1. Cameron Boozer, Duke

2. Darryn Peterson, Kansas

3. AJ Dybantsa, BYU

4. Caleb Wilson, North Carolina

5. Kingston Flemings, Houston

6. Patrick Ngongba II, Duke

7. Tyler Tanner, Vanderbilt

When Swish Theory’s Big Board 1.0 dropped on December 2nd, we ranked Tyler Tanner 33rd when no other major outlet had him ranked in the top 60. Naturally, with his meteoric rise over the past month and a half that now has him in some outlets’ top 40, he’s similarly skyrocketed up our board as well.

The first criticism of a Tanner at 7 ranking would be his measly 6-foot height… but how much does that mean when he’s dunking, finishing, rebounding, and blocking shots against SEC competition at the rate of a 6-foot-4 guard? Once you go beyond his height, you find a lead guard prospect with a blend of feel and physicality on par with the greatest guard prospects in NCAA history, who’s applied this blend towards outlier scoring development without sacrificing ancillary production. With this newfound scoring prowess further opening passing windows that he’s capitalized on, the young-for-class sophomore is now the engine of a 7th-best Vanderbilt offense while also maintaining strong defense. Boasting an incredibly well-rounded profile, the question should not be “why Tyler Tanner top 10,” but “why not Tyler Tanner top 10.”

Maurya Kumpatla

8. Yaxel Lendeborg, Michigan

Yaxel Lendeborg continues to fly up draft boards as he dominates college basketball. His BPM is off the charts, and what makes his game special is the dynamic, all-around feel he brings on both ends of the floor. How many potential defensive anchors can dribble, pass, shoot, and attack as well as Lendeborg? With good-to-great attributes as a scorer, shooter, passer, rebounder, shot-swatter, and ball-stealer via Cerebro, that all-around skillset laid on top of a potentially elite and versatile defensive foundation provides a realistic path to a super high two-way potential ceiling and offers a very high floor as a high-end NBA rotation player.

Ryan Kaminski

9. Jayden Quaintance, Kentucky

10. Joshua Jefferson, Iowa State

After some unusual (for him) struggles mid-January, Joshua Jefferson returned to form with one of the most productive prospect games of the cycle: 17 points, 12 assists (0 turnovers), 10 rebounds (4 offensive), 4 steals, 1 block. How many prospects this class could do that, or in any class? Jefferson is listed at 6’9” and is highly skilled for a 240-pound player. While outside shooting is a weakness, he has still managed an acceptable 36% on 53 threes attempted this season. But you’re drafting Jefferson for his unique intersection of passing (5.3 assists per game, 2.1 ATO), rebounding (7.0 per game), and defensive playmaking (1.6 steals, 1.0 blocks per game). All signs point towards Jefferson being one of the highest feel players in class, which, when mixed with productivity and good NBA size, has a high hit rate of working out. With a major, versatile two-way burden on a top 20 NCAA offense and defense, Jefferson can take on all kinds of roles at the next level.

Matt Powers

11. Dailyn Swain, Texas

12. Bennett Stirtz, Iowa

13. Labaron Philon, Alabama

14. Koa Peat, Arizona

15. Hannes Steinbach, Washington

16. Aday Mara, Michigan

17. Malachi Moreno, Kentucky

18. Mikel Brown Jr., Louisville

19. Christian Anderson, Texas Tech

20. Darius Acuff, Arkansas

6’2 Arkansas guard Darius Acuff has quickly become one of the more polarizing draft prospects in this year’s draft. In a class featuring impressive depth at the guard spot, Acuff has managed to stand out by shouldering one of the highest offensive burdens of any high major freshman in recent memory. Currently, Darius Acuff is sporting a 45.3 Offensive Load, which is in the 80th percentile of all draft prospects since 2008. Acuff’s prioritization of the Arkansas offense has not been unwarranted, with Arkansas’ offense sitting 7th in the country in adjusted offensive rating, per Bart Torvik. Despite Acuff having a suboptimal scoring process (38% three point attempt rate would be in the 25th percentile for all guards since 2008), he’s managed to lead a prolific offense by avoiding mistakes (2.9 assist-to-turnover ratio) and pushing the pace to allow Arkansas’ supporting cast to capitalize on their open-court athleticism. Acuff is not without his flaws, though: his lack of defensive contributions has been a major limiting factor for Arkansas’ title aspirations. Versus teams ranked in the top 150, Arkansas’ defense is 13.1 points per 100 possessions BETTER without Acuff on the floor (101 possessions). Acuff’s effort and cognizance on the defensive side of the floor leave much to be desired at the moment. However, with Acuff possessing a strong 195-pound frame and a reported 6’7 wingspan, he has the physical tools to be a potential positive and transcend the roster limitations his archetype typically imposes. Ultimately, while I am skeptical Acuff will return value commensurate with his presumed draft position, there are indicators that he may be the exception to the rule when it comes to small, ball-dominant guards.

Ahmed Jama

21. Keaton Wagler, Illinois

Keaton Wagler has been the revelation of the freshman class. The 150th-ranked high school recruit quickly established himself as the best player on an Illinois team ranked seventh in the country by KenPom and is building a case as one of the top guards in the draft. At 6’6”, Wagler has the ideal size and offensive skillset for a two guard as an efficient, high-volume sniper with passing chops. The 18-year-old also pulls down an impressive 7 rebounds per 40 minutes, an underrated statistical indicator for guard prospects. I understand being skeptical due to weak or non-existent priors, but nearly 500 minutes into his freshman season, I think it can be safely said that Keaton Wagler is a baller.

Big Wafe

22. Karim Lopez, New Zealand

23. Daniel Jacobsen, Purdue

Daniel Jacobsen is a productive sophomore center for Purdue, listed at 7’4 and 250 pounds. This all but assures that he will play in the NBA at some point, as just two NBA players this season were listed above 7’3: Zach Edey and Victor Wembanyama. 

While he appears skinny and doesn’t play a high proportion of minutes, the argument to draft Jacobsen this year simply stems from his uniquely high likelihood of playing NBA minutes. It can be construed as an argument of scarcity: without major flaws with his touch, rebounding, or shotblocking, Jacobsen immediately has plug-and-play value in the NBA. Sure, he’s clearly raw, but most drafted underclassmen are. The difficulty in correctly identifying long-term professional players with any non-premium draft pick must be considered.

Avinash Chauhan

24. Álvaro Folgueiras, Iowa

25. Tounde Yessoufou, Baylor

26. Thomas Haugh, Florida

27. Motiejus Krivas, Arizona

28. Nate Ament, Tennessee

29. Meleek Thomas, Arkansas

30. Brayden Burries, Arizona

31. Cameron Carr, Baylor

32. Braylon Mullins, UConn

33. Paul McNeil, NC State

34. Bruce Thornton, Ohio State

35. JoJo Tugler, Houston

36. Kayden Mingo, Penn State

37. Elyjah Freeman, Auburn

38. Anthony Robinson II, Missouri

39. Amari Allen, Alabama

40. Henri Veesaar, North Carolina

41. Tamin Lipsey, Iowa State

Tamin Lipsey is a strange prospect by most measures – he’s old-ish, not a great scorer, nor does he have a phenomenal free-throw rate. Still, an early second-round grade seems like great value for a player who has a monstrous 5.6 A/TO ratio and a high steal percentage. Both are great signals of cognition, and both indicate that he creates/maintains new possessions, which is an increasingly valuable trait in a game where players and teams win on the margins. Of course, the low 3P/100 rate is scary, but he’s a good finisher at the rim (even if he’s down from last season). In combination with his physicality and cognition, he seems like a great value bet to be at least a rotation guard one day.

Joseph George

42. Morez Johnson Jr., Michigan

Johnson came in at 23 on my personal board, and he’s been steadily rising throughout the season. The thesis for Morez being high on my board is the simple paradigm of age-adjusted production and impact. 

The eye test reveals archetype problems that Morez needs to solve. At 6’9, he’s undersized for a big, and his perimeter skill set doesn’t appear up to snuff for a wing or forward in the NBA right now. The good news is this: Morez’s interior dominance is NBA caliber, as he’s shooting 76.4% at the rim. His rebounding numbers are down from last year. But, he put up a whopping 17.3 ORB% and 22.5 DRB% as a true center at Illinois. He’s shown enough to suggest he can hang physically in the pros. Additionally, he’s taken a jump in assist rate, steal rate, and free-throw shooting. Morez wouldn’t have an NBA-caliber perimeter skill set upon entering the league. But this rate of improvement in his touch and cognition suggests some upside for him to get there.

It would be easy to dismiss him as a Michigan merchant, given the number of great players around him. But Morez’s impact seems to outshine that of his frontcourt teammate Aday Mara. BartTorvik has Morez at a 12.6 BPM compared to Mara’s 10.1, while Hoop-Explorer has Morez with a +11.2 RAPM compared to Mara’s +7.7. I thought I preferred Mara to Morez when I formed my board, but all evidence points to more good things happening on the court as a result of Morez Johnson. He’s not a mere passenger on the Michigan train this year; he’s a co-conductor along with Yaxel Lendeborg. This is a fascinating player and prospect that deserves top 20 consideration in the 2026 draft.

Michael Neff

43. Ebuka Okorie, Stanford

44. Neoklis Avdalas, Virginia Tech

45. Killyan Toure, Iowa State

46. Zvonimir Ivisic, Arkansas

47. Isaiah Evans, Duke

48. Flory Bidunga, Kansas

49. Braden Smith, Purdue

50. Ja’Kobi Gillespie, Tennessee

51. JT Toppin, Texas Tech

52. Nolan Winter, Wisconsin

53. Nate Bittle, Oregon

54. Jalen Washington, Vanderbilt

55. Matt Able, NC State

56. Chris Cenac Jr., Houston

57. Darrion Williams, NC State

58. Acaden Lewis, Villanova

59. Richie Saunders, BYU

60. Mario Saint-Supery, Gonzaga

The post 2026 NBA Draft Big Board 2.0 appeared first on Swish Theory.

Duke, freshman, 6’9”, 250 pounds.

29.0 minutes, 22.9 points, 9.9 rebounds, 3.8 assists, 1.9 steals, 1.1 blocks per game. 2.7 ATO and 69% true shooting.

2. Darryn Peterson

Kansas, freshman, 6’6”, 205 pounds.

25.5 minutes, 21.5 points, 3.5 rebounds, 3.0 assists, 2.0 steals, 1.0 blocks per game. 1.5 ATO and 73% true shooting.

3. Caleb Wilson

North Carolina, freshman, 6’10”, 215 pounds.

28.3 minutes, 19.9 points, 9.9 rebounds, 2.1 assists, 1.7 steals, 1.3 blocks per game. 1.3 ATO and 65% true shooting.

4. AJ Dybantsa

BYU, freshman, 6’9”, 210 pounds.

30.7 minutes, 19.0 points, 6.4 rebounds, 2.3 assists, 0.6 steals, 0.3 blocks per game. 1.1 ATO and 61% true shooting.

5. Kingston Flemings

Houston, freshman, 6’4”, 190 pounds.

30.3 minutes, 15.3 points, 3.6 rebounds, 5.0 assists, 1.3 steals, 0.4 blocks per game. 2.9 ATO and 69% true shooting.

6. Jayden Quaintance

Kentucky, sophomore, 6’10.5”, 255 pounds.

(Freshman stats) 29.6 minutes, 9.4 points, 7.9 rebounds, 1.5 assists, 1.1 steals, 2.6 blocks per game. 0.8 ATO and 54% true shooting.

7. Patrick Ngongba II

Duke, sophomore, 6’11”, 250 pounds.

22.6 minutes, 12.8 points, 6.5 rebounds, 2.1 assists, 0.5 steals, 1.1 blocks per game. 1.2 ATO and 72% true shooting.

8. Bennett Stirtz

Iowa, senior, 6’4”, 190 pounds.

37.7 minutes, 18.6 points, 2.9 rebounds, 5.4 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.1 blocks per game. 3.5 ATO and 65% true shooting.

9. Koa Peat

Arizona, freshman, 6’8”, 235 pounds.

26.9 minutes, 15.6 points, 5.7 rebounds, 2.9 assists, 0.9 steals, 0.9 blocks per game. 1.5 ATO and 57% true shooting.

10. Nate Ament

Tennessee, freshman. 6’10”, 207 pounds.

27.5 minutes, 17.9 points, 7.6 rebounds, 3.0 assists, 1.9 steals, 0.1 blocks per game. 1.3 ATO and 56% true shooting.

11. Aday Mara, Michigan

12. Mikel Brown Jr., Louisville

13. Dailyn Swain, Texas

14. Karim Lopez, New Zealand

15. Yaxel Lendeborg, Michigan

16. Labaron Philon, Alabama

17. Álvaro Folgueiras, Iowa

18. Hannes Steinbach, Washington

19. Paul McNeil Jr., NC State

20. Malachi Moreno, Kentucky

21. Cayden Boozer, Duke

22. Joshua Jefferson, Iowa

23. Elyjah Freeman, Auburn

24. Cameron Carr, Baylor

25. Meleek Thomas, Arkansas

26. Thomas Haugh, Florida

27. Braylon Mullins, Connecticut

28. Darrion Williams, NC State

29. JT Toppin, Texas Tech

30. Christian Anderson, Texas Tech

31. Nate Bittle, Oregon

32. Tounde Yessoufou, Baylor

33. Anthony Robinson II, Missouri

34. Flory Bidunga, Kansas

35. Isaiah Evans, Duke

36. Tyler Tanner, Vanderbilt

37. Jacob Cofie, USC

38. Neoklis Avdalas, Virginia Tech

39. Mario Saint-Supery, Gonzaga

40. Miles Byrd, San Diego State

41. Ja’Kobi Gillespie, Tennessee

42. Henri Veesaar, North Carolina

43. Sebastian Williams-Adams, Auburn

44. Dame Sarr, Duke

45. Jaden Toombs, SMU

46. Zvonimir Ivisic, Illinois

47. JoJo Tugler, Houston

48. Motiejus Krivas, Arizona

49. David Mirkovic, Illinois

50. Bruce Thornton, Ohio State

51. Chris Cenac Jr., Houston

52. Johann Grünloh, Virginia

53. Richie Saunders, BYU

54. Daniel Jacobsen, Purdue

55. Amari Allen, Alabama

56. Sergio de Larrea, Valencia

57. Braden Smith, Purdue

58. Matt Able, NC State

59. Alex Condon, Florida

60. Ebuka Okorie, Stanford

The post 2026 NBA Draft Big Board 1.0 appeared first on Swish Theory.

Offense

At a glance, the statistical case for Aday Mara is a fairly straightforward one to make, small sample size notwithstanding; Mara was virtually unassailable across all impact metrics and possession-adjusted statistics.

Despite the stellar analytical resume, I definitely have some consternation towards Mara’s offensive projection. Per Bart Torvik, since 2010 there have been 515 seasons of players labeled as ‘Centers’ in their database who also played in the NBA. The average rim finishing of this ‘Center’ group is 70.9%. Mara doesn’t fall short of this threshold at all — as I write this on 11/8, Mara sits at 69.7% at the rim for his career (76/109). However, further examination of past centers’ touch profile would reveal another unofficial benchmark Mara has fallen short of. Since the summer of 2023, Mara has only finished 56.7% on layups (48/86) in all competitions. As insignificant as this number may sound, underwhelming rim efficiency paired with limited mobility is a fairly airtight method for determining whether bigs are NBA caliber or not.

While the value of queries in draft projections can and will be heavily contested by others, yielding a list of almost exclusively NBA also-rans with so few parameters should sound a major alarm in any evaluation. But in Mara’s case, there are a few contextually-rooted reasons for optimism. This past season, 42% (8/19) of Mara’s missed layups were on putback attempts. In designed offense (PNR Roll-Man and Post-ups), Mara was actually very effective, continuing the trend of improvement from the past few years.

Mara’s enhanced ability as a roller was evident throughout this past season. Mara made significant strides as a screener in addition to improving his patience on the catch. Compare the clips below, for example. The first clip is from a pre-conference game versus Arizona, and the second is from a mid-season conference matchup with Wisconsin. In both clips, UCLA runs a variation of ‘Spain Leak’ versus hedging defenses. And with the hedging coverage forcing the backline defenders to tag the roller early, Mara’s footwork and awareness after the catch are placed under duress. In the first clip, Mara is rushed by the speed of the help rotations, shuffles his feet, and logs a turnover. However, in the second clip Mara up-fakes, nimbly pirouettes around the recovering Nolan Winter, and creates a window for an emphatic finish.

Mara’s improvements as a play finisher and opportunistic scorer materializing within the 2024-25 UCLA team context is nothing short of astounding, considering the restrictions within the environment. In an attempt to streamline my analysis (and perhaps avoid a few query-incited eyerolls), I created a composite metric to describe the quality of an NCAA team’s finishing environment using a variety of team metrics and adjusted for year and position. The rating is called a ‘Context Quality Score’, and I will hopefully write something detailing the methodology in the near future.

In Aday’s case, he played in one of the least-friendly finishing contexts in my entire database which dates back to 2010. The 24-25 iteration of UCLA posted a -61.9 Context Quality Score, which falls in the 27th percentile for all players 6’10 and taller in Bart Torvik’s database. Amongst NBA players who came through the NCAA pipeline, this CQS is in the 21st percentile. UCLA played an extremely half-court heavy style with minimal shooting or passing talent. Mara’s inefficiencies were exacerbated by the fact that he was used as the fulcrum of the Bruins’ offense in his minutes. And while playing in an unfriendly environment doesn’t totally excuse Mara’s finishing, referencing the players who were similarly underwhelming at the rim in bad contexts reveals the path to success for Mara.

Cody Zeller and Steven Adams were the only two players 7-feet or taller who played for teams with 30th percentile or worse Context Quality Scores, finished below average for their position, AND still managed to log more than 3000 minutes. Both players have been career positives and certainly in Zeller’s case, an underrated player despite underperforming relative to his draft slot.

Looking at each player’s scoring output in the pros confirms their issues at the rim did persist, even though Zeller had some years of Kemba Walker-induced positive true shooting influence. Both Adams and Zeller possess negative playtype weighted rTS% (-2.4 and -1.4, respectively). However, both were highly impactful players in a manner I see Aday Mara capable of replicating at the next level, with elite contributions to the possession battle.

The highlighted column above is these players’ possession rank, which consists of their impact on team possessions in terms of net rating. While Zeller and Adams differ in their turnover influence, when it comes to rebounding, both are undeniable positives relative to position. This is where Mara should be able to establish himself amongst the league’s best. In the 2024-25 season, Mara posted a 20.5% total rebounding rate, 94th percentile for all players 6’10 or taller in Bart Torvik’s database. Mara’s presence on the offensive glass places a great deal of pressure on defenses, as even in limited minutes, Mara managed to get opposing bigs into foul trouble.

In the clips above, Mara’s effect on rival frontcourt players is apparent. Any lapse from the opponent, taking them out of position, makes securing a rebound virtually impossible. Mara’s size and consistent hands make early boxouts mandatory from opposing bigs, and when they fail to do so, often times their desperation to prevent easy second-chance points leads to fouls. Albeit in a small sample (555 possessions), UCLA’s free-throw rate with Mara on the floor is 32.3, good for 193rd in the country. In the 1157 possessions without Mara, UCLA posted a free-throw rate of 29.8, which would have been 275th in the country.

For as unambiguously encouraging as Mara’s rebounding translation is, turnover generation is a much more tenuous discussion. Generally, jumbo-sized NBA big men do not have positive defensive turnover value. My theory on the cause is the reliance on drop-coverage and the predictability of help rotations as a result. At the collegiate level, though, turnover generation can be a useful proxy for mobility and processing, and it’s here where Mara really falters historically.

Falling under 1% steal rate isn’t necessarily the kiss of death for Mara and his career 0.7% steal rate, but for a player who I expect to be a limited scorer because of the aforementioned touch issues, Mara’s defensive outlook needs to be clearer. If you compare him with the success cases in the query above, his scoring acumen falls well short. Similar to the offensive end, though, there are schematic factors that may have kept Mara out of the passing lanes and suppressed his steal count.

Over the 420 minutes Aday Mara played across three separate FIBA events, his steal rate never dipped below 1%, which stoked my curiosity as to what could’ve been behind his precipitous decline at UCLA. Obviously, it’s easier to accrue steals versus similar-aged competition than in the NCAA, but beyond this, there was a stark contrast between Mara’s defensive deployment at UCLA and any other team he’d been on.

UCLA Coach Mick Cronin is known for his defensive aptitude, and in the past has described his defensive philosophy as being rooted in generating turnovers, preventing layups, and above all else, not fouling. The first and last tenants seem somewhat contradictory; however, Cronin-led teams’ statistical resume shows he’s been near the bottom of the country in foul rate and two-foul participation (the percentage of time that a starter with two fouls in the first half has been allowed to play) and an above-average turnover rate team for most of his tenure.

Cronin has cultivated this defensive identity by deploying an aggressive switching scheme with bigs typically playing at the level of the screen. Cronin has aligned his personnel with this defensive philosophy by sacrificing size in his big men in favor of length and mobility. Since 2008, Cronin has only had two players 6’11 or taller play over a 30% minutes share: Nysier Brooks and Aday Mara. This is because of how taxing his style of defense is on bigs specifically. Take the clip below, for example. Mara has to hedge two separate ballscreens, and in the process is forced to cover a great deal of ground before having to fight through a pin-in screen to close out to a shooter.

Cronin’s defensive style is evident in their playtype frequency as well; they are consistently near the top of the country in percent of possessions spent guarding isolations and committing multiple defenders to ballscreens.

Of course, there are many ways to build a good defense ,as Cronin has exhibited. But it is defense-inconducive to larger players like Mara. An aggressive defense regularly tasking bigs with guarding on the perimeter, stopping drives, and demanding they do so without fouling, is going to be difficult for any 7-footer to perform. At times, Mara proved to be no exception to this.

But this is where Mara’s transfer to Michigan should prove to be a boon. Michigan head coach Dusty May has primarily run a drop defense, and in Michigan’s first exhibition, this is how Mara was utilized. Obviously, it is too early to tell if this schematic shift on its own will be enough to boost Mara’s steal rate to an acceptable level. My prediction would be that Mara’s absurd block rate slightly declines as his minutes increase and he is tasked with a more static role in PNR coverage. But, playing more inside the arc, Mara will be able to get his hands on more interior passes, as he had in international settings.

Circling back to an earlier query I’d referenced to highlight Mara’s touch concerns, even though I anticipate Mara putting together a season this year which would elevate him outside of this group, this query is instructive in determining what is appropriate risk to take when drafting big.

The only player here to play a meaningful number of NBA minutes is Luke Kornet, who uncoincidentally has comfortably the best assist-to-turnover ratio of the group. Even with their playmaking duties being considerably lower than other positions, centers’ cognition cannot be dismissed. If anything, metrics like assist-to-turnover may be more useful gauges of feel for bigs because their roles are more standardized than other positions. And for Aday Mara, who was given more playmaking responsibility than most bigs (90th percentile in Offensive Load for players 6’10 or taller) and maintained an A:TO of 1.21 (95th percentile for players 6’10 or taller) the currently available data indicates he may be an outlier when it comes to big man processing power.

All of this is to say Mara’s feel for the game eases many of my concerns with his defensive translatability and finishing. Any study on jumbo-sized bigs like Aday Mara will be limited because of the shallower pool of comparable prospects. But, to date, Mara has cleared the largest hurdles for center prospects; His rim-protection, passing, and two-way rebounding are all in line with successful NBA centers of the past. Checking these three boxes alone greatly shrinks Mara’s range of possible outcomes, and even if his rim-finishing issues aren’t resolved, there are past cases of ineffective scorers at Mara’s size becoming NBA mainstays. Zydrunas Ilgauskas has played the most minutes this century of any player listed 7’3 or taller, and was above league average rim field goal percentage only once in his career! In fact, if I were to make a comparison for Mara it would be Big Z, a player impact metrics consistently rated near the top 150 players in the league, despite being a negative scoring influence on offense.

Ultimately, the floor seldom seems to fall out for prospects, and considering how valuable a super-sized big can be, there’s a case to be made that these players are worth taking based on scarcity alone. Many of the recent ‘busts’ at this size aren’t unambiguous failures relative to expectations. Even though they fell short of the previously outlined feel thresholds, Tacko Fall and Walter ‘Edy’ Tavares have plausible NBA cases today. Fall has been consistently productive internationally and in the G League, while Tavares has been in the top 20 of PER in the ACB since he arrived in the league eight years ago.

Aday Mara is not without his flaws, and the offensive production Mara provides will be heavily dependent on his offensive rebounding and turnover aversion. Understandably, this elevator pitch may not be the most appealing within the lottery range, and any analysis rooted in statistical precedent can be tenuous with how friendly impact metrics can be towards centers. However, simply put, players of Mara’s size should be given the benefit of the doubt considering how outsized returns can be, and how their developmental trajectories seem to be the most reliably constant relative to other position groups. A theme of NBA prospect development seems to be that bigs are given up on too early: the nomadic early careers of Ivica Zubac and Isaiah Hartenstein immediately come to mind. Attitudes towards bigs have changed since then, and if Aday Mara continues on this trajectory, he should not slip through the cracks like his predecessors.

The post NBA Prospect Preview: Aday Mara appeared first on Swish Theory.

The draft model All-American team is comprised of the highest-rated NCAA players at each position according to my DMX model who are not currently listed on mock drafts at ESPN or NBADraft.net. For more background on the model and the xVORP metric, check out this explainer. 

Guards

Tyler Tanner / PG / Vanderbilt
HT: 6’0″
xVORP: .341

As a freshman at Vanderbilt, Tyler Tanner went his first 15 games (313 minutes played) before committing his first career turnover, compiling 31 assists and 35 steals over that span. Tanner finished the season with an impressive but of-this-earth 4:1 assist-to-turnover ratio, which, along with his 3.2 steals per 40 minutes and 60% 2pt% as an 18-year-old in the SEC, makes him one of the model’s favorite returners in 2026. On the downside, Tanner is listed at just 6’0” and is very limited as a scorer, posting a measly 11 points per 40 to go along with a poor 3-point percentage, 3-point rate, and free throw rate. It could be argued that Tanner is more of a statistical anomaly than an NBA draft prospect, but with some improvement offensively—a real possibility given his age —his outlier abilities could be worth taking a shot on.

Markus Burton / PG / Notre Dame
HT: 6’0″
xVORP: .171

Markus Burton was one of college basketball’s most productive underclassmen over the last two seasons, but generated little draft buzz due to being 6-feet tall with questionable point guard skills. As this is a list of unranked prospects, it makes sense that some of these players have an obvious flaw to explain the disconnect between the model and scouting consensus, and in the case of Burton and Tanner, it is that they are short kings. While the model does factor in height, it still sees Burton as an above-replacement NBA player because the young man is a bucket. As a sophomore, Burton led all high-major NCAA players in usage rate, and his career 22.2 ppg is tied with draft model darling Bennett Stirtz for the most in my database of over 700 draft-eligible players. His mega usage comes alongside an ugly 48% career eFG%, though he supplements his efficiency by getting to the line and converting 83.5% of his free throws. Burton’s development towards becoming a more efficient offensive engine could determine whether he is a future pro or just a fun college guard. 

Forwards

Alvaro Folgueiras / PF / Iowa
HT: 6’9″
xVORP: .334

Since DMX is a “one-size-fits-all” model that is trying to account for a wide variety of player prototypes, it benefits versatile players with an intersection of skills that are typically inversely related, i.e. rebounds and assists, or steals and blocks. This brings us to Alvaro Folgueiras, whose breakout sophomore campaign in 2025 was broadly strong statistically (his 8.3 Box Plus-Minus was top 10 among high-minute sophomores), but, more specifically, he was good at everything that the model values. Folgueiras combines rebounding (12.3 per 40) and passing (4.3 assists per 40, 1.4 A:TO), steals (1.9 per 40) and blocks (1.6 per 40), 3-point shooting (41.3% on 4.2 3PA/40) to go along with 2-point efficiency (61.6%) and free throw shooting (78.4%). Folgueiras did all of this as a 20-year-old and is actually a normal height for a power forward prospect at 6’9”. The only drawback is that he played at Robert Morris and did most of his damage against Quad 3 and 4 NCAA opponents, but we should have a clearer picture this year as Folgueiras will have the chance to test his skills against Big Ten competition. 

Robert Miller III / PF / LSU
HT: 6’10″
xVORP: .244

From Robert Morris to Robert Miller, who flew below the radar as an efficient young freshman in the SEC. Miller’s box score production was modest, and he was not especially impactful, logging only 500 minutes for the 14-18 LSU Tigers, but he has enough positive statistical indicators (72.8 2P%, 1.2 A:TO) to go along with broader attributes like youth, size, and strength of schedule to project well in the model. Miller emerged throughout his freshman season, and, if he continues on that trajectory, could enter draft conversations with a breakout sophomore year.

Center

Amael L’Etang / C / Dayton
HT: 7’1″
xVORP: .101

The case for Amael L’Etang is relatively straightforward: skilled 7-footers don’t grow on trees. As a freshman at Dayton, L’Etang started the team’s final 15 games and posted solid all-around stats, most notably dishing out 3 assists per 40 minutes to only 2.5 turnovers, a rare feat for a young 7-footer. The towering Frenchman also flashed shooting potential, trying 4.7 3-pointers per 40 and connecting on 34% of them. Though slight in frame, players who look like L’Etang in terms of height, production, and versatility are all but guaranteed to get looks at the next level, and should probably be on draft boards, too.

The post 2026 Draft Model All-Americans appeared first on Swish Theory.

A strong freshman season with notable statistics offers an encouraging rubric of sorts. As a lower-usage wing (16% usage rate), Riley still managed to get to the foul line at a solid clip (1.3 shooting fouls drawn per 40 minutes) and shot efficiently inside the arc (61.3 2P%), proving to be a key piece of San Francisco’s offense while flashing game-changing potential on defense.

According to the RAPM (Regularized Adjusted Plus/Minus) metric from CBB Analytics, which measures on-court impact without relying on individual box score stats, Riley ranked in the 98th percentile nationally (5.8). He also finished in the WCC Top 20 in Evan Miya’s BPR metric, ranking second among rookies behind only Mikey Lewis of Saint Mary’s.

Going back to the 2007-08 season, only seven Division I freshmen have shot better than 60 percent on 2-point attempts while recording 25 or more dunks and attempting at least five 3-pointers per 100 possessions. Riley cleared all those benchmarks last season, including 35 dunks and 5.4 3-point attempts per 100 possessions, joining a list that includes five first-round picks since the 2018 Draft: Mikal Bridges, Lonzo Ball, Chet Holmgren, Noah Clowney and Asa Newell.

However, a new challenge awaits Riley this season. With significant roster turnover, he steps into a larger role with plenty to prove, including a claim as a top mid-major prospect. How will he explore the studio space on offense? Can he elevate his game even further on defense? Before projecting ahead, let’s rewind and take a closer look at what Riley showed on film last season.

Team Defense & Athleticism

At 6-foot-6 and 200 pounds, Riley is on the lean side, but there’s some strength to his game and shows it when battling for rebounds and finishing cuts around the basket. With his long frame, he has the potential to add muscle and get even stronger, while his ranginess contributes significantly to his defensive upside.

Riley is a consistent contributor on the glass, posting a defensive rebound rate of 16.9 percent. During WCC play, that number dipped slightly to 16.6 percent, still good for the Top 20 in the conference. He also shows excellent range as a rebounder, routinely securing contested boards. According to CBB Analytics, Riley averaged 5.0 rebounds per 40 minutes on missed field goals (excluding free throws), the highest among USF’s rotation players and ranking in the 92nd percentile nationally.

There’s some dissonance that comes with evaluating Riley. He wasn’t a stocks machine as a freshman, which is a bit of a surprise. His steals and blocks numbers — 2.4 percent steal rate and 1.4 percent block rate — aren’t bad, but they seem to undersell his potential as an event creator, especially around the basket. He has a good sense for when to rotate to the rim as a back-line protector, and he displays positive defensive interior principles, including two-handed verticality.

Add in his straight-line speed and springy leaping ability, and Riley can cover a lot of ground while making an impact around the basket.

In this sequence, Santa Clara runs a 5-out action with a slot handoff between center Christoph Tilly (now at Ohio State) and wing Adama Bal. The 6-foot-7 Bal turns the corner on Thomas; with the center pulled away, there’s no immediate rim protection. Bal’s drive for an easy layup is thwarted, however, as Riley rotates from the weak-side corner, reaches the opposite side of the basket and pins the would-be high-percentage shot on the glass.

Even when Riley makes a misstep and must snap into Recovery Mode, he has the length and short-area quickness to get back into the action and make a play.

Factor in more experience, added strength and extra film study, it’s reasonable to expect Riley to surpass 12 blocks this season. The flashes are certainly there in terms of his upside as a defensive playmaker.

Further away from the hoop, Riley can be a disruptive presence as a closeout defender. While he doesn’t always perfectly contain catch-and-go drives, when he fully commits on a closeout, he can turn seemingly wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities into contested, less comfortable shots.

Riley is at his most advanced defensively when operating as a gap defender — whether zoning up to limit the offense’s advantage or acting as a deterrent in driving and passing lanes.

On this possession, Riley ideally would have his arms out wide, creating a larger presence in the gap as he helps on Tully’s short roll, stunting down from the left wing. But when Tully tries to kick out to Tyeree Bryan (now at Texas Tech), Riley flashes his anticipation and quickness, jumping into the passing lane for a pick-six steal and score.

Initially on this screen-roll possession against Saint Louis, Riley starts gapped up on the backside. As the ball handler approaches, he shifts into a denial stance in the passing lane, with his assignment positioned in the strong-side corner. When Isaiah Swope tries to kick out to a relocating teammate on the wing, Riley is all over it, smothering the passing lane and deflecting the ball for another scoop-and-score.

Riley’s ability to create turnovers is a key part of his transition game, another standout feature of his skill set. According to CBB Analytics, 21.2 percent of his field goal attempts came in transition (90th percentile), where he shot 66.7 percent on 2-point attempts (63rd percentile).

Trailing in the second half of a one-possession game, San Francisco’s transition defense faces a dangerous situation: imbalanced and with no real rim protection in place as Gonzaga’s vaunted fast break races down the court. The Bulldogs have everything they want: Ryan Nembhard, an NBA-caliber point guard, pushing the pace as Graham Ike (61.8 2P%) runs the rim. Riley, however, disrupts the play entirely — establishing the point of attack on Nembhard, then snapping into the passing lane to deflect the ball and create a turnover.

Making a Point

While Riley showed that he has the ability to be a game-wrecker in gaps and on the back-side of the defense, USF will also use him as an on-ball matchup piece — putting Riley on the toughest opposing perimeter option, including lead guard creators. Due to his length, Riley can be a nuisance here for opposing ball handlers, using his arms and hands to apply pressure or contests in rearview pursuit.

Riley doesn’t have the most fluid of hips, though, and he can struggle to navigate screens with precision. This tendency causes him to lose touch with his defensive assignment, and when that happens Riley doesn’t always take the most efficient path back to the ball. This caused issues for Riley and occasionally resulted in points or fouls.

Defending against Gonzaga, Riley is set up to “weak” this ball screen and push Ryan Nembhard to drive with his weaker left hand. The initial setup is fine, but Riley gets buried on the other side of Graham Ike’s pick. This gives Nembhard a lane to drive and effectively shields Riley from getting back to the ball, which results in a lightly contested jumper for a pretty good shooter.

Out in space along the perimeter, opposing ball handlers attacked Riley’s feet with crossovers and quick first steps, leaving Riley in the dust and reducing his length advantage. For example: LeJuan Watts (now at Texas Tech) is a really nice player — with good size, skill and finishing ability — but this is too easy as Riley loses leverage and gives up a straight-line drive to the rim.

Does the jumper make a leap?

Stating the obvious: the biggest swing skill for Riley will be his 3-point jumper. Regardless of archetype — whether Riley goes the route of 3-and-D wing or two-way guard with some creation abilities — he’ll need to establish a solid base with his perimeter shot.

As a freshman, Riley shot 32.6 percent from 3-point range (29-of-89 3PA) against Division I opponents. Including USF’s December 2024 win over Cal State Stanislaus — when he went 0-of-1 from beyond the arc — he finished 29-of-90 from deep (32.2 3P%), with 38 percent of his total field-goal attempts coming from 3-point land.

Riley’s shot versatility will be something to monitor this season, too. With an expanded role and another year of development, Riley could show more off-platform shooting. Riley doesn’t need to immediately become an electric shot-maker, but some more simple forms of movement shooting — curling down screens, running off flares or dribble-handoffs in USF’s offense — would be significant.

The in-between wasn’t a strong suit. Riley was just 5-of-20 on 2-point attempts from outside the lane, accounting for just 8.7 percent of his total field goal attempts, per CBB Analytics. Moreover, Riley made just two unassisted 3-pointers last season, which means that 93.1 percent of his triples were assisted, ranking in the 31st percentile nationally.

In terms of his touch indicators, it’s a bit murky as well. Riley can hit a floater, though the process isn’t super fluid. Riley made 73.5 percent of his free throw attempts last season. That’s not a red flag percentage, but it doesn’t necessarily imply some underlying touch trait — at least at this stage.

There’s also a range factor to keep an eye on. Riley shot just 27.9 percent on NBA-range 3-pointers (19-of-68 3PA) last season, per CBB Analytics. Riley’s jumper features a slight dip during the gather phase, which prices in a little more load time to his shot. It’s not glaring, though, and he still displays a high release, along with good wrist snap and a consistent base. Overall, it’s a repeatable process.

San Francisco starts this possession with Riley cutting left to right across the Iverson screens. From there, the Dons look set run Malik Thomas (now at Virginia) off a staggered down screen out of the right corner. This, however, is fluff, designed to occupy the weak-side defenders. Carlton Linguard will spin opposite and look to find Riley on a backdoor cut. When the basket cuts gets covered up, Riley quickly relocates back to the corner and drills a movement 3-pointer over a closeout from the 6-foot-7 Nate Kingz (now at Syracuse).

With another offseason of work, there’s hope that he can both increase his 3-point volume and efficiency. A more streamlined release would go a long way for his approach. If he continues to improve his footwork and shot prep, it’ll also lead to more comfort with off-screen opportunities from deep.

CUT EM IN

This might feel a bit like a cliche, given how often it comes up when evaluating lower-usage wings with questions about their shot or handle, but Riley is an impactful cutter. Whether within the structure of USF’s offense, in random flow or simply by taking what the defense gives him, Riley can serve as a pressure point on the rim in the half court through his movement.

Against Washington State, the Dons run an empty-side pick-and-roll late in the shot clock, with Riley stationed in the weak-side corner. As Ryan Beasley drives into the paint, the low man helps off Riley to contain the ball, leaving Riley with a choice: stay put in the corner and wait for a kick-out, or get moving. Sensing the opportunity, Riley slides along the baseline to open up a passing window for Beasley, who finds him for an easy finish at the rim.

On this possession against Santa Clara, the strong-side corner isn’t emptied out, but it’s another ball screen action in the right third of the floor — with Riley tucked into the weak-side corner. As Marcus Williams turns the corner and pulls in the low-man defender, Riley trails with another cut along the baseline, resulting in a lob dunk.

Clemson puts two on the ball in this middle pick-and-roll action from Beasley, which he attacks by splitting downhill. Beasley’s drives sucks in help defenders and, once more, Riley takes advantage — cutting down the baseline for a lob finish, which he dunks over the 6-foot-11 Viktor Lakhin.

To start this 5-out possession, Riley and Thomas perform a little exchange on the right side of the floor: Riley lifts from the corner to the wing while Thomas cuts down to the corner. As Linguard receives the pass atop the key, Riley remains in motion with a 45-degree cut into the teeth of the defense. Like a tight end running a slant over the middle and finding a seam in the defense, Riley snags the pass in traffic — between two layers of defenders — and is light off his feet for a quick finish.

Scaling Up?

Playing next to veteran guards Malik Thomas (28.7 percent usage) and Marcus Williams (25 percent usage), Riley mostly functioned on offense as an efficient spot-up wing and cutter with limited on-ball responsibilities: 59.5 percent true shooting, 16.2 percent usage rate and 6.6 percent assist rate. When Riley played with both Thomas and Williams at the same time (459 minutes), according to CBB Analytics, he posted a usage rate and assist rate of 15.4 percent and 6.5 percent, respectively. 

In a limited sample sans both Thomas and Williams (61 minutes), Riley’s assist rate jumped to 12.1 percent while his usage hovered at 16 percent.

Regardless of how you slice his minutes from last season, one of the biggest topics to address, for both USF and Riley’s pro development, will be his ability to scale up as an on-ball creator. Riley had moments of connective playmaking last season, making good decision with the ball. There were flashes of slashing ability, too, out of the occasional ball screen or dribble handoff.

It’s partly a byproduct of his role, but 60.9 percent of Riley’s 2-pointers were assisted last season — a rate closer to that of a center. That said, there’s some subtle wiggle to his work as a driver. With his long strides and a little bit of shiftiness, Riley can slink his way into the paint and make stuff happen.

He’s reliant on driving to his left hand, but his high release point allows him to finish over length when contested, including this tough runner over Nolan Hickman and Ike. The high release is a crucial feature for Riley. In lieu of creating big separation with his handle, Riley should be able to shoot over his fair share of perimeter defenders.

He showed some fun shot-making flashes last season, including this effort while working against a switch. Riley gets a little added space when Ike’s left foot lands on his right, causing the big fella to momentarily lose his balance. However, Riley takes advantage of the space, stepping back and going right into his gather for a beautiful high-arching 3-ball.

Thanks to his height and length, Riley can make passes over the top of the defense, making him a tricky initiator to guard in inverted ball screen actions. If a smaller defender shows or hedges in his direction, Riley can simply deliver an outlet pass over the coverage.

On some of his drives, he’s shown quality coordination and awareness as a passer — absorbing contact, drawing a second defender and finding the open teammate.

Riley isn’t the most accurate passer, nor does he always make sound decisions with the ball — at least not yet. He’ll force skip passes that turn into easy interceptions for weak-side defenders or overthrow cutting teammates. Riley’s assist-to-turnover ratio against all opponents (34 games) was just 34-to-33 — or 1.03-to-1 — and he created only 17.4 points per 40 minutes (31st percentile).

Again, some of that has to come with his role and usage last season. He’ll have more opportunities as a sophomore, though that’ll likely come with more defensive attention and game planning pointed in his direction. As such, Riley will need to handle contact better and get more comfortable passing on the move, especially going to his right or when forced to pick up his dribble.

Putting It All Together

At the risk of placing Riley into a box — with just one season of college hoops under his belt — I’m more bullish on his ability to find traction as a prospect in the 3-and-D capacity: defend multiple positions, cause havoc as a help defender, avoid turnovers on offense, move without the ball as a cutter and hit open 3-pointers.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t another gear for Riley to hit offensively. There are obvious growth areas, and he’s shown flashes of impactful scoring from the wing, with some self-created offense. If he’s able to scale up his on-ball opportunities, drill a few more 3-pointers and continue to provide punch as a help defender, Riley forms the outline of a prospect that can translate to the NBA and stick in rotations for a long time.

Defense, positional size and efficient scoring, with room for growth. There’s work to be done, but the archetype is there for Tyrone Riley.

The post Sophomore Spotlight: Is Tyrone Riley ready to make The Leap? appeared first on Swish Theory.

First, I’m talking to Logan Adams who makes an optimistic claim for Vanderbilt’s Devin McGlockton. You can find Logan’s work here and follow him on Twitter here.

Logan’s claim: Devin McGlockton is a draftable talent, and should be on draft boards. His ability to win possessions with stocks and rebounds and encourage advantages on offense through passing, play finishing and screening makes him impactful beyond production.

Question #1:

Just right away, a few things point to a limit in McGlockton’s upside, but I’m curious if you agree/disagree. First, his combined lack of post up (3 for 12 all season) or drive threat (6 of 14 all season) make him confined to assisted possessions — he had the second highest assisted rate on Vanderbilt at 72% of makes. Do you disagree with this assessment as a ceiling-limiter, or is your idea around his value more tied to his likelihood of being a consistent role player?

Logan:

Self-creation is the clear critique of McGlockton, and one I totally get. He’s not big-sized, so a high assisted percentage is daunting at the next level, but what he lacks in size, he fully makes up for in wiring and athleticism. He’s long and quick, with range and motor that made him one of the SEC’s best offensive rebounders, and as a byproduct, an incredible possession extender and play finisher. To directly address on-ball concerns, I’ll deflect to what he provides as an off-ball scoring and playmaking addition to any lineup. Last season, he was statistically one of the best roll men in the country, with a 95th percentile volume. Soft hands, quick thinking, close-space athletic traits, and plus-plus touch are the ingredients that make this unorthodox yet effective offensive cocktail. With McGlockton on the floor, Vanderbilt produced a 122.4 ORTG, which would have been good for 15th in the country last season, and 19.0 points better than what Vanderbilt was capable of without him. 

Question #2:

His on/offs are indeed elite, on both sides of the ball, which makes me think there is more going on than meets the eye or shows in counting stats. But I worry about the margins. He is a good athlete, but I don’t think a great one. He is an amazing offensive rebounder and a fantastic shotblocker for position, but his 16 dunks are much more pedestrian for a 6’7” player. If he’s not dunking, will he be able to keep the margins wide enough to get good finishing angles, or will NBA shot blockers overwhelm him? Additionally, on the defense end, his foul rate goes up to 5.3 per 40 minutes in his 17 games against top 50 competition. Is this another sign of athletic limitations?

Logan:

I think when discussing margins, especially as a scorer at the next level, it’s important to understand McGlockton’s touch indicators. He was incredibly efficient on his halfcourt rim attempts, going 11-of-11 on dunks and 68.8% on 80 layup attempts. He was almost at 40% on unguarded catch-and-shoot threes, and although shooting 66.7% from the free-throw line this past season, he’s consistently been in the mid-to-high 70s since high school. I’ve only really harped on why I think his scoring will translate to this point, though, and the foul increase is a valid concern. Part of it certainly has to do with margins, another that he’s making up for outlier-bad rotational defenders that make McGlockton easier to attack as a byproduct. The limitations are there, though, but it’s not enough to completely diminish his strengths.

Question #3:

There’s an unusual discrepancy between how McGlockton’s assist rate is low, below 10%, and how much the team passing improves when he’s on, going from a team assist rate of 46% to 52% with a decline in turnovers. Which do you think is more reflective of his impact on team passing and overall feel?

Logan:

To me, for as good as McGlockton is on defense, his superpower is his ability to create and extend advantages in ways that don’t show up on the stat sheet, which is cliche but applicable. He’s maybe one of the hardest screeners I’ve seen on film, which both creates mismatches and 5-on-4 or 4-on-3 situations for his team. That extends to his ability as a handoff hub, setting the table for his teammate to create with an advantage. Then, you have what he’s capable of as a delay action orchestrator, finding cutters in ways that enhances ball and body movement. I think his assists will go up this season with the departures of guys like Jason Edwards and AJ Hoggard, slotting McGlockton into more of a traditional hub role, but the passing and advantage creation has always been there.

Question #4:

Ok, considering all of that — where do you see McGlockton fitting in best in the NBA, and what kind of role would you expect him to play early in his career?

Logan:

The initial assignment will be as a small ball big. It’s what he’s been all three, going on four, years of college at this point, and I expect it to continue this way. In a pick-and-roll heavy system, he’ll fill in nicely as a screener and advantage/possession extender with his strength, passing, and play-finishing. Defensively, I have lingering doubts stemming from the question you asked regarding margins, but ultimately think he has the mind and tools to be impactful despite that. I think when discussing whether a player is draftable, it can often be misinterpreted as, “Is this player going to have a 10-to-15-year career?” or “Is this player going to have a starting-caliber impact?” I think there are pathways to that for McGlockton, who has been impactful at every stop, and has circumvented what appear to be clear weaknesses, all while having yet to unlock clear potential in areas like shooting and passing. However, in reality, we get very few second-round picks who receive fully guaranteed contracts historically, and even less now, with the third two-way slot allowing teams more hesitation to sign their late picks to full-scale, guaranteed deals. Even if McGlockton’s future is bouncing from team to team on two-ways, that is a high-percentile outcome for someone being argued on the basis of draftability.

The post Show Me a Prospect: Devin McGlockton appeared first on Swish Theory.

Before watching any tape, I like to get a good grasp of where a player’s strengths and weaknesses are statistically. This helps me ground their performance, where anything unexpected compared to their stats then jumps off the screen.

First off, I love to see Koa’s playmaking burden. In AAU, he finished:

• 4.9 pick and roll possessions per game (including passes)
• 4.5 driving plays per game
• 2.8 plays as transition ballhandler and
• 2.7 post up possessions per game (including passes).

He pushes himself beyond simple plays, too, with 3.9 iso plays per game and 6.1 pull-up jumpers. These are signs of a player with on-ball upside.

And the athleticism looks very good, to provide that capacity for growth. He dunks a good amount (1.4 times per game) and picks up 1.5 steals and 1.4 blocks per game. Not a nuclear athlete, but clearly with some signals of NBA quality. So now we have a player who has taken on a substantial on-ball burden while also showing dynamic, functional athleticism.

The concern is obvious: he is not a three-point shooter, taking only 1 catch-and-shoot three his entire AAU season (15 games). On the positive side, he has very good touch on layups overall, in the 84th percentile on a high volume 4.6 attempts per game. While his 0.78 points per pull-up attempt looks dire, that is still above average for the AAU tournament’s pull-up shooters. 71% from the line gives us some semblance of touch to work with, too. Especially for a guy able to get to the rim on his own, and has his level of athleticism.

My question from the profile is around his level of off ball feel, as he had very few points off of cuts. Is this a function of role or capability? Additionally, his 2.3 assists per game is solid for someone who can dunk and block shots, but pedestrian for all the time he spends on-ball. Again, does this point to a lack of overall feel? The same thing could be asked about his elevated foul rate, too.

Star Signs

Now, let’s dig into the tape.

The strongest indication of Koa being an eventual star is not just how he has the ball in his hands constantly, but how he can often be found driving with force. Now, his 0.45 free throw rate on drives in AAU (0.49 in FIBA U19 play) is far from dominant, but impressive considering how often he settles for pull-ups — when he goes to the basket, he goes to the basket. Koa’s nimbleness with his handle leads him to get good angles to then lower his shoulder without fouling. This is a star sign as it shows Koa has the capability of creating standstill looks from the perimeter. Perhaps a lighter creation burden, receiving the ball in more advantageous positions, and some coaching encouragement will lead him to choose the power option more often, rather than settling.

One major issue I have with Peat is that he can be a beat late to react to the ball flashing past or in front of him. His poor reaction speed may be a major ceiling limiter, as the NBA plays at breakneck speed with the ball whipping around in every which direction. However, Koa still has good hands. Despite his mediocre +3 wingspan, he can acquire stocks by swiping at the right place or using his change of pace to snag the ball before his opponent. That mobility and finding of optimal swipe angle are things that should stick regardless of the level of play, and seriously compensate for his processing slowness. (It should also be mentioned that this processing issue has only rarely, at least, led to high turnovers, often playing it safe.)

The rest of the star signs shine dimly, only on display on occasion in comparison to the NBA’s best of the best. Sometimes he goes up to get the ball at its apex, sometimes not; sometimes he scores on quick go-to moves, but also often settles or fades; occasionally he pulls out a creative kick out, but prefers to hunt for his own shot; his touch appears very good on layups, but he lacks the improvisational midrange touch the NBA’s great scorers display from difficult angles. It all reads like a player capable of fringe stardom, with clear ceiling-limiters without unexpected developmental leaps.

Improver Signs

The good thing is, Koa has many possible avenues to improvement. His most important quality in that regard is that he loves experimenting. More on-ball possessions than even AJ Dybantsa in AAU gave him the context to just-try-things, and he did. Peat took many midrange pull-ups from many angles, but alternated that with more forceful drives to the basket. While I would bet against him becoming a deadly off-the-dribble shooting threat, Peat has opportunities to become that which most players do not. His adeptness as a ballhandler as a big wing locks in some on-ball reps which are likely to continue in some capacity at any level. Few players can say that.

Peat also exhibits stellar technique all over the court. This enhances his on-ball creativity, trying out stutter rips, spins, euros, decels. All good stuff for a ballhandler, which means a rare repertoire for a player of his 6’8” stature. He displays nearly ideal technique on closeouts, chopping his feet with one hand raised and the other extended into passing lanes. He contests with his off-hand if the situation calls for it, a rare quality for young players contesting at the rim often.

He scores well for other improver traits, too. One clear takeaway from my greatest-improver research is that having an elite motor is always present for the league’s greatest developmental stories. Even the great improver Devin Booker was a dogged defender at Kentucky. Peat is an active player, commanding the ball on offense and often taking on difficult defensive assignments, including frequently functioning as his team’s center. He might not be in the top 10 percent for most intense motors in the league, but it is another area where he is clearly above average.

That goes for his small space coordination, too: clearly above average, dancing with the ball here and there with impressive nimbleness for size at 6’8” and strong. I love small space coordination as an improver trait, not just for its aesthetic value, but because it can unlock rare combinations with the ball. Koa can stay light on his feet into his opponent’s body, initiating physicality, while being ready to spin past his man and the help. This is a fun combination with on-ball experimentation, giving Koa real driving upside.

Archetype

Wing Initiator B+ / Play Finisher B- / Connector: Body Bagger B / Help Rim Protector B

So, what would Koa Peat’s on-court contributions look like, projecting forward to his NBA career?

Peat’s plethora of improver traits make the shape of that fairly amorphous. We know Peat has some capability as a ballhandler, even if the shooting efficient and distribution to his teammates isn’t high caliber. We know Peat has some appeal as an athlete, a very fluid 6’8” while maintaining a strength advantage. His change of direction bodes well for moving more off-ball, as he was initiating a heavy majority of the time in AAU.

Simply, we do not know what the final form of Peat looks like, though we do see some ceiling-limiters. His average (+3) wingspan, most of all, limits his flexibility to play as a true smallball big, though his rapid leaping speed does compensate. His good hands on defense and open-court speed should keep him as a strong transition threat at all levels.

The odds are against Peat being an above-average initiator for a good team, but mostly because that is the rarest archetype with a thin tail. We see frequent debates around Paolo Banchero’s ability to lead efficient offense, and Peat falls short of Paolo in some areas (Banchero’s passing and height being the biggest standouts). But it is impossible for me to rule it out, particularly given how many boxes Koa checks as an improver. The opportunity will be there.

My second archetype for Koa Peat is what I call the Body Bagger. These include Warrior big types like Kevon Looney, Draymond Green and Al Horford. More recently, Jaylin Williams on OKC embodies this. The key traits for this type are strength, rebounding, screening, passing and switchability. If Koa, already physical for his age, is able to continue to add strength, he could find utility as a screen and roller and short roll playmaker. But his processing weakness might lack in comparison to this particularly brainy archetype – can he make difficult outside-in reads, or flow perfectly into dribble hand-offs?

Peat will not be a primary rim protector, but with his mobility, motor and quick leaping, is still likely to have a positive impact. +3 wingspan and mediocre max vertical are ceiling limiters here, related as well to his mediocre rebounding projection.

Finally, Peat has some chance to make it as a shotmaker. His shooting form is not very fluid, bringing both hands together in the middle, but he has a decent follow-through and is organized pulling up. The most important thing here is that he continues to try, and why I cannot rule this outcome out entirely, either.

Putting It Together

In an upside scenario, Peat becomes an initiator as a 6’8” strength creator with some level of shotmaking and passing. There is some chance, with his ballhandling, experimentation, athleticism and technique, that he leads an above average offense. It is not a large chance, but it is significant enough that Peat seems like a worthy lottery pick to me. The fact that he has potential to develop in other areas – as a connecting screen-setter and short roll play maker, or cutter/transition finisher, or even to become more consistent as a midrange shotmaker – in addition to his existing defensive goodness brings him to clear lotto territory. It is extremely early, and I am still in the process of watching potential one-and-dones, but he currently sits at #10 on my board for the 2026 NBA draft.

The post Pow Report: Koa Peat appeared first on Swish Theory.

During the 2024–25 season, Veesaar was one of only eight high-major players to make at least 10 three-pointers (16-of-49 3PA), while also posting a block rate of 5.0 percent (6.1 percent) and an assist rate of 10 percent (11 percent). He’s joined on that list by a few 2025 NBA Draft picks, including two early second-round selections: Ryan Kalkbrenner (No. 34) and Johni Broome (No. 35). The group is rounded out by promising 2026 big man prospects JT Toppin (Texas Tech), Nate Bittle (Oregon), Alex Condon (Florida) and Bangot Dak (Colorado).

With his size (7-0, 225 pounds) and skill set, Veesaar fits the profile of a draftable prospect and may be the versatile stretch-big Hubert Davis has been seeking. As basketball continues to self-select for height and evolves schematically — particularly with the rise of five-out offenses, which become more pervasive and nuanced year after year — seven-footers who can pass, shoot, handle in space and provide rim protection are increasingly valuable. These players not only make a significant impact at the college level but also draw attention as pro prospects.

For Veesaar, the opportunity is clear: UNC has a positional need, and there’s a set archetype for him to follow. As the Tar Heels usher in a new era — marked by a revamped front office and a roster fully built by Hubert Davis — Veesaar stands poised to emerge as one of the ACC’s breakout big men. Here’s why.

The Shot

One of the most intriguing aspects of Veesaar’s game — and a key to unlocking his offensive potential — is the development of his jumper, which has become a valuable part of his arsenal.

After attempting just 11 three-pointers in limited minutes as a freshman during the 2022–23 season, Veesaar redshirted in 2023–24 and returned to a larger role in 2024–25 with increased confidence from beyond the arc. He appeared in all 37 games for Arizona, making five starts, and attempted at least one three-pointer in 28 of them. In two of the nine games where he didn’t attempt a three — both early-season non-conference matchups — he logged only three minutes.

Veesaar isn’t a high-volume, quick-trigger, roving seven-foot shooter like Zvonimir Ivisic (10.7 3PA per 100 possessions, 37.6 3P%) at Illinois. Last season, Veesaar attempted just 3.6 threes per 100 possessions. The developmental nature of his jumper still shows at times, too: some attempts come off awkwardly, and he’s occasionally prone to bailing out of his follow-through to chase down a potential offensive rebound.

That said, he’s shown clear progress in this area, and his jumper appears projectable. He has a smooth shooting motion, though he tends to dip and bring the ball down low on his gather. Despite limited lift, Veesaar can get his shot off over contests — largely due to his size and the space he’s typically afforded on the floor.

Adding to his stretch potential, Veesaar can shoot off of slight movement — in pick-and-pop situations or on relocations — and he’s capable of handling difficult catches. He doesn’t need to be spoon-fed perfect spot-up looks with passes delivered right into his shot pocket.

He misses this 3-point attempt on a baseline out-of-bounds play against Texas Tech, but note how fluid the shot is off movement. Veesaar squares his feet and gets into his gather quickly — almost catching Darrion Williams off guard as he rises over a weak contest.

Here against Arizona State, the Wildcats run their “Angle Pop” set, with Veesaar setting a ball screen for KJ Lewis in the right slot. When Veesaar is covered on the initial pop, it triggers backside “Zoom” action: Carter Bryant sets a down screen for Caleb Love, who sprints into a handoff with Veesaar. ASU defends the action well, but when Love swings the ball to Bryant, the freshman forward attacks north-south with a catch-and-go move against Joson Sanon. As Veesaar’s defender slides over to help on the drive, Veesaar relocates from the paint to the left slot. Bryant’s pass is off the mark, but Veesaar scoops it up like a shortstop with a weak ground ball and drills a 3 right over the contest.

It’s still a bit early to firmly attach the “stretch-five” label to Veesaar: he’s made just 19 three-pointers in 66 college games and is a career 69 percent free-throw shooter. Still, there are other positive touch indicators, and the arrow is pointing in the right direction, which is an encouraging sign for his long-term pro potential and his value within UNC’s secondary and half-court offenses. If he can tighten up a few things around the edges, there’s a good chance he’ll be able to scale up his three-point volume.

That should be of great interest to the Tar Heels. Since the 2007–08 season, UNC has had just one player listed at 6-foot-10 or taller make at least 15 3-pointers in a season: Pete Nance in 2022–23. Coming from Northwestern — a program that incorporates many Princeton-style concepts in its half-court offense — Nance was a skilled offensive 5 who could shoot, initiate dribble-handoffs and pass from the high post. However, during that season, UNC never really found five-out rhythm, as the 6-foot-11 Nance played the majority of his 904 minutes as UNC’s de facto 4-man, next to Armando Bacot: 636 minutes (70.4%), according to CBB Analytics.

(Note: This list excludes tall movement shooters Cameron Johnson and Brady Manek, who were both listed at 6-foot-9 — just below the height threshold. Both easily surpassed the 15 3-pointer benchmark during their seasons at UNC, but they were also primarily used as forwards within UNC’s system. The same is true for the 6-foot-9 Jae’Lyn Withers, who hit 39 3-pointers last season while primarily playing the 4.)

Pick-and-Pop Art: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

It’s a straightforward approach, but one of the most effective ways to unlock Veesaar’s emerging three-point game is through ball screens. With his combination of size and skill, he’s a versatile weapon in these actions — capable of rolling, popping out beyond the arc or short rolling into space. This triple threat should mix in nicely with crafty pick-and-roll guards Kyan Evans and Luka Bogavac. Partnered with Veesaar, these two veteran creators should be able to pressure opponents from multiple levels of the floor, forcing the defense to be mindful of the Estonian’s movements.

When a defense can’t anticipate the movements of the 5 after the screen, it puts all five defenders under pressure. The screen defender must be ready to react to the 5’s movements, while weak-side help defenders are also affected differently, depending on whether it’s a pop or a roll.

On this pick-and-pop possession with Jaden Bradley, Veesaar pops into space as Texas Tech center Federiko Federiko drops into the paint, leaving Veesaar open at the top of the key. Although Veesaar misses the shot, multiple defenders — Federiko and Christian Anderson, who is guarding Love on the weak-side wing — have to rotate and close out on his jumper.

When defenders are forced to rotate and cover this much ground, it opens up numerous opportunities for second-side offense — such as catch-and-shoot 3-pointers off extra passes or basket cuts. Unless there’s a switch, the pop opens up the floor and puts the defense into rotation.

If the weak-side wing defender isn’t ready to stunt or rotate on Veesaar, he can do damage in space, especially when the defense sends two defenders at the ball. For example, Oklahoma State blitzes Bradley on this angled ball screen. Arizona’s spacing is crucial as Veesaar pops to the middle of the floor. With Love as the only spacer on that side and two defenders on the ball, the lone potential help defender — Jamyron Keller — is put in a difficult position: either dig or stunt toward Veesaar, or help off Love and leave a dangerous shooter open in the corner.

Defending in denial with his back to the ball and a hand in the passing lane, Kelly seemingly doesn’t see or react to Veesaar until it’s far too late. While you’d like to see Veesaar finish more forcefully through contact, he puts the ball on the deck twice — with no immediate help defender in his grill — and draws a shooting foul at the rim.

Veesaar’s activity as a pick-and-pop target also makes him a fulcrum for moving the ball side to side. With his ability to bend pick-and-roll coverages and handle the ball along the perimeter, he can be an impactful DHO big while creating opportunities for second-side action. This forces the defense to cover more ground and navigate multiple rounds of screen-roll/pop coverages.

Houston is one of the premier defenses in the country, known for aggressively defending ball screens — often hard hedging the 5, JoJo Tugler, above the level of the screen. Here, Arizona runs the Angle Pop with backside “Zoom” action. Watch Tugler, who must hedge well above the arc on the right wing to contain Bradley, while Veesaar pops to the middle. As soon as Bradley passes to Veesaar, it triggers the Zoom action: Bryant sets a down screen for Love, who runs into the DHO with Veesaar. This forces Tugler to sprint from the right wing to defend a second action — this time against Love coming off the ball screen with some advantage.

Tugler trips on Veesaar’s second screen, and Love has a rare straight-line drive to the rim against Houston’s defense.

On this possession, Veesaar sets another slot ball screen — this time on the left side of the floor — and pops to the middle. Instead of backside Zoom action, Arizona runs Anthony Dell’Orso on a 45-degree cut; if he’s open, Veesaar can hit him on the basket cut. Oklahoma State covers the cut and denies the handoff to Love, who’s lifting out of the right corner. Dell’Orso then sprints back toward Veesaar, and the two initiate an empty-side pick-and-roll. This time, Veesaar dives to the rim, and after what’s essentially his third screen of the possession, he’s able to slip in for a layup on the roll.

While there are some automatic actions in place, this kind of activity allows skilled players to read and react off one another, and it’s made possible by the offense’s 5-out flexibility. Once again, it’s Veesaar popping into space and initiating second-side action that helps create a high-percentage finish.

Pick-and-pops also create opportunities for Veesaar to operate as a passer, another key development pathway. On this possession, Duke hard hedges the empty-side ball screen for Love — a tactic the Blue Devils used in both of matchups with Arizona last season. Veesaar pops open near the right slot, forcing Cooper Flagg to rotate over and switch behind the play, which leaves Townsend open in the right dunker spot after a baseline cut. As Patrick Ngonga scrambles to recover to Townsend, Sion James peels in from the weak-side corner to provide help at the rim. Townsend skips the ball to Bradley in the corner, who attacks Knueppel off the catch for a paint finish.

Duke defends this well, but Arizona moves and attacks with purpose, capitalizing on the initial advantage created by Love and Veesaar through the pick-and-pop and cut pass.

Passing and Playmaking

Veesaar isn’t necessarily a 5-out passing hub — the kind of frontcourt playmaker an offense wants touching the ball at the high post and making decisions every other trip down the floor. However, he showed notable improvement as a redshirt sophomore, making better decisions with the ball. His turnover rate dropped to 15.4 percent (down from 20.4 percent as a freshman), even as his usage climbed to 20.1 percent. Veesaar also finished the season with a slightly positive assist-to-turnover ratio of 1.12-to-1, which is solid enough — at this stage — for a 7-footer who finishes well at the rim, crashes the offensive glass and offers some stretch.

Arizona ran some sets through Veesaar at the high post last season, allowing him to make reads with the ball. In this sequence against Arizona State, the Wildcats run a “Stack Out” action, with Love popping to the left wing. Lewis cuts along the baseline from left to right, clearing that side of the floor. It looks like Arizona is setting up an empty-side DHO between Love and Veesaar. With the defense leaning in that direction, Love counters and darts backdoor as Veesaar finds him for a layup.

Veesaar showed he can make plays as a high-post passer even when the offense goes off script. Texas Tech contains this initial empty-side action between Love and Veesaar, forcing the ball to swing to Bradley on the second side. As that happens, Veesaar lifts to the top of the key. Dell’Orso cuts from the left wing into the paint, and his defender, Kerwin Walton, momentarily loses track of him. For a brief moment, Dell’Orso is open in the left dunker spot and Veesaar capitalizes with a quick pass for an easy layup.

The added spacing and playmaking Veesaar brings should benefit all of UNC’s guards. Evans is a talented off-ball mover and shooter who connected on 44.6 percent of his 3-point attempts last season while playing alongside Nique Clifford in Colorado State’s sophisticated offense. He’ll find opportunities to step into open catch-and-shoot looks off Veesaar’s actions. The same goes for Virginia Tech transfer Jadon Young.

The player who may benefit most from Veesaar’s presence, though, is Seth Trimble. A high-level athlete and talented interior finisher for a 6-foot-3 guard, Trimble has struggled to space the floor; he’s a career 29.8 percent shooter from beyond the arc on 3.9 attempts per 100 possessions. By UNC’s lofty efficiency standards, that lack of a jumper created some challenging half-court fits alongside Elliot Cadeau, another guard with an inconsistent outside shot, especially when paired with two non-shooters at the 4 and 5.

Unsurprisingly, UNC’s offense operated much more efficiently down the stretch last season when Withers emerged as a stretch-4, helping to open up the half-court. Over the final 10 games, Withers shot 45.7 percent from deep (21-of-46 3PA), and the Tar Heels scored 124.1 points per 100 possessions in the 210 minutes he was on the floor. Trimble also benefited: in 609 minutes with Withers on the court, he shot 51.7 percent on two-point attempts, compared to just 46.7 percent when Withers was on the bench.

Veesaar’s added shooting, passing and 5-out ball-handling could have a similar effect — pulling opposing centers away from the paint and opening up cutting lanes and driving opportunities, including off second-side dribble handoffs. With Veesaar on the floor last season, Arizona shot 69.3 percent at the rim (95th percentile), with 38.7 percent of its field goal attempts coming at the basket (94th percentile), according to CBB Analytics.

Interior Finishing

While the pick-and-pop aspect of Veesaar’s game is an intriguing next step in unlocking his full potential, rim runs remain his primary post-screen pattern — rolling downhill toward the basket. Veesaar isn’t an elite vertical athlete, but his length and touch around the rim allow him to finish effectively. He carries solid roll gravity thanks to his size, mobility and willingness to dive hard to the cup, where he does the majority of his damage.

Arizona runs a “Wide” action on this possession, with Veesaar setting the initial off-ball screen for Love, followed by a quick re-screen on the ball. Baylor switches the action, leaving 6-foot Jeremy Roach to guard Veesaar as he rolls to the basket. Love throws a pass over the top, allowing Veesaar to easily high-point the ball against the smaller Roach. Veesaar does well to keep the ball above his chest and finishes through contact for the and-one.

Veesaar drew 2.1 shooting fouls per 40 minutes last season, too.

Duke defends the initial “Spain” pick-and-roll action well, with Tyrese Proctor and James nailing the guard-to-guard switch, while Ngongba retreats to the paint to cover Veesaar’s dive. Veesaar shows his activity level, immediately resetting as Bradley initiates a spread pick-and-roll. Veesaar lifts for his second ball screen of the possession. Ngongba drops into the paint again as Veesaar rolls. Bradley turns the corner and forces a decision: should Ngongba commit to the ball handler and contest the finish, or stay home on Veesaar’s roll? It’s a delicate balance but Ngongba leaves his feet, and Bradley lofts a nifty lob to Veesaar, who shows off his catch radius — snagging the pass out of the air and flushing it.

Kon Knueppel, defending KJ Lewis on the wing, probably should’ve pinched in to tag Veesaar on the roll, especially given Lewis’s limited 3-point gravity. Regardless, it’s a strong possession from Veesaar.

According to CBB Analytics, Veesaar shot 76.9 percent at the rim last season, attempting 6.7 shots at the rim per 40 minutes (58.3 percent of his FGA). He also finished third among Big 12 players with 55 dunks (2.9 per 40 minutes), behind only Aziz Bandaogo and Dillon Mitchell of Cincinnati.

When rolling to the rim or cutting around the basket, Veesaar is a reliable target. His hands aren’t the softest — occasional bobbles happen — but they’re solid overall. Guards can trust him to handle passes in traffic.

This pass from Lewis is behind Veesaar, and there’s a bit of friendly-fire contact as Townsend ducks in near the restricted area. Still, Veesaar manages to pluck the ball out of the air and showcase his footwork and touch — spinning quickly for the finish without ever putting the ball on the floor.

He’ll also be an important pressure point at the rim in UNC’s secondary actions. Veesaar can operate as a trailer, thanks to his shooting touch and ball-handling, but he also runs the floor well for a big — and he’s capable of the occasional acrobatic finish.

This is solid complementary basketball from Veesaar, who shifts from quality rim deterrence — with a well-timed block — to sprinting the seam in transition. These end-to-end runs from the big fella could pair nicely with the open-court passing of freshman forward Caleb Wilson, one of the top 2026 Draft prospects.

Whether it’s in transition, the pick-and-roll or on quick interior passes, Wilson and Veesaar project as an impactful duo with room to grow as their chemistry develops.

Big Role for the Short Roll

Beyond rim runs and pick-and-pops, Veesaar is also comfortable operating in pockets of space between the rim and the arc — particularly on the short roll. When defenses put two on the ball, pick-and-roll operators can confidently hit Veesaar in these tight windows, knowing he has the touch and awareness to make plays. This will be especially useful for Evans and Bogavac, who can hit the eject button and find Veesaar on the short roll when screen-roll coverage extends above the level of the pick.

On this possession against Texas Tech, Arizona runs an empty-corner screen-roll with Love and Veesaar. Toppin hedges the screen, leaving Veesaar open in the short corner. Veesaar is decisive — attacking in space with a single dribble and powering to the rim before the Big 12 Player of the Year can recover.

Veesaar also flashes touch from just beyond the restricted area — a skill he puts to use on both post-ups and short rolls. On this possession against Baylor’s zone, he sets a screen for Lewis, then short rolls into the middle of the lane. After receiving the pass, he rises and finishes over a contest — an impressive display of touch on a difficult shot.

Per CBB Analytics, Veesaar shot 47.1 percent last season on 2-point attempts inside the paint but not at the rim.

When the defense rotates to the back side and gets in front of Veesaar’s short roll, he has shown comfort as a distributor as well. In the Big 12 Tournament, Veesaar sets an empty-side ball screen for Love, prompting Houston to trap with two defenders: Tugler leaps out at Love, leaving Veesaar open in space. Love outlets to Veesaar, who puts the ball on the floor, reads Emanuel Sharp rotating down to the paint and skips a pass to Bradley in the weak-side corner. Veesaar could’ve been whistled for a charge on this play, but his pass to Bradley sets up a swing-swing to Bryant for an open 3. Credit Veesaar with the hockey assist.

In a similar setup against Duke, Veesaar initiates a step-up empty-side screen for Dell’Orso as Maliq Brown hedges the pick. Dell’Orso finds Veesaar in space while Flagg gambles for a steal, leaving the Blue Devils vulnerable on the backside — even as Brown recovers. Veesaar dribbles twice into a congested paint before kicking out to an open Bryant for a corner 3-point attempt.

Again, it’s pretty basic big man stuff, but the decision-making is crisp enough to keep the offense humming and generate open spot-up 3-point looks.

Athleticism, Rebounding and Putback Finishing

For a player his size, Veesaar moves well, using long strides and fluid hips to cover ground effectively. He plays with a wide base and a high level of physicality, consistently sacrificing his body in the paint and working hard to box out for rebounds. While this aggressive style occasionally lands him in foul trouble (5.2 fouls committed per 40 minutes last season), it also makes him a relentless force on the offensive glass, where he’s tough to contain.

Veesaar ranked among the top 100 nationally with an offensive rebound rate of 12.3 percent last season. He converted many of those offensive boards into points, shooting 78.4 percent on putback attempts, according to CBB Analytics. Though not exceptionally springy, Veesaar isn’t ground and his feel around the rim allows him to extend for finishes.

Despite his size, wide base and physicality, Veesaar can still be outmuscled in the paint. He’s not a traditional low-post bruiser and doesn’t particularly stand out on the defensive glass, posting just a 14.5 percent defensive rebound rate for his career. According to Bart Torvik’s database, he was one of only five qualified Division I 7-footers last season with a defensive rebound rate below 15 percent.

Some of Veesaar’s rebounding limitations may stem from Arizona’s defensive scheme, which often had him hedging ball screens on the perimeter rather than sagging in the paint. But part of it also comes down to physical tools: opponents frequently beat him off the floor and exploited his positioning. Whether due to a lack of quick-twitch explosiveness, slower reactions or being pinned in weaker rebounding positions by stronger players, Veesaar can get outmatched on the glass.

Veesaar does a nice job of helping corral the curl here, but he gets pushed under the basket as the ball caroms over his head, leading to an offensive rebound and a second-chance scoring opportunity for Texas Tech.

That said, Arizona still rebounded well with Veesaar on the floor. Even in lineups without Tobe Awaka — Arizona’s top defensive rebounder — units featuring Veesaar as the lone big pulled down 71.3 percent of available defensive rebounds, according to CBB Analytics, a solid team outcome.

Pick-and-Roll Defense: Where’s the Versatility?

Veesaar has enough mobility to defend ball screens in multiple ways, though he’s likely better suited for a more conservative approach, which he’ll find at UNC. In the Arizona games I charted from the 2024–25 season, the Wildcats varied their coverages, but Veesaar was primarily positioned to hedge at the screen. He can do well in this type of scheme, too. For a 7-footer, he moves well laterally with fluid hips.

Under Davis, UNC has primarily defended ball screens with a no-middle approach: downing ball screens when the pick takes place on the outer thirds or the floor, “weaking” ball handlers and forcing them to drive left with their weaker hand, and often dropping the 5 below the level of the screen. With a different scheme, Veesaar will get to showcase some of his defensive versatility.

While there have been limitations and moments of unease, this approach offers several statistical advantages: it protects the paint, limits rim attempts and reduces kick-out opportunities for open 3s. It’s mostly been effective, too: North Carolina has posted a top-50 defense in all four years since Davis took over from Roy Williams.

The high-water mark came two seasons ago, when the Tar Heels outperformed expectations on defense and finished eighth nationally in adjusted defensive efficiency, according to KenPom. That defense didn’t feature standout individual defenders, but UNC found success through collective synergy and adherence to its core concepts. (There was likely some shooting luck involved as well, with opponents hitting just 32.1 percent of their 3-point attempts against North Carolina.)

Assuming UNC maintains this approach as its base, Veesaar has the size, feel and mobility to excel within these coverages. In fact, this is where he’s likely best suited. With his 7-foot frame, he can be a strong deterrent in the paint, taking up space and protecting the rim. His impact is further amplified by the presence of Wilson, who can disrupt as a gap defender.

Here, Veesaar effectively navigates the middle ground of drop coverage, staying in front of the ball handler and sliding into the paint to contain and block Toppin’s short roll attempt.

Rim Protection

As a backline rim protector, Veesaar isn’t elite, but he remains impactful. He may not cover vast ground or dominate games by blocking shots above the rim, but he has a strong motor and is willing to use every inch of his length. Furthermore, Veesaar uses his hands effectively, often keeping them high and well-positioned to challenge shots.

Despite a lack of vertical explosiveness and somewhat slower reaction and anticipation times, there are reasons to view him as an effective anchor — at least at the college level — and a prospect with defensive potential. During his time in Tucson, Veesaar averaged 3.1 blocks per 100 possessions. In the 2024–25 season, Arizona posted a block rate of 14.2 percent with Veesaar on the floor (94th percentile), which dipped to 10.1 percent in minutes without him, per CBB Analytics.

Whether playing with the Estonia national program, Real Madrid or Arizona, it’s clear that Veesaar has been taught to play with verticality and contest shots at the rim using two hands straight up. This form of backline rim protection will be crucial for UNC next season — defending the basket without fouling. The Tar Heels are a bit thin at center behind Veesaar, so Davis will need to rely on him for significant minutes this season.

In the late stages of the Sweet 16 game against Duke, the Blue Devils run a Flagg-Knueppel screen-roll to force a switch — taking Bryant off Flagg and putting Dell’Orso, a significantly weaker defender, on the No. 1 pick. Flagg glides past Dell’Orso, but his shot is disrupted by Veesaar, who slides over and times his contest perfectly — absorbing Flagg’s left shoulder and keeping both arms vertical to challenge the shot as Flagg hangs in the air.

Opponents shot just 58.3 percent at the rim with Veesaar on the floor last season, and that number dropped even further to 50.2 percent (99th percentile) in lineups where Veesaar was the lone big (sans Awaka), according to CBB Analytics. In 599 minutes with those lineups, Arizona allowed just 100.6 points per 100 possessions.

If Veesaar can maintain a similar level of production while limiting fouls and playing more minutes in UNC’s system, he’ll provide a stable foundation for the team’s half-court defense and further solidify his prospect status.

Putting It All Together

Henri Veesaar isn’t just a developmental curiosity or a stretch-big project. He’s a system-enhancing big man with experience, plus the tools to impact games at both ends of the floor and elevate the ceiling of UNC’s evolving roster.

At seven-feet tall, with mobility, stretch potential, some rim protection skills and improving feel as a passer, Veesaar checks the boxes of a modern, scalable frontcourt piece.

If he continues to increase his 3-point volume, stay out of foul trouble and remain a reliable interior presence, Veesaar has the chance to be more than just a breakout big in the ACC. He could emerge as a central figure in UNC’s success and solidify his standing as a draftable prospect in 2026.

The post Summer Sleepers: Henri Veesaar appeared first on Swish Theory.

The post Summer Sleepers: Adrian Wooley appeared first on Swish Theory.

I’ll be making a preliminary argument for Donnie Freeman using highlights only. This time of year, I am not looking to make completely detailed evaluations of prospects. I’m painting with a broad brush and simply taking note of players who catch my eye. Highlights are great for that. This article advocates for Freeman while also showing you how I use highlights in a productive way.

Let’s start with the basics. Donnie Freeman is a former 5-star recruit who was listed at 6’9, 205 pounds for Syracuse last year as a freshman. In 2024-25, he averaged 30.5 points and 18 rebounds per 100 possessions and had a 56.6 2P%, 33.3 3P%, and 79.6 FT%. Other notable statistics include a 4.1 OBPM and 3.1 assists per 100 compared to 4.1 turnovers. Below are all his per 100 and advanced metrics, courtesy of Sports Reference.

Before we get into highlights, I should note that Freeman has allegedly grown an inch in the offseason and is now 6’10. What we know so far is already quite intriguing. Freeman has a pedigree going back to high school, produced well on a per-possession basis, might still be growing, and is a good bet to shoot based on the FT% and decent enough 3P%. That brings us to the highlight plays. Let’s dive in.*

First, a midrange shot. Watch how Freeman stays calm amidst chaos in the paint. As soon as he finds space, his eyes are on the rim, and his energy transfers cleanly into a shot. The ball gets a shooter’s bounce off the rim, too.

Next up, Freeman finishing through contact after a post catch. Love that he stays patient with his footwork and that he seeks out contact. Additionally, he doesn’t get thrown off his spot. Sometimes, young players resort to awkward movement patterns when faced with contact. But Freeman doesn’t do that here. Great stuff.

This next one screams NBA forward to me. Freeman is operating at the top of the key and quickly makes the correct decision to keep the dribble handoff and take it all the way to the rim. This play requires great court mapping and coordination, which has become increasingly necessary for NBA forwards.

Now for the one that made me sit up in my chair a bit.

Oftentimes, I’ll watch a high-level flash play and wonder how translatable it actually is. Not on this one. That self-creation was pretty damn cogent. Freeman seems comfortable sizing up his man, and he has a knack for getting low on his drives and exploding into a high-release point jumper. More on that later.

Opportunistic cutting is one of the most important off-ball indicators for future offensive success. This next clip shows Freeman doing just that. Great job by Freeman to cut behind his man as soon as he sees his head turn towards the ball. He puts himself in a great spot to make the pass easy for his teammate as well. The timing and positioning on cuts is often taken for granted, but if cutting were easy, more prospects would be good at it!

Next, a clean pull-up two that showcases Freeman’s high release point. All the previous observations about Freeman’s eyes and energy transfer on his pull-ups apply here, too.

Next, Freeman gets really low on a drive to the rim and showcases soft short-midrange touch.

On this unremarkable swing pass, I wanted to point out how quickly Freeman gets the ball out of his hands as well as the communication to his teammate to keep swinging the ball. It’s not flashy by any means, but I love to see prospects tuned into what other players should do on court, not just themselves.

Next, a really smooth movement three:

I can’t get over how quick and smooth Freeman’s shot motion is at his size. I’d drop some players it reminds me of, but it’s too early to get crazy.

Next, I’ll show a couple passing highlights. The first clip is a really good entry pass, another skill sometimes taken for granted (note the wide arm angle and use of spin on this one). The second clip shows real versatility. Freeman receives a ball screen, backs down his man into the mid-post, and delivers a good skip pass.

Lastly, two more excellent shots. First, a smooth fadeaway. Second, a midrange out of the short roll that shows how soft Freeman’s touch already is.

The touch in that second clip is legitimately special. You almost never see a basketball swish through the net that softly from the free throw line besides, well, on free throws.

Ok, let’s take a breath. There’s so much to like here, and I’ll get into all of it in a second. But I want to single out a specific trait that Freeman showed us in those highlights: his ability to get his shot off using fluid energy transfer and a high release point.

My work over the years has referenced my belief in a high release point as a potential star trait. But, I’ve had some misses projecting under-the-radar star wings and forwards using this idea (among other things, of course). Reflecting on why that might be, I think quality shot preparation may help separate the hits from the relative misses.

Check out this shot from college Kawhi Leonard:

What do you notice? Well, if you’re anything like me three years ago, you fixated on the high release point on Kawhi’s pull up. But his lower body is immaculate, too. The feet are square, he explodes into the jump, and his core strength keeps him stable and balanced throughout the entire shot. These traits, combined with the high release point, made pull-up jumpers easier for Kawhi than most players.

Let’s look at another example from a player who more closely resembles Donnie Freeman physically: college Pascal Siakam.

On that play, Siakam shows smooth movement and touch in the short midrange. He keeps the ball high, and the ball falls softly through the hoop. Again, Siakam made this look easy because of fluid energy transfer from his lower body to his upper body. As a prospect, Siakam fell short of ideal thresholds on traditional shooting indicators. But, this type of fluidity and touch in the short midrange should have clued more NBA teams into potential development down the road.

Those are just two examples of NBA stars taken outside the lottery in their respective drafts who had high release points and functional lower body mechanics on self-created opportunities. That combination allowed both players to seize the on-ball opportunities they received in the NBA.

Looping back to Donnie Freeman, I saw that same functionality on his pull-up jumper. He makes shooting off the dribble look easy. Go back to the clips I showed of Freeman shooting and watch his lower body. He’s balanced, explosive, and has soft touch to boot. You almost never see that from 6’10 guys.

What else did we learn from those highlights? We saw functional strength. We saw movement shooting. We saw glimpses of decisiveness within a team structure. We saw coordination, fluidity, passing flashes, and involvement in NBA-style actions. All of that, plus a projectable pull-up jumper that shares important qualities with NBA development success stories, makes a very enticing case for Freeman.

I’m intentionally not jumping to any conclusions about where Freeman might stack up in this class. It’s too early in the cycle, not to mention that highlights alone are insufficient for doing so. That said, this guy has green flags that point to a potential star.

Look at how much we teased out of one highlight video. Pretty cool if you ask me. Going into next season, I have a lot of questions I’m excited to see Freeman answer. How does he look physically after the growth spurt and post-injury? How consistently does he play within the construct of a team? How will he look against power conference competition? Is he good at defense??? We didn’t really get any highlights of him on that end, unsurprising given his very low stock rates.

All of those questions will be answered with time and analysis of full games. Highlights, by definition, don’t directly tell us what a player needs to work on. Only full games can complete the picture. For me, highlights help build the skeleton of my understanding of a prospect. The strengths shown in these videos (and sometimes what isn’t shown) tell a story.

What I’ve tried to show you today is the story Donnie Freeman’s highlights told me. Without having watched a single full game of his, I have my initial “skeleton” understanding of Freeman. From here, I’m going to dive into some of his film at IMG Academy and full games of his from Syracuse. I also plan on watching Freeman’s Syracuse team early and often once college basketball season starts. I suggest you do the same.

*Credit to the ACC Network for the video.

The post Donnie Freeman is Extremely Underrated (+Advocating for Highlight Scouting) appeared first on Swish Theory.