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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next, a really smooth movement three:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out this shot from college Kawhi Leonard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Credit to the ACC Network for the video.

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