(I realize with the boards being as dead as they are, and with very few people watching college basketball here anymore, this may end up just being me talking to myself in this post, lol. But it's the best way for me to organize some of my thoughts on these guys, and I know at least a few folks here are always interested in reading about the prospects before the draft. So I'll keep this tradition alive.)

I'll list the prospects, you list your thoughts, as detailed or as basic ("he'll be good"/"he'll be sorry") as you want. As meticulously bias-free as possible or as blindly agenda-driven as you want.

Get on record before these guys play a single NBA game as to how you think they'll pan out. Stake claims, "buy stock," etc.

BUT DON'T BE LATE.

One of the big things people will (correctly) talk about a lot with this draft is player upside, in particular for guys like Chet Holmgren and Shaedon Sharpe up at the top... but I think people sleep on Jabari Smith's upside. Like, Smith is the same age as Sharpe and a year younger than Holmgren.

So once you factor that in, what do you have?
- A very young kid, early in his development as a player.
- A second-team All-American as one of the youngest players in the draft.
- A 6'10 kid who shot 42% from 3 on high volume and near 80% from the FT line.
- A guy with elite positional size and good-to-above-average NBA athleticism to get to his spots and be a terrific shot creator next level.
- A plus defender in college (at his age!) who easily has the tools to be a switchable player in the NBA.

I'd like to see him be a better passer, but that definitely could come with time, and I don't love how he finishes at the rim/inside/through contact yet, but he's also just so early in his body's development, and he's definitely got the frame to get stronger. I'm just not really worried about this guy in any capacity.

I think his upside could be, like, 6'10 Khris Middleton-- a two-way All-Star, elite shot creator, winning player. And I think his downside is somewhere around Rudy Gay-- someone who can score well in the NBA, but maybe doesn't live up to defensive upside and doesn't pass well, so never becomes a true winning player as a primary/secondary option.

I think he's the safest of the top 3 players in the draft in terms of having the least downside. He's not as ready today as Paolo and he's not as freaky upside as Chet, but his floor is just notably higher than either Paolo or Chet's floors imo. He's the favorite to go #1 for a reason. If he goes to Orlando, he and Suggs are an awesome upside core heading forward, and if OKC somehow got him, it'd be a dream for them. He won't go past 2.

For those who didn't read this post, here's a decent intro to the discourse: https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=2763533&mesg_id=2763533&listing_type=search

The discourse has boiled down to "guys who watched Chet play consistently in both HS and college" vs. "guys who saw 2 or 3 Gonzaga games." And while the former group is happy to acknowledge the concerns (as I am), the former group is also acutely aware of his upside as an NBA prospect. So I thought, for people who are genuinely interested as to why NBA scouts and executives are so excited about Holmgren, I'd dive a little deeper on him, since I think he's where most of the discourse of the draft will center.

- The best defender in the draft. You're talking about one of the most elite weak side shot blockers I've ever seen in college basketball, a guy who'd be an elite NBA weak side shot blocker the second he steps on the court. Anyone who questions his rim protection-- at minimum on the weak side-- just hasn't seen him play.

- I don't think he's truly switchable-- I think he got burned by faster guards in iso in college a couple too many times for me to feel completely confident about that, and people don't *really* talk about that enough imo-- but he's easily more switchable than the majority of NBA bigs his size. His speed and functional athleticism is terrific. He's got good lateral quickness, fantastic length, and, again, his shot blocking timing is elite among prospects of the last decade plus. People will say things like "All-Defense upside"... and while I maybe wouldn't go *that* far based on one year of game tape, I understand the enthusiasm and agree that there are reasons to be excited.

- shot 39% from 3 on more than 3 attempts per game, 72% from the FT line, 74% from 2. And while those numbers are inflated from his weak conference slate, he still made 66% from 2 and 30% from 3 against Tier A and B opponents, per KenPom. The guy can shoot from 3 and from midrange, and he can complete at the rim against stronger bigs. Superb touch and scoring feel for a big man.

- He has skills with the ball that a guy his size rarely ever has. He'd be a better-than-average big man ballhandler and big man passer in the NBA from Day 1. He's not a point guard or anything, but we will absolutely see Chet grab a board, take it all the way on his own in transition, and put it on someone's head. At least once a game last year, you'd see him do something ball in hand where you'd go, "Oh, guys this size just aren't supposed to do that."

- We'll discuss the frame in a minute, because I have concerns, but what I'm *not* concerned about is toughness. This is *not* a skinny big man who can shoot who chooses to float on the perimeter. He's happy to bang in the post, even with stronger players. I've no doubt he'll get dunked on, especially the first couple of years, but you'll absolutely see him contest those dunks. He's a shit talker out there. And I imagine he'll continue to be empowered in that regard at the next level. A real chip-on-the-shoulder sort of dude. I love betting on those types.

So the frame. Let's talk about it. He's skinny right now, and I imagine he'll remain skinny. Even when he puts on weight, the shoulders and hips just aren't that wide. So you have to wonder if he can be a true post-up post defender against the bigger NBA bigs without getting bullied. It also could diminish some of his terrific efficacy inside if he can't adjust to the physicality of the NBA-- I think he'll fight hard to do so, but physical limitations sometimes are what they are. So I imagine there's a good chance you'll see Holmgren struggle years 1 and 2 some-- to the point where the usual suspects will party that he was never going to succeed. He's just got to put on muscle and adjust to the strength of the next level. I've heard injury concerns for a big man this slight... but I've also heard compelling arguments that perhaps his frame/lack of muscle will actually *help* with career longevity, because big men just start to wear out from putting mileage on their sheer size in a way that Chet maybe won't. Ultimately, I'm not a doctor, and he doesn't have injury history to speak of, so I'm not factoring that in.

I think a perfect world would involve pairing him with a true big man with size early on, so Chet can be a pick-and-pop mega-sized 4 on offense and a weak-side rim protector on defense (where he thrives), while he figures out the NBA level-- this is more or less what Cleveland did by taking Mobley, and it worked out beautifully (in part because Mobley was even more immediately ready for the NBA than even I thought). Which is why I think Orlando is going to at least kick the tires-- not just because Suggs and Holmgren played together and would have immediate chemistry, but because pairing Holmgren with Wendell Carter early could be a nice way to allow Holmgren to settle in.

So ultimately, what's Chet's upside? Something like "Porzingis with better passing and better mobility." Which, of course, would be a franchise-changing talent. He could become one of these guys that's a struggle to figure out how to guard, because he can shoot, he's mobile, he's a good passer, and he's fucking huge. And that's not to say anything about his elite defensive upside.

But his downside... is probably a guy that can't play more than back-up minutes because he struggles with efficiency on one or both ends due to frame. There's a very real outcome in which that happens. It's just... not the one I'd bet on due to Holmgren's personality. He's just too much of a son of a bitch to let that happen imo. Zero chance he escapes the top three on draft day-- maybe if the top three picks were teams looking to win today rather than invest in developing the high upside guy, he could slip, but that's not where we are.

Average pro that they'll try to push and market.

Ill buy on this one.

The case for Paolo at #1 is pretty straight forward: do you need offense? There's a strong argument that he's the most skilled offensive player in the draft-- and at 6'10, 240 lbs, and 19 years old, that's an *insane* thing to consider. He's tremendous at getting to his shots and uses his size to shoot over the top, especially at the midrange. He's a very skilled passer, maybe the best in the first round, and can run your offense if need be-- I wouldn't use him full-time as a point forward, per se, but he can give you that. He's got terrific handles for a guy his size. It's just hard to imagine how most players guard him, especially in the NBA with all the added space on the court. Guards can't deal with his strength (even a number of NBA bigs can't deal with his strength). Bigs can't deal with his speed and dexterity on the outside. He's just an awesome weapon on offense.

Defensively... look, he had his moments on-ball, but off-ball there's definitely a learning curve here. He's also not a freak athlete-- he's got a good combo of strength and finesse, but I feel like the "guys who can score at volume in the NBA" top 3 prospects tend to be big time athletes too, and that's not *really* Paolo. And, of course, the 3 point shot is probably a bit below NBA average right now, and if you think Paolo is a multi-year All-Star type, you probably need to believe he'll shoot closer to 37-38% than he did last year.

I think he'll be the odds-on favorite to win ROY if he ends up in Houston, because that light will be mega-green, and he actually pairs with Jalen Green really nicely. (The defense on that team next year would... not be good, but hey, that's a young team for you.) If you told me he does 16 PPG right away, I'd buy it. Long term? Ceiling might be a bit lower than guys like Jabari and Chet because he's not a two-way player or majorly plus athlete. Upside is that he becomes a Chris Webber type, someone flirting with 20/10/5 on the regular on a winning team. Downside is... I don't know, Diet Coke Julius Randle? The sort of dude who's giving you in that same ballpark of a line, but with less efficiency and less of an impact on winning. Either way, I think Paolo's a really strong bet to be a productive offensive NBA player.

I've seen the comparison to John Wall be made in terms of Ivey's athleticism and speed, and I think they're (largely) merited. Ivey's the sort of dude who can just leave defenders in the dust, who can be standing still with a good defender in front of him, in position, ready for the attack... and still just get right by him. So I think, on that level, people are sleeping on Ivey's upside as a prospect. Because you can't teach the first step that Ivey has.

That said, Wall was definitely a better passer than Ivey is. Ivey's just not really there yet as a primary playmaker kind of dude. The jumpshot is... fine-to-good, but nothing to write home about, and his midrange game isn't really there either. I also think his defense is more of the "potential" variety right now, where he has the tools to be a terrific defender, but I'm not sure the effort on that end was there last year. (What that means for him as an NBA player is anyone's guess.)

I'd love to have Ivey as a prospect, and I'd gladly take him Top 5, because his upside, if he improves the passing a healthy amount, is to be, say, a slightly worse John Wall. There's very real All-Star potential there due to his speed and his attack. But I'm not sold that he can be your every-play primary playmaker like Wall-- or, to put it more plainly, it's not exactly where I'd put his median expected outcome. Fortunately, he's got really good positional size to play alongside a primary guard, especially one who likes to run, while the team tries to bring him along as a playmaker.

his size and burst in a more open game is perfect

great floor due to those attributes, and if fine-tunes anything else, his upside is going to be a problem

There aren't too many guys in an NBA Draft who can say "I'm 6'8, 6'11 wingspan, above-average athlete, who was high volume *and* high efficiency on offense as a sophomore in college." He can score from all three levels-- terrific in post, efficient in midrange, and near 40% from 3 last season. That's just a deadly combo, easily translatable to the next level. He's strong, shifty, and mobile enough to grab a board and go full court if need be.

I think his defense is... fine. He definitely leaps for steals and blocks, so he gets caught out of position, but I wouldn't call him a liability because of it. Don't love him as a passer currently (certainly shades of the first near-decade of Harris in the NBA in that respect). And while he's definitely a good athlete, I wouldn't call him explosive-- there's certainly a chance the more quick-twitch players on both ends might limit Murray's efficacy if Murray doesn't continue to develop. That said, even though he's 21, he's got some nice upside as a kid who was a very late bloomer in HS and even in college, as he wasn't like *this* as a freshman.

So if he went 5th or even 4th, I wouldn't be blown away. He's a dude who doesn't have the ceiling of the Iveys, Sharpes, or even Griffins, but the floor feels nice and high. He projects really wells as an offensive player in the NBA, and he's got enough size, strength, and upside to be at least a non-liability on defense, even in switching schemes in the playoffs. The upside to be the next Tobias Harris type is there, and his downside if he struggles to be as effective inside/midrange in the NBA is still, probably, I don't know, Diet Coke Otto Porter? Maybe if his defense completely bombs next level, it's lower, but I like him.

The name that comes to mind is Jaylen Brown-- not because he's the level athlete that Brown was/is (he wasn't/isn't), but when you watched Brown at Cal, there was still this sense that he was still learning how to play. He was turnover-prone, didn't really have a good-enough handle, wasn't a passer... but the potential was evident, especially in his body.

Now, Mathurin doesn't have Brown's body, but he's a *much* better shooter at this point than Brown was at the same age. There's a pretty safe floor with Mathurin because, worst case scenario, he can be a 3-point shooting wing off the bench. He also plays with the sort of energy that Brown played with in college too, which makes you feel pretty good about his potential to develop.

But a lot of those flaws are there. Not a great handle. Not a great passer (though improving from where he started, admittedly). Turns it over a bit much and jumps out of position on defense too much-- blame both of these on the energy, but remains to be seen if he can figure out ways to check those urges as well as Brown has.

So yeah, I think the upside here is something like Diet Coke Jaylen Brown, with the downside being, I don't know, insert name of bench scoring wing here, a Diet Coke Tim Hardaway Jr. or something. That's not perfect, but you get the idea. I think Mathurin sticks, and it's hard not to like a guy with his size, shot, motor, and upside. If he doesn't go Top 6ish, I think someone's getting a steal.

The one thing you know you're getting with AJ is a fantastic shooter. He was one of the best shooters in college basketball, which you rarely get from a kid his age and his size.

The defense... was not good last year. Lateral quickness concerns on that end. Also still needs to work on passing, diversifying his offensive skill set beyond his terrific jumper. Sometimes he was locked in and crushing opponents with his scoring, but other times, he seemed lost. Consistency probably is also a product of the time he's had to spend off the court due to injury.

His injury history might be a red flag to some, but it could also easily be seen as an indicator that he has plenty of untapped potential from what he showed at Duke. Before he got hurt in high school, he was definitely more athletic than we saw consistently at Duke, where his lateral quickness and even his burst just weren't there. Is this a Dennis Smith Jr. thing, where we'll never see that previous guy again? Or is this a thing where after a year or two of conditioning, we'll see him come back toward the path he was on circa sophomore year of high school?

That said, I still think there's a clear path to him being a starter at the next level. Like, Reggie Bullock was a starter on a playoff team this season-- I think "better Reggie Bullock" is around AJ's median expected outcome right now, a guy mostly there to space the floor and provide good positional size. But the variance in his outcomes is pretty wide. His downside, if injuries keep popping up and his defense/passing never improve, could be out of the league before age 30. His upside, however, is considerable-- he was a contender for the top spot in his HS class before injury. I'm sure someone could talk themselves into a highest possible outcome in which he's an All-Star. I think "starter for a good team/~3rd option on a middling-to-bad team" feels like a safe median outcome.

his injury history only compounds the massive issues he has on defense.

It's a Jabari Parker situation in that sense. Granted, Jabari was definitely ahead of AJ in terms of offensive skill after one season at Duke, but nothing much ever materialized because he just *kept* getting hurt.

I think we'll know in the next 2-3 years what's going to happen with AJ. If he doesn't stay nicked up, I think the upside is very real. But if he misses 20-30 games a season with this issue and that... yeah, might just be another Jabari where the potential is wasted by a body that won't hold up.

There's probably a lot of discussion about Jalen Duren vs. Mark Williams among teams who want a pure center, as they both boil down to "drop coverage centers, rim protectors, rim runners/lob catchers on offense." Their skill sets are very similar. But, before I'm accused of flagrant homerism, I give Mark the (slight) edge on three fronts.

1. He's bigger. Clearly taller, clearly longer-- he had a 9'9 standing reach at the combine, which is *bonkers.* He's not the strong explosive athlete Duren is, but he's still pretty strong and explosive in his own right, and that added length means that, of the two players, Williams is less likely to get completely roasted in switches. I don't think either is a switchable big, but if they both get put on an island by a guard, Williams will be slightly more disruptive and slightly better able to recover due to length, and I think that matters.

2. He's a better shooter. 72% from the stripe vs. 62% for Duren. I don't think either of them can become pick-and-pop guys-- or rather, if they can become that, they haven't shown it consistently yet. Williams made a few nice mid-range jumpers this season, but I can't imagine he'll unleash that unless he's completely left alone. Still, it's there, and you have to like that Williams almost certainly isn't a guy you can just foul and send to the line. Neither of these guys should be taking shots in the NBA... but the free throw line matters.

3. Higher motor. Duren sometimes floated this season-- and maybe you can chalk that up to the disaster at Memphis or Duren's younger age, but with Williams, you don't get that concern. He's the first guy down the floor on offense, despite being your rim protector on defense. Dude books it for his size. If anything, his motor is so high that he sometimes tries to block *too* many shots on defense, even ones he can't reasonably get-- he'll maybe need to learn to control his emotion a little out there, but I'd rather have that guy than the guy with less consistent effort.

The upside here is "taller Clint Capela." The same way Atlanta uses Capela, that's how teams should use Williams. Downside is bench big man/shot blocker, but I really like his potential to stay in the NBA for a long time. There's good pedigree, high motor, and great size. He's a high IQ guy who knows his role and plays it to perfection. I'd *love* for Charlotte to draft him.

The thing about Duren is his strength and his explosiveness for his age and size, respectively. He's just a big strong motherfucker. He's a really good rebounder and shot blocker, he's an elite lob catcher, and he'll protect the rim with strength. He's the sort of dude who's a top 3 pick a decade ago.

Of course, he can't shoot, he's not a good passer, he can't defend the perimeter, and he doesn't always play with the consistency of motor you'd like to see. But maybe that's because he's a one-and-done of high pedigree. We've seen guys like Anthony Edwards and others, super athletes of high pedigree, just play when they want, more or less, and check out when they think the season isn't really what they thought it would be. So while I don't love that, I can't hold it completely against what his NBA future can be.

Ultimately, he just feels like a safe NBA big with some nice upside. If he plays with a more consistent motor, he could totally be a DeAndre Jordan type. Set physical screens, enforce inside, catch lobs, be an All-Defense sort of dude if all goes well. (Though I wonder how much we'll continue to see traditional drop-coverage bigs in All-Defense teams going forward. But that's a different post.) Worst case scenario, if he really can't defend the perimeter at all, he's still a guy who's in the league for over a decade as an off-the-bench backup big for a drop coverage team.

He's not necessarily a master of anything, but he doesn't have many glaring weaknesses. Good NBA athleticism, good shot creation, good pull up shooter, good rebounder, good defender. He fights out there. This year, he had to do everything for Wisconsin and was still surprisingly efficient considering the double teams he faced.

Hard to tell if his not-great passing and not-great turnovers were just because, well, he had to do fucking everything for Wisconsin. I'd bet on that mostly being the case-- and even if it's not, the dude just absolutely works out there. I'd like him to make 3s at a better clip... but again, so much of what he had to do was off-the-bounce and contested. He's a nearly 80% FT shooter. I like his chances of being an average 3-point shooter at minimum.

Ceiling is something like Dillon Brooks with better defense. Floor is, I don't know, a KCP role player type of dude who maybe can't carry much of a load but can definitely have your team win. Kind of wonder if he slips because he's viewed as a "finished product"... but he's still only 20. Plenty of room to grow. A little work on strength, a little work on passing, a little work on the 3-ball... and he's absolutely got the stuff to be an NBA starter on a good team.

Sochan strikes me as the sort of dude you might see suddenly pop up in the top 6-7, because he's a stud on defense. 1-through-5 switches kind of dude. Great on ball, great off ball. If you were going to bet on a non-Chet player to be an All-Defense/DPOY type of prospect, this is your guy.

And while the problem right now is on the offensive end, it's worth noting that he's not a *total* zero here. Better potential than Daniels and some of the other non-shooters, and a good positional passer/team player on the offensive end all around. One of the younger players in the class too, and he's clearly raw in a number of ways, so upside is definitely real here.

So I think the upside is maybe a Boris Diaw type. A guy who can play small ball 5 but could also play some point forward if need be. This sort of versatility is the future of the league. I think a lot of teams, especially teams with good player development programs, would be wise to reach for Sochan if they think he can be the Draymond/Bam sort of Swiss army knife that every real title contender will likely need going forward. Downside is certainly real if he can't ever shoot-- he'd need to become an All-Defense level defender to get real playing time without a jumper-- but I'd gladly take a stab.

I think that's a perfect place for him to land, especially with the open guard audition the Spurs are putting on. If one or two of their stash hits (besides Dejounte) and Sochan does too? Spurs might be back.

end up as better pros than collegians

I don't love the athleticism. He's a below-average athlete by NBA guard standards. So that will create *some* issues on both ends at the next level, undoubtedly.

That said, he's got the goods everywhere else. Good shooter. That floater is translatable. Really good passer. Good ballhandler. Really hard worker on defense. Good motor. Really high IQ guy, makes the right call on both ends.

So when you combine that with what guys like Booker, Maxey, Herro, and Keldon Johnson showed in the NBA almost immediately, outplaying what they did in college with ease? That's... a pretty real sample. And that alone, combined with Washington's IQ, makes me inclined to bump him up a few spots.

I'm mainly asking because that sounds like what the Knicks have needed for the past 20-25 years, but I'm assuming he'll long gone assuming the Knicks keep their 11th pick.

I would've taken him in the 14-19ish range, so Houston getting him at 29 feels like a *giant* steal, and it will be extremely unsurprising to me if he ends up one of these dudes who'd be taken much, much higher in a redraft in a few years.

Or maybe teams know something about the kid that I don't. But from what I've seen? Yeah. Big time value.

Very excited about his pro potential...kinda sad we only got to see him for one season.

Hoping he goes to a team with a good reputation for developing young talent.

my quick .02

Long, rangy, smooth jumper, tight handle...he just needs to be more aggressive on offense AND DEFENSE. He comes across as "sleepy" too many times during the season, which kinda annoyed me considering how many games the buckeyes needed some urgency. He deferred too much but I think it was out of respect to the older bums I mean players on the Buckeyes team.

Curious to see how his frame fills out

He's obviously got some upside, but considering I think he'll be an average-to-below-average athlete by NBA standards, and his speed and strength entering the league are also below average, I just think most NBA players can either blow by him or bully him at this point. He's not great at getting through screens and/or recovering through contact. He may struggle to consistently hit the floor early on if he's drafted to a playoff team.

But the shot creation is real-- tremendous pull-up game. Wish he'd shoot more 3s to be honest, but he should be able to make consistent 3s in the NBA. And the positional size and young age mean it's easy to project him as someone who can grow. (And shot creation like this at 19 is pretty wild.)

He's the sort of dude I'd love to give in that 20ish range... but if someone takes him around 12-13, I'm less enthused. Real value for a team looking for offense/shot creation, though.

As an instant caveat, I always miss on non-college guys more than college guys, so grain of salt here, but I did watch a number of Ignite games. I thought early on, while the hype was on Jaden Hardy, that Daniels was a *way* better prospect.

He's the best defender on the perimeter of anyone in the class. He's one of the best passers in the class. He's an above-average ballhandler, especially for his terrific positional size (a 6'7 PG). He's a really high IQ playmaker too. Just a smart, high-motor player on the perimeter on both ends. A lot to get excited about.

But he can't shoot. Like, at all. 27% from 3, 52% from FT.

I still think you take him lottery-- and if you need a primary PG, and you think you can make him even an average-to-respectable shooter, you take him closer top 10, maybe even top 8. Think right now the ceiling is, like, a 6'7 Rajon Rondo. Which would be terrific. But unless you successfully make your team better the way Rondo does without shooting, then it might be hard for him to actualize that potential.

I think his biggest key to success is becoming, like, a 33% 3PT and 70% FT type of guy. If he does that, I think he's a starting PG on a good team for a long time. And given how dire this class is on primary ballhandlers, I think it's very worth the gamble.

I've seen some Desmond Bane comparisons, but seeing as how very few people saw Bane exploding the way he did coming out of college, I'm equally skeptical about Agbaji having real upside like that. He's great on the catch-and-shoot, and he's a good switchable wing defender. But I don't like his pull-up game, I don't like his passing, I don't really like his handle. And he's a four-year college player. Hard to see as much upside there.

So I really like him in the 20s, going to a contender, being a good bench 3-and-D guy, coming into a winning atmosphere. If he goes closer to the end of the lottery, I don't like the value as much. Would rather teams like that take a stab on some of the higher upside, more versatile options. But Agbaji does strike me as a guy who'll be a bench dude/start for bad teams for a while in the NBA.

The combine served him well. Massive frame, massive hands (biggest in the class), major athleticism, major motor. Could definitely switch against most players right away, and as he gets even stronger, maybe a true 5-position switch guy. Loves getting in the paint, playing physical, playing through guys. You just have to love a guy like that.

Showed the capacity to catch and shoot, but didn't display much else in a half-court offense beyond that and the bully ball inside. So in order to become a high-level starter, he's gotta develop that offense.

But when you're starting with that defense, that motor, and a halfway decent catch-and-shoot jumper? Yeah, I think if he falls out of the lottery, you're getting a pretty serious steal. There's just real upside here.

Kessler's an elite shot blocker-- one of the highest block rates in well over a decade of college ball. He's got good size. Certainly could be a rim-runner type guy, rim protector type guy.

He's just not fast enough to play all the time. Like, Duren and Williams are drop-coverage bigs, but they probably won't be massacred by every player that puts them on an island in space. Kessler would get massacred. So he's not a playoff player at all right now.

He *does* like to shoot 3s, and while he's not really making them or his FTs at a rate that gives me optimism, he did have a bit of that "I can shoot 3s" reputation out of high school. So maybe, if he can become a pick-and-pop guy, the lack of speed is less of a liability and he can play more. For now, he just screams 10-12 MPG/elite Survivor Fantasy League draft pick, lol.

he doesn't do anything spectacular on the NBA level, but if he works on his shot more (it's not classically pretty and his free throws are bad) he can mitigate his height and defensive issues when running the second team

Like, he's a better shooter and defender than someone like Sharife Cooper, so that's something (though admittedly not the passer/ballhandler Cooper was). I don't think he's destined for instant sideshow status necessarily.

But man, it's just so fucking hard to be an NBA player if you're coming in at the combine under 6 feet in shoes and 172 lbs. Your toughness and motor and floor general vibe only matter so much if everyone else is just bigger and longer than you.

And like you said, while his 3-pointer off-the-catch was good last year, there are some red flags. Like, I'd say his second best scoring ability in college was finishing at the rim, and he just... won't do that in the NBA. He's gotta get much better at mid-rangers, pull-ups, floaters, etc... and again, height makes projecting the efficacy of that an issue. Unless you're, like, a Trae Young level shooter. Which Chandler notably isn't.

So I'm definitely inclined to file Chandler under "great college PG who smells like a two-contract backup then Europe" kind of guy. I think that's closer to the median outcome that people suspect based on pedigree. But unless he becomes a terrific and consistent shooter, I'm very concerned about his ability to stick in any sort of meaningful way.

I don't follow the NBA much but I imagine he's being groomed to replace their other short back-up PG who has a limited skill-set (albeit different skills)

This year was a disaster for PBJ to the point where I can throw a lot of his shooting tape out. Like, in HS, you can see the shot should work. But at Milwaukee, he was taking contested off-the-bounce stuff because his teammates suck and his dad ran zero real offensive sets. So I think he can be a really good NBA shooter, especially once he's the fifth best guy on the floor there just to create space with open 3s.

But MAN. He sucks on defense. And it wasn't just effort. Guys in his mid-major conference were blowing by him. He had unbelievably bad athletic testing at the combine. Can't move in space, can't jump. He also isn't a passer, isn't a ball-handler, and isn't a guy who can make good shots for himself off the bounce. He's a catch-and-shoot guy right now. That's it.

So... yeah. Steve Novak might be the *ceiling.* If PBJ, like Baldwin, can be a 42+% 3-point shooter, he might be able to get some run for stretches despite the defense. But ultimately, unless you think his athleticism can improve notably, or unless you think he's the best shooter in the NBA, it's hard to see him getting even meaningful bench minutes. I'm not a fan.

One of my favorite Buckeyes ever, I just wish he had better coaching.

I have no idea how he projects at the next level, Ill let Frank handle that

I'm not convinced he's an NBA 4 with any regularity, because he's too short to play consistently in the post (though he was very good there in college), but he's not really the athlete or ballhandler to create a lot of shots on the perimeter either. Kind of a man without a country in terms of true position. Think a few years ago, he'd be a projected second rounder "tweener."

That said, I do kind of think he's suited to play small ball 5. He's a good passer, he's gotten results from his catch-and-shoot opportunities. He was terrible in switches as a sophomore, but did decently well from what I saw last year. So maybe use that strength, the potential to shoot, and the high IQ to burn teams in small lineups.

His success will just be so predicated upon where he ends up and how teams choose to use him. If a team uses him the way Boston uses Grant Williams, I think there's potential for him to get real minutes and be a truly effective piece on a good team. Luckily, he's very likely to go in the 20s, where the playoff teams with good player development programs reside. Think his chances of sticking are pretty good.

seemed like he bullied his way into points in the Duke games I watched -- not a pure shooter, not super athletic -- unsure what makes him a difference-maker as a two in the NBA

His game is definitely predicated on power. He was known as a good shooter in HS, so if you want to throw out last year at Duke for whatever reason and believe that he'll be a good NBA shooter based on that, then okay, but... the shot didn't fall well at all last year. And on top of that, I'm not convinced it looked that good. Like, even though Baldwin Jr.'s shots didn't fall last year, I still believe he's a shooter. Keels... I'm not convinced.

And I think the sales pitch on Keels at the NBA is his power on defense, but his lateral quickness, while good enough to be a good on-ball defender in college... I don't think it's there at the NBA. I'm sure the pitch for Keels is something like "Lu Dort with more scoring"... but I'm just not sold that he's a Lu Dort-level defender against NBA players.

Upside is what I said above: a wing who's competent on offense and uses toughness and strength on defense. Downside is absolutely someone who never makes it out of the G-League. Which would be a real shame based on his HS tape, as I loved watching him play in HS. But that shot has to start falling for this to happen.

Worth noting that Hardy came into the G-League as the guy with true OAD pedigree, above guys like Daniels and certainly Beauchamp... but I now like both of those dudes a good degree more than Hardy.

Hardy's pitch is as a scorer off the bench, because he did legit find opportunities to score and shot create on the Ignite team, especially down the stretch. He was pretty terrible at the beginning of his Ignite experience... but I reckon that's to be expected with most players (could say that about Kuminga too, IIRC, and that's worked out pretty well). But there's no question the guy looks for his shots and creates opportunities. Really good ballhandler too.

But he's not a good shooter right now. 33% from 3, 69% from FT.
And he's an unathletic (for NBA standards) 6'4 2 guard.
And he doesn't look to pass.
And he's turnover prone.
And he's terrrrrrrible on defense.

Like... what's the comparison here? I'd say someone like Jordan Poole, but Poole (a) was a better shooter in college, (b) a positive A:TO guy in college, and (c) ended up in a *perfect* situation.

Maybe you can sell yourself Hardy due to playing in a league much more difficult than college, which is fair... but if you have *two* true NBA talents-- handles and shot creation-- and the latter of those two is likely to be restricted by your relative lack of size/athleticism? Yeah. I just don't know.

If he becomes a 38% from 3/76+% from FT kind of dude, then there's certainly a place for him. Or maybe he can figure out how to play point, or with a taller athletic point guard that would mitigate the problem of his size. I'm not sure. It'll be very situation dependent.

But he's pretty clearly a stash imo. Think he's shown he can become a really nice scorer in the G-League, maybe he can figure some things out there. I wouldn't draft him until the end of the first round, personally-- where the teams with the better player development programs are.

Dell's not the best athlete... but he's strong, smart, and has really good size/length positionally. Can definitely switch in the NBA against 2-4, at least.

He's not a very good shooter off-the-bounce... but he developed into a really nice catch-and-shoot 3-point shooter last year. 41% from 3, 80% from FT. Think the tools are there for him to figure out how to be a nice 3-and-D piece in the NBA.

On top of that, he's become a very good passer. Ran some point at Duke, initiated offense. Maybe played a bit *too* unselfishly at times, but think it shows he knows his role offensively at the next level. Won't play outside of himself.

So I don't think he's a guy who should go, like, Top 20. But once we get to the win-now teams looking for guys who can step in and play some bench minutes as a rookie, I think Moore has real value. Agbaji's the better prospect, but I think they should be drafted, like, 5 spots apart, not 15-20 like we see in some mocks. They're targeting the same role-- and Moore provides better versatility as a better passer/ballhandler.

If I'm picking from 21-29, I would be considering Moore. And if he slips beyond that, it's a steal imo. Trying to keep homerism in check here, but it's hard to not see him as a guy with the potential median outcome as 15-18 MPG in the modern NBA.

I ultimately don't think Braun does too much at an elite level, but he doesn't have any glaring weaknesses (except shot creation, but he wouldn't play that role anyway). He's a good athlete with good size. He's a decent to good shooter off the catch. He's an annoying defender who works very hard. He's the first guy up the floor in transition for dunks and the first guy back in defensive position.

Not a guy with any true upside, mind you, besides maybe being the fifth guy in a starting lineup, but I can see a team end of the first thinking "this guy can immediately be our 8th-9th man while he settles in." He knows his role, plays it well, projects as a plus defender, and isn't a weak shooter, passer, or ballhandler. Fit is everything, as always, but you can see him being an annoyance in the NBA for a decade.

Like, the shooting is there, the size is there, and he uses his size combined with effort to play decent enough defense.

But I don't think he's got much NBA level offense as anything other than a catch-and-shoot guy right now, and I don't think he's athletic enough or strong enough to be a plus defender right now.

So I think he's worth a flier in the second round, just to see if he can pop in the additional space of an NBA floor, but he screams "guy who will spend a few years in the G-League" to me. Probably should've gone back to school, tbh-- could've worked on shot creation, handles, strength, etc.

hes a long way off from doing anything at an NBA level

Not terribly unlike Houstan, I think he's a good shooter (wasn't good last year, but saw him a little in HS, and the 82+% from FT makes me believe this year was a fluke), and I think he works hard on defense with good positional size. He's also got a bit more in his bag offensively than Houstan-- you can see why a team in the late first would think he can be a bench scorer pretty early into his rookie deal.

But he's currently a buck 90, and I think a lot of the struggles he had last year on both ends had to do with that. Since he, like Houstan, isn't a plus athlete by NBA standards, he's got to avoid being bullied on either end by the stronger, faster, and more quick-twitch athletes in the NBA.

So I think he's a guy who more likely than not will stink next year, lol. If he can get to, like, 210+? Then I think between his offensive skills and his defensive effort, he can be a rotational player in the NBA. If he can't get strong enough fast enough though, could become an also-ran.

The recipe here is simple.

- He's 6'6 with a 7'2 wingspan and an 8'9 standing reach. He's long and he's strong.
- He's an elite shooter. High volume, high efficiency. Might be the best catch-and-shoot shooter in the entire draft. Strong mid-range, great floater. He's got the whole bag.
- Good passer and ballhandler. Was recruited as a PG then grew.
- Good on-ball defender. Probably switchable 2 through 4.

He's not a typical lottery level athlete, per se, but everything else, he has. I love him immediately after the lottery as a versatile 3-and-D with a little upside due to his playmaking. Could absolutely become an NBA starter-- and worst case scenario, he can shoot 3s off the catch and not be a net negative on defense, so you've got to think he's a rotational player regardless.

I see the Dennis Smith Jr comps but he's better.

Generally in the second round, I'd be happy to gamble on a dude who isn't ready today but has actual starter upside. And I think that's Davison.

Right now, he just plays so young since he's so early in his development. Like, his competition in high school just wasn't on the level of most of his peers. So it makes sense that he's very turnover prone and that he makes bad defensive reads looking to make the big play. Kids will do that.

But man, when the big plays connect, dude is definitely electric. Elite athlete, terrific getting downhill, godly in transition, and a menace with steals and blocks on occasion. He uses that athleticism well, he just has to develop more fundamentals around that athleticism.

I've been seeing him mid-to-late 40s in mocks, but I'd definitely take him in the 30s or very early 40s. I get why people would be afraid because he's pretty clearly not ready today (unless he magically develops a half-court offensive game in the offseason), but you just can't find guys with his body and athleticism in the second round, generally.

into NBA, but man... is his shooting so raw. I think Sochan is a better version of what he offers and his lottery selection reflects that.

But if his offensive game continues to click, he can be a really good swiss army knife NBA player.

From a development perspective -- spending another year at Arizona and getting to lead that team couldve done wonders, but of course he shouldve left.

I've seen some mocks with him in the twenties, but I'd start kicking the tires right after the lottery.

He's just a guy that can do everything *but* consistently shoot, lol. I love a guy who can pass/create like he can-- he could bring the ball up if need be-- and who can defend with the motor and versatility that he brings.

And it's not like the shot is *bad*-- it doesn't look great but 36% from 3 and 74% from FT on limited attempts gives me hope that the right organization can help him figure it out. Like, I kinda love him going to Atlanta at 16.

Just think he's a classic value guy in that 15-20 range. More upside and less downside than most of the guys in the 20s imo. Obviously needs to shoot to play real minutes, but I think he can become a catch-and-shoot threat with some work and be, like you said, just a Swiss Army knife dude out there, one of those 8-5-5 guys who is a true plus-defender and helps your team win.

Likely wont be drafted now with his injury, and was a long shot before that -- but his shooting could be a need for a number of NBA teams

Like, I don't think there's notable difference between him and, say, Patrick Baldwin Jr. The argument is the same: if he can shoot at a truly elite level, he can play a bench role. If he can't, then he can't. And I think the value you can get on Lee as an undrafted two-way guy is pretty real.

(I put him in my mock draft, in full disclosure, lol. Very end of the second. Solely because of the potential as a shooter with his size.)

Jake LaRavia: Definitely concerned about his footspeed and lack of athleticism, but he's skilled for his size. Good fit in Memphis, though. I'd have drafted him closer to the second round.

David Roddy: Good versatile offense, don't think he can defend in the NBA. Wild that he went first round. Pretty weird for Memphis to pick him and LaRavia, two skilled bigs who can shoot but probably aren't quick enough to defend in the NBA, imo. Would've taken him deep into the second.

MarJon Beauchamp: Really loved his motor on defense-- he genuinely was a plus defender in the G-League. And you've got to love his story. Not an offensive player at all right now, so I worry long term, but I'm rooting hard for him, and if anyone can take a hard working defender into a plus role player, it's Milwaukee.

Blake Wesley: I was lower on him than many, but he's got raw tools, and the Spurs are a great landing spot. I don't expect him to really break the rotation in San Antonio any time soon, unless the shot is really falling right away. Feels like a couple-years-down-the-line play.

Peyton Watson: *Really* like the potential. Insanely raw, but this is the perfect place to take a flier on a guy like this. He was one of the few dudes left in the draft with actual difference-maker upside if he clicks. Denver's a really nice place for him to go.

Andrew Nembhard: Could be a decent backup PG somewhere if it goes well. I would've been a skeptic in the first round, because I'm not sure what he does well enough to really stick, but a second round flier is worth the swing, because if the jumpshot consistently works, he can prob manage a second unit. Really limited upside tho, and certainly out-of-the-league-in-five-years downside.

Christian Koloko: Great second round pickup. Think "Diet Coke Mark Williams," and you've got some idea of what his role can be. Doubt he's ever a starter, but backup center minutes feel achievable for him. I like the value.

Jaylin Williams: Really tempted to sell, because I don't think he's an NBA athlete and he can't shoot near an NBA level. That said, he's a smart defender and really fucking annoying. Sometimes these annoying guys find a way to annoy you in the league. There was plenty of better value on the board-- but I'd have taken a flier in the back half of the second. (It's also weird to me that OKC took Williams when they already have Robinson-Earl, another smart limited athleticism PF-- and there were several higher-upside options left on the board. Maybe they know something I don't.)

Bryce McGowens: Good value in the second-- I would've taken a flier on him around this spot. He's just a really good shot creator, the sort of dude who can come in and provide offense off the bench. Good size too, especially once he puts on some muscle. The Hornets have a good number of SG/SF types on the roster already, but if you're looking for second rounders who could impress in a couple years, he's not the worst bet.

EJ Liddell: I know I talked about him above, but I'll say this: there are worse places for him to be than backing up Zion Williamson.

Moussa Diabate: Definitely NBA size and athleticism, but he's just really far from being ready. Honestly, I would've thought he'd go back to school to work on the polish. Clippers will obviously stash him in the G-League-- worth the upside swing in the second round for a team like them. Wide range of outcomes, ranging from "meaningful player in the NBA in 4-5 years" to "never sees an NBA court." Hard for me to tell sometimes with guys like him.

Ryan Rollins: Terrific value for the Warriors-- I like Rollins a good deal better than Patrick Baldwin Jr. Mid-range specialist type of dude, and the FT numbers suggest the 3 pointer should improve once he's not asked to do everything. Saw his wingspan was 6'10. Golden State should be able to develop him into a decent bench option.

Josh Minott: Awesome draft-and-stash with upside at this point in the draft-- I'd have been terrified of him as a first rounder, but here, there's nothing to lose. Really good athlete with really good size. Already should be a good defender today. The offense is just, per usual with guys like this, a work in progress. Really interested to see what he'll be in 2-3 years-- but Minnesota's done pretty well with undrafted bigs like Vanderbilt and Reid, I think there are reasons to be excited about the potential here.

Vince Williams: All about the value here. Can shoot pretty well, can defend well, can pass well. Not a great athlete, but has decent size and works hard. Kind of like the clearness of his role in an NBA lineup more than, say, David Roddy's (who Memphis took earlier in the round). Might just be a nobody, but you could do worse.

Kendall Brown: Really athletic big, should be switchable, maybe even 1 through 5 with time. Five star recruit, played well for much of this year-- even got lottery buzz. Again, the offense is really raw, but I like him more than guys like Diabate and Minott to earn minutes sooner. Probably has better upside than either too. Much like Wililams over Roddy, if I were Indiana, I'd have drafted Brown over Nembhard.

Isaiah Mobley: Might just be an overseas player, because he's not really an athlete, but he's a guy with good positional size who's a really good passer and shooter for someone that big. Plus his brother's on the team, so that's cool. I'm honestly not convinced there's *that* big a divide between someone like Mobley and someone like Jake LaRavia, who went nearly 25 picks earlier and who I have some similar concerns about. Like, LaRavia's better today, sure... but the value here, even beyond the brother connection, is worth the swing.

Tyrese Martin: Tough dude. Will scrap for a spot. Not convinced he should've been drafted, but I get betting on a guy who works like he does on the floor. Not really convinced he's an NBA player, but if he makes it, it's on goddamn motor and guts.

JD Davison: again, I know I already covered him, but holy shit, what terrific value for the Celtics this late in the second, my goodness. He's got better upside than basically anyone listed in this post other than maybe Watson and Brown.

and i think hes probably an average NBA bench guy down the road. he plays hard, good athlete, and improved over the course of the season

And yeah, I agree that he's got the potential for it. Just feels like every year there are five or six second rounders with NBA size/athleticism for their position, and, like, 2 or 3 of them actually stick. And it's just a complete roll of the dice on which ones actually pop, lol.

but there was a stretch towards the end of the season where some little things started to come together, and his mindset seems good

smart rotations, really strong attempts at the rim, not fouling when its not worth it (altho that never totally went away)

oddly, hes in a rare situation where hes going to a lesser situation from college to the NBA in terms of coaching at his position. not being born in America makes him NIL ineligible. if that had been different i think theres a solid chance he sticks around to work with Howard another year