• Freshman for University of Washington (Big Ten)
• Listed at 6’11” and 220 pounds
• 20 years old as of May 1, 2026
• NCAA (2025-26): Averaged 18.5 points, 11.8 rebounds (4.2 offensive), 1.6 assists to 2.0 turnovers, 1.1 steals and 1.2 blocks per game, on 62% shooting from two, 34% from three, and 76% from the line
• FIBA U-19 (2025): Averaged 17.4 points, 13.0 rebounds (4.7 offensive), 1.9 assists to 2.4 turnovers, 0.6 steals and 1.3 blocks per game, on 72% shooting from two, 22% from three, and 78% from the line

The Good:

• His team, the Washington Huskies, has a +19.6 net rating with him on and -0.2 when he’s off. That is as good of a swing as you could hope for from a 19-year-old playing high-major ball. Despite his poor D-BPM, Washington’s defensive efficiency doesn’t drop when he’s on
• Leading the NCAA in rebounding as a freshman, with 14% oreb and 25% dreb rates, shows Steinbach is impossible to keep off the glass — much like he was in FIBA, too. Those figures approximate Joel Embiid’s rebounding figures as a freshman: the rebounding will stick. When Hannes is the lone big, Washington secures 36% of offensive rebounding opportunities, a 4% increase compared to when he’s off, while also boosting their 3pt rate by 12 points. This catches onto the new wave in the NBA

The tape shows Steinbach is great at using his size opportunistically. He is hyper-aware of when he is in an advantageous spot and is relentless fighting over the opponent’s back without fouling. He is also persistent following his own misses. He is far too good of a rebounder to be matched up against a PF.

• For any high-major freshman with these rebounding statistics, only Kevin Love had higher three point volume per possession. The 3.0 threes per 100 possessions rate exceeds that of Caleb Wilson or freshman Julius Randle (who had similar rebounding stats)
• 56 points as a pick-and-popper and 50 points as a roller: not many players can handle his volume for both, even if his roller finishing is still mediocre at 1.16ppp (another undersized big but with better vertical pop and likely a better wingspan, Flory Bidunga, was at 1.37ppp)

The tape shows Steinbach’s scoring versatility after setting a screen. He is coordinated enough to get into his 3pt form smoothly and quickly after a screen, where his man will have to honor his distance shooting. As a roller to the hoop, he is best getting the ball quickly after the screen where his driving can shine. He won’t be a good lob threat with mediocre vertical and wingspan, but will still be a scoring threat inside the arc with his elite midrange touch.

• 33 points in transition as first-middle (first down the court) and 13 as transition ball-handler suggest high motor and some handling skill. He had 2.8 transition ballhandler possessions per game (!) as a transition ballhandler his previous season, playing in German’s B League
• >1 drive possession finished per game, drawing a foul 28% of the time compared to an 18% turnover rate. For a college big, this is amazing to see for potential offensive “wingification”. In fact, I’d say it’s likely he’s an adept outside-in scorer

The tape shows, yet again, an opportunistic player who knows when to take what is given. While the decision-making isn’t perfect, and he often gathers too far from the basket, on average he is making the right play. Given he is too good of a rebounder to be contained by PFs, Hannes should have advantageous ballhandling opportunities against Cs.

• 12 for 30 from three on guarded catch and shoot. Steinbach taking more guarded C&S threes than unguarded is a great sign for trigger-happiness, suggesting he will receive heavy three-point volume for a player of his size
• 43 points off of hooks and runners. Midrange touch experimentation , especially with his great layup (124/191) and dunk (26/27) finishing; Hannes won’t be predictable as a 2pt scorer, even without pull-up jumpers

The tape shows he uses runners and floaters as bail-outs as he struggles to get all the way to the rim. Fortunately, Steinbach is good at slowing down into his release, not rushing, which will ensure decent percentages when combined with his soft touch.

• He had 21 tip-in points, too, ranking 7th in the nation. This shows a proclivity for crashing the glass and the coordination to successfully guide the ball to the hoop with a single touch
• The team assist rate jumps by 4 percentage points when Hannes is on, even as the team turnover rate declines by 2.5 percentage points. Despite not having stellar assist volume, he does seem to grease the wheels in some way (likely at least partially due to his constant screening). Especially impressive is how the percentage of team assists at the rim jumps from 36% to 45%
• Only had three negative BPM games on the season, finishing with 9 straight positive games
• When Hannes is the lone big, his defensive rebounding rate goes up to 28%
• His steal rate of 2% is good for a rebounder of his quality, not totally stilted as a mover, even if unlikely to be a strong perimeter defender

The Bad:

• 5% assist rate against top 50 teams (over a 13-game sample) is putrid for Hannes’ wingification odds, though would be a bigger concern if the team ATO didn’t improve with him on the court
• A 3.9% block rate at 6’11’’ is disappointing, casting doubt on his interior defensive value outside of the rebounding

The tape is a little more encouraging than the raw numbers. Steinbach guarded the perimeter often, a tall task for a player of his height, constantly switching onto quicker ballhandlers. However, his resistance to strength is disappointing, as true bigs can power their way through him to the hoop.

• While opponents take fewer rim attempts when Hannes is on, they shoot a high 63% at the rim when he’s on the court. When Washington’s other big, Kepnang, sits, that number rises to 65%, which would rank 352nd worst rim% allowed in the country
• No pull-up jumpers suggests he might lack the coordination to truly excel as a wing scorer, though the floater volume is an encouraging way to counteract that
• Washington’s free-throw rate when Hannes is the lone big plummets to 24.1, compared to 41% when he’s off the court, again casting some doubt on his interior dominance/strength
• Opponents took 1.2 FGA per game against Steinbach in iso (88th percentile), scoring at a strong 0.96ppp (71st percentile efficiency)

The tape shows wings are able to get favorable angles when driving against Steinbach, and, with his poor vert/WS, Hannes is forced to foul. He might be okay as a switcher against bench units, but this will be an issue as the margins tighten, especially in playoff settings.

Value Proposition:

It’s easy to get stuck trying to figure out what position Steinbach can play in the NBA. On offense, he looks like a reliable spacing PF, especially appealing if you buy his positive passing impact despite the low assist rate. I buy it being acceptable positionally, even if he’s nowhere close to any kind of hub, but the versatile scoring out of pick and roll should give him some favorable situations with the ball where the reads are easier. While he lacks the vertical explosiveness or length to be a true lob threat – his 29 dunks is about half of Asa Newell’s last season, by way of comparison – I think he has the ability to develop a valuable floater with his touch and coordination. The driving tape is great for size, matching the numbers, so Steinbach is far from a static scorer. The shooting confidence at his size, 77% free throw shooting, and 45% finishing in midrange present a compelling spacing profile. If he’s not spacing, he is crashing the glass, with his 14% offensive rebound rate first in the country among starting high major freshmen (Hines and Gurdak had higher rates but <50% minute share). Since 2008, his 14% oreb rate only trails Kevin Love and Jahlil Okafor among high major freshmen to play 70%+ of their team’s minutes. Steinbach is a special rebounder who can also space, with some intriguing passing and ballhandling potential for a near 7-footer.

On the defensive end, it is tougher to find an obvious source of value outside of the rebounding. His 25% dreb rate ranks 6th among high major freshmen to play 70%+ of their team’s minutes since 2008. The impact of that shouldn’t be ignored, even if he is a clear tweener between a 4 and a 5. In that case, I find it easier to imagine Steinbach as a “super sub” who can take easier bench assignments, where his offensive firepower will stand out even more. I think Steinbach could be a great early bench player who will find himself closing games increasingly over his first few seasons, tweener-ism be damned. Ultimately, Steinbach will probably be picked on against NBA starters, unlikely to be a positive switcher or shotblocker. Steinbach had nearly identical drebs/blocks/steals/fouls to Derik Queen last season at Maryland, and Queen just turned in an 8th percentile performance on defense as a rookie at -1.4 D-EPM. He won’t test as poorly as Queen, but may not have Derik’s great sense of angles in getting from point A to B.

Given these defensive limitations, I find it difficult to picture Steinbach as an ironclad future playoff starter, but he has a good chance of offensing his way to starter value, regardless. The swing skills are driving, passing, and floater development, and I lean on the optimistic side for all three. If he can add good strength, the center odds get a heavy increase, too, which would make him a convincing starter.

Steinbach could very well hit important shots as a tall offensive release valve. It is underrated how valuable a tall play-finisher is as far as bailing out an unsuccessful offensive set. In the extreme, we see how Wemby’s stature as tallest great play finisher ever suppresses turnover rates for San Antonio guards who have to take way fewer risks when playing next to him. Steinbach has about a foot less wingspan, but his ability to get off contested threes (12-30 on the season) at his height as a good distance shooter means that late-clock looks are less damaging for his offense. Steinbach doesn’t have offensive engine potential like Derik Queen, who was constantly showing off his passing creativity, but I can’t rule out similar offensive impact given Hannes is ahead as a three-point shooter.

I had skepticism around Hannes earlier in the season, wary of a player whose ceiling seems capped by defensive tweener-ism and a <10% assist rate, but the calculus isn’t so simple. It’s easier to imagine him coming off the bench, but the offensive firepower, combining spacing, driving, and glass-crashing, gives him starter-value potential even still. For this reason, Hannes is in my 5-12 high-confidence range, and currently my #7 prospect in the 2026 NBA draft.

The post Scouting Report: Hannes Steinbach appeared first on Swish Theory.

Impacting the game of basketball without the ball in your hands has always fascinated me. It’s easy to become enchanted by on-ball creators, but there are countless ways to generate value without the ball. But what does that actually look like in practice, what defines offensive impact away from the ball in a small role, and which macro-level traits contribute most to it?

My thesis is that the next competitive edge in basketball lies in valuing the intersection of three-point rate and offensive rebounding rate. Before diving into the 2026 NBA Draft prospects who embody this emerging trend, it’s necessary to examine the league’s recent stylistic evolution and provide evidence for my claim. 

The great teams of the past decade largely succeeded by creating an advantage in both shot selection and shot-making. During their legendary 73-9 season, the Warriors ranked near the bottom of the league in net possession value, yet completely separated themselves from the field by dominating the true shooting battle on both ends of the floor. The era of “Moreyball”, the Warriors’ Hampton Five, and the Cavaliers introduced a kind of Basketball 2.0: slow-footed big men were phased out, small-ball fives became essential, and offensive and defensive shot profiles were optimized at the expense of positional size, turnover aversion, and rebounding.

This graph shows the correlation between overall net rating and net possession rating (so the points per 100 that teams are over or below league average in the combined categories of Otov, Ddtov, Oreb, and Dreb) in 2016, proving that emphasizing the possession game wasn’t a hallmark of the good teams of that era.

Nearly a decade later, this correlation has risen to 0.783, and current market inefficiency appears to be the exact opposite. With a league-wide rise in analytics, the competitive advantage gained from an optimized shot diet is smaller than ever; separation from the field now has to come through winning the possession game. 

With this in mind, strong NBA offenses in recent years have focused on minimizing turnovers, with teams like Oklahoma City, Boston, and Indiana at the forefront of this trend. Interestingly, however, this season has revealed a divergence: the best teams in the league are crashing the glass at higher rates than we’ve seen in years. The correlation between O-Rating and Oreb% is the highest it`s ever been.

So rather than just O-TS and O-Tov, top-end offenses are trying to positively affect all 3 factors now. The question, then, is how this can be achieved consistently on a macro level.

The most effective approach appears to be maximizing both three-point rate and offensive rebound rate. These two elements are highly synergistic. Three-point shots typically produce a higher effective field goal percentage but a lower raw field goal percentage than average two-point attempts, which in turn creates more offensive rebounding opportunities. At the same time, a perimeter-oriented shot profile reduces turnover risk by limiting drives into traffic and the kind of high-risk passes that often lead to live-ball turnovers.

Additionally, long rebounds generated by missed three-pointers are easier to rebound out of five-out alignments, making it more valuable for perimeter players to crash the glass effectively. In theory, then, maximizing three-point rate and offensive rebounding should positively impact all three offensive pillars: efficiency, turnover avoidance, and possession generation. This is especially valuable in an environment where the marginal gains from shot diet optimization alone have diminished.

The clearest examples of this approach in action are the Boston Celtics and Charlotte Hornets. Both teams have significantly exceeded preseason expectations and their perceived talent levels, ranking among the top five in both three-point rate and offensive rebound rate, while also fielding the 2nd- and 6th-ranked offenses in the league, respectively. Their success stems from a combination of deliberate coaching emphasis and targeted roster construction, prioritizing players who fit this philosophy (e.g., Luka Garza, Hugo Gonzalez, Josh Green, Kon Knueppel).

From a team-building perspective, this trend is particularly intriguing because three-point rate and offensive rebounding are areas where complementary players can have an outsized impact. Traditionally, offensive value has been driven by high-usage players: pick-and-roll maestros, dominant post scorers, or heliocentric wings who control possessions. Even today, 14 of the top 15 players in five-year offensive RAPM rank well above average in offensive load.

This raises a key question: how can lower-usage perimeter players still drive positive offensive impact?

To explore this, I analyzed all non-big players with a substantial sample size who posted an offensive load below 30 (per Ben Taylor’s formula) while maintaining an offensive RAPM above +1 over a three-year sample. The goal was to identify the underlying traits and skills that sustain offensive value across thousands of possessions. I then examined their estimated influence across the three offensive factors—O-TS, O-TOV, and O-REB—and ran correlations to better understand which dimensions are most responsible for driving their impact.

(These are the r values of each of the factors compared to the player’s total O-RAPM.) 

As expected, O-TOV influence appears to be the most limited of the three factors, largely because sound decision-making has diminished value when it isn’t exercised at scale. That said, it remains possible to generate meaningful impact in this area, even in a lower-usage role.

O-TS, by contrast, emerges as the primary driver of offensive value for low-usage perimeter players. A clear pattern appears when examining the sample: players like Sam Hauser, Isaiah Joe, and Luke Kennard consistently stand out. High-volume, high-efficiency three-point shooters exert a strong positive influence on team-wide true shooting, both through their own shot-making and the spacing advantages they create.

As outlined earlier, there is also a subset of players who provide significant value through offensive rebounding above positional average, even from the wing, while maintaining a high three-point rate. A prime example is Saddiq Bey, who has posted a +1.8 three-year O-RAPM while sustaining a 47% three-point rate and a 7.2% offensive rebound rate over his last 4,000 minutes.

This leads to a clear framework for the “ideal” complementary player. A player who both takes and makes threes at a high rate, crashes the offensive glass effectively, and avoids turnovers—though the emphasis tilts more heavily toward the first two traits.

To provide proof of concept for this rather theoretical skill intersection so far, we need to look no further than 2011-12 Ryan Anderson, who embodied this intersection like no other player ever. He took and made lots of 3s (55 3pr, 11.6 3pa/100 at 39%), still crashed the offensive glass (13 Oreb%) and avoided turnovers (97th percentile ctov%) while having a usage rate of 21.2%. The result? An offensive footprint adjacent to that of an MVP candidate. 

Anderson ranked 11th in O-xRAPM and 5th in O-LEBRON while carrying an offensive load comparable to players like PJ Washington or Noah Clowney this season, exclusively through increasing his team’s three-point rate, crashing the offensive glass, and avoiding turnovers.

Many of the league’s most impactful role players today fit within this framework, as well. The beauty of basketball is that a player’s skillset isn’t just a collection of isolated abilities, but rather a chain of interconnected traits, where strengths in one area can influence multiple aspects of the game simultaneously. Players with the feel and athleticism to generate offensive rebounds despite operating farther from the basket often also produce stocks at an above-average rate, positively impacting the defensive turnover battle and adding another layer of value to this archetype. (e.g., Tari Eason, Josh Minott, etc. 

There is, of course, a cause versus effect debate to be had. One could argue that many players on this list are forced into these “garbage man” roles to stay on the floor offensively due to a lack of traditional on-ball skills, rather than these being true strengths. While there is definitely some truth to this, it can just as easily be framed as a positive. Oreb/3pr maxxing is the easiest way for this athletic,  “defensive specialist” mold to stay on the floor, especially if they have any semblance of shooting touch, and it minimizes the offensive issues you would encounter with them if utilized differently. 

Allen Graves

Draft Twitter darling Allen Graves is coming off the most impressive possession value season in the Barttorvik era. He combines the cognition of a point guard with the physicality of a big man to a degree we haven’t really seen before.

Allen`s ancillary production has been mindbending right from the jump, but the big question coming into conference play was: how can he score in the league? A 4/5 hybrid who isn’t athletic enough to dunk or get out in transition frequently and doesn’t finish efficiently at the rim, while not having the prerequisite driving or shooting indicators of a wing, doesn’t have the best offensive projection in the NBA. The drastic improvements Graves made in these areas then have turned him into one of the most unique and underranked prospects ever.

A 14 Oreb% on the season is a historic mark, and maintaining that while upping his three-point rate is particularly intriguing in the context of this article. It provides a clear pathway to offensive value for Graves, combined with a more wing-adjacent scoring profile. Despite recent improvements, it is still reasonable to be skeptical of Graves’ two-point scoring at the NBA level, as he boasts a questionable combination of length and verticality. However, this matters less if he can get up threes and crash the offensive glass at a high rate.

Graves has magnet hands on the offensive glass, crashing hard and displacing opponents with his strong base

This year, Santa Clara’s offensive rebound rate improved by 7% with Graves on, while they upped their 3par by 4% v t220 comp.

Furthermore, Graves’ turnover aversion as a passer is special as well, an 8 TOV% and 2.5 A:TO ratio is essentially uncharted territory for a freshman non-guard. Elite offensive rebounder and turnover suppressor? We’re starting to get uncomfortably close to the aforementioned ideal of the complementary player. Graves’ recent development in terms of shooting volume and accuracy makes this concept all the more intriguing.

The most accurate NBA proxy is likely Tari Eason, with whom Graves shares a number of statistical indicators. The fact that Eason has a 7’2″ wingspan compared to Graves’ 7’0″, while also dunking at roughly twice the rate, is significant in this comparison.

Conversely, Tari is also one of the lowest-feel wings in the league, whereas Graves projects as one of the highest.

Tari has already rattled off multiple top-70 RAPM seasons in the league while being one of the worst two-point scorers and passers, largely on the strength of his offensive rebounding and defensive brilliance. This pathway seems realistic for Graves as well: only with the added benefits of superior ball security and a more stable shooting projection.

Maximizing 3PAR and OREB rate while minimizing turnovers should allow Graves to stay on the floor and wreak havoc defensively in a way few players can. His anticipation and hand-eye coordination are truly generational: Graves consistently capitalizes on opponent mistakes and projects as a high-level off-ball defender.

Losing a bit of weight to improve his lateral quickness would likely help his long-term projection as a wing, but, even in his current form, he stocks and boards at historic rates for a freshman.

Allen Graves is young, has the 6th-highest BPM in the country, and fits perfectly with what the sharpest front offices currently value. He’s still nowhere to be found on many consensus mock drafts, but in reality, he shouldn’t slip out of the top seven, and a smart team will reap the benefits.

Motiejus Krivas

While we have exclusively focused on wings so far, there is still plenty to be said about the value of bigs who can get up threes while still crashing the glass. I am generally lower on “stretch bigs” than most. Having your biggest player operate farther away from the basket limits your team’s influence at the rim in terms of both frequency and efficiency and limits your team Oreb% all while removing a key release valve for your primary ball handler in the dunker spot.

If your center excels at traditional interior skills, you are actively hurting your team by pulling him away from the rim. Nonetheless, there is value in overcoming the typical inverse relationship between Oreb rate and three-point rate, especially if said big isn’t an effective finisher in the paint.

Motiejus Krivas provides a highly intriguing case study. The 7’2″ Lithuanian out of Arizona has long been a draft Twitter favorite and has finally put together a draft-worthy season, largely due to his defensive brilliance and outlier mobility. While he rebounds (14.4 Oreb% / 19.9 Dreb%) and protects the rim like a true five (7.5 Blk%), he presents a paradoxical disconnect between his size, touch, and physicality indicators and his actual rim finishing and scoring process:

(Drafted >7‘0 with <65 Rim fg%, >35 midrange freq, <10 3par)

Krivas’ combination of low rim FG% and rim aversion is a significant ceiling capper at the next level. Arizona’s rim FG% drops by 9% (!!!) with him on the floor, while rim frequency declines by 4% against top-220 competition.

His struggles as a finisher largely stem from subpar verticality and a mediocre wingspan, combined with a high center of gravity. This prevents him from accessing favorable finishing angles and often forces him into less efficient hook shots. Furthermore, he tends to struggle with ball security when going up, making him easier to disrupt around the rim.

Only finishing 62% of his rim attempts as a center would usually be disqualifying for serious lottery consideration, but Krivas offers a different pathway to NBA success. He has some of the best touch of any 7’0+ player in recent memory.

This season, he’s shooting 78% from the line while converting 54% of his non-rim twos. Historically, the only 6’11+ players with center-adjacent physicality to match these touch indicators have gone on to become some of the best three-point shooters in the world, despite often showing limited three-point volume in college.

(High Major >6`11 u22 with >18 dreb%, >40 FTR, > 77 FT%, >40 far 2%) 

Reaching a 40-50 three-point rate would help Krivas stay on the floor even as his finishing margins shrink further at the NBA level, and he should have the mechanics and touch to get there. 

As addressed earlier, there is an inverse relationship between 3par and Oreb%. It is a lot more difficult to grab boards when you are spending less time near the basket, especially for bigs who typically lack the straight-line speed and coordination to crash effectively out of spot-up situations. Conversely, we have proof of concept for a player with a similar build to Krivas maintaining this Oreb value this year in Donovan Clingan.

Standing at 7’2”, 270 pounds, he has faced similar issues as a finisher, leading Portland to deploy him more as a spot-up shooter. Even in that role, he has still managed to maintain a stellar offensive rebound rate despite the higher 3pr. And, unlike “career 64 FT%” Clingan, Krivas actually projects as a plus shooter.

Providing this value on the margins will allow Krivas to stay on the floor and become one of the league’s premier rim protectors. He is one of the most anomalous movers ever at his size. Motejeus’ technique, defensive awareness around the rim and processing are among the best in his class. So while he isn’t the most explosive vertical athlete or quickest leaper, his impact is still consistently felt at the rim.

Vs t220 comp, Arizona turns into the best 2pt defense in the country with him on the floor (25% opponent rim frequency, 22 FTR, 41 2p%). Meanwhile, they become mediocre once he’s off (33% opponent rim frequency, 37 FTR, 52 2p%).

Ultimately, Krivas’ unique combination of offensive rebounding, touch and defensive prowess should be enough to overcome his precarious finishing, especially if he is able to develop into a respectable shooter, thus boosting his team’s 3pr while leading neutral offensive rebounding lineups.

Kashie Natt

I can’t help but root for the underdogs of draft discourse, and there probably isn’t a bigger one than Kashie Natt from Sam Houston State.  A super senior who spent his only D1 season playing in the CUSA and who has a 30 3pr, 20 usg% while only converting 48% of his shots at the rim? What could possibly be the appeal? He draws comparisons to a recent “margin win” of the league: Jordan Goodwin.

Jordan Goodwin embodies the essence of this philosophical piece, a rather untalented offensive player who crashes glass and gets up 3s just enough to stay on the court and unleash his enormous defensive value.

 Employing players who provide guard-level cognition with big-man physicality can be an extreme value add and significantly ease lineup construction, provided the rest of their skill set is adequate.

Natt’s ability to rack up steals (4.2 stl%) and rebounds (near 10 Oreb% / 24 Dreb% at that size is anomalous), alongside impressive verticality and physicality (13 dunks and a 2 blk% at 6’3”), are strong indicators. These are all shared strengths with the aforementioned  Goodwin, who has since become an NBA contributor despite his poor two-point scoring.

However, a much smaller sample, weaker competition, and a significant gap in both scoring and playmaking volume could completely hinder Natt’s ability to reach an NBA floor. Fortunately, he has two factors working in his favor: free throw percentage and the positional necessity of maintaining a high three-point rate as a pseudo-guard. Similar to Goodwin, Natt’s precarious two-point scoring and ball handling relative to position will force him into a 50+ 3par if an NBA team takes a chance on him. Unlike Goodwin, however, he has posted near 80% from the free throw line this season, something Jordan never approached as a prospect, suggesting a stronger baseline indicator for future shooting translation.

Natt’s path to the league hinges on his anthropometrics. Standing at 6’3”, 215 pounds with a 6’10” wingspan, Goodwin had the physical profile that allows him to play his style at the NBA level. If Natt can approximate that, he becomes a compelling UDFA flyer and a franchise can stress test how reliable his shooting truly is, all while providing guard-level turnover influence and big rebounding.

We don’t settle for mediocrity around here; we chase outliers, and it doesn’t get more outlier than Kashie Natt.

Paul McNeil

After a rather disappointing freshman season at NC State, McNeil has finally carved out a major role this year. Funnily enough, Paul McNeil is possibly the closest match to my earlier definition of the “perfect role player” in the Bart Torvik era:

A profile of 14.3 3PA/100 at 41.7%, alongside a 4.5 OREB% and 5 TOV%, is exactly what we are looking for, and McNeil has shown this same intersection in previous samples as well. In AAU, he posted a 2 A:TO ratio, a 71% three-point rate, and 1.1 offensive rebounds per game.

McNeil’s “off-screen” frequency and efficiency both rank in the 99th and 95th percentile, respectively. This is one of the most confident and best pure shooters in this class.

McNeil is also a good vertical athlete for his mold, posting a 1.7 BLK% and a 0.14 dunk rate over his career. For a movement shooter, that is a rare trait that helps him crash class at a high rate. 

Unfortunately, the rest of his profile raises concerns. At 6’5”, 180 pounds, he is effectively position-locked as a shooting guard while boasting the assisted rate (around 60% of his twos are assisted) and passing volume of a wing. There is at least some theoretical upside as a ball handler, as he has been highly efficient as a pick-and-roll operator, producing 1.3 points per possession across 30 total possessions, but the sample is extremely small.

His thin frame and mediocre handle significantly limit his ability to create off closeouts. As it stands, he is shooting just 20% on two-pointers off drives, further emphasizing these issues. 

Furthermore, while McNeil does block shots, his overall defensive production, combined with a low BMI, is subpar and puts him in precarious company.

(Paul McNeil is currently sitting at a -0.1 d-bpm and 19.2 usg) 

It would be in McNeil’s best interest to go back to college, put on some weight, and improve his ball skills so he can be more of a guard at the next level, but even in his current form, there is a certain appeal to his game. Outlier ball security and shot making, alongside a moderately high O-reb rate, is a frictionless skillset that scales extremely well next to other ball handlers. A more refined McNeil could be similar to Max Strus, one of the finest offensive role players in basketball.

(Strus’ superior BMI+ creation volume matters in this comp, but McNeil being the better shooter and way more turnover averse could make this comparison work) 

I am curious if and to what degree these players will stick in the league, but they serve as case studies for a much larger trend amongst NBA Teams. The true value of “3par/oreb maxxing” lies within its duality.  It can help conceal rather problematic offensive skillsets and singular weaknesses (like Krivas’ rim finishing or Natt`s 2pt scoring) and provides a pathway to acceptable offensive value, which then allows these players to put in work on the other side of the court. On the other hand, I can’t stress the potential ceiling of this approach enough if they hit certain athletic and touch thresholds. A frictionless playstyle that perfectly fits next to ball-dominant creators to max out possessions while taking the most efficient perimeter shot on the court at a high rate. 

 Smart front offices will continue targeting such players, building upon the modern principles of Morey ball with traditional size. 

The post The Budding Basketball Revolution, and Why You Should Draft Allen Graves and Motiejus Krivas appeared first on Swish Theory.

Cameron Boozer is simply one of the most versatile offensive hubs to ever play the sport of basketball.

Players Boozer’s size aren’t supposed to be this skilled – between his reliable handle, high-level playmaking vision, sublime shooting touch, and all-around scoring versatility, this 6’9″ 250lb bull gracefully drives through china shops without breaking a plate, consistently creating good looks for his team with quick-processing decision making, on-ball advantage creation, and off-ball play-finishing gravity stretching from downtown to the rim.

Fresh off an All-Time great one-and-done Duke season, Boozer has proven elite traits since his development path from Columbus High School that could add up to a sum-of-its-parts offensive engine at the NBA level:

• Outlier Outlet Passing
• Efficient Scoring Versatility
• Connective Hub Playmaking
• Special Rebounding Instincts
• Knockdown Perimeter Shooting
• Quick Processing Two-Way Feel

Now that March Madness ended in an exciting-before-disappointing run, there’s finally a crack in the Boozer Twins’ perfect armor.

Evaluators can still write a Christmas Carole with the list of accolades that the Boozer twins (Cameron, Cayden) have accomplished on their run to this point, two of the biggest winners to ever play the sport:

4 Florida State Titles
3 Nike EYBL Peach Jam Championships
2 Team USA Gold Medals
1 High School Natty

and the ACC champion regular season + tournament trophies.

After finishing the season, Cameron Boozer adds AP Player of the Year to that resume while becoming the first player in NCAA history to win NABC Freshman of the Year, Big Man of the Year, and Player of the Year.

Cameron Boozer is the clear best bet #1 pick in the 2026 NBA Draft class

Boozer is the clear top prospect in an all-time draft class not due to some immeasurable talent or high-flying bounce, but due to his consistent team-first feel and efficient scoring versatility in every basketball situation he finds himself in on the court.

Carlos Boozer calls his son, Cameron Boozer, a “modern-day version” of Tim Duncan, via Marc Spears:

“You look at what Tim Duncan did. I’m not comparing Cameron to Tim Duncan, but he was another guy that wasn’t [athletically] a Kevin Garnett or a Tracy McGrady or a Kobe Bryant or Shaquille O’Neal. But you know what he did? He won five championships in that era [against] those players — the Kobes and the Shaqs, because of his IQ, because of his skill set, and because his team would follow him… That is who Cameron is. He’s a modern-day version of that… So. if you want to win, you pick Cameron.” – Carlos Boozer

One popular comp for Boozer has been Kevin Love, and for good reason; while the mobility of these two players and play-styles on the ball are quite different, there are a handful of outlier elite attributes in outlet passing, rebounding, three-point shooting, post-up prowess and an impressively high BPM impact rating that make the stretch-four prospect comparisons easy to make. Love was an even better rebounder in college than Cam, but was slightly less efficient as a scorer and was 4 percentage points worse as a 3pt shooter. One big difference, though, is Boozer’s playmaking talent being on another level (25% AST/14% TOV%) compared to Love’s score-first style (14% AST%/15% TOV%)

Love was a big time prospect in his own right as a next-level scorer, shooter, rebounder, play-finisher and all-time outlet passer. Boozer’s ability to do those things similarly well while combining that scoring gravity with his handle, vision, and two-way feel takes his game to another level, allowing him to make quick decisions, create advantages for teammates and generate good shots for his team consistently, is what takes his potential superstardom to an even higher level of a scoring creator than Love.
One huge skill separating these two prospects here is Boozer’s handle, refined enough to help him self-create so many of these opportunities without needing a teammate to create the advantage first, which is uncommon for a big man. That handle, with the added team-focused playmaking, creates a floor-stretching downhill scoring creator with offensive engine gravity.

Another popular comparison brings up aesthetic similarities to the Magic’s Paolo Banchero and peak Pistons Blake Griffin in things like role malleability, scoring versatility, short-roll and postup playmaking, downhill play-finishing, and free-throw drawing as a powerful dunking 6’9”+ 250lb tank who can operate both ends of a pick-and-roll. As far as the hype machine bringing up names like Tim Duncan and Nikola Jokic, it’s for glimpses of similarities in fundamental footwork, strong screening, team-first connective play, and general understanding of the game as old-school offensive hubs, like Duncan sleepwalking to 20-10-3-3 statlines and Jokic splashing otherworldly tough shots and diming unthinkable passes from nearly any spot on the floor.

None of these are one-to-one comps; just all-time great prospects and players with comparable roles, playstyles, and archetypes who Boozer can build off to impact the game in similar ways to the stars who walked before him, like an artist mastering their craft by studying the classic works of old before mixing up what they learned into something new.

Any franchise painting on an empty canvas should give Boozer the paintbrush and get out of the way.


The Film

Just to highlight Boozer’s position and role malleability, let’s look at some Duke tape to see how an NBA team can utilize him in a variety of Pick-and-Roll situations, without even getting to the one-on-one creation card he can pull out of his sleeve.

Boozer running pick-and-rolls on the ball shows his ability to attack mismatches with drives and find teammates for good looks.

Boozer spaces the floor from deep in Pick-and-Pops, utilizing his shooting gravity to knock down C&S threes and attack closeouts with pump-fakes and driving touch finishes, creating a lethal shooting threat compared to the average screening roll-man.

Boozer’s finesse in the paint from a variety of angles and force at the rim when rolling hard offers a versatile play-finisher compared to the average screening roll-man, not to mention his ability to playmake out of the short-roll.

The Data
(as of 03.19.26)

Averaging 23 PPG – 10 REB – 4 AST / 2 TOV – 1.5 STL, Boozer seems to fill up the box score consistently whether you think he’s having a good game or not. In his time at Duke, he racked up 68 Stocks (BLK + STL) to 57 fouls, a good indicator for defensive instincts forcing turnovers without fouling.

Recorded 2 games with 15 REB, 2 games with 14 REB, 5 games with 13 REB, another 5 games with 12 REB; Boozer knows a thing or two about crashing the glass in case of emergency.

His best scoring outings were as follows: vs. Arkansas scoring 35 PTS on 1.4 PPP, vs. Indiana State with 35 PTS on 1.6 PPP, vs. Wake Forest with 32 PTS on 1.4 PPP, vs. Stanford with 30 PTS on 1.4 PPP, and vs. Florida with 29 PTS on 1.1 PPP.

Seemingly endless stat indicators hint at Boozers’ scoring versatility, shooting touch, rebounding instincts, and two-way feel being positives that will translate to winning at any level.

Synergy Playtypes:

Excellent or very good all-around scorer in most situations:

Excellent, Versatile Scoring Profile:

Boozer quite literally scored 1.0-1.5 PPP in every playtype other than off screens and handoffs, thriving in Post Ups (1.1 PPP), Spot Ups (1.3), Transition (1.4), ISO (1.0), Put Backs (1.4), and Cuts (1.5).

For comparison, AJ Dybantsa scored 0.88 PPP in ISO, in the 58th percentile, and 1.0 on Spot Ups, the 64th percentile, and 0.77 PPP as P&R Roll-Man, 14th percentile. Dybantsa thrived as P&R Ball-Handler, Transition, Post Ups, and Put Backs, but still scored less efficiently than Boozer in all those playtypes, except for his Put Back Rate.

Just to further highlight his scoring versatility, Boozer scored 1.3 PPP as the Roll-Man in P&R on 60 poss, and scored over 1.0 PPP on 63 poss as the P&R Ball-Handler. Breaking that up into pops vs rolls: 31 times he pick-and-popped for 1.3 PPP; 25 times he pick-and-rolled for 1.4 PPP; 4 times he slipped the pick for 1.5 PPP.

Are you picking up on the absurdly efficient scoring in nearly every playtype in nearly every situation on and off the ball?

Other than handoffs, off screen, and less scripted plays that don’t involve his patented putbacks, he’s rated in Top-20 percentile in all 8 other playtypes recorded by Synergy.

Offensive Engine Indicators – Team Shot Creation via Boozer’s Scoring + Playmaking in ISO, Postup, P&R Ball-Handler

Efficient shot creation including passes shows the decision making and execution ability of a primary ball-handler, which could be one of the sports’ few measures reflecting a player’s feel for the game.

Boozer scored 1.0 PPP on Drives for Duke; he preferred to drive left, averaging 1.1 PPP on 67 left-side drives compared to 0.9 PPP on right-side drives.

When including passes as a pick-and-roll ball-handler, Boozer’s shot creation for his team becomes even more efficient at 1.08 PPP on 128 possessions, staying at 1.1 PPP on another 72 possessions where the defense “commits” to him as a P&R ball-handler.

Compared to Dybantsa, AJ created 0.93 PPP on 356 possessions as P&R Ball-Handler including passes, a roughly 0.15 PPP worse than Boozer’s 1.08 PPP.

Cam’s ISO PPP, including passes to teammates, rises slightly above 1.0 in efficiency; Dybantsa’s rises to 0.9 PPP.

Boozer encourages defenses to double him in the post; when including passes on postups, Boozer creates 1.1 PPP on 241 poss (84th percentile); he creates just under 1.0 PPP on 121 postups where defense “commits”, and he creates 1.1 PPP on 91 postups where defense sends a hard “double” (85th).

Dybantsa does well out of the post, creating 1.2 PPP on 128 possessions for his team, a slightly better mark than Boozer on half the volume.

Boozer’s scoring creation indicators are so promising, he could take being a versatile efficient offensive hub to a full blown ‘offensive engine’ level for a franchise if his skillset is maximized for its quick processing efficient shot creation.

All in all, these efficiencies across every play type as both a scorer and team-first shot creator show how malleable Boozer’s game can be at any level, thanks to his efficient shooting versatility and high-feel decision-making.

Here’s one look at Boozer’s processing from Swish Theory’s Ben Pfeifer, who calls Boozer, “the best post skip passing prospect he’s ever scouted”:

Shooting Touch Indicators

42% C&S 3P% on 91 3PA
41% Pull-Up 3P% on 34 3PA
65% eFG% on 296 Shots At The Rim
61% eFG% on 255 Layups
94% eFG% on 35 Dunks
(9/12 on Hooks)

Overall Scoring & Creation

1.18 PPP
67% TS%
62% eFG%
1.7 AST/TO (133 AST)
26% AST% / 12% TOV%
62% 2P% on 338 2PA
42% 3P% on 125 3PA
78% FT% on 244 FTA

All-Time NCAA & ACC Ranks

1st in NCAA in BPM, Offensive BPM, Win Shares, Win Shares Per 40, Def Win Shares, Off Win Shares, and PER
1st in ACC in PTS | 2nd in NCAA in PTS
2nd in ACC in PPG | 9th in NCAA in PPG
1st in ACC in REB | 7th in NCAA in REB
1st in ACC in RPG | 13th in NCAA in RPG
2nd in ACC in Offensive RPG | 19th in NCAA in Offensive RPG
1st in ACC in Defensive RPG | 8th in NCAA in Defensive RPG
8th in ACC in AST
11th in ACC in AST
9th in ACC in STL
13th in ACC in STL / GM
4th in ACC in FG%
18th in ACC in FT%
12th in ACC in 2P%
3rd in ACC in eFG%
3rd in ACC in TS%
9th in ACC in AST%

BPM History

2nd-highest BPM ever (+20), up there with fellow Duke Blue Devil Zion Williamson for the most impactful collegiate season by impact rating.

Boozer joins Zach Edey and Steph Curry (2x) as the only members of the 30 USG% / 15+ BPM Club, via Chip Williams.

Cerebro Ratings & NCAA Data Viz

Cerebro Stat Glossary:
C-RAM (Overall Impact) | PSP (Scoring) | 3PE (3PT Shooting) | FGS (Playmaking) | ATR (Rebounding/Blocks) | DSI (Steals/Fouls)

What stands out most about Boozer compared to his peers in the conversation for the #1 pick is that Boozer combines the sum of his parts to project as a reliable half-court hub for an offense to consistently create good looks every night out for the next decade. Boozer’s ball skills, footwork, and mix of efficient scoring versatility, efficient team shot creation, playmaking execution, and team-first decision-making create a walking advantage creator who bends defenses and generates efficient points at will.

Freshman Boozer rated higher that Dybantsa and Peterson overall and in almost every aspect of the game that Cerebro tracks, other than Peterson’s lights-out 3pt shooting metric.

Boozer’s cumulative career ratings this far in all games recorded by Cerebro are elite as a scorer, rebounder, and defender, while ranking highest in every category except for being one point shy of Peterson’s defense and ranking a close 3rd in 3pt shooting. This highlights Cam’s elite traits and scoring efficiency, making winning plays like rebounding and playmaking, the ability to spread the floor from deep, and a special feel for touch passes and turnover-forcing defense, and shows how incredible his now-elite 3pt shooting development has come from his days at the grassroots level.

Individual perimeter defense and lack of quick first step burst could limit Boozer exploding past anyone or shutting down anyone on the perimeter, like most power forwards he’s more of an ultimate connective hub, but his instincts will help him force steals, his versatility will help him switch 3-5 to some degree, and he is effective in one-on-one offense in other ways by using his footwork, awareness, and skill to score and create advantages.

Efficient Shooting Line, High Usage, Low Turnovers

There is only one freshman since 2008 to hit Boozer’s marks in shooting percentages and shooting volume on twos, threes, and free throws at his usage.

According to barttorvik, Boozer is the only NCAA Freshman in their database with over 30% USG% who shot 61-39-78 on 10 2PA — 3 3PA — 7 FTA. For comparison, Dybantsa shot 57-33-77 on 13 2PA –– 4 3PA –– 9 FTA.

The chart below visualizes NCAA freshmen who meet a handful of stats attempting to show scoring efficiency and high-feel decision making, with the x-axis showing volume of shots at the rim horizontally, and turnover percentage vertically on y-axis.

Boozer has the most shots at the rim of all these prospects as a freshmen, and the 2nd-best turnover percentage while doing it, lagging behind one of the draft class’s other best decision-makers, Stanford Ebuka Okorie.

← Rewind to 2023: Scouting The Montverde Sunshine Classic


#12 Cam Boozer, 6’10” Forward, Columbus

A strong-shouldered forward with feathery shooting touch like his NBA All-Star dad, the 6’9″ Cam Boozer quickly become a household name in draft circles as a Top-3 2026 prospect, with this Montverde-Columbus marquee matchup featuring another potential Top-3 prospect (in 2025), Cooper Flagg, just to name two of many exciting prospects in this contest.

Cam Boozer and Donavan Freeman rate strongly here as both scorers and creators, in a similar range of output this weekend as Cooper Flagg and guards Rob Wright and Darius Acuff.

vs. Montverde
20 PTS
8 REB
5 AST / 8 TO
4 STL + 1 BLK
6/13 FG & 7/10 FT
(30 MIN)

A powerful yet graceful dancing bear 6’9″ forward who rocks rims on rolls through the paint, shows soft touch on the jump shot, looks ahead for outlet passes, and glides through defenses on off-ball cuts, Cam sure plays like a Boozer.

In the Montverde matchup, Boozer came out with more intensity in the second half, focusing on powering through people, showing sound handles on the ball, lookahead vision as a playmaker, and leaving huge impact as a rim-finishing play-finisher, even blocking a Flagg driving layup in help defense before finding his brother Cayden on the break off the turnover.

His outlet passes to jumpstart fast breaks were plentiful, even featuring a highlight coast-to-coast live-dribble behind-the-back dribble corner kick 3pt assist!

Boozer flashed all the developable dribble-pass-shoot ball-skills with strong finishing power and good off ball movement timing. This powerful 6’10” hammer who nails deep range jumpers projects to be an offensive force at the highest levels, excelling in similar areas to his NBA All-Star dad, while showing natural scoring creator tendencies for team-first shot creation.

Cam posted the 6th-highest overall impact rating in the event with 8.9 C-RAM, practically tying Cooper’s overall rating. Boozer was more effective as a scorer with a 79/100 PSP rating in the matchup, slightly more impactful defensively with an 87/100 DSI, while mostly matching Flagg in Floor General Skills and At The Rim effectiveness (75 FGS and 70 ATR)

Cam Boozer and Cooper Flagg sit atop future NBA Draft big boards for a reason; big wing/forward plus-defenders who can be relied on as halfcourt offensive creators, connectors, and play-finishers tend to be impactful winning basketball players.

The Good
Scoring at all three levels on and off the ball
Pick-and-pop, catch-and-shoot, relocation threes
Vertical gravity rim-running and well-timed paint-cutting
Drawing fouls with brute strength, sound footwork, solid handle
Clear vision, passing ability, grab-and-go playmaking chops looking ahead on fast breaks
Filling out the box score on both ends like a Shawn Marion or Aaron Gordon multi-faceted turnover-forcing play-finisher

The Bad
Losing control. Whether it be his own strength, the dribble, body and ball control at times – focused effort on spatial awareness, gaining the proprioception feeling of understanding one’s own body movements in space, could work wonders
First half lacked energy and focus compared to second half, but played opponent even from that point in a tough matchup

In football, a dancing bear tends to be a nickname for powerful defensive ends wh are surprisingly agile; large in their frame, yet quick on their feet.

Boozer is the strong, yet graceful dancing bear that any franchise dreams of building around.

A true modern day do-it-all power forward bending the floor on and off the ball, pummeling his way through defenders throwing elbows and shoulder swings, moving skinny through gaps with fundamental footwork fundamentals, finishing below the rim with an endless array of moves, rebounding everything in sight, forcing steals and processing team-first decisions from high to low.

Cameron Boozer remains the clear #1 2026 NBA Draft Pick for me through years of scouting due to him being one of the most impactful, efficient, effective, versatile shot-creating prospects to ever play the sport.

If anyone can be the tentpole that holds up an entire city in the circus that is the NBA, it’s the guy who always plays, always plays hard, always plays smart, always makes team-first decisions, and always generates good shots for his team.

While the basketball world eats up dunks, middy pull-ups, and fadeaways, one lucky team might just wind up landing one of the biggest winners the sport has ever seen, if only they buy low on the Dancing Bear Market.

The post Cameron Boozer, Duke’s Generational Dancing Bear appeared first on Swish Theory.

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.