his attempts are pull-up jumpshots in comparison to 8.7 percent in his final year at Link.

When Carr hasn’t been able to get a three off, he’s been able to counter in the mid range, which is another thing he did not display in high school. Through seven games, he’s shooting 62.5 percent on non-rim twos.

Carr’s athleticism has popped, especially off the ball, as he cuts or attacks a closeout. The wing is quick for his size and has long strides that allow him to cover a ton of ground. Scott Drew runs him off down screens and curls that create an initial advantage, and he’s able to use his elasticity to get to the rim. Carr Wing is shooting an eye-popping 80.8 percent at the rim in the half-court, though 19 of his 21 makes are assisted.

Defensively, Carr’s shown flashes of being an impactful defender. His athleticism and ability to cover ground translate mainly as a help defender, where he’s shown the ability to erase shots from the weakside when his teammates get beat at the rim.

On the ball, I think he’s been best by guarding in isolation and using his 7’2 wingspan to contest shots. With Carr as the primary defender, opponents have shot below 34 percent from the field.

Carr has shown tremendous improvement to begin the year and has risen drastically on my big board, but I do have reservations about his projection, and I’m lower on any star outcomes.

Improvement Areas

While Carr has taken on a bigger role for the Bears, I don’t think his play style or value that he will add to NBA teams has changed a ton from his prior at Link. He still profiles as an athletic, off-ball, play-finishing wing (most of his production has been assisted), which can be valuable, especially if you are a plus defender.

Still, the last part of my statement is an area I’ll continue to watch.

I think Carr can be an impactful defender in the NBA, but I'd like to see him improve his on-ball screen navigation and awareness. He tends to lose shooters throughout possessions and occasionally leaves his feet when closing out. The junior can stand to add weight as well, as opponents have been able to dislodge him this season and create separation with a simple bump.

He’s posted a 1.2 steal percentage and a 4.1 block percentage, which are much-improved figures compared to his high school career, but that production has 1.2 and 2.5 against top 200 teams.

Carr also needs to improve as a decision-maker. He tends to have scoring blindness on some of his drives, missing open teammates in favor of a tougher shot attempt. The wing has a 0.6 AST/TO ratio, which, if continued, would not bode well for his NBA projection. NBA teams want wings who can not only finish advantages but also extend them.

Though I’ve critiqued him quite a bit, I am becoming relatively high on Carr’s outlook as an NBA player. His blend of athleticism, shot-making from all three levels, and defensive potential has intrigued me.

But like any mystery box player, the question isn’t what he is right now—it’s what’s still inside. How much his decision-making sharpens, how he adapts as the shooting regresses, and how he responds to higher-level competition will ultimately determine whether the early-season breakout is real or just a glimpse of something that still needs time to form.

The college basketball season has gotten off to an exciting start. Freshman Phenomena are stealing the show, returners are building their draft cases, and we’ve seen several game of the year candidates in the first two weeks.

To commemorate the beginning of the college basketball season, I’m here to give you my top 14 prospects. These rankings heavily rely on each prospect's pre-NCAA samples, as I refuse to make many changes based on a five-game sample. Each prospect has a short excerpt on what I love about them and what I am looking for this season, along with a more in-depth article that I wrote before the season began. This is meant to be a preliminary board, and I will expand it to 30 names as we enter conference play.

Happy Draft season!

1. Cameron Boozer, F, Duke

What I Love:

Boozer has the best pre-NCAA profile of any prospect I have ever scouted. He’s impacted the game at every level since he was 15, and I’ve had to scratch my head to find a hole in his game. The Forward is an excellent driver, post player shooter, defender, rebounder and processor.

What I am looking for:

My biggest question surrounding Boozer is his lack of vertical athleticism and how that will affect him as a finisher against opponents of similar size and/or length. He often relies on his combination of strength and touch, but how will that translate against better athletes on the NCAA and, eventually, the NBA stage? Boozer does not possess a ton of wiggle, hip mobility, or overall fluidity so that I will be monitoring his self-creation throughout his freshman campaign.

2. Darryn Peterson, G, Kansas

What I love:

Peterson is the most complete guard prospect I have ever scouted—a true elite two-way player without an identifiable hole in his profile. He’s a ridiculous driver, with a Shai Gilgeous-Alexander-esque handle, while being a gifted interior passer and supreme shot-maker. Defensively, he’s an excellent off-the-ball and can hold his own at the point of attack.

What I am looking for:

I’ve wanted to see his 3PAR increase, but then he started his collegiate career with a 66.7 in Kansas’s exhibition game against Louisville and hasn’t slowed down since. Another minor concern is his ability to make advanced reads and handle blitzes and traps in the pick-and-roll.

3. AJ Dybantsa, F, BYU

What I Love:

If Peterson is the best guard prospect I’ve ever scouted, then Dybantsa may be the best wing scorer I've ever scouted. Dybanta averaged 26.4 PPG on 64.3 TS% last season—a ridiculous number given his shot diet. He’s a violent slasher and a great athlete who can and will get to the basket whenever he wants.

What I am looking for:

I am looking for Dybantsa to take and make more threes, create more separation with his handle in the half court, improve as a playmaker, and provide consistent defensive impact. At times, he can have a bit of scoring blindness on his drives and miss open teammates, and he often took plays off defensively during his pre-NCAA play.

4. Jayden Quaintance, F/C, Kentucky

What I love:

Quaintance may be my favorite prospect in the entire class. I think he’s the best defensive prospect since Victor Wembanyama; the numbers back it up.

A 4.2 defensive box-plus minus (DBPM), 9.8 block percentage, two steal percentage, 18.4 rebounding percentage, and a +8 defensive on/off swing underscore his impact at 17 in a high major conference.

Quaintance’s strength, motor skills, instincts, and athleticism are unmatched, and they will allow him to anchor a defense as soon as he steps on an NBA floor.

What I am looking for:

Offensively, the picture is a bit murkier. He’s an excellent play-finisher and an underrated passer, but he doesn't project as a viable shooter, and his touch around the rim has room for improvement. Quaintance is also coming off a significant injury that could hurt his twitchiness and athleticism.

5. Caleb Wilson, F, North Carolina

What I love:

I think Wilson will challenge Quaintance for the title of best defender in the class. The Forward is an elite athlete with excellent twitch and covers a lot of ground. Wilson averaged 4.5 stocks per game over a 94 a game sample in high school (Junior and Senior seasons + 2024 EYBL).

What I am looking for:

Offensively, I have questions about how he will score in the half-court, especially off the dribble, but he’s shown mid-range touch, playmaking, and connective passing. I’ll be monitoring how his handle—which is pretty loose—and jumper progress throughout the season.

6. Bennett Stirtz, G, Iowa

What I Love:

Stirtz is the paradigm of possession by possession maximization. Despite high usage, he never turns the ball over and carried Drake’s load throughout last season. He’s an excellent driver and pick-and-roll operator who understands pace and leverage. Last year, he took a big step as a pull-up shooter while being one of the best court-mappers in the nation.

What I am looking for:

I am looking to see if Stirtz can maintain his production and impact in the Big Ten, as a lack of top-end burst and middling vertical athleticism could be tougher to overcome on the high-major level. If he’s able to replicate last year’s success in the Big Ten (which I think he will), I’ll have no problem keeping him in the top ten.

7. Mikel Brown, G, Louisville

What I love:

Brown’s intersection of nuclear shooting, positional size (height), ball-handling, and playmaking underscores his case as a potential franchise guard. He’s a good bet to shoot over 10+ 3PA/100 and finish with a 1.5+ AST/TO ratio. His numbers may not jump off the page in a loaded Louisville backcourt, but that’ll only add to the idea that he can play on and off the ball.

What I’m looking for:

Brown had an unconventional high school development path—he grew nearly 5 inches over the last 2 to 3 years, which added a few inches to his vertical. I’ll be monitoring how he continues to adjust to his height and added weight with a focus on his ability to get to and finish at the rim—an area in which he struggled pre-NCAA.

8. Koa Peat, F, Arizona

What I Love:

At 6-foot-8, 235 pounds, Peat is an interior-slanted scorer who uses his intersection of size, strength, and touch to finish at the rim. Peat supplements his physicality with touch, a workable handle for his size, and a budding mid-range game. Off the ball, he adds value as a play-finisher, offensive rebounder, and connective passer who blossomed into a legitimate facilitator by the end of high school. Defensively, he makes timely rotations, covers ground, generates stocks, and can guard multiple frontcourt spots.

What I am looking for:

I am looking for Peat to rework his process a bit, get all the way to the rim, and not settle for tough mid-range shots that drag down his two-point percentage. I would also love to see how well he scores outside of fifteen feet as a shot, just 21% from three and 64% from the line in high school. I find this increasingly important, as Peat is a good—but not elite—athlete, and some of the physical advantages he relied on may not scale at higher levels. I’ll be monitoring how he adjusts when he can’t simply overpower defenders.

Pro comparison: 2020-2023 Aaron Gordon

9. Nate Ament, F, Tennessee

What I love:

Ament’s ability to stretch the floor, score in the mid-range, move the ball to his teammates, and cover ground defensively builds out an intriguing tall two-way wing profile with a wide range of outcomes. I enjoy his ability to put the ball on the floor in transition, switch on to smaller perimeter players, and rebound despite his light frame.

What I am looking for:

I am hesitant to project any star outcomes for Ament because he struggles to create separation due to a relatively weak handle and a lack of burst, bend, and strength. I am wary of Ament’s ability to punish mismatches against guards that coaches will inevitably place on him because of his deficiencies, and think he’ll be best utilized as an off-ball super play-finishing wing that can create a shot or two. I’m looking to see if he can self-create and score at the rim efficiently enough to prove me wrong.

10. Hannes Steinbach, F, Washington

What I Love:

Steinbach was a double-double machine overseas, and it has continued during his time at Washington. He is one of the best rebounders in the class, consistently swallowing up misses with his elite hands and functional athleticism. His ability to catch contested passes and convert through traffic speaks to his coordination, touch, and functional athleticism, all of which make him a highly efficient play-finisher around the rim. He’s also shown adeptness as a driver and a connective passer, with hints of real shooting potential, which only adds to the intrigue of his long-term offensive profile.

What I am looking for:

My biggest question with Steinbach is whether he has enough length and vertical pop to anchor a defense as a full-time five. He competes and positions himself well, but I’m monitoring how consistently he can protect the rim, deter drives, and finish plays as a backline defender.

11. Patrick Ngongba, C, Duke

What I love:

After Maliq Brown went down last season, Ngongba flashed the rolling, post-scoring acumen, rebounding, above-the-break passing, and solid defense that he displayed at Paul VI in high school. From February 17th to March 27th (when he began to get significant minutes), he averaged 18.8 points, 9,6 rebounds, and 2.6 assists per 40 minutes. The sophomore is a versatile big that profiles as a weapon in the short roll and a potential post hub for an offense. Ngongba isn’t a true rim protector, but has a gargantuan wingspan and great hands.

What I am looking for:

Ngongba’s touch around the rim and free-throw shooting could suggest some future three-point shooting potential, so I am intrigued about the possibility of that, as well as watching how he defends the rim and in space with a larger role.

12. Tounde Yessoufou

What I love:

Yessoufou isn’t Anthony Edwards, and he’s not close to it, but he still possesses a ton of traits that should be enticing for NBA teams. The wing is an elite athlete with an NBA-ready body that adds value on both sides of the ball. Offensively, he profiles as a play-finisher, adept at slashing to the rim (especially in transition), catching lobs and grabbing offensive rebounds. In a more scaled-down role, Yessoufou has the potential to be an elite defender. He averaged nearly four stocks per 40 minutes in high school and has the size and athleticism to guard 1-3.

What I am looking for:

Yessoufou struggles to operate in the half-court due to an underdeveloped handle, an underwhelming touch, and some difficulty processing defenses as a creator. He was a low-percentage (32.6%), low-volume (28.2 3PAR) three-point shooter for the bulk of his high school career, so I am monitoring how that progresses throughout his freshman campaign at Baylor.

13. Kingston Flemings, G, Houston

What I love:

Flemings is an excellent player with the ball in his hands. He’s the type of guard that you can’t keep in front of you or keep out of the paint. Despite being 6’3, 170lbs, he shot a mind-boggling 74% from two as a senior and has multiple seasons of inside the arc dominance. When he can't get to the rim, he has counters in the mid-range and is adept at creating the initial advantage to get his teammates involved.

What I am looking for:

Flemings' 3PAR and 3PT% hovered around 30 percent in high school. I am looking for him to increase his three-point volume and accuracy, especially on pull-up jumpers, but his free-throw percentage (83%) and mid-range touch leave me optimistic that it can progress. Additionally, I believe he needs to add to his 170lb frame to make life easier both offensively and defensively.

14. Labaron Philon, G, Alabama

What I Love:

Philon profiles as a complementary guard who fits cleanly next to a high-usage initiator thanks to his pick-and-roll passing, ability to collapse defenses, and strong ball security. He consistently manipulates help, makes timely interior reads, and keeps the offense stable without needing high usage himself. Defensively, he brings real playmaking value—his 2.9 steal percentage reflects how well he anticipates actions and disrupts rhythm at the point of attack. His combination of connective playmaking, decision-making, and defensive instincts gives him a clear pathway to an NBA role as a secondary guard.

What I am looking for:

My main questions with Philon revolve around his finishing and vertical athleticism. He shot just 44% in the half-court last season, struggled to generate free throws, and recorded zero half-court dunks—an indicator that his lack of vertical pop limits him as a finisher despite having enough burst and understanding of driving angles to get downhill. I’ll also be watching how his pull-up shooting develops, as becoming a more consistent off-the-dribble threat would open the floor for his PnR playmaking and allow him to punish defenders who sag off. If he can add functional strength, improve his touch at the rim, and steady his pull-up, Philon projects as a reliable complementary guard who wins the turnover battle on both ends.

Arizona freshman Koa Peat has gotten the large majority of the Wildcats’ NBA Draft love, but there is another player on the roster who deserves lottery consideration and may even be a better prospect than Peat.

That player is fellow freshman Brayden Burries, a 6-foot-4 combo guard from California who averaged 29 points, eight rebounds and three assists in his final season at Roosevelt High School.

Burries was a finalist for the Gatorade national player of the year, led the Mustangs to the Open Division State Championship, and, according to ESPN, finished his high school career as the 11th-ranked player in the class.

The guard is highly touted for his scoring ability, which is the primary selling point of his evaluation. Burrie’s scoring prowess and the fact that he isn’t a true point guard have led some scouts to put him in a box and undersell other aspects of his game.

But he’s more than a bucket.

A research question

When I went into my scout of Burries, the first question I asked myself was: How is he different?

It’s no secret that the NBA has begun to fade combo guards, especially those who aren’t star-level scorers.

Look around the league this offseason, and competent GMs weren’t chomping at the bit for players like Cam Thomas, Jalen Green, Anfernee Simons and Jordan Poole.

His driving ability is the first answer to my question.

Burries is all of 205 lbs, has broad shoulders and has a strong frame that allows him to be extra physical when going downhill and bump his defenders off their spots on the way to the rim.

The guard can finish with both hands and has excellent touch, flexibility and body control. Burries is especially potent when attacking the top foot of a defender out of triple threats or when attacking a closeout.

He’s ultra-aggressive, which leads to a lot of drawn fouls. In a sixty-game sample over his final two seasons in high school, he drew seven free throws a game and had a 40.6 free-throw rate.

During his final AAU season with Strive For Greatness, he had an 18.2 drive frequency, generated 1.177 points per drive and shot 63.3 percent at the rim.

Burries isn’t the most athletic—he doesn’t have elite speed or vertical athleticism—but he does have a great first step, handle, excellent pacing and viable counters in the midrange.

Burries shot 36.7 percent on dribble jumpers in his final EYBL season and generated 0.97 points per shot.

But it’s not just the driving. Burries has one of the most complete scoring packages in the class.

If the guard can become a more consistent three-point shooter, he has a pathway to becoming an efficient three-level scorer. At times, he can be streaky. He shot 29.5% from three in EYBL but 36% over his last two high school years.

However, I am relatively confident in his ability to be a good three-point shooter down the line because of his volume (6 per game), confidence, shot distance and free-throw percentage (83%)

As good as Burries is on the ball, he does not need it to make an impact. Because of his shooting and cutting ability, he has the skillset to be an off-ball option next to another ball-handler.

I’m not sure if Tommy Lloyd will use him in off-ball sets, but he should, as Burries can hurt a team going downhill with an advantage already created or simply knock down a three off of a screen.

Underlying Layers

As I continued to watch his film, I began to see other layers to his uniqueness. I wasn’t just impressed by Burries's play in the half-court; I was also impressed with how consistently he turned defensive stops into transition opportunities.

It is an underdiscussed part of Burrie’s evaluation and something I generally find underdiscussed during prospect evaluation.

Very few guards in the class use transition as effectively to put constant pressure on opponents before defenses can get set.

Burries hasa also displayed intriguing passing flashes. He does not put up gaudy assist numbers and isn’t the quickest processor, which can limit his outlook as a lead guard, but he did post a 1.7 AST/TO ratio in his final two seasons.

Burries is a reactive passer who thinks he scores first and then finds his teammates as he causes the defense to collapse. He hasn’t shown a propensity to make advanced reads consistently, but he isn’t a ball-stopper by any means and is a good interior passer.

Defensively, it’s more of a mixed bag. Burries‘ strength translates well when containing drives. He’s able to bump guards off their spot and wall up as they try to drive to the rim. He competes at the point of attack and can fight through screens. He stays active off the ball and acted as a free safety for an undersized Roselevelt team, allowing him to generate about two steals per 40.

However, I can foresee Burries having problems with quicker guards. He does not possess the most incredible foot speed, and once he’s beaten, he does not have the length or athleticism to recover consistently.

What I’m watching for while he’s a wildcat

For all of his strengths—driving, shot-making, rebounding, and solid passing—Burries is one of the more underrated prospects in this class. His placement on most preseason boards ranges from the lottery to the late first round.

That said, there’s still room for growth. The biggest area is his shot selection. Burries was an extremely efficient scorer in high school, but at times, he settled for tough, contested pull-ups in favor of getting to the rim or finding an open teammate.

He can also improve his handling in traffic. Burries is adept at handling through physicality but can be prone to turning the ball over when seeing double teams and traps. The source of most of his turnovers is plays like the examples below, where he gets caught in traffic or defenders dig at his handle as he drives.

If Burries can refine his shot selection, improve his consistency from three and continue to grow as a passer, the guard has a real chance to solidify himself as the best prospect at Arizona and top ten pick in the 2026 NBA Draft.

Subscribe now

Since the NBA’s inception, 154 players who attended Division II colleges have made it to the league.

Some of the association’s legends, such as George Gervin and Earl Monroe, paved the way for today’s former Division II athletes, such as Haywood Highsmith and Derrick White, to make their marks.

The 2026 draft class could feature two players who fit the criteria and could hear their name called on draft night. The first is Bennett Stirtz, whom I’ve had the pleasure of seeing in person, and the second is Elyjah Freeman, who transferred to the SEC this spring.

Freeman dominated his freshman season at Lincoln Memorial, averaging 18.9 points and 8.5 rebounds on a ridiculous 68.5 true shooting percentage. The wing’s play solidified his status as the South Athletic Conference Freshman of the Year and a first-team all-conference member.

Freeman held interest from Tennessee, Indiana, Alabama and Kentucky, but ultimately chose to play for Bruce Pearl at Auburn.

Pearl decided to retire earlier this week, but Freeman still has a season to play and a pathway to the NBA.

Here’s why I think he can do it.

Oh, I get it.

When I first began researching Freeman, I was admittedly a bit pessimistic. I saw a skinny kid who shot a low volume of threes and played against inferior competition, and figured a few scouts were being a bit overzealous in their evaluations.

It took two plays to see the vision.

I jumped out of my seat as Freeman broke his defender’s ankles and exploded into a dunk.

He had my attention.

As I watched, more plays like these occurred, and his primary selling point became clear: elite athleticism.

The newest Auburn Tiger is a unique driver who primarily attacks closeouts but has flashed the ability to create for himself in the half-court. He can explode out of his dribbles quickly and has a herky-jerky movement style. He has a rare burst for a 6-foot-8 player and pairs it with a creative and dynamic handle.

On the rare occasion he couldn’t blow past a defender or draw a foul (57.2 free-throw rate), he displayed great touch on contested layups and floaters.

Freeman’s intersection of length, athleticism and touch allowed him to post an efficient 63.5 true shooting percentage and score 0.972 points per possession on drives.

Off the ball, he’s an excellent cutter who knows how to identify soft spots in a defense and times his movement in the flow of an offense. Lincoln Memorial also used him as a screener, where he did a great job identifying when to roll to the basket.

The Wing is also a weapon in transition. He uses long strides to get down the court in a limited number of dribbles and flashes his handle on the open floor. Freeman has great body control, often decelerating and hanging in the air to finish over defenders. He generated 1.177 points per possession, with 29.4% of his possessions coming in transition (90th percentile).

One of the best proxies for athleticism is offensive rebounding. Freeman finished with 73 offensive rebounds in 31 games. I am skeptical about how much this will translate in the SEC, given he was bigger than a lot of competition, and high-major Division I will feature teams who are more physical and better at boxing out, but if nothing else, the outstounding rebounding numbers speak to his excellent motor and physicality despite a wiry frame.

Freeman’s athleticism translates to the defensive end as well. He racked up 2.5 stocks per game and is a very fluid mover who can cover a ton of ground. His motor isn’t as consistent as when he attacks the offensive glass, but I expect it to improve at Auburn in a lesser usage role at a school known for stout defense.

Freeman’s wingspan is not publicly available, but it looks positive, and he uses it to alter shots and get into passing lanes.

The Sophomore moves his feet and flips his hips extremely well when guarding the ball. His screen navigation (when he’s dialed in) is pretty good, and his light frame works to his benefit as he gets skinny when chasing ball-handlers. Freeman defended 73 drives last season and held his opponents to 37 percent shooting.

Freeman looked like how you’d want a potential NBA player to look against weaker competition—he completely dominated. However, even after watching his film, I still have many questions about his transition to the SEC and later the NBA.

Three Questions I need answers to

1. Will his athleticism translate against better athletes?

Freeman dominated last season largely due to his immense athletic advantage over nearly every defender he faced. He was quicker, could jump higher and was often stronger and more physical than his opponents.

It’s easier to look like an elite athlete and shoot 65 percent at the rim in the halfcourt when you are about the same size as the centers you’re facing. Freeman is still growing into his body. He reportedly grew to 6-foot-6 as a junior in high school, but could struggle somewhat as he begins to fill out his frame.

Here’s a play against one of the bigger centers he faced. He wasn't able to blow past his defender and get to the rim.

2. Can he improve his jumpshot?

Questions one and two go hand in hand. If he cannot maintain that overwhelming athletic advantage in the SEC or the NBA, can he counter with a pull-up jumpshot? The wing shot 17 pull-up jumpers on the season (7-17)

It seems as if the scouting report was to go under on his drives, and Freeman was too athletic and skilled for that to be a viable option, especially on the Division II level.

Freeman shot 45.6% from three, but it was on two attempts per game, and he took a low volume of pull-up jumpers. However, I am somewhat optimistic about the jumper because his touch indicators are good (80% FT) and his form is smooth.

3. Will he add value as a playmaker?

Another major question in Freeman’s game is his playmaking. He’s not a black-hole and tries some advanced reads, but he finished with a negative assists-to-turnover ratio. The primary source of his turnovers was on drives when defenders were physical with him in the gap and made digs at the ball.

Freeman has a good handle but can use some improvement. He needs to work on getting the ball to his teammates when he draws attention on drives. A fair number of his turnovers could have been avoided if he had been willing to consistently make the extra pass.

The answers to the three questions could determine his ceiling as a prospect. He has the athleticism, handle, touch and body control to be a devastating slasher, but he’ll need to put on weight, improve his jumpshooting volume and prove he can hurt defenses as a passer.

Freeman feels like a prospect with a range of outcomes, especially since he did his work at a lower level, but all the things he brings to the game today make for a pretty safe floor if they can translate at Auburn.

I imagine being the son of an NBA player comes with immense challenges.

It’s an experience you can’t fully grasp unless you live it. I don’t have that opportunity, but let’s theorize for a second.

Doors swing open for you, yet every step carries unfathomable expectations. Privilege and pressure intersect and you risk losing sight of your identity.

Now imagine if you weren’t just the son of an NBA player, but also the younger brother of a prodigy widely considered a potential No. 1 draft pick.

Somehow, you are under a magnifying glass while simultaneously living in two different shadows—your father’s legacy and your brother’s rise to stardom.

I don’t know if Cayden Boozer wrestles with this dilemma, but he’s usually described only in relation to others: first as “Carlos Boozer’s son” and then as a “Boozer twin.”

It’s unfair.

Both Cayden and Cameron have worked hard to build their own identities, independent of being an NBA player’s son or being a twin.

​“I understand how we can get bunched in together,” Cayden said in an interview with Marc Spears. “But at the end of the day, we’re individuals. We have to do what is best for ourselves.”

Boozer’s parents know how challenging this situation can be for their kids. According to the article by Spears (read it; it’s a great piece), the Boozers made colleges recruit the twins separately because “they are two different people at two different positions.”

The twins ultimately chose to stick together and followed in their parents’ footsteps to play for Duke, where Cayden will have the chance to carve out his own path to the NBA.

I think he’ll do that, and surprise some people with how good he is.

Let’s dive into why.

Prioritizing Protecting Possessions

The most critical aspect to winning a basketball game is winning the possession battle. Ending possessions with a rebound or a steal takes away potential points from the opposing team and potentially creates opportunties for your team to score.

Subsequently, protecting a possession by not turning the ball over and creating opportunities for your teammates is incredibly valuable to an efficient offense.

This idea is increasingly evident in the modern NBA, and this summer, the two teams leading the league in assist-to-turnover ratio duked it out for the Larry O’Brien.

Boozer is the Paradigm of this idea regarding the 2026 NBA draft class.

During his senior season, during which he helped Columbus win a national championship, he had a 2.68 AST/TO ratio—an outstanding number for a guard his age.

He’s a floor general who minimizes his mistakes by moving the ball quickly and taking what the defense gives him. He doesn’t always create advantages, but his superpower is court mapping. Boozer has an overt ability to get the ball to others where they’re already in an advantageous spot on the floor.

He finds his teammates while they’re open for a three, cutting or have a mismatch, and he’s an excellent transition passer who loves to push the break. Boozer is a conduit for efficient offense because of his sound decision-making and floor recognition.

Columbus had one of the best offenses in the country, and Boozer, as the captain, did an excellent job executing their relatively advanced sets for a high school program.

Everything he does is decisive and quick. There’s no wasted movement or overdribbling, and Boozer rarely takes an ill-advised shot. It’s not flashy, but how clean he plays is still aesthetically pleasing.

Off the ball, the guard is excellent at attacking close outs and hurting defenses as a passer and scorer. Boozer generated 1.051 points per drive during his senior season and shot 61% at the rim. You’ll notice he’s not a record-breaking athlete, but he’s strong, coordinated, and has good touch around the basket and from mid-range.

Boozer’s most significant area for growth is his three-point shot. He’s grown into a capable shooter, but can increase his volume and percentage. The guard shoots around three a game (19% three-point rate), making 34 percent of his looks from behind the arc.

Boozer's repeatable shooting mechanics and other indicators inspire optimism. He keeps a broad base, always has his body square to the basket and maintains his follow-through. Additionally, he shot over 80 percent from the free-throw line.

The rising freshman's feel for the game translates well on the defensive end, and it allows him to create extra possessions for his team, mostly in transition, which inherently leads to efficient offense.

Boozer has great anticipation and excellent hands. It’s like watching a wide receiver play cornerback and guessing his opponent’s routes. As a point guard, he can anticipate where a player wants to go with the ball or plug a hole for a teammate’s missed assignment. He has excellent hand-eye coordination and makes timely rotations.

For all of his playmaking brilliance and extra possession creation, there is a reason why Boozer is commonly mocked as a late-first to early second-round pick. While I disagree with that evaluation, people have raised some valid concerns.

Ceilings are overrated

The bulk of Boozer's concerns are out of his control. He doesn’t have elite foot speed, great burst, or vertical pop. I don’t think the lack of athleticism has necessarily hurt him too much yet. At 6-foot-4, he has good positional size and took 44% of his shots at the rim, but as shown earlier, they primarily come via play-finishing.

I think it’s fair to question how effective Boozer will look against better athletes trying to create advantages downhill and finish against stronger rim protection.

His lack of foot speed and top-end athleticism also shows up on the defensive end. Boozer isn't a turnstile whastover. He’s fine at the point of attack because he’s strong and has a good motor, but opponents can and will blow by him on their way to the rim because they are sometimes quicker.

Scouts are enamored with Boozer’s floor as a steady point guard who can command an offense, limit mistakes and score inside the paint. Where they hesitate is his ceiling, citing his lack of scroing acumen or high-end athleticism.

This is where I differ. I think ceilings are often overvalued. Best-case scenarios are both unlikely and unpredictable, and they tend to lean too heavily on physical tools while undervaluing tangible, repeatable skills.

What we already know about Boozer is far more concrete: he can efficiently run an offense by delivering the ball to teammates in advantageous spots, he has excellent touch inside the arc and from the free-throw line, and he applies the same feel to defense, generating extra possessions.

That’s impact, and I think you can count on it today.

Therefore, I’d consider him worthy of a pick in the back of the lottery or mid-first round. Teams understandably chase stars, but those bets miss a lot more often than they hit. Taking a player who may not project as a superstar but has a strong chance to be consistently impactful can be just as valuable.

In short, Boozer is not only his own prospect, independent of any expectations or grouping with his brother, but a good one, worthy of being selected in the first round of the draft in June.

Subscribe now

Mexico, the tenth-most populous country in the world, is known for several things: Beautiful beaches and resorts, exquisite cuisine, art, culture and a rich history.

Its excellent weather, bustling cities and vibrant nightlife make the country a tourist hotspot.

One thing Mexico is not known for?

Basketball.

In a league where one in every four players is of international heritage, and the last five MVPs are from outside the United States, Mexico has yet to make its mark.

Despite being down the street from the United States and boasting one of the largest international markets for the NBA, Mexico has produced just six NBA players, two of whom were born and raised in the US.

The latest, Jaime Jaquez Jr, is the only active player and made history in 2023 as the first Mexican national to be selected in the draft's first round.

In roughly 10 months, Jaquez Jr could have some company.

Enter Karim Lopez, an 18-year-old forward who spent last season in the NBL playing for the New Zealand Breakers. In 23 minutes per game, he averaged 9.6 points, 4.7 rebounds and 1.2 assists on 57.3 TS%.

Lopez’s production in a respected pro league at a young age has bolstered his profile. He’s widely regarded as a top ten prospect in the 2026 NBA Draft and the best draft prospect Mexico has ever had.

Here’s why.

Auxillary animal

It is always notable when a teenage prospect can carve out a role in a pro league, and Lopez spent the entire NBL season as a 17-year-old. He started the season slowly, but over his last 12 games as a starter, he averaged 12.3 points, 4.4 rebounds on 60.1 true shooting percentage.

Lopez’s primary role was an off-ball connective wing. He found a way to be impactful offensively without high usage or significant on-ball reps. Instead, he thrived in some of the more underappreciated aspects of basketball, such as cutting and close-out attacking.

Lopez has an innate ability to recognize soft spots in a defense. If you fall asleep for a second, he will find and occupy the open space. The forward looks to have watched the Heatles in the late 2010s because he executed several slot cuts last season.

Lopez isn't a true offensive initiator or perimeter scorer, but he is excellent against tilted defenses. He’s decisive, strong, has long strides, and has good body control, which enables him to finish 66% of his looks at the rim in the halfcourt.

He has a creative handle, but it needs to be tightened. He’s a bit right-hand dominant, but it has not been a significant issue. On 46 drives last season, he generated 1.239 points per possession and had a 71 true shooting percentage.

Simply put, Lopez does many of the little things that flesh out a profile as a great connective piece. It’s not always the flashiest or most aesthetically pleasing, but he plays hard and adds value offensively in unique ways, such as offensive rebounding.

Lopez’s spatial awareness, motor and athleticism also translate to the defensive end. At 6-foot-8, with what looks to be a + wingspan, Lopez possesses the size and mobility to be an impactful team and individual defender. Lopez posted modest stock numbers (1.4 STL% + 3.9 BLK%), but he’s shown the wherewithal to consistently affect plays on film.

He has excellent mobility for his size and uses it to cover ground and contest shots on the perimeter. Lopez has also shown a propensity to guard multiple positions.

Lopez’s NBL production, athleticism, and ancillary skills set a strong foundation for his top-ten case, but he needs to improve in some key areas to maintain his spot.

Can he be more than a connector?

Lopez's most significant area of improvement is his jump shooting. He shot 30.8 percent from behind the arc on 2.5 assists per game. Fortunately, his catch-and-shoot mechanics are not broken, but he has a slow release and his shot sometimes looks a bit stiff.

Lopez’s lack of pull-up shooting could hurt him if he hopes to become a perimeter creator in the NBA. Teams will go under and force him towards his left hand, but he does not possess outlier speed, burst, or strength to create advantages.

Even on some of Lopez’s converted drives, he’s not creating clean advantages and instead relying on touch and body control.

However, he does have some upside as a shooter. Lopez’s free-throw shooting has improved dramatically over the last two years and now sits at 74%. He ended last season shooting 37 percent in his last 13 outings.

The forward also isn’t a natural playmaker. He’s prone to missing some reads or turning the ball over in traffic, and he’s had limited reps running ball screens. Lopez finished the season with a 1:1 AST/TO ratio and acts primarily as a connective passer or makes a read off his drives.

If Lopez wants to graduate from an off-ball connective role into a legitimate vocal point of an offense, he’ll need to improve as a shooter, shot creator and become a more natural playmaker. Improvements in those areas will strengthen his claim as a top ten pick.

But whether he is a lottery pick or not, he’s likely to make history next summer and become the 7th player of Mexican heritage to play in the NBA.

If you told James Naismith in 1891 that 6-foot-9-inch players would be able to block a shot, dribble the ball up the court, throw it behind their back, and then launch a shot 30 feet away from the rim, he’d grab his soccer ball, take down his peach basket and call you crazy.

It’s been 135 years since Naismith invented basketball, and these plays have become normal to fans—we’re almost desensitized to them.

But that’s probably because we’ve seen them again…

And again…

And again.

These plays from Nate Ament, the subject of my latest scouting report, get scouts out of their seats, but are just the tip of the iceberg regarding his evaluation.

Ament is a 6-foot-9 forward who will be headed to Tennessee this fall to play under head coach Rick Barnes. Barnes notably coached another long, lanky, and talented freshman prospect at Texas in 2007.

Although people have, I won’t compare Ament to that all-time great, but he is one of the most talented and unique freshmen in college basketball. With key improvements, he can stake his claim as a top-five pick in the 2026 NBA Draft.

The Sell

If I were pitching Ament to an NBA team, I’d start with his shooting ability, as it is the first thing that pops on tape. The forward has silky-smooth mechanics with a high release point that allows him to shoot over the top of close-outs.

He shot 38.5% from three in his pre-NCAA sample with a 39.4 three-point attempt rate and has shown the ability to hurt defenses on and off the ball. Ament is a confident shooter who is comfortable shooting early in the shot clock and far beyond the three-point lines of high school and college.

Ament has excellent touch—some of the best I’ve seen from the freshman class. When defenders are able to run him off the three-point line, he counters with dribble drives into fadeaway twos, or off-platform and unorthodox mid-range looks.

Ament’s touch from the mid-range and his career 83 percent from the charity stripe round out a firm shooting profile that has only improved over the last 18 months.

However, the Virginia Native is still making strides as a driver. This facet of his game is not as polished as his off-ball repertoire or in-between work. When Ament does win downhill, he does so with finesse and skill instead of force or outlier athleticism.

The forward has elasticity in his strides that would make Reed Richards proud, as well as excellent footwork, coordination, and touch around the rim.

The aspect of Ament’s offensive profile that has likely grown the most throughout his amateur career is his passing. Although he only averaged 2.2 assists in his senior season, he demonstrated a propensity to make simple reads, keep the ball moving, and weaponize his shooting gravity to get open looks for his teammates.

He’s excellent at grabbing rebounds (10.0 rebounds per game), pushing the pace in transition and finding teammates in stride.

In addition to his shooting, flashes of shot creation and additive passing, Ament is a stout defender. At 6-foot-9, with a rumored 6-foot-11 wingspan, he has positional size and length, allowing him to make an impact (1.6 STL, 2.4 BLKS per 40) as a help defender.

Despite his size, Ament is very mobile and covers a lot of ground. His gazelle-like strides and long arms are handy on defense when recovering at the rim or contesting a three-point shot.

I’d assume that Ament will likely function most as a weak-side defender, but what excites me—even more than the hesi-pulls in transition—are his flashes of switchability on the perimeter.

While watching his film from his senior year, his game against fellow top prospect Darryn Peterson stood out.

Down the stretch of their matchup, Ament took the challenge of guarding Peterson, who many regard as one of the best guard prospects of the last 15 years.

Not only did Ament take the challenge, but arguably won the matchup, en route to Highland’s upset win over Prolific Prep.

As with any sales pitch, there are limitations, and I’m sure interested teams would want to know the drawbacks of Ament’s profile. For all of his talent, it is fair to question how parts of his game will scale up to the college level.

Putting it all together

Ament’s frame is the most significant area of improvement for the rising freshman. He’ll be walking into the country's most unforgiving and physical conference, listed at 190 pounds, which is probably Tennessee being generous.

Ament’s lack of size hurts him the most as a driver. Defenders can often bump him off his spot and encourage him to take those tough 2’s. On top of his lack of strength, Ament doesn’t have great burst, wiggle, handle, or vertical pop.

It’s fair to question how his off-the-dribble shot creation and rim finishing through contact will look against players much stronger and more athletic than him.

I also think teams can find some success placing smaller guards and wings on Ament. His posture is pretty upright, and he doesn’t create much separation, which may prove problematic against players who want to get into his frame.

Ament will likely need time to gain weight and adjust to the SEC's physicality, which will help him make plays on both ends. Although he’s not the most physically imposing player, it‘s a good sign that he has a good motor on the glass and battles for offensive rebounds.

Outside of adding to his frame, Ament needs to be more assertive in games. He appears to be an unselfish player who can get his buckets in the flow of an offense, which is a positive trait, but sometimes he can stand to be a bit more intentional.

There were some games where it felt like he existed on the court instead of looking to get a bucket or make a play on defense. Although this is a minor worry, it is something to look out for during his time in Knoxville.

And there’s always the question of fit and opportunity. It’s paramount to choose a situation that is best for your long-term development.

Based on history, it’s fair to question how long a leash coach Barnes will give Ament, despite his pedigree, as the Volunteers will likely be contenders for the conference.

Barnes has publicly said that he views Ament as the best player in his class, but that could begin to matter less if the season wanes and he struggles. The Volunteers typically field a very experienced team and don’t have a reputation for churning out one-and-dones.

For Ament to reach his ceiling as a two-way shot-creating wing/forward, he’ll need to add to his frame, tighten his handle, improve as a playmaker, and work on finishing through contact.

But even if he doesn’t reach some of his projected outcomes, his shooting, rebounding, and defensive versatility can still allow him to make a substantial impact on NBA teams.

He’s six-foot-eight.

235 pounds of muscle.

A top-10 recruit who jumps out of the gym and plays power forward for the University of Arizona.

You’re probably picturing Aaron Gordon.

But this isn’t a throwback piece.

This puzzle’s answer will play for the Wildcats over a decade later and try to leave a similar mark as Gordon did in his lone season in Tucson.

Incoming freshman Koa Peat starts his brief collegiate stint in November, but has already built an all-time legacy in Arizona as an amateur.

Outside of Cameron Boozer, Peat is the most decorated player in the 2026 NBA Draft. The Forward hung his Perry jersey with four state championships, three gold medals, two Gatorade player of the year trophies and a USA Basketball Male Player of the Year win.

Peat has been impactful in every setting he’s played in, and I think that will continue this season and in his NBA career.

Here’s why.

Subscribe now

Brains AND Brawns

Peat’s appeal as a prospect stems from his ability to impact the game in multiple ways. According to Cerebro Sports, Peat averaged 23.7 points, 9.8 rebounds, and three assists per 40 over a 92-game sample.

He’s an old-school, interior-slanted scorer who lives at the rim and the free-throw line. Peat often uses his size and strength to power through smaller and weaker defenders on his way to the rim.

Peat does benefit from being bigger and stronger than almost all of his competition, but he’s not just a bruiser. He shows a fair amount of skill in his drives.

Peat is a tank and understands he can out-athlete most of his competition at this level. He supplements his brute strength with a good handle for his size, touch inside the arc, and an understanding of driving angles.

Peat also has a budding mid-range game that he’s been able to use as a counter when he can’t get to the rim.

When off the ball, the Arizona native adds value as a play finisher and glue-guy within a team’s offense. Peat will be a significant threat on the offensive glass (2.7 offensive rebounds per game) in the short roll and transition.

The forward understands where he needs to be on the floor to make an impact, and I think it translates when he’s facilitating or creating for others.

Peat grew into an adequate passer throughout high school, blossoming at 4.3 assists per game as a senior with a positive assist-to-turnover ratio. He’s a relatively quick and instinctual passer with a propensity to make reads on the move or from the post.

Peat’s feel for the game extends to the defensive end as well. He reminds me of an off-ball linebacker because he recognizes plays, covers ground, defends multiple positions, and cleans up his teammates’ mistakes (3.1 stocks per game). Peat doesn’t have the size or length (6-foot-11 wingspan) to anchor a defense full-time, but he is an excellent help defender and can guard threes and fours (and sometimes 5s).

The forward has good core strength and broad shoulders, which help with his balance and allow him to stifle drives on the perimeter.

Peat’s slashing, rebounding, connective passing and defensive event creation build his profile as a high-impact role player on the NBA level, but there are a few missing links in his game that make me question any potential star outcomes and lower his ceiling at the moment.

A lesson from a former Wildcat

When I first started diving into Peat’s game, I could not help but see shades of Aaron Gordon.

Not just because they’re about the same size, highly-touted recruits and going to Arizona, but because I think Peat can impact the game similarly—even tertiary aspects of their game, like passing, favor each other.

The comparison isn’t perfect. Gordon was more athletic at the same age, but Peat has a tighter handle and more touch.

But the more I watched Peat and thought about Gordon’s early career, the more I started seeing a cautionary tale.

Gordon didn’t flop in Orlando, but he also didn’t prove to return fourth overall value.

And that wasn’t entirely on him.

He was miscast — asked to be a lead initiator, a primary scorer, and a focal point of the offense.

That was never where he thrived.

Here was his pre-draft statistical profile, which, in hindsight, never screamed fourth overall pick or primary initiator.

Gordon’s touch was awful (25.7% on non-rim 2’s, 42.2 FT%), and he could not create for himself efficiently, which continued into his early career.

His appeal was his elite athleticism, which manifested in 33 half-court dunks, a 10.4 offensive rebounding percentage and a 47.1 free-throw rate.

In 2018, he averaged 18 and 8, but his efficiency was below league average, and he struggled in every creation type.

Only when he landed in Denver — playing off Nikola Jokić, surrounded by structure — did Gordon find his perfect role: a defensive swiss-army knife, vertical threat, and elite complementary piece.

(Here’s an excellent video by Ben Pfeifer explaining this phenomenon.)

Don’t get me wrong, Gordon improved areas of his game (somehow turned into a sniper from the corner), and he’s playing with arguably the greatest offensive player ever, but it’s clear a role change was needed.

I think that’s the lesson with Peat.

If a team drafts him high and expects him to be a primary scoring option in the likes of a Paolo Banchero (whom I’ve seen him compared to), they might be disappointed.

A few key things dim his outlook as a focal point of an offense.

The first is shooting. Peat shot 21% from three throughout high school with an 11.2 3-point rate.

His 64% mark from the free-throw line also needs improvement. If his shooting doesn’t drastically improve, NBA defenses will sag way off him, clogging the paint and somewhat neutralizing his downhill game—like they did with Gordon.

To be clear, I think Peat’s indicators (mid-range, free throw, and finishing touch) are better, but they’re not indicative of an additive shooter so far.

Peat’s mechanics aren’t terrible, but his form is slower and stiffer, and his footwork can sometimes be inconsistent.

The second is his athleticism. He’s a good athlete but not a great one. Peat doesn’t have a top-end burst or bend to consistently blow by defenders, and he’s not skying over everyone at the rim.

In high school, he didn’t need to — he could overpower almost anyone he faced. However, that physical advantage may not scale like that in the NBA.

When Peat can’t simply overpower a defender or blow past them, he’ll need a counter that’s more than his go-to spin move and a bit more efficient than a mid-range jumper.

So the question becomes: how much more room is there to grow physically?

Peat was an early bloomer, so scouts do question how much stronger or more explosive he can get.

That’s not to say he won’t improve. He’s a young and by all accounts hard-working player who could reasonably add things to his game,

He’s also dominated the competition until this point, so theoretically, he could continue, but the threshold to being a lead initiator in the league is very high.

And that’s okay.

Being a star doesn’t always mean being the first or second “option”. There are only a few truly impactful primaries; everyone else is just masquerading.

Sometimes it means doing everything else at a high level — defending, passing, rebounding, or play-finishing. That’s why my broad comparison for Peat is Gordon in Denver, the less athletic, optimized role player version.

Another player he reminded me of is Brandon Clarke, who I think has a similar skillset to Peat because of his touch, offensive rebounding and defensive versatility. He was able to be a positive rotational player for the Grizzlies in his first few seasons before injuries slowed him down.

That said, I still think Peat is a lottery-level prospect in this class. His ancillary skills and traits lean toward a high floor, and he’ll be able to provide value for NBA teams as soon as he steps onto the court.

Subscribe now

From the early 2000s to the late 2010s, Louisville courted some of the best guards in college basketball.

The Rick Pitino era saw the likes of Reece Gaines, Russ Smith, Terry Rozier and Donovan Mitchell.

In the seven years since Pitino departed, that level of guard play has been few and far between.

Chucky Hepburn restored the feeling last year, but the Cardinals’ best guard talent since Mitchell arrived on campus this summer.

When Mikel Brown stepped foot into Louisville, he became the second-highest recruit in the school’s history— and for good reason.

Brown, the son of two college athletes, grew from 5-foot-10 as a freshman to 6-foot-4 in his senior year. The added size and subsequent athleticism bolstered his pre-draft profile as a guard with the potential to play the one or two.

The Orlando, Florida, native continued to grow his stock when he lit the world on fire during FIBA U19 competitions in Switzerland last month. Brown averaged 14.9 points per game and 6.1 assists (2.87 AST/TO ratio) on 63 true shooting percentage and shot 47.6 percent from three on six attempts per game.

Now, almost everywhere you look, Brown can be found in consideration for a top-five pick, and some outlets have him as high as pick four.

Here’s why.

Bombs away

It takes about two seconds to watch Brown’s film to understand why scouts love him.

The guard has nuclear shooting potential, which was on display en route to his second gold medal. As previously mentioned, Brown shot 47.6 percent over seven games during U19, but what stood out to me was his confidence in his shooting.

According to Cerebro Sports, Brown shot 35 percent from behind the arc over a 113-game sample during high school, but I don’t think that data point tells the entire story.

Percentages are notable but don’t accurately depict a player’s shooting acumen (especially at the high-school level). Volume (54.7 three-point rate) and distance are more significant in terms of how teams defend players and the spacing they provide. Brown has also improved as a shooter over the last 14 months, dating back to his final AAU season.

If he continues that improvement, I’d suggest picking Brown up as he crosses half-court.

Because of his shot depth, Brown’s shooting ability has the chance to warp defenses. His ability to knock down above-the-break threes will spread the defense horizontally, creating advantages and rolling lanes for his big man.

In addition to his on-ball shot-making, Brown has also shown the ability to come off of pin-down and flare screens when playing next to another ball-handler.

The second part of Brown’s sell as a top pick is his playmaking. The guard is an excellent pick-and-roll operator who processes the floor well and can make every pass in the book.

Brown is cerebral. He plays on time, does not hold the ball long, and makes quick and easy reads when his teammates are in advantageous spots on the floor.

The guard averaged 5.6 AST per 40 during his high-school career with a 1.8 AST/TO ratio, but even on many of his turnovers, he has the right idea, but would throw an errant pass, or a teammate isn’t ready for the delivery.

The rising freshman combines a dynamic handle with long strides to get downhill and create for others.

Brown also looks to push the pace and is a great transition passer (one of the more under-discussed aspects of playmaking).

I understand why evaluators view Brown that highly. His intersection of shooting, size and playmaking ability is tantalizing. Guards with his level of shot-making and live-dribble processing don’t grow on trees—especially ones who may have grown into a legitimate 6-foot-4-ish frame.

I can see his upside as an NBA-level creator who can be a conduit for good offense and hurt defenses from three.

But a few things are holding me back from putting him squarely in the top-five conversation just yet.

Let’s wait and see

While Brown’s shooting and passing foundation is undeniably strong, two areas currently give me pause: his struggles with two-point scoring—particularly finishing at the rim—and his limited impact defensively.

Brown doesn’t shy away from contact—he’s willing to get into the paint and challenge defenders—but he often struggles to finish through it. In traffic, he doesn’t always generate a lot of lift, especially when jumping off two feet, which can lead to tough angles or altered shots around the rim.

His touch around the basket is solid, and he has a nice floater game, but the efficiency hasn’t followed yet (41.7% in the half-court), and I think it hurt his overall field goal percentage in high school.

I don’t think a lack of aggression causes Brown’s inconsistency at the rim. Instead, a combination of physical development and technical refinement is still catching up to his size.

The guard grew seven inches and four years (he could still be growing) and has put on a good amount of muscle since he set foot in Louisville.

Here he is standing next to Mitchell, who appears to be about 2-3 inches shorter than him.

Some improvement in his finishing repertoire could be seen during his senior season and the U19s, when he got more lift on his finishes and looked much more explosive than in his OTE days.

While Brown continues to grow as a rim finisher, he can lean on a growing in-between game. He’s shown the ability to knock down floaters and get to mid-range in the pick-and-roll, which could be a viable counter to his three-point shooting.

Defensively, the concerns about physicality are more pressing. Brown has yet to impact games on that end consistently. He doesn’t generate a lot of turnovers, and his slight frame—paired with a relatively average +2 wingspan—raises questions about his ability to contain stronger guards or switch onto bigger offensive players on the next level.

For Brown to become an adequate NBA defender, he must add muscle and be more physical at the point of attack to avoid getting blown by. The guard also needs to improve his screen navigation (a common theme for high-school players) to avoid getting behind plays and putting his centers in two-on-one situations.

Next in Line

There’s no mystery why Mikel Brown is drawing top-five buzz. His blend of deep shooting, floor mapping and positional size gives him one of the most intriguing offensive profiles in the class. He’s already proven he can perform on a big stage, and his development over the past year suggests there's still more to come.

But before I can comfortably place him in those high-lottery conversations, I need to see him check a few more boxes.

How he handles physicality—both as a finisher and defender—will be a significant swing factor. Improving his ability to finish through contact, showing functional athleticism, and asserting himself defensively are all areas that could take his projection to the next tier.

Brown has every chance to justify the hype if he continues to grow in those areas while maintaining his shooting and playmaking impact. For now, I see the upside—but I’m still in wait-and-see mode.

I’ll be anxious to watch him carry the torch from other Louisville guards this season.

A few days ago, I asked Twitter which of the consensus top three prospects in the 2026 NBA Draft has the highest ceiling.

The answers were pretty much what I expected.

Of the 76 responses, Aj Dybantsa was chosen 41 times (54%), Darryn Peterson was selected 18 times and Cameroon Boozer 17 times (22%).

The poll's sample is tiny, but I think it reflects how most people view the pecking order between the three prospects.

I have Dybantsa ranked third, slightly behind Boozer and Peterson.

However, I agree with my Survey findings, as long as Dybantsa can improve some areas of his game.

Let's explore why I think he has a strong argument for the highest ceiling in the class and what he needs to do to reach it.

Dybantsa is Dynamic

Dybantsa has been compared to Hall of Famers such as Paul George and Tracy McGrady. I don’t think the comparisons are perfect, but his talent level warrants comparison to two of the best bucket-getters in the last 25 years.

He’s just that good.

The wing is arguably the best scorer in the draft. In his lone season at Utah Prep, he averaged 26.4 PPG on 63 percent true shooting. Those numbers are impressive on face value, but are more astounding when considering his usage, shot diet and the attention he received from defenses regularly.

Dybantsa himself has said he models his game after Kevin Durant and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, which is somewhat apparent in his play.

Like Durant, Dybantsa has a very high release point and ample elevation on his jumpers, making it almost impossible for his high-school defenders to challenge his shots on pull-ups.

As a senior, he was among the best isolation scorers in the country at 1.048 points per possession on 186 attempts.

Being able to score efficiently without a screen is a standard prerequisite for NBA-level offensive engines, and Dybansta has that down pat.

The future Cougar is a free-flowing, flexible scorer who never sees a shot he doesn’t love. Dybantsa wins with a blend of aggression and finesse and intersects physicality with skill.

The wing has great wiggle for his size and uses pristine footwork, a violent jab step, and a strong spin move to create shots from every spot on the floor.

Dybantsa is a relentless driver in transition and the half-court. He almost harpoons himself towards the rim in reckless abandon and never shies away from contact. The Massachusetts native generated 1.104 PPP on drives last season.

When Dybantsa wants to win with his athleticism and size, he does, leading to many foul calls. Dybantsa definitely watches a lot of Gilgeous-Alexander because he’s already a great foul-baiter. He ended the year at 69 percent at the rim in the half-court with a 45.5 free-throw rate and drew shooting fouls on 19.7% of his drives.

Dybantsa had very high usage at Prolific, and rightfully so. He’s very good with the ball but offers utility as an off-ball scorer. Dybantsa is adept at attacking closeouts and executing second-side actions. He can also be used in BLOB and SLOB plays.

I expect Kevin Young to find unique ways to use him in BYU’s offense and maximize his athleticism and shooting gravity. This idea can manifest in off-ball screens and curated lobs for Dybantsa.

In totality, Dybantsa is a pretty complete and dynamic scorer. He’s a growing jumpshooter (35.2% 3PT on 6.2 attempts per game) with a rumored 42-inch vertical who may be close to six feet ten inches.

Dybantsa can score at every level, gets to the foul line often, and is a weapon in transition. He’s among the best scoring prospects of this generation, and that alone makes him a special prospect with a ridiculously high ceiling.

However, he must consistently affect games in multiple ways to reach that ceiling and maintain his spot as the class's #1 player.

The game is about a bucket, but…

Individual scoring will forever be essential in basketball, but the main goal of every possession should be to find the best possible shot for the team.

As I’ve discussed, Dybantsa is excellent at getting shots for himself, but he’s still growing as a creator for others. The rising freshman finished his senior season with a 1.19 AST/TO ratio.

Dybantsa is more of a reactive passer and can sometimes overdribble and miss open teammates to score.

Most of Dybantsa’s passes look like the ones below, where he drives to the rim, draws multiple defenders and then finds a teammate for a bucket.

He’s also still growing as a pick-and-roll operator from a scoring and facilitating standpoint, generating just 0.775 PPP on those opportunties. Dybantsa needs to continue to grow with reading the low man and making interior passing deliveries.

Furthermore, I think Dybantsa can work on his shot selection. He tends to force contested jumpers when he can not create space with his handle (which needs to be tightened) or overpower a defender with his athleticism vs set defenses.

Dybantsa knows he can take and make tough shots, but often takes jumpers early into the possession or over multiple defenders.

He’s pretty comfortable going to these looks in the mid-range, but not very efficient at the moment, as he shot just 30% on two-point jumpers.

Dybantsa’s shot selection is a mild concern. It’s a common theme for high-usage NBA prospects on high-school teams where they are far and away the best source of offense. The issue could be ironed out when he plays in a more structured context under Young.

Aside from cleaning up his shot selection and improving as a passer and decision maker, I believe the key to Dybantsa reaching his ceiling is becoming a more consistent and impactful defender.

At 6-foot-9 with a rumored 7-foot-1 wingspan, Dybantsa has the size and length to be a high-impact team defender. When dialed in, he’s shown the ability to be disruptive and take the challenge of guarding Peterson in their matchups this season.

Dybantsa seems to have taken a bit more pride in his defense over the last year, but he’s still a step behind Peterson and Boozer in terms of his motor and event creation (1.6 STL + 0.8 BLKS).

His primary role at Prolific was a help defender, but he was inconsistent when he was not directly involved in actions. An inconsistent motor off the ball isn’t rare amongst young, high-usage scorers on the high school level, but it is a big part of why I have him a slight step behind Peterson and Boozer.

Below is a good example of Dybantsa’s occasional idleness on defense. He’s floating in no-man’s land, and if he reacts to this post entry sooner, he can use his length and athleticism to alter the shot.

In addition to these lapses, he's prone to losing his man off the ball and not giving full effort when closing out.

Even when he is on the ball at the point of attack, his posture (high hips) and intensity often leave much to be desired. His screen navigation needs real improvement—he can get hung up too easily or take inefficient angles—and once he’s beaten, he can be slow to re-engage or recover back into the play.

These aren't uncommon flaws for a player carrying such a massive offensive burden, but they are nonetheless notable, especially when projecting his two-way impact at the next level.

To close, I want to reaffirm why I still view Dybantsa as a top-tier prospect with arguably the highest ceiling in the 2026 class. His blend of size, skill, athleticism, relentless scoring, and versatility is rare.

These tools make the case for his long-term upside and validate the results of the Twitter poll—if he can round out the rest of his game. That means becoming a more consistent and engaged defender, growing as a playmaker, tightening his handle and creating more efficient looks. Dybantsa must show off more ancillary skills, such as offensive rebounding and moving off the ball. If he can check those boxes, there's a real chance we're looking at the next elite NBA wing.