VJ Edgecombe

Valdez (VJ) Edgecombe has been a projected top 5 pick wire to wire in this class. Despite a rocky start to the season, Edgecombe’s status as a blue chip recruit seemed well deserved after a freshman season that placed him in exclusive company.

As much as Bart Torvik queries have become a fraught subject amongst the draft community, when taking an Occam’s Razor approach it is apparent there’s not really a precedent for a player with Edgecombe’s intersection of feel, athleticism, and production becoming an abject failure in the league (barring unforeseen circumstances taking place in the case of Zhaire Smith).

So if Edgecombe has the pedigree and production, what consternation is there with his current standing near the top of the draft? To start, one may point to VJ’s suboptimal finishing at the rim. While Edgecombe ended the season at a solid 60% at the rim, his rim efficiency was largely inflated by his dynamic vertical athleticism and transition frequency. Just under 48% of Edgecombe’s rim-attempts came in transition, while in the halfcourt Edgecombe finished only 49% at the rim and a disconcerting 44% on half-court layups. However, this is not a novel insight; most publications and scouts have noted VJ’s half-court limitations for some time, with his unrefined ballhandling typically being pointed to as the culprit of his unimpressive rim-finishing. Per @henrynbadraft, Edgecombe’s relative weakness at the rim has been present since his time on the grassroots circuit. In the query below of top-50 RSCI players’ AAU statistics over the past 3 years, along with Edgecombe, these were the only players to have <53% on two-point attempts (2PA), <0.6 2PA/TSA (true shot attempt), and <0.1 FTA/TSA.

Of the 5 players here (excluding Edgecombe) to play over a 50% minutes share, their average rim-rate was 20.9% as a freshman. With the exception of VJ, these players were either three-point specialists or jumpshot-oriented creators. With VJ not falling into either bucket he was placed in a precarious position, how does one deploy a blue-chip recruit without a clearly defined offensive skillset? Early in the season, the fit could best be described as ‘trying to fit a square peg into a round hole’. Baylor runs a notoriously ballscreen-heavy offense, finishing this season in the 81st percentile in ‘Pick-and-Roll’ frequency, and over the last 5 years Baylor has never finished lower than the 77th percentile in this playtype.

Operating core ballscreen actions in the middle third of the floor, Edgecombe greatly struggled generating deep, quality paint touches. When asked to create from a standstill against a set defense as frequently as Edgecombe was, his high center of gravity caused issues changing direction off a live dribble, withstanding contact on drives, and altering stride length, all of which are critical components of any downhill driving game. The convergence of Edgecombe’s physical and skill limitations as a primary ballhandler is evident from the clips below.

When you pair this schematic emphasis on running ballscreens with one of the slowest paces in the country (Baylor finished 320/364 teams in Adjusted Tempo) you are left with a team uniquely suited to exacerbating Edgecombe’s weaknesses and suppressing his strengths. I believe this combination is the primary cause of Baylor’s offense being BETTER with Edgecombe on the bench. Per Hoop-Explorer, Baylor’s offense was 7.6 points better per 100 possessions. While the 479 possessions Edgecombe wasn’t on the floor isn’t the most robust sample, the underlying numbers fall in line with what the film suggests. Baylor’s shot quality suffered with Edgecombe running 24% of the team’s PNR actions per Synergy. Not only was Baylor less capable of generating threes and free-throw attempts, the QUALITY of three-point attempts was lower with Edgecombe on the floor, with the team shooting almost 2 less corner threes per 100 possessions.

Even if Edgecombe’s outlook as a downhill creator is replete with red flags, there are still other avenues Edgecombe could take to develop into a star-level offensive player. After all, despite getting off to a rough start shooting this season, Edgecombe’s shooting priors are near stellar. Coming into the year, Edgecombe had shot 39.1% on 274 threes and 79.9% on 134 free-throw attempts. These numbers indicate that Edgecombe developing into a potent off-the-dribble is well within the realm of possibility. And when looking at historical precedent, significant pull-up shooting development may be the most integral component to Edgecombe returning top-5 value. Below are all the players drafted in the lottery since 2010 who were: 6’5 or shorter, with 5 or fewer unassisted two-point makes per 100 possessions, and 30% or more of their two’s assisted (per Bart Torvik)

Virtually all of these players who returned positive expected value based on their draft slot developed into highly effective shooters off the dribble. And where it currently stands, Edgecombe is behind the curve in this respect. Compared to the players in the previous query, Edgecombe finished his pre-NBA season with the lowest volume AND tied for the 2nd worst efficiency on these pull-up twos.

Edgecombe’s lack of comfort shooting off the dribble is apparent on film, and another facet of his game limited by his handle. VJ cannot self-organize off multiple dribbles and take pull-up jumpers on balance currently, and the line between midrange attempts and floaters is frequently blurred when Edgecombe takes these shots.

Again, VJ’s issues shooting off the dribble date back to his pre-NCAA career and are rooted in his biomechanical issues. Edgecombe being a ‘high-hipped’ athlete who struggles decelerating is preventing him from leveraging his impressive straight-line speed to create space off the dribble. VJ’s proclivity for over-striding on drives limits how effectively he can generate power when he transitions into a pull-up jumper.

My current hypothesis is Edgecombe’s difficulty controlling his stride length while driving is what’s responsible for the discrepancy between VJ’s dynamism leaping off 2 feet, where he’s arguably the most explosive player in this draft class, versus 1 foot, where he’s struggled greatly relative to expectations. Baylor’s coaching staff made schematic changes for Edgecombe to improve his on-ball efficacy, from using guard-to-guard Ghost Screens to clear driving lanes…

…to using actions such as ’77 Shallow’ in order to simultaneously beat hedging ballscreen coverages and remove nail-help to aid Edgecombe’s drives.

However, neither adjustment bolstered Edgecombe’s efficiency to the desired extent. So this begs the question, if there’s reason for concern with regards to Edgecombe’s effectiveness as a pull-up shooter AND attacking the basket, is there any reason to believe Edgecombe’s profile warrants his lofty draft projection? As previously mentioned, Edgecombe’s deployment in an extremely ballscreen heavy offense was far from ideal, however his playtype distribution does not paint the full picture of how inconducive Baylor’s offense was for Edgecombe specifically.

The 3-man lineup of VJ Edgecombe, Norchad Omier, and Josh Ojianwuna makes up 22.5% of VJ Edgecombe’s total possessions played this season, however this lineup was on the floor for 26.9% of PNR possessions ran by Edgecombe this season. In Offensive Rating, this 3-man lineup was 22nd out of 25 Baylor lineups that played over 350 possessions, with this 3-man unit’s only saving grace being their relative strength on the offensive glass.

This lineup’s spacing issues only amplified Edgecombe’s aforementioned struggles as a primary ballhandler. Take the clips below, for example. This group of clips displays Baylor running ‘RAM PNP’, a staple of their ballscreen offense, where a player receives an off-ball screen before setting the middle ballscreen and ‘popping’ to the 3-point line. In the first clip, Baylor has the 2 bigs involved in the action, with Norchad Omier first receiving the off-ball screen before setting a ballscreen for Edgecombe. Notice how compacted the spacing is inside the arc, with Omier’s defender completely disregarding the popping Omier.

However, in the following clips, a ‘small’ sets the middle ballscreen for Edgecombe. Even in the first possessions with the action taking place against the same opponent in Tennessee, the improvement in shot quality is apparent.

The double-big lineups’ impact on tape was corroborated by VJ’s PNR data, as well.

Ultimately, this is a minuscule sample of possessions Edgecombe played with the double big lineup, and I do not want to make it seem as though these suboptimal lineups are totally responsible for VJ’s issues as a PNR ballhandler. However, I do think this data is key to realizing that Edgecombe’s outlook as a creator isn’t entirely doomed. Of players with ≥ 150 PNR + Passes possessions, Edgecombe was ranked in the 40th percentile in PPP, but in lineups with only one big Edgecombe’s 0.944 PPP was in the 66th percentile. Over the course of the season Baylor substituted these 3-man ballscreen actions with ‘Empty’ PNRs to ‘clear up’ the picture for Edgecombe on drives and place less strain on his handle. In these less complex ballscreen actions, Edgecombe’s processing (which well outpaces the functionality of his handle at this point) was able to truly shine.

My case for optimism in Edgecombe’s creation ability is relative to the position taken by his greatest detractors. The likelihood of VJ becoming a high-level PNR operator is slim-to-none in my opinion, but this doesn’t preclude the possibility of him becoming a highly valuable offensive player. The use case for VJ Edgecombe offensively just requires a degree of creativity.

For as many questions as I’ve raised regarding the functionality of VJ’s athleticism, there have only been a few players his size to reach certain athletic benchmarks. Below is a query I’ve run on players since 2010, where ‘Team Stock%’ is the share of a team’s steals+blocks a player logged. I decided to use this instead of steal and block rate to account for some noise introduced by team stylistic tendencies.

The only other players to appear alongside Edgecombe are players whose role I’ve termed ‘Utility Guards’, those with the size of perimeter players who can fulfill responsibilities typically associated with frontcourt players. This sort of role is where I see Edgecombe being best utilized. As VJ transitions to the NBA and his on-ball burden lessens, I would hope that Edgecombe is integrated as a stylistic wrinkle versus a featured piece. There may not be a team better at deploying their guards in such a manner than the Boston Celtics. With the acquisition of Jrue Holiday, the Celtics could place teams in conflict without deliberately involving Holiday in actions. By simply stationing Holiday in the Dunker Spot, the Celtics were afforded the luxury of having a player who could function as an outlet for their jumbo creators on drives and consistently win the rebounding battle versus like-sized perimeter players.

In the original ‘Utility Guard’ query I provided, pre-NBA 3-point volume and efficiency were listed. The relevancy of these stats outside of the obvious is the prevalence of the most consistent counter used to neutralize this archetype. I am currently writing this article as the Eastern Conference Finals takes place, and much has been made of Josh Hart’s ineffectiveness in the series, with the Knicks coaching staff going as far as removing Hart from the starting lineup. What has plagued Hart and many of these Swiss army knife players (at least offensively) is the lack of consistent spacing they provide. Opponents have experienced success defending these players with Centers and ignoring them on the perimeter. What makes the prospect of Edgecombe in this role especially tantalizing is the confidence I have in his ability as a spot-up shooter.

Granted, a significant portion of these attempts are from the high-school line, and Edgecombe has shot a paltry 24.4% (19/79) on off-the-dribble 3PA in the same timeframe. But at the same stage of their careers, Edgecombe is significantly further along as a spacer than players of a similar archetype, while also possessing the explosiveness to take advantage of opportunities as a screener like Gary Payton II in the clip below…

Or exploit cross-matches versus bigs in space, as he does to Henri Veesaar in the play below.

And as previously mentioned, Baylor’s PNR-heavy style being centered around smaller guards who couldn’t create advantages eradicated opportunistic scoring from Edgecombe’s shot diet. The few chances Edgecombe has had to attack from the weakside or get downhill versus a tilted floor, he delivered.

Obviously, there’s only so much accommodating a team would want to subject themselves to when it comes to a player drafted as high as VJ will be. However, a player capable of providing lineup and stylistic flexibility without compromising spacing or rebounding is scarcely made available at a rookie deal price point. This archetype’s dependence on high-leverage creators is undeniable, but this era of the NBA reflects the appeal of a prospect like VJ Edgecombe. Sacrificing the size traditionally associated with certain roles in favor of skill can pay massive dividends.

Miles Byrd

Any reservations to be had with Miles Byrd are fairly straightforward; a glance at a query of players with Byrd’s combination of size and scoring inefficiency yields a list almost bereft of long-tenured NBA contributors.

It wouldn’t be entirely off-base to say the only reason the majority of this list was even able to enter the draft pool was due to exceptional high school pedigrees. The obvious throughline between success cases of this query is their high-level defensive aptitude. There is definitely reason to believe Byrd’s defensive capabilities are enough to buoy his NBA prospects, as of the players in the above query, Byrd has the highest Block and Steal rate. To my surprise, however, Byrd’s impact on San Diego State’s defensive efficiency was muted relative to his statistical production on this end of the floor. Per Hoop-Explorer, San Diego State’s defense was only 2.5 points per 100 possessions better with Byrd On Court vs Off. Perhaps most unexpectedly though, SDSU’s Defensive Turnover Rate remained unchanged regardless of whether Byrd was playing or not!

Watching the tape, it is fairly easy to draw conclusions as to what could be behind the discrepancy between Byrd’s stellar event creation numbers, and the On-Off Splits. San Diego State runs an aggressive switching scheme, which incentivizes players to sacrifice ‘sound’ positioning in favor of forcing opponents into congested areas of the floor where they are more prone to committing turnovers. Byrd’s tape is littered with possessions where he is overhelping, or even throwing himself out of position by jumping passing lanes and attempting to create havoc.

Referencing SDSU’s defensive resume, there are two statistics that are key to elucidating Byrd’s directive schematically.

San Diego State was in the Bottom 10 in Opponent 3-point Rate, while leading the nation in Block Rate. It seems Head Coach Brian Dutcher was comfortable with trading off 3-point attempts as long as they were able to pack the paint and prevent their deep-lying shell from being compromised. This philosophy has been a defining trait of the Dutcher era, with SDSU ranking in the top 200 in opponent 3-point rate once in his 7 years at the helm, and outside the top 300 three times, including this year. SDSU’s Block% is relevant to their scheme and Byrd’s defensive evaluation because it empowered Byrd to take risks on the perimeter. If Byrd made an ill-advised gamble and provided the opponent a numerical advantage to attack, they still had to contend with a formidable frontcourt led by Magoon Gwath who finished 4th in the country in Block%.

Synthesizing this information initially led me to take a skeptical approach to Byrd’s defensive translatability. And prompted a less charitable interpretation of instances where Byrd’s point-of-attack defense faltered…

…or Byrd’s lack of strength seemed to be insulated by SDSU’s constant switching.

And while these were valid concerns at the time, taking a more holistic approach to Miles Byrd’s defensive profile incited me to revise my approach. But before delving deeper into the defensive side of things, I believe Byrd’s offense deserves further attention.

The Case for Miles Byrd’s Offense

Of the 68 teams in the NCAA Tournament field, San Diego State was 61st in Adjusted Offensive Rating, surpassing only the four 16 seeds in the field, Bryant, Troy, and Robert Morris in offensive efficiency. Historically speaking, San Diego State under Bryan Dutcher has never been a system conducive to high-octane offenses. A look at SDSU’s offensive statistical profile over the years portrays a team that plays a deliberate style without generating high-quality, schemed looks.

Too often, there’s a false equivalency drawn between slow offense and bad offense. That’s far from the case in my opinion, one only need to look as far as the NCAA and NBA champions in the 2023-24 season, the UConn Huskies and Boston Celtics. Both teams played a laborious style, but with intent. UConn’s meticulously schemed motion offense was incredibly efficient, creating clean looks for their bevy of shooters. Boston’s dominant run through this past season was defined by their relentless matchup hunting and isolation game. San Diego State, though, according to their own coach, is willing to play a much more laissez-faire approach to offense. On the Basketball Immersion Podcast, Dutcher discussed his philosophy on his offense in relation to his defense as “We spend a lot of time on defense. You’re good at what you work at…we might spend 50-60% of practice on defense…Offensively, we play with great freedom. We play with freedom within framework, we have things we try to accomplish but we like high IQ guys that can break out of that at any moment and just make plays.”

Although in many areas of the game flexibility is an admirable trait, in this instance, SDSU’s willingness to grant players freedom offensive autonomy has resulted in a consistently undesirable shot profile. Below is SDSU’s shot profile data under Brian Dutcher, with Near Proximity field goal attempts being defined as layups, dunks, and tip-ins.

Even with the offensive context being subpar, anyone who has read this far is probably looking for a better explanation for Miles Byrd’s offensive shortcomings than ‘the spacing and system were terrible.’ After all, this could be applied to a litany of former prospects. Despite a team’s structural issues, a player shouldn’t be entirely absolved of the product right? In Byrd’s case, though, despite the uninspiring raw efficiency, he finished in the 87th percentile in Offensive On-Off, per cbbanalytics. San Diego State was 8.9 points per 100 possessions better with Byrd on the court, due to his contribution in a few areas.

First, Miles Byrd is a stellar example of the importance of interior passing. Ranking in the 92nd percentile in Rim-Assists/40 minutes and the 96th percentile in the percent of total assists at the rim, on a per-touch basis Byrd was extremely efficient as a playmaker. Without running a high volume of PNR, Byrd routinely displayed a diverse passing vocabulary in the few opportunities he had attacking a tilted defense.

Even though I would consider Byrd’s handle a weakness at the moment, his penchant for playmaking manifested in his schemed possessions as well. The glut of actions drawn up for Byrd were ‘Spanoulis’ or ‘Zoom Chicago’, but he did operate and was effective in a limited sample as a PNR ballhandler, finishing in the 84th percentile in PNR PPP.

What Byrd’s projection on this end will be reduced to, though, will be how consistent a spacer he will become. Ending the season shooting only 30.3% from 3 on a robust 11.7 3PA/100, I am more optimistic Byrd will develop into an effective spacer than the raw numbers indicate. A significant portion of the optimism lies in Byrd’s stellar three-point volume and career 82.8% FT%, while also being rooted in the circumstances brought on by SDSU’s offense. On Guarded 3PA Byrd shot 37.2% (32/86), which was significantly better than the 23.1% (12/52) Byrd shot on Unguarded 3PA. My hypothesis as to how this could have been possible is that half of Byrd’s 3PA were classified as ‘Long Threes’ which per cbbdata are 3PA from 25+ feet. Already lacking in physical strength, oftentimes Byrd was placed in the position of HAVING to take long 3PA when his teammates were incapable of penetrating and breaking the defensive shell on the initial action.

What may be the strongest evidence for optimism in Byrd’s offensive profile is how extensive a creation burden he was tasked with. Over the course of researching relevant data for this piece, I’d realized Byrd’s self-created shot volume stood out amongst similarly sized players from previous drafts. This past season, only 22.9% of Miles Byrd’s two-point attempts were assisted and he produced 7.42 Unassisted 2PA per 100, a shot distribution more in line with guards trusted with generating half-court offense. To gauge how Byrd’s creation compared to similarly sized players, I conducted a (slightly overfitted) query…

….which yielded this list of 72 players since 2010

50th percentile EPM in the NBA this year (regular season) is -1.71 and slightly over half of this list’s 3 Year Peak EPM surpasses this number. Considering the draft capital (or lack thereof) spent on these players, a majority of them outperformed the expected value attributed to their draft slotting. Notably in the mix here are some of the most impressive recent ‘margin wins’ in Naji Marshall, Herb Jones, and Aaron Wiggins. And while there are some significant disappointments (like a Jarrett Culver or Johnny Davis), even some widely considered ‘busts’ such as Evan Turner managed to contribute in the league for a significant period of time. Two shared traits with players unable to stick in the league were:

1. Lacking a complementary offensive skillset (perimeter shooting, connective passing, and other play-finishing traits)
2. An inability to contribute defensively.

As previously outlined, I’m of the mind that San Diego State’s offensive ecosystem deprived Byrd of opportunities to display the former, and in the next section I plan on quelling concerns of the latter issue.

Tying it all together

For all the aforementioned reasons, Miles Byrd and VJ Edgecombe’s profiles are not without their flaws. There are probably plenty of issues with their skill sets that I haven’t mentioned that would make teams wary of drafting them. What these two have in common, and what has been particularly enamoring, is the seamlessness with which they fit into the modern game. Particularly defensively, Edgecombe and Byrd embody traits that I believe are necessary to play in today’s style.

After this season, Miles Byrd found himself in rare company with his defensive production. The list of non-bigs who managed to contribute to elite defense to the degree Byrd did, while maintaining a baseline level of feel, is exceedingly small.

Taking account of the right-most column, zone-heavy teams seem disproportionately represented amongst this group of players, making Byrd’s inclusion even more compelling. Per Synergy, San Diego State only logged 2 (!!) possessions of zone defense this entire season. Circling back to the initial concerns raised about SDSU’s defense and how relevant Byrd’s responsibilities within the scheme would be to what he’ll be asked to do at the next level, I believe SDSU’s scheme is one of the college defenses most analogous to the NBA systems currently in vogue.

Earlier, I had mentioned SDSU’s willingness to switch in conjunction with their tendency to show help early and often as a potential crutch for Miles Byrd, an obstacle in properly evaluating his defense. Originally, I’d thought if I were unable to assess Byrd’s ability to perform in ONE isolated defensive role, whether it be screen navigation, POA defense, or weakside rim-protection, then I’d be unable to determine which defensive role best suited him. The direction defenses in the NBA are heading, though, proves this is an antiquated way of evaluating defensive talent. In the same way competency in dribbling, passing, and shooting has become requisite for incoming NBA players, we have now arrived in an era where personnel need to demonstrate a degree of proficiency in each facet of defense to contribute to elite ’16 game’ basketball.

Of course, no team has exemplified this philosophy more than the prohibitive favorites for this year’s championship, the Oklahoma City Thunder. By compiling a roster full of players who are not only physically capable of executing a variety of defensive roles, but can simultaneously diagnose complex rotations, the Thunder have architected a defense with a singular identity amongst the NBA elite. Similar to San Diego State, the Thunder have no issues helping off of shooters, switching early and often, varying ballscreen coverages, and breaking with conventional defensive principles like helping off the ball-side corner.

While the other participant in this year’s NBA Finals doesn’t play as frenetic a defensive scheme, the Indiana Pacers mirror Oklahoma City in their utilization of early pick-up points in order to extend their pressure and convert a perceived weakness, their size, into a strength.

This kind of defense, which is becoming more and more commonplace, is where both Edgecombe and Byrd should thrive. Both have routinely shown their chops in each ‘phase’ of defense. Role notwithstanding, both were exemplary as point-of-attack defenders.

As previously discussed, SDSU’s scheme gave Byrd carte blanche to trust his instincts and range as a help defender, to consistently great results. Byrd’s activity was pervasive in every area, changing the geometry of the court by altering drive angles as a nail-defender…

…and keeping his team’s defense out of rotation with his sticky screen navigation.

Edgecombe’s deployment wasn’t nearly as fluid as Byrd’s, as Baylor played significantly more zone defense than SDSU (Baylor finished in the 91st percentile in zone frequency), making their defensive identity this season much more conservative. Coming into this season as the 234th-ranked team in average height per KenPom, Baylor didn’t have the luxury of rangy defenders to execute longer, more exotic rotations, so their prerogative was to stay out of rotation entirely and maintain shell integrity. This confined Edgecombe to playing a much more static role than Byrd. Even with a more parochial role, Edgecombe’s hand speed and lateral quickness mirroring players on the perimeter shone.

The instances of cognitive athleticism Byrd and Edgecombe show in the clips above are what make them especially suited for modern defenses. Oklahoma City has become the blueprint by acquiring players with traditionally valued athletic traits, decision making, and reaction times to dial their defensive aggression to the point where they are dictating terms of play to the offense. Recently, a major shift in NFL defenses was made when teams realized offenses struggled playing against 2-high safety alignments, where big-play opportunities were limited and offenses would have to slowly matriculate the ball down the field. I do not find the recent schematic changes made by the OKC Thunder all that different. The Thunder defense, by swarming to the ball and congesting driving lanes, have turned the long-held ‘drive and kick’ logic on its head. Similar to San Diego State, OKC concedes a high volume of 3PA defensively, especially relative to contemporary elite defenses. However, this is by design, by selling out on drives and forcing the ball to travel east-west versus north-south, both teams force longer possessions. In Oklahoma City’s case, the number of defensive playmakers they roster makes each drive by the opponent a tenuous proposition. When a team rosters so many chaos agents on defense, there’s the opportunity cost assumed with each successive drive, that the chance of the driver committing a turnover increases.

The emphasis on turnover generation in convergence with the break from traditional defensive philosophies resulted in NBA defense being ‘up’ this year, with drive volume, secondary assists (an assist made without the passer dribbling before the assist), and offensive rating all declining. While I understand this is a somewhat strained assumption, especially on such a small sample, I truly believe the sustained intensity and creativity we’re seeing in defenses is responsible for this phenomenon.

In SDSU’s case, Miles Byrd was disruptive enough on his own to mimic this effect on opposing offenses. By covering large swaths of ground and making multiple efforts after the initial rotation, Byrd was largely responsible for preventing flow to build within an offense.

By now I am probably starting to sound like a broken record with the continued use of terms like ‘ground-coverage’ and ‘event creation’, but it truly can’t be overstated how essential this is becoming as we transition into what has been aptly termed ‘The Weakest Link Era’ (a phrase coined by the inimitable Owen Phillips). So far, I’ve outlined the kind of player required to play this work-intensive style of defense, but the fact of the matter is that to play this way throughout the regular season and playoffs, you need MORE of this kind of player.

NBA basketball has never been more physically demanding, so it follows that to play a style hinged on range and effort, you’ll need a rotating cast of players to complement your core group. In Oklahoma City’s case, their depth is not only complementary, but ameliorates the weaknesses of many players in their rotation. So many members of the Thunder either currently possess or were at an earlier point designated as half-court deficient players; however, their greatest strength defensively allows them to play in the game states most conducive to efficient offense.

This applies to Miles Byrd and VJ Edgecombe because, irrespective of their offensive limitations, their penchant for creating turnovers will greatly augment the offense of a team, especially one already rostering players with similar defensive talents. The effect both Byrd and Edgecombe had on their respective teams’ transition numbers is instructive as to their value-add offensively.

In Byrd’s case, these transition numbers are especially notable: this is how a player shooting 38% from the field becomes the most impactful player to his team’s offense. San Diego State’s rim rate went from 122nd in the country with Byrd on the court to 293rd with him off. Without Byrd providing a spark in transition, the Aztecs were incapable of generating quality rim attempts in the half-court.

Conclusion

As it currently stands, the NBA is in a transitionary period. Slowly but surely, fans, analysts, and teams alike are acknowledging this era is a far departure from the star-centric league most of us grew to know and love. Now, as depth and flexibility become the focus, and while salary cap restrictions are more punitive than ever, it is paramount that teams get the most out of whatever draft capital they possess to maintain a standard of competitiveness. Otherwise, teams will routinely subject themselves to the whims of the ever-temperamental lottery gods (my condolences go out to fans of the Wizards, Jazz, and Pelicans alike). As I’ve mentioned repeatedly, Miles Byrd and VJ Edgecombe are far from perfect prospects, for as much as I’ve lauded their defensive acumen, even in this area their physical strength could become a significant obstacle which prevents them from being All-Defense caliber performers.

In Edgecombe’s case in particular, I would be surprised if he ended up returning top-4 value, and personally have him ranked 7th at the time of writing. I see VJ developing in a way where he could disappoint relative to expectations on his rookie contract. However, the style both players allow you to play, and the confidence I have in the depth they will provide, anchors my belief that both players have productive NBA careers ahead of them.

The post Contextualizing Production: VJ Edgecombe and Miles Byrd appeared first on Swish Theory.

For our most recent mock draft, featuring written explanations for each pick, go here.

1. Cooper Flagg, Duke

Do-it-all wing with premium skill and athleticism

2. Dylan Harper, Rutgers

Bruising driving guard and potent scorer

3. Collin Murray-Boyles, South Carolina

Elite playmaking forward on both sides of the ball

4. VJ Edgecombe, Baylor

Explosive scoring guard and lockdown defender

5. Khaman Maluach, Duke

Towering young big with upside as a play finisher and rim protector

6. Derik Queen, Maryland

Creative big-bodied drive threat who can pass

7. Jeremiah Fears, Oklahoma

Young lead guard with dribble, pass, shoot upside

8. Ace Bailey, Rutgers

Versatile shooting wing with dynamic athleticism

9. Tre Johnson, Texas

Tough shotmaker all over the court

10. Jase Richardson, Michigan State

Three-level scoring guard with quick processing

11. Kasparas Jakucionis, Illinois

Pull-up maestro with passing creativity

12. Kon Knueppel, Duke

Three-point sniper with shooting versatility and P&R playmaking chops

13. Asa Newell, Georgia

Versatile defender, glass-crashing post-up threat developing three point shot

14. Noa Essengue, ULM

Sinewy rim attacker with budding ball skills and defensive versatility

15. Thomas Sorber, Georgetown

Tough freshman PF with strong feel for the game

16. Noah Penda, Le Mans

Menacing wing defender and offensive connector

17. Labaron Philon, Alabama

Gadgety, versatile, productive guard every team could use

18. Miles Byrd, San Diego State

Stocks machine with shooting potential

19. Ben Saraf, ULM

Best passer in class as a game managing point guard and scorer

20. Bennett Stirtz, Drake

Potentially underrated lead guard up-transfer from Division II

21. Nolan Traore, Saint-Quentin

Quick first-step point guard who is a willing shooter and active defender

22. Nique Clifford, Colorado State

Fluid-moving upperclassman who does a little of everything

23. Kam Jones, Marquette

Paint touch machine, three-level scorer who can pass

24. Rasheer Fleming, Saint Joseph’s

Big wing who can shoot with a 7’5” wingspan

25. Johni Broome, Auburn

Versatile playmaking forward as one of best NCAA players in the country

26. Danny Wolf, Michigan

Unique ball-handling point center with quick processing skills

27. Liam McNeeley, Connecticut

Three-point threat who attacks closeouts looking to finish strong

28. Carter Bryant, Arizona

Talented freshman wing providing a punch off the bench

29. Ryan Kalkbrenner, Creighton

Big man upperclassman who dominates the paint on both ends

30. JT Toppin, Texas Tech

High motor, high producing rim attacker

31. Yaxel Lendeborg, UAB

Elbow/post hub with a well-rounded driving game and plus passing

32. Anthony Robinson II, Missouri

Point-of-attack demon with some ball skills

33. Tahaad Pettiford, Auburn

Dribble-pass-shoot quick small guard

34. Will Riley, Illinois

Under-developed young wing shooter and passer

35. Adou Thiero, Arkansas

Physical slasher who creates events on defense

36. Joshua Jefferson, Iowa State

Physical defender with some connector chops as a big wing

37. Egor Demin, BYU

Elite passer with inconsistent play against top competition

38. Darrion Williams, Texas Tech

Skilled upperclassman who can shoot and pass from the wing

39. Alex Condon, Florida

Sharp-passing sophomore big who can grease an offense and get stocks

40. Walter Clayton Jr.

High volume three point shooter who can do some guard things

41. JoJo Tugler, Houston

+12 wingspan for this mobile rim protector

42. Boogie Fland, Arkansas

Game managing shooter and passer

43. Hugo Gonzalez, Real Madrid

Toolsy high motor player with versatility

44. Flory Bidunga, Kansas

Undersized but hyper-athletic rangy big

45. Alex Karaban, Connecticut

Elite shooter and wing defender, national champion

46. Dailyn Swain, Xavier

Sparks of dribble-pass-shoot ability for this athletic wing

47. Javon Small, West Virginia

Highly productive lead guard essential to WVU

48. Rocco Zikarsky, Brisbane

18-year-old with a chance to be best rim protector in class

49. Ian Jackson, North Carolina

Pure scoring freshman who can catch fire like few others

50. Bogoljub Markovic, KK Mega

Astounding rebounder with some intriguing movement skills at 6’11”

51. Drake Powell, North Carolina

Hyperactive freshman defender with shooting potential

52. Tomislav Ivisic, Illinois

Floor-spacing center and ball-mover

53. Chad Baker-Mazara, Auburn

Upperclassman utility wing with a smooth shot

54. Zvonimir Ivisic, Arkansas

PNR roll & pop 7’2” big

55. Max Shulga, VCU

Strong combo guard who can run some PNR

56. Xaivian Lee, Princeton

Shifty guard who can table set and let it fly from deep

57. Alvaro Folgueiras, Robert Morris

Ultra-versatile big wing hiding in mid majors

58. Eric Dixon, Villanova

Pure shooting 6’8” upperclassman, one of best players in NCAA

59. Otega Oweh, Kentucky

Tough-nosed defender and transition threat

The post 2025 NBA Draft Big Board 2.0 appeared first on Swish Theory.

1. Washington Wizards: Cooper Flagg, Duke

Cooper Flagg is a primary offensive option, one of the best defensive players in the country, leading a top ten team as a true 18-year-old freshman after being the highest-rated American High School prospect since… Anthony Davis? Yet somehow the discourse surrounding him to start the year has developed a negative tint. This is a special prospect, even if he doesn’t become the literal reincarnation of LeBron James. Two-way forwards do not grow on trees and their importance to playoff basketball cannot be understated. A foundation of Cooper Flagg and Bilal Coulibaly is an ideal starting point for building a roster meant for May and June. While Washington might not have your typical “star creator” on the roster they are not in a place to be drafting for context at the top of the draft. These kinds of players are worth their weight in gold, and the Wizards are running to the bank.

– Tyler Wilson

2. New Orleans Pelicans: Dylan Harper, Rutgers

Dylan Harper is a natural scoring creator with legitimate two-way feel; Dylan dices up defenses with ease. Harper consistently creates good looks for himself and his teammates, forces turnovers on defense, plays with a grab-and-go pace, and scores tough shots at every level. Dylan’s downhill explosiveness jumps off the page with incredible body control to decelerate, finish at the rim, draw fouls, and kick out to open shooters. Dylan looks like this draft class’ best primary halfcourt offensive engine who can create good looks for the team every time down the floor. With Zion, Herb Jones, and Trey Murphy flanking him in the frontcourt, adding Dylan Harper to the mix opens up the Pelicans’ options to build around this exciting walking bucket.

– Ryan Kaminski

3. Utah Jazz: Derik Queen, Maryland

The 6’10 Derik Queen will go to the Utah Jazz in the upcoming NBA Draft, and it’s easy to see why. His exceptional skillset makes him a highly coveted player for any team, but especially for the Jazz at this point in the draft. With a blend of feel, versatility, and impressive court vision, Queen can impact games in multiple facets. The ability to grab the ball off the glass and show off how comfortable he is as a ball handler in the open floor will be a headache for teams. Coaches can deploy him in delay actions, chin, dribble handoffs as the operator and trust him to make the right reads. The potential of having a pair as skilled as Lauri Markkanen and Queen could lead to not only fun for fans, but also wins.

– Larry Golden

4. Toronto Raptors: Collin Murray-Boyles, South Carolina

Despite having played this season in relative obscurity compared to other highly touted draft prospects, Collin Murray-Boyles has made significant developments to his game which should see him garner heavy consideration at the top of the class. During Murray-Boyles’ freshman campaign he played a more complementary role for South Carolina and thrived as a play finisher and opportunistic playmaker. So far this season, Murray-Boyles’ usage has been significantly scaled up and he’s gotten MORE efficient as a scorer. Of the 14 players in the country 6’7 or taller with over a 25% Usage Rate, Murray-Boyles possesses the highest True-Shooting% and the second-highest assist rate. What these statistical thresholds convey is Murray-Boyles’ presenting one of the most unique intersections of size and playmaking ability in the class. While I understand the Raptors’ faithful may have some consternation about Murray-Boyles’ fit with their resident jumbo-playmaker in Scottie Barnes, I believe this is a misguided thought for a team still seeking identity. At this phase of their team-building process the Raptors cannot afford to draft for fit and Murray-Boyles, in my estimation, is the best player remaining on the board.

– Ahmed Jama

5. Charlotte Hornets: Thomas Sorber, Georgetown

Charlotte secures their star big of the future with Thomas Sorber. A rotation of Mark Williams, Nick Richards, and Miles Bridges at center has resulted in three straight bottom-10 defensive seasons. Sorber’s 10.8% stock rate and +4.5 defensive BPM using physical dominance, feel, fluidity, and hand-eye coordination promise instant remedies. His athleticism, touch, and processing fit immediately as a play finisher with LaMelo Ball and as a dribble-handoff hub with Brandon Miller, while his massive offensive rebounding-stocks-assists integration (10.0% offensive rebound and 16.5% assist rates), tons of interior craft (78th percentile post-up efficiency), and ample shooting indicators dating back to high school (37.9% on non-rim twos and 71.6% on free-throws pre-NCAA) enable further pathways for development.

– Maurya Kumpatla

6. Portland Trailblazers: Ace Bailey, Rutgers

Portland is a team in an interesting spot, as they have a lot of intriguing younger players but lack a clear direction for their roster. Ace makes a lot of sense for them as arguably the best player available who also fits in nicely around some of their other core pieces with his length, shotmaking, and defensive upside. Portland would be a good landing spot for Ace as well, as they have enough ball handling and guard play to be able to ease him in offensively and let him work off the ball rather than overtasking him in a creator role.

– AJ Carter

7. Oklahoma City Thunder: VJ Edgecombe, Baylor

The OKC Thunder keep getting stronger, adding another top-10 pick to their already-loaded young core. As the No. 1 seed in the West, their defense has been a force, built on aggressively forcing turnovers through blocks and steals. Enter VJ Edgecombe, the only freshman to post a 5% mark in both steal and block rates—making him the perfect fit for this defensive juggernaut. Joining the Thunder gives him the ideal situation to showcase his defensive strengths while sharpening his offensive game. The Thunder’s guard room is stacked, but the chance to work on his shot with Chip Engelland and reduce driving turnovers in OKC’s spaced-out drive-and-kick offense should do wonders for VJ’s offensive development.

– Roshan Potluri

8. Brooklyn Nets: Jeremiah Fears, Oklahoma

Jeremiah Fears could lock up the Brooklyn Nets’ point guard position for the foreseeable future. The Oklahoma freshman has taken up huge usage (most in the SEC) despite only recently turning 18. There are few chances for heliocentric upside in this class, and Fears might have it with his dribble/pass/shoot potential and early returns. With patience, technique, and surprising strength beyond his years (he draws a TON of fouls), Fears will be a tough cover at any level. He’s not a pushover on defense, either, securing over two steals per game with limited fouling. The Nets could give Fears a long enough runway to see just how high that upside is.

– Matt Powers

9. Detroit Pistons: Asa Newell, Georgia

I’m aware this choice may feel somewhat controversial. Detroit was not a team I found terribly easy to draft for. I strongly considered Kasparas as an off-ball shotmaker alongside Cade, which I believe to be Kasparas’ ideal role. Newell is a guy I’m higher on than consensus, I buy the shooting relative to the numbers and the general scalability, which Detroit needs. They don’t have a tonne of long-term versatility within their core, and I buy Newell being able to slot in alongside whatever they want to do. He just feels like the exact type of player they need in the half-court and I buy Bickerstaff being a good coach for him, which matters.

– Joe Hulbert

10. Chicago Bulls: Kasparas Jakucionis, Illinois

It’s been a while since the Bulls have had a point guard who can make things happen in the halfcourt and create for their teammates consistently. Jakucionis is a 6’6 point guard with true star upside who flashes elite passing skills, pull-up shooting, and driving. In 177 possessions as the pick and roll ball handler he scores a 0.944 in PPP which is good enough for 64th percentile. The shooting off the dribble has been rock steady as he’s taken 36 and made 47%, even before arriving at Illinois it’s been a true strength of his which is a very desirable skill in the NBA. This would be a no-brainer pick for the Chicago Bulls.

– Larry Golden

11. Sacramento Kings: Liam McNeeley, UConn

A high volume 3pt sniper handoff extraordinaire who attacks closeouts with a myriad of tools, Liam McNeeley slides right into the Kings’ schemes. McNeeley brings 3-point shot versatility (C&S, pull-up, movement) and counters closeouts by attacking the rack looking to posterize anyone in his path. In Montverde’s loaded starting unit of Cooper Flagg, Asa Newell, Derik Queen, and Rob Wright, McNeeley would often end up the leading scorer as a floor-spacing play-finishing scoring valve who could heat up at any moment. Whether he’s backing up Malik Monk and Kevin Huerter or replacing them, McNeeley can fill a similar role playing off the strong screen DHO playmaking of Domantas Sabonis, whether De’Aaron Fox stays in town or not.

– Ryan Kaminski

12. San Antonio Spurs: Jase Richardson, Michigan State

Steering away from their affinity towards lengthy, athletic defensive-minded wings nets San Antonio one of the most well-polished offensive prospects in the class. Jase Richardson kills with productivity by extracting the most out of every touch; few can match his balanced shot distribution and monster offensive efficiency (74% true shooting and 3.7 assist-to-turnover ratio). His integration of versatile shooting, driving, and pristine decision-making gives him a high floor with tons of role malleability as a spot-up shooter and second-side creator. Still, Richardson has consistently scaled up production in games with higher doses of usage in a way that gives hope for untapped on-ball upside: he has a 74.5% true shooting in games with <15% usage versus 78.2% in games with >15% usage.

– Maurya Kumpatla

13. Atlanta Hawks: Tre Johnson, Texas

Atlanta already has several long-term pieces in place (Trae Young, Dyson Daniels, Jalen Johnson,  Zaccharie Risacher), and Tre Johnson looks the part of someone who has the versatility to complement all of them. He’s a ready-made shotmaker with high-end upside as a shooter, and he’s also shown flashes as a playmaker and on-ball defender. A fully developed version of Johnson would be a great fit in Atlanta as a do-it-all wing who can fit into a variety of roles while spacing the floor for Trae.

– AJ Carter

14. Oklahoma City Thunder: Noah Penda, Le Mans

In today’s NBA, you can never have too many dribble/pass/shoot wings, and that holds true even for the stacked OKC Thunder. Noah Penda brings the perfect blend of high feel, strength, and catch-and-shoot ability to thrive as a closeout creator in the Thunder’s offense. Where Penda truly stands out is on the defensive end, where he excels at creating turnovers both on the perimeter and as a weakside rim protector. This combination of skills on both ends of the floor should allow Penda to make an immediate impact for OKC, all while being under 21 for most of his rookie year.

– Roshan Potluri

15. Indiana Pacers: Johni Broome, Auburn

One of college basketball’s main storylines in the early season has been Auburn’s historically dominant start. Currently leading every major computer rating system while playing the most difficult schedule in the country, Johni Broome in many ways has been the catalyst for Auburn’s early-season heroics. Broome has oscillated between being the team’s defensive anchor and offensive fulcrum, similar to the previous season, while increasing his efficiency across the board. Broome’s all-encompassing impact on the best team in college basketball bodes well for his role in the league, where interchangeability is a necessary condition for reserve frontcourt players. And with Myles Turner’s impending free agency, the Pacers’ frontcourt composition is in a precarious state. Johni Broome could easily be integrated into a lineup with or without Turner, and coalesce with the other Pacer’s frontcourt players.

– Ahmed Jama

16. San Antonio Spurs: Kon Knueppel, Duke

The 19th-ranked offense Spurs double down on offensive bets here with Kon Knueppel, who is as pure of a shooter as you’ll find. He’s a lifetime 41% on threes, 84% on free throws, and 49% on non-rim twos across the EYBL and NCAA since 2020, making his shooting projection seamless. Knueppel pairs this shooting with high levels of ballhandling and feel, possessing a tight handle (9.7% turnover rate) with off-putting dribble cadences and being a quick processor (3.4 assist-to-turnover ratio), all of which coincide to make him an 88th percentile pick-and-roll ball handler in the country according to Synergy Sports. Athleticism and physicality are major concerns for Knueppel on both ends, but no team gives him the margins to succeed as the Spurs’ length and athleticism do.

– Maurya Kumpatla

17. Oklahoma City Thunder: Noa Essengue, Ulm

Noa Essengue will be 18.5 on draft night, making him an elite upside pick for the Thunder. With an established roster and a strong development staff, there’s no pressure for him to create in the half-court right away. Essengue has been a dominant force in transition, applying immense pressure on the rim with 34 dunks and a 0.77 free throw rate in the Basketball Bundesliga (25 games). At 6’10” with a reported 9’3.25” reach, Essengue is a pliable forward capable of both protecting the rim and stifling opponents at the point of attack. Despite being a teenager, Essengue shows great feel for the game which is evident in his 2% steal rate and 1.3 assist-to-turnover ratio. While his touch as a finisher still needs work, his 68.6% from the free-throw line and 30% three-point rate provide a strong foundation for improvement. With one of the NBA’s best shooting development staff, Essengue is well-positioned to refine his skills and develop into a special two-way player for the Thunder.

– Roshan Potluri

18. Golden State Warriors: Egor Demin, BYU

A quintessential Warriors player with his intersection of size and feel, if he were drafted this season Demin would be one of only four one-and-done freshmen above 6’7 to post above a 20% assist rate, the others being Anthony Black, RJ Barrett, Scottie Barnes, Cade Cunningham and Ben Simmons. Demin has acquitted himself extremely well exclusively running the point in BYU’s NBA-style offense. However, questions remain about whether he can sustain this production versus better competition, and how well his shooting will hold considering his mediocre priors. While these concerns are valid, what Demin’s demonstrated so far should portend well for a reduced role for a Golden State team in need of a two-way connector.

– Ahmed Jama

19. Houston Rockets: Khaman Maluach, Duke

The Rockets get one of the most impactful freshmen in the country at a relative value. Khaman Maluach has played a critical role in Duke’s nation-leading adjusted defensive efficiency while playing a remarkably mistake-free offensive role. Everything about Khaman’s game oozes physical dominance, starting with anthropometrics: he has 10-inch wide hands and a 9’8 standing reach, both of which would rank amongst the top of the league. Khaman is a force on the glass (15% offensive rebound rate), a wildly efficient scorer (81% true shooting), and he’s showcased an uncanny ability to both draw fouls (0.60 free throw rate) and limit possession obstruction (< 4 fouls/40 + 11% TO). He even demonstrates some semblance of touch, shooting 80% from the line. Khaman and his anti-foul rim protection style should seamlessly slot into Ime Udoka’s stifling defensive scheme. There are certainly pertinent concerns regarding Khaman’s feel, but this is the type of high-upside, immediate-production selection that the surging Rockets should be looking to make.

– Avinash Chauhan

20. Utah Jazz: Boogie Fland, Arkansas

Boogie is one of the best guards in this draft class. The burst off the dribble is truly something to watch while he’s on the floor. This is a guard who can create and get into the paint without a screen and show off his touch with his floater or make the reads necessary to keep advantages going. He’s sporting a 73-27 assist-to-turnover rate so far this season. Boogie is also shooting 36% from three while launching 60 of them. There aren’t many players in this draft who combine the ball handling, creativity, and self-creation upside as Boogie. This is the best available pick.

– Larry Golden

21. Brooklyn Nets: Labaron Philon, Alabama

Philon is the most “gadget-y” player in the class, and that’s why I love him in a backcourt next to earlier pick Jeremiah Fears. His game isn’t perfect – he needs to clean up his catch-and-shoot technique and have more anticipation for passing reads – but is consistently a plus across skills. He has not gotten a chance to show off his pull-up shooting as more of a connector in the Alabama system, but still can juice their offense which is nearly ten points better with him on. His positioning overall is elite, making him a threatening defender and able to clean up easy transition looks. If he can build on his scoring (he remains highly efficient at 59% true shooting), Philon could provide a backcourt panacea to endless problems.

– Matt Powers

22. Orlando Magic: Kam Jones, Marquette

Orlando is ready to contend. Their biggest need is a pull-up three-point sniper who can score and run some offense to pull defenders away from Franz and Paolo. In walks Kam Jones, arguably the best college player in the country. Averaging 20 PPG with a 4.2 A/TO his senior season while hitting 38% on six 3PA over a four-year college career sample size, Kam may provide the instant floor-spacing spark Orlando’s offense so desperately needs.

– Ryan Kaminski

23. Orlando Magic: Donnie Freeman

Donnie Freeman is a strong big wing who brings two-way impact because he can score, rebound, defend, and hit the open three. Freeman shows promising touch indicators like high FT% for positive shooting development. The highest ceiling guards on the board were Ben Saraf, who makes incredible highlight passes, and Nolan Traore, who attacks gaps with quick burst, flashes connector tendencies, hustles defensively, and has flashed the pull-up shot on rare occasions. But, neither Saraf nor Traore have been a consistent 3-point shooter. For a contending team targeting good basketball players this late in the draft who can quickly contribute and space the floor, the strategy taken was finding high-floor reserves who can fill a 6th-9th man slot in the rotation with the potential to fill in as starters when called upon. While both guards have higher potential ceilings, hoping rookies develop a skill they don’t currently show on a roster where the opportunity to do so is limited is a tough situation for them to succeed.

– Ryan Kaminski

24. Brooklyn Nets: Ben Saraf, Ulm

Ben Saraf burst onto the first-round radar with his MVP performance at the 2024 U18 Euro Championship. His most obvious strength is his size/feel: he’s measured at 6’5 without shoes and a 6’7.5 wingspan, with a certified highlight reel of passing flair and abrupt steals to boot. While the shot hasn’t quite been falling this year, Saraf has a 33% assist rate and 2.7% steal rate while leveraging his size en route to a 5.4% offensive rebound and 1.1% block rate. And he’s doing this as the unquestioned engine of a surprisingly great Ratiopharm Ulm team that’s currently 9-2 in the Eurocup. Saraf has drawn comparisons to former Ulm PG and current Long Island Net Killian Hayes, especially as a fellow lefty, but this is aesthetic bias personified: Saraf is far more turnover avoidant while showing an ability to make open catch-and-shoot threes (46% open 3P% vs 27% open 3P% for pre-draft Killian). There are clear athletic and shooting concerns with Saraf, but productive teenagers leading productive teams are a dime a dozen. Saraf could be THE tank commander for the Nets as they Dive (in the standings) for Darryn or Lose for Booz(er).

– Avinash Chauhan

25. Brooklyn Nets: Darrion Williams, Texas Tech

Willams was an easy pick for me here, even despite being older at 22 on draft day. He is extremely productive, #6 in Box Plus-Minus in the NCAA. He can shoot – a career 40% three-point shooter on 6 attempts per 100 possessions and 86% from the line on 167 attempts. But more importantly, he has shown his passing has more upside than initially displayed his prior two seasons, now up to 5.2 assists per game compared to only 2.0 turnovers. Despite not being the fleetest of feet, he contributes everywhere, getting some boards, some steals, some blocks with his high feel for the game. The Brooklyn Nets cannot pass up someone who can grease the offense from the wing (Darrion is 6’6”, I should mention) while proving through his production he can hang in athletically.

– Matt Powers

26. Dallas Mavericks: Nolan Traore, Saint-Quentin

The Mavs need blue-chip young talent. The Luka-to-Lively connection should be a permanent fixture of Mavs basketball for the next decade, but beyond that tandem, there is a real lack of youthful upside on the roster. Nolan Traore has had a rough start to his season in a surprisingly large role for a teenager with Saint Quentin, but the talent is untenable. He is a walking paint touch with NBA-level athleticism at the guard spot. His ability to defend the point of attack and create out of the pick-and-roll pairs well with Luka both on the court and while he sits. The shot will need to come around, but at this point in the draft that is a bet worth taking.

– Tyler Wilson

27. Memphis Grizzlies: Tahaad Pettiford, Auburn

Orlando desperately needs more guard creation to relieve pressure from its offensive stars. Pettiford brings that needed offensive juice. He shoots efficiently from deep range off of the bounce, breaks defenses with his speed, and finds his teammates for open shots. Point guards of his size always face a challenging climb to the NBA, but Pettiford’s advanced offensive toolkit and defensive playmaking on Orlando’s roster of giants bode well for his chances.

– Ben Pfeifer

28. Los Angeles Clippers: Nique Clifford, Colorado State

Nique Clifford feels destined to be a Clipper. He’s an older prospect who should be ready to compete on both ends of the floor from the start of training camp. He has had a larger offensive role this season, but that is not his sell as a prospect. Clifford is a grinder on both ends of the floor, an above-the-rim athlete who knows where to be and when to be there. Statistically, his projection as a shooter is a bit murky (68% from the line and  35% from three for his career), but his comfortability in the midrange and shooting over contests is encouraging. For a hard-nosed, defensive-minded team led by two high-usage stars, Clifford is an easy plug-and-play fit.

– Tyler Wilson

29. Boston Celtics: Hugo Gonzalez, Real Madrid

Gonzalez would add another defensively slanted wing into the rotation, something they’ll never complain about. He’s defended at a positive level for stretches throughout his Euroleague play this season, imposing his will as a point of attack and low-man defender. Boston will have no problems waiting for Gonzalez to tap into a passable level of offensive impact, and Gonzalez fell too far for his talent level.

– Ben Pfeifer

30. Utah Jazz: Rasheer Fleming, Saint Joseph’s

Fleming is a 6’9 forward who is showing signs of being able to stretch the floor from three making 39% on 53 attempts in 12 games. Not only is he able to shoot it, but he also has enough handle to attack closeouts and go finish at the rim with force and even finesse with his athleticism. Fleming is still only 20 years old and provides a lot of intrigue with his versatility on both sides of the ball. He currently leads his team in stocks with 41 total (22 steals, 19 blocks). Picking Fleming at the 30th pick is a win.

– Larry Golden

31. Boston Celtics: Rocco Zikarsky, Brisbane

32. Charlotte Hornets: Ryan Kalkbrenner, Creighton

33. Minnesota Timberwolves: Miles Byrd, San Diego State

34. Detroit Pistons: Will Riley, Illinois

35. Charlotte Hornets: Jacob Cofie, Virginia

36. Toronto Raptors: Chaz Lanier, Tennessee

37. Dallas Mavericks: Anthony Robinson II, Missouri

38. Brooklyn Nets: Danny Wolf, Michigan

39. Washington Wizards: Alex Karaban, UConn

40. Indiana Pacers: Flory Bidunga, Kansas

41. San Antonio Spurs: Yaxel Lendeborg, UAB

42. Chicago Bulls: Tomislav Ivisic, Illinois

43. San Antonio Spurs: Walter Clayton Jr., Florida

44. Oklahoma City Thunder: Xaivian Lee, Princeton

45. Los Angeles Lakers: Igor Milicic Jr., Tennessee

46. Golden State Warriors: Juni Mobley, Ohio State

47. Los Angeles Lakers: Adou Thiero, Arkansas

48. Cleveland Cavaliers: Bogoljub Markovic, KK Mega

49. Atlanta Hawks: Jamir Watkins, Florida State

50. Washington Wizards: Bennett Stirtz, Drake

51. Washington Wizards: Dink Pate, Mexico City

52. Charlotte Hornets: JoJo Tugler, Houston

53. Orlando Magic: Jalil Bethea, Miami

54. Dallas Mavericks: KJ Lewis, Arizona

55. Memphis Grizzlies: Tucker Devries, West Virginia

56. New York Knicks: Drake Powell, UNC

57. Houston Rockets: Max Shulga, VCU

58. Orlando Magic: Otega Oweh, Kentucky

59. Cleveland Cavaliers: Milan Momcilovic, Iowa State

The post 2025 NBA Mock Draft 1.0 appeared first on Swish Theory.

Milan Momcilovic’s absence from all mainstream mock drafts and boards perplexes me. After a freshman year where the 6’8 forward proved himself an elite shotmaker, he’s positioned well to make a run at the 2025 draft for an elite Iowa State team.

The shotmaking numbers are gaudy — 36.1% from three on 8.8 attempts per 100, a 49.9 three-point attempt rate, 80.9% on free-throws and 45.6% (68-149) on long two-pointers. The only other 6’8+ freshman to match Momcilovic’s shooting production was Lauri Markkanen.

The eye test reflects these numbers, as Momcilovic sprints off of movement from NBA range, pulls up off of the dribble and feathers in Dirk-inspired fadeaways in the intermediate. Very few shooters his height and age compare to Momcilovic. That alone is worth something in an NBA where teams regard shooting so highly.

Momcilovic’s athletic translation will be the primary question for his NBA outlook. He’s fairly slow on both ends without much explosion or bend, evidenced by his poor athletic indicators (1.0% steal rate, 20.1 free-throw rate, zero dunks). We rarely see players with physical indicators this poor make the NBA.

Despite those major problems, Momcilovic defends at a positive level in college. His footspeed might limit his effectiveness on the perimeter at the next level, but he’s a stellar team defender who always positions himself to close gaps and help at the basket. That same feel manifests on offense, as Momcilovic is an effective secondary playmaker off of his shooting gravity.

We shouldn’t let imperfect statistical history blind us to outlier talent, and that’s what Milan Monmcilovic’s shotmaking is. I’ve never scouted a freshman prospect with these kind of extreme, outlier strengths and weaknesses. I’m willing to bet on Momcilovic’s unique traits and hope for physical development as his body matures, but he’ll be a fascinating case to track throughout the season.

Matt Powers – Xaivian Lee, Princeton

Xaivian Lee needs to improve to become an NBA player, and perhaps significantly so. This is not ideal for a rising junior in a minor conference, but I believe there are reasons for trusting Lee to do just that.

First, Lee is young for his grade, as only 20 years old. This is important as he is still on the steep side of the aging curve, if not as steep as ages 18 to 19 or 19 to 20. This is also important because Lee’s biggest flaw, without a doubt, is being only 165 pounds at most recent measurement.

Adding that weight will elevate the stellar craft and technique we’ve already seen Lee display on a regular basis. It’s good he’s in the Ivy league where he has room to fully experiment despite the lack of weight, as he’s able to create large margins in which to operate with his elite shiftiness.

Lee had more drives than any of the 2023 drafted NCAA guards. While this is surely aided tremendously by the poor competition, I can defend the stat still in a few ways. 1.) The degree of outperformance, 67% higher than his peers’ averages, 2.) His performance kept up against higher comp. In fact, he even played better inside the arc (50% -> 55% from two) and nearly led the conference in RAPM versus top 100 competition. 3.) He tested very well at the G League Elite Camp, taller than expected (6’2.75” without shoes, acceptable for a point guard), among the best at agility testing and showing off a surprising 36.5” max vertical.

Now, let’s get to the actual basketball. Lee is a dribble-pass-shoot guard who also blocked more shots (14, a lot for 6’2.75”) than all of Isaiah Collier, Jared McCain, Rob Dillingham and KJ Simpson combined. He plays more physically than your everyday slight guard, also excelling on the defensive glass where he was second on the team in rebounds. He seems closer to a very good shooter than an elite one, with 34% from three, 80% from the line, 34% from midrange and 62% at the rim splits. But every one of those is improved from the year before, and, again, there is reason to believe he will grow beyond. The rim finishing in particular is very promising, in the 82nd percentile for layup efficiency on 11 layup attempts per 100 possessions.

Additionally, Lee’s technique is very strong. He is a weapon both on and off ball due to masterclasses (for age) of timing, footwork, deception, hand movements. His top play types showcase that, being above average efficiency in the following actions: spot up (119 possessions), PNR handler (88), handoffs (66), isolation (62), transition (55), cut (30). That’s a healthy diet you can plug and play into any offensive style. This play style flexibility is only enhanced by his sense of experimentation.

Technique, combined with age, is latent value. It is the key building block to development that Lee can rely upon time and again. Don’t be surprised if he looks like a first-round pick come December.

Beyond the RK – Jeremy Roach, Baylor

Transferring from Duke with an extra year of eligibility granted by the NCAA to players who competed during the COVID-19 pandemic season, new Baylor guard Jeremy Roach knows how to handle the pressure when the lights shine brightest. With the Blue Devils, Roach started 83% of his 130 games over four seasons, advancing to a Final Four, an Elite Eight, and the 2nd round in 3 March Madness appearances, bringing the ying in experience to the Baylor backcourt to the yang of the sensational freshman walking onto campus for the first time in VJ Edgecome. With VJ expected to fly around the court as a north-south downhill force of nature out of the gates, what can Baylor fans expect from the other newcomer guard joining the squad this season?

Jeremy Roach, 6’1”, fits the strong mold of Baylor Guard Past with good two-way instincts to make winning plays on defense while staying on attack mode on offense with an efficient all-around game and good feel for running pick-and-roll and ISO sets to create open looks for himself and teammates. Jeremy uses tight ball control handles and sound quick burst body control to beat his initial defender, rise and fire for a jumper, or drive into the paint for a finish at the rim or kickout to the 3pt line. Jeremy’s lethal floater comes in handy as a deadly weapon to keep drop defenses honest when driving at the rim, using mean stop-start hesitation dribble moves, sound hop step footwork, and clean bump-and-finishing packages in the paint to draw AND1 fouls. When Roach catches a rhythm pulling up for tough elbow jumpers and 3pt shots off the dribble, he becomes hard to contain for any defense he faces.

Roach shows effort on the defensive end taking charges, reading passing lanes to jump gaps and use quick hands for deflections, and not giving up on plays by contesting shots from behind even after being beat on the perimeter. Forcing turnovers and flipping fast breaks on their head creates quick and easy 4pt swings for his team. Jeremy will lift his team for entire stretches as everyone feels his presence in every possession on both sides of the floor. In a close win over Xavier on Nov 25, 2022, Jeremy Roach took over in the clutch for Duke as the game slowed down; quieting the crowd at every turn; dominating as on-ball scoring creator; initiating P&R variations with two screeners in Horns and Double-Drag; scoring at all three levels from all over the floor; drilling tough shot after tough shot; showing supreme decision-making feel.

Roach has improved his efficiency across the board in his time in college, nearly cutting his turnover percentage in half over a four year span, with impressive development since his sophomore season, rising from a 32% 3pt shooter in Year 2 to a 43% 3pt shooter on the same number of attempts in Year 4. His overall impact has risen from 0-1 BPM in his first two years to 3.1 BPM as a junior and 7.2 BPM as a senior, with a huge jump on the offensive side to 4.5 OBPM, most likely due to increasing overall efficiency, reducing turnovers, and getting to the line more often.

In his 2023-24 season at Duke, Roach took 32% of his shots at the rim, converting 58% of his 113 FGA in that range. Able to get his shot off from anywhere on the floor, Jeremy spreads his shot attempts out evenly with 33% being 2pt jumpers (116 FGA) and 36% coming from beyond the arc. (126 3PA) Shooting 84% FT% at the line, 43% 3P% from deep, and 59% TS% as a scorer, Roach brings efficient scoring versatility.

Between his smooth floater, efficient shooting at the line and from beyond the arc, defensive instincts, offensive feel, and overall efficient scoring versatility, Jeremy Roach shows many promising touch indicators for future scoring and shooting development while flashing potential two-way impact that could translate to his upcoming final season in college and help him pave a path to the next level, the NBA.

Roshan Potluri – Collin Murray-Boyles, South Carolina

I can understand, you’re probably wondering, “I’ve seen him on a couple of mainstream boards where he’s in the late lottery range. Why is Collin Murray-Boyles in a roundtable on the most underrated returners for the 2025 draft class?” Even with the pre-season hype around the sophomore, I believe he is underrated because he should firmly be in the discussion in the top 5 of the 2025 NBA Draft. Let’s take a look at why:

Murray-Boyles had an extremely productive season in his first year with the South Carolina Gamecocks, especially for someone who will be 20.03 on draft day: mere months older than incoming freshmen V.J. Edgecombe and Kon Knueppel. Statistically, the production was eye-popping. He was only involved in 45.7% of his team’s possessions when he was on the floor, yet he posted a BPM of +9.5 and a RAPM of +6.1 which are high for a freshman. Standing at 6’7″, he is undersized as a center. Despite this, he produced a 61.6 TS%, 12.0 OREB%, 17.5 DREB%, 17.1 AST%, and over 20 dunks for the season. Murray-Boyles may be undersized, but he functionally produced on the court to a degree that compares to other high-profile 7-foot freshmen like Joel Embiid, Deandre Ayton, Evan Mobley, and Karl Anthony Towns.

Another example of his statistical excellence: the only freshmen since 2008 to ever record above a 5 BPM, 60 TS%, 15 DREB%, 10 AST%, 2 STL%, and 20 dunks are Joel Embiid, Zion Williamson, and Collin Murray-Boyles.

While the production speaks for itself, what does Collin Murray-Boyles truly excel at and why is that worth a potential top 5 selection? The answer lies in his dominant processing on both sides of the ball.

With his feel, high-level strength, balance, and hand-eye coordination, Murray-Boyles brings tenacious defense at the rim and guarding out in space. He’s able to take away a ballhandler’s breathing space with his combination of stifling length, strength, and ground coverage. Murray-Boyles excels as a rim protector, leveraging his massive standing reach and outstanding hand-eye coordination to effortlessly erase shots at the rim. Whether it’s as the primary anchor or rotating over from the weak side, his presence as the rim is undeniable.

The quick decision-making is apparent on the offensive side of the ball as well. He’s able to spray passes to find advantage situations whether it is out of post-ups or DHOs. Oftentimes, he’s able to open up new scoring opportunities just due to the incredible speed and placement that he delivers these passes with. Murray-Boyles does have his flaws with his shot and his size as a big but he has the pathways to become more of a ballhandler and scale as a forward offensively. His potential as a ballhandler is evident in the high school film, although he’s more reliant on getting to his left as a driver. He struggles with ball control and pick-up points when using his right, but his exceptional strength allows him to carve space on drives, compensating when his handle falls short.

The major question with Murray-Boyles’ NBA projection is his shot. I understand the hesitancy, as he’s only shot five 3’s and 67.4% from the charity stripe in his freshman year. While these numbers are poor, from a projection standpoint Murray-Boyles has improved on his touch numbers year over year and has had more shooting volume in his high school career. For context, he shot 51% from the line at Adidas 3SSB in 2022, 63.2% at Wasatch Academy his senior year, and now in college, that number has risen to 67.4%. He shows great touch on non-rim 2 attempts as well, shooting 41.3% with the Gamecocks. The high school and AAU sample only supplements this idea, shooting 53.5% on 28 runners and hooks the year before college. On tape, there’s good energy transfer and fluidity in the mechanics of his face-up jumpers which is a wide majority of his shooting sample in high school. For a player that’s considered a non-shooting big, Murray-Boyles has taken a moderate number of midrange jumpers between his senior year of high school and final year of AAU shooting 50% inside the arc on 22 attempts.

The complete lack of these jumpers within and beyond the arc at South Carolina can be attributed to his role as a screen and roll big. Murray-Boyles needs to work on improving his volume and touch further, but the growth over the past couple of years in tandem with his impressive hand-eye coordination gives me confidence that he can get to a respectable level by the end of his rookie scale deal in the NBA. 

Overall, Murray-Boyles can be an upper-echelon defender in the NBA with his physical traits and feel, showing signs even as an 18-year-old where he would orchestrate South Carolina’s entire defense from the backline. With his sophomore year at South Carolina, his draft stock will be determined by how his budding offensive skills improve, but with what he’s done so far and his feel for the game, I have no reason to believe he can’t reach those heights in the 2025 NBA Draft.

Larry Golden – Kam Jones, Marquette

In the NBA, the game forever evolves due to teams changing playstyles and other teams trying to copy what the successful teams are doing. In order for teams to meet their most potential they must find players to perform well in different roles pertaining to their team. The key is finding players in the draft that can come in and fit right into certain roles and maybe their skill level allows for a multitude of roles. Kam jones is a player in this upcoming draft that I believe can come into the NBA and make things happen because of his utility both on the ball and off.

Last season Kam Jones shot 39.9% from beyond the arc on 239 attempts and 109 of those were off the catch making those at 39.4% clip. His shooting is what will make his life easier in the league while drawing closeouts and getting two-feet in the painted area. When watching Jones play he has a good feel for making the next right connective passing read. When the defense failed to make a rotation or if the rotator was a bit late, Jones made them pay finishing at the rim at a 67% clip. I was a little underwhelmed with his percentage from the mid range area(, but in the nba threes and layups are the goal and he made both of those at a great rate.

Secondary ballhander is the role I really see for Jones at the NBA level who can take on some pick and roll reps on the second side of the floor. Jones was used in pick and roll 43% of his usage and ranked in the 85th percentile. His combination of handle and size for the position allows for him to see the floor a bit better and the handle is tight enough to squeeze through congested spots on the floor.

AJ Carter – Clifford Omoruyi, Alabama

Clifford Omoruyi has been well established as one of the top defensive players in college basketball, anchoring a Rutgers defense that has been top 25 in the country each of the past two years before transferring to Alabama this offseason for his 5th year of college. He’s a classic backline rim protector with good length (6’9 barefoot, 7’6 wingspan), athleticism, and a lean but well built frame that can hold up against physicality. 

Omoruyi uses these physical tools to dominate around the rim defensively, finishing 3rd in the country in block percentage at 12.7% last season (via KenPom). He can occasionally get himself in foul trouble but is for the most part fundamentally sound defensively, prioritizing being in the right position over chasing blocks. Omoruyi is also a very capable P&R defender, having both backline rim protection ability with enough agility to cover ground when asked to play more aggressively. He isn’t what you would classify as a “switch big” but generally holds up well enough when defending in space to not get exploited and has shown flashes defending on an island against smaller guards. Omoruyi is also capable of finishing off possessions as a defensive rebounder, posting a strong DRB% of 23.7% for his college career. 

As good as he is defensively, Cliff’s lack of versatility on the offensive end is what has prevented him from getting serious hype as a draft prospect thus far. He can score around the rim at an adequate level, but doesn’t offer much outside of that. He isn’t a threat to score outside the paint and lacks touch on floaters or push shots. Omoruyi also has a paltry 0.4 AST/TO ratio for his career, and hasn’t really shown any progress in that department across his 4 years in college. It’s worth noting that Rutgers has been mostly abysmal offensively for Omoruyi’s career there, and play finishing centers like him are particularly context dependent, often needing to play off of strong creators to be effective – something Rutgers has sorely lacked. 

There’s a little room for hope that Cliff can show more progress playing in what should easily be the best offensive context of his career at Alabama this season, but for the most part we already know what he is – and there’s nothing wrong with that. The offensive limitations put a cap on the ceiling of what type of NBA prospect he can be, but he’s such a good defensive anchor that the bar he has to reach on the other end is pretty low. With just a little bit of improvement to his skillset you can see the pathway to him being a useful NBA backup center, making Cliff Omoruyi someone worth monitoring as a prospect this season. 

Tyler Wilson – KJ Lewis, Arizona

KJ Lewis is a slashing guard built for playoff basketball. In an NBA that seems to grow taller and shoot better with every summer, the words “slashing guard” and “playoff basketball” don’t feel like they belong in the same sentence. Slashing guard? You couldn’t find a wing who can shoot? Range, in both wingspan and scoring threat, has become the conventional draft ethos of the modern day. With that said, might I interest you in a Strong Safety instead?

The sell with KJ begins at his defensive impact. He is listed at 6’4 210 and plays like a moving fire hydrant. There is a Naismithian quality to his game that is undeniable, an intersection of strength and agility that resembles an NFL defensive back more than a two guard. He is able to stand up forwards in the post while smothering smaller guards on the perimeter. The ability to remain strong while sliding around the court is a skill in itself. His feel as a help defender and comfortability in switches was great. Outside of occasional bouts with over-physicality, it was hard to come away with anything substantively negative to say on the defensive side of the ball. KJ was an incredibly effective defensive player as a freshman, in a high major conference, at 19 years old.

In recent years, the going has gotten tough in the National Basketball Association for defense-first guards. The threshold of NBA quality offense has grown so incredibly high that it has become nearly impossible to survive if you are not a credible threat to score the basketball. Lewis’ freshman year usage rate of 16.4 is incredibly low for a potential NBA prospect, particularly a guard. The fact he was a relative non-threat from beyond the arc (34% on 3.4 attempts per 100) does not help matters. The path towards NBA minutes as a low usage non-shooting shooting guard is incredibly thin.

While Lewis did not threaten defenses as a shooter last year at Arizona, there is genuine reason for optimism. He shot 79% from the line in college and despite uninspiring numbers around the rim and in the midrange, his tape going back to Duncanville and the 3SSB circuit shows real touch around the rim with flashes of a functional jumper off the dribble. Shot development is an imperfect and unpredictable science, but the foundation is there for steady growth over time.

As a slasher, Lewis’ athleticism shines yet again with the ability to blow by defenders, take bumps and finish through contact. With an unrefined handle, he was best attacking in a straight line or out of an advantage as a freshman, but his coordination and athleticism allow for a long developmental runway as a creator. KJ was a wrecking ball downhill in high school, and on an Arizona roster that lost nearly all of their starters (sans the immortal Caleb Love) there should be more room for him to explore the studio space as a driver. 

What makes KJ Lewis such an intriguing prospect is his combination of athleticism and feel. That, my friends, buried at the very end of my monologue, is the key to Lewis’ pitch as a prospect. He anticipates actions on defense, acts with decisiveness, takes care of the ball, and reads the floor well as a passer, all while being the best athlete on the court. He is versatile not only in his physical capabilities, but his ability to make quick decisions while playing a physically versatile role. As a freshman, we saw that manifest primarily on the defensive end of the floor, but it is exactly what makes the gamble on his offensive upside so appealing. 

Ahmed Jama – Nique Clifford, Colorado State

Despite a late cycle surge onto draft boards this past cycle, 6’6 Colorado State wing Nique Clifford surprised many by returning to school for his 5th and final season of college basketball. Riding the wave of an impressive tournament showing, Clifford was given as good a chance as any veteran college player to work his way into serious draft consideration in a draft class mired in uncertainty. In an attempt to reverse engineer Clifford’s decision to return in lieu of remaining in the draft, I referenced Barttorvik.com to find statistical comparisons to Clifford’s previous season. In Bart Torvik’s 17 season database, Clifford is one of three players to fulfill the statistical query of Defensive Rebounding% ≥ 20; Assist/Turnover Ratio ≥ 1.5; Block % ≥ 2; Steal % ≥ 2; 3PA/100 Possessions ≥ 5; Dunks made ≥ 20. The other two players being TCU’s (now Oklahoma City Thunder) Kenrich Williams and former New Mexico State Aggie Johnny McCants. Unsurprisingly all three players performed nebulous roles, as undersized bigs. The statistical company Clifford keeps is pertinent to his decision to return, because in my opinion, Clifford and his camp recognized unorthodoxy, in NBA decision maker’s eyes, is synonymous with risk. Whether or not this calculation was correct, returning to college has positioned Clifford as one of the best prospects in the country this season. 

Clifford’s unique brand of production is, in my opinion, a byproduct of his high school career, where he played as an undersized big. Despite Clifford measuring at only an 8’6 standing reach at the NBA Combine, the same as 2024 draft entrees Stephon Castle and AJ Johnson, Clifford ranked 45th in the country in defensive rebounding rate. This relentlessness on the glass was made possible by Clifford’s dynamic leaping ability, and more specifically his minimal load time on jumps. Clifford’s exceptional leaping ability, paired with his timing crashing the glass, allows him to contribute as a rebounder in a way virtually no other players his size are. While Clifford’s offensive rebounding rate of 4.5% is comparatively underwhelming, I believe this is a byproduct of Colorado State’s emphasis on limiting opponent transition opportunities at the cost of offensive rebounds. While they ranked 120th in defensive rebounding rate in the country, Colorado State was 302nd in offensive rebounding rate. Clifford’s internal clock as a rebounder manifests as a defender as well, where he’s able to fill a variety of roles, from hounding smaller players at the point-of-attack, chasing shooters off off-ball screens, and making long rotations as a backline defender and providing supplementary rim protection. 

As much confidence as Clifford’s unique basketball background and athletic traits give me, ultimately for a player his size to succeed in the NBA his shot will need to develop into a reliable skill. Clifford logged a pedestrian (relative to his position) 6 3PA/100 possessions this past season. However, his underlying shooting numbers provide reason for optimism. On 82 catch-and-shoot 3 attempts Clifford shot 41.5%, and his solid 38% on pull-up two’s only further substantiates Clifford’s potential as a reliable floor-spacer. Additionally, Colorado State’s playstyle elucidates Clifford’s underwhelming 3-point volume. As effective as Colorado State’s offense was with its given talent (61st in the country in adjusted offensive efficiency, per Bart torvik), its identity was almost entirely defined by motion heavy Princeton concepts, and this scheme in my opinion came at the cost of spot-up 3 attempts. Playing in almost exclusively 5-out alignments, a vacated paint enabled CSU to finish as perhaps the best cutting team in the country (95th percentile in cutting volume and 99th percentile in cutting efficiency per Synergy). Comparatively Colorado State finished in the 69th percentile in catch-and-shoot frequency. What makes Princeton offenses so reliable is how their concepts allow teams to generate efficient offense often in lieu of traditional ‘advantage creator’, however this emphasis on movement and a ‘creation by committee’ approach can come at the cost of clean catch-and-shoot attempts. And when Clifford’s role specifically is taken into consideration, he often is CSU’s most consistent line-breaking threat as a cutter and ballhandler. 

All in all, Clifford’s previous production, when contextualized with his basketball past and current college role, paint the picture of a player capable of rapidly calibrating his game to fit an NBA role. With Colorado State graduating their top scorer and highest usage player from this past season, Isaiah Stevens, Nique Clifford is poised to cement himself as a need-to-know prospect in the 2025 draft class. 

Stewart Zahn – Grant Nelson, Alabama

Arriving in Alabama via transfer last season, Grant Nelson carried a fair amount of hype with him from NDSU, where he was not only highly productive but also showcased alluring skill and athleticism. With a talented cast of teammates in Tuscaloosa, Nelson took on an entirely different role with the Tide, a role that only further highlighted his versatility. 

No longer a Bison and one of the immediate primary offensive options, Nelson adapted very well to a more supplementary role with Alabama (to be fair, a very well-spaced context). The profile of Nelson’s individual scoring opportunities drastically changed, with his post-up and isolation frequencies slashed (21.1% of opportunities to 5.3%, and 15.6% to almost nothing – 2.2% respectively). To his credit, Grant took it in stride and committed to his role, shifting his focus onto the more off-ball aspects of his position, such as spot-ups, screening/rolling, cuts and transition. In a fast-paced environment like Alabama, Nelson nearly doubled his transition frequency, and Coach Nate Oats even allowed him to run some PnR’s and DHO’s throughout the season. The ball-handling and passing both seem to clear his positional thresholds. Playing large amounts of minutes at center, while not his traditional position, Nelson displayed great technique as a roller. His rolls were fluid, his slips were quick and timely, and his PnP game was a crucial element to Alabama’s patented play-style and spacing. All of this is to say that Nelson’s game appears to have great malleability to provide whatever a team may need from their forward. 

Nelson’s efficiency in most play-types is quite good, with one exception: the 3-point shot. Even as a career 75% free throw shooter (81% last season) with a decent stroke, Nelson has yet to solidify himself as threatening perimeter shooter. Capable, with just enough volume to be respected, Nelson still has plenty of work to do to iron out his shot and turn it into a real weapon. Attacking closeouts is definitely in his wheelhouse as a ball-handler, and a proficient or even average shot from the outside would really open up the court to his driving ability. He even dabbled in some pull-up shooting out of PnR’s, and while the results weren’t great, he would make the correct read to shoot it, and that was encouraging to see.

Defensively, Nelson again was playing out of position for much of the year. It was necessary for Alabama to have their most potent offensive lineup, and Grant held his own on the other end. Undersized as an NBA center (and not what he will be asked to do at the next level), Nelson did exhibit pretty good understanding of positioning himself in relation to the roller. When covering PnP’s, Nelson’s mobility allowed him to get out to the perimeter for worthwhile contests. As the primary rim protector a lot of the time, the awareness, anticipation and reactivity Nelson demonstrated was pretty compelling, and he would use his length and timing to finish the job with a block. That should translate well to his more suitable position as a forward and thus a weakside rim protector, potentially contributing with some additional opposition at the rim. Also a serviceable perimeter defender for his position, Nelson checks a lot of boxes defensively. On top of all that, Grant was hard-nosed as a rebounder all year, and he earned himself Coach Oat’s Hard-Hat award ten times, tied for the most on the team. 

While his stats reflect a quieter year than at NDSU, Nelson proved himself a multi-faceted player at Alabama, with room to improve particularly as a shooter, which would have an amplified effect on the rest of his game. He will be striving to validate last season, and he will have the chance to encompass and maybe even shed the “underrated”  tag throughout the Draft cycle.

Avinash Chauhan – Motiejus Krivas, Arizona

Motiejus Krivas is a big dude with some serious skill. It doesn’t take much imagination to picture him dominating college basketball in the near future.

Let’s start with the bad: Krivas could very well be at the horrific intersection of non-shooting poor finisher and limited defensive upside. He shot a middling 58% at the rim last year, and more worryingly, lineups with Krivas at the 5 consistently scored worse at the rim than with the starter, Oumar Ballo. Arizona shot 4% worse at the rim with Krivas on the floor, and of Arizona’s 5 most common lineups, the two with Krivas fared by far the worst at the rim. Part of this swing is that he was backing up a pretty monstrous rim finisher in Ballo, but it’s pretty inexcusable that Arizona shot just 54% at the rim with Krivas on the floor. He may also appear to be low feel, averaging a whopping 6.1 fouls per 40 with a measly 4% assist rate, he took zero threes on the season, and perhaps worst of all, he garnered just a 3.4% block rate in 20 conference games. If you’re a non-spacer who does not contribute to positive rim scoring, you foul incessantly, and you’re unable to effectively pass or shoot OR protect the rim, what exactly are you doing on the floor?

But while we have 439 minutes of Krivas’s NCAA sample, we also have a 637 minute sample at FIBA U19/U18 Euros/U20 Euros, and 1000 minutes playing for Lithuania’s Zalgiris. Krivas wasn’t terrible in NCAA by any stretch, with a respectable 3.4 BPM in 36 games and an overall 4.5 lineup net rating across all competition. But Krivas was genuinely ridiculous in a number of important international events, and it would be foolish to throw away all the data we have for a low minutes NCAA single season sample.

Let’s talk about the shooting. It sounds pretty insane to say this about a guy who attempted ZERO threes in the NCAA season, but Krivas seems like a decent bet to get some threes up this year. First off, Krivas actually has a decent track record of 3P shooting volume in the past: he’s averaging about 1 3PA/40 across 28 FIBA games, and he put up 61 threes across his final two seasons in Lithuania. Now for the fun stuff: Krivas is a ridiculously good free throw shooter with notable volume (especially considering he is a FT drawing machine). He shot 73% FT in his final season in Lithuania (139/191), 70% at FIBA (78/112), and he’s coming off a 78% FT season at Arizona (49/63). What’s more impressive is that Krivas has progressively become a bit of a touch god around the rim, with a strong diet of runners and hooks sprinkled throughout heavy post up usage. Across his FIBA U20 tourney this summer + Arizona, a whopping 17% of his total shots have come on hooks, making them on a staggering 58% (18/31). Bart has him at 13/29 on long 2s at Arizona.

To reiterate, we’re talking about a 7’2 mf who was putting up 3s in Europe as a teenager, is pushing the high 70s FT on extremely great volume, and has the proclivity to take and make hooks at a high rate. And he’s still technically a teenager. Again, it’s never a great idea to bet on a guy who literally took no 3s in an NCAA season. But shooting dev seems uniquely feasible for this particular case.

Personally, I don’t care too much if he shoots or not, since he’s also an absolutely insane rebounder. Krivas is coming off a 14.7% OREB/22.8% DREB season in NCAA: there have been only 9 drafted players since 2008 to match those numbers across their career. It gets crazier: Krivas averages the most rebounds per 40 in the TWENTY EIGHT YEAR HISTORY of the U18 Euros (10+ mpg). His 21.8 rebounds per 40 is well ahead of 2nd place Enes Freedom (20.2), with Usman Garuba (18.6) and Marc Gasol (17.7) not too far behind. Again, pretty much every good Euro prospect has played in the U18 Euros, including so many notable bigs since 1996. It is an absolutely huge deal that he is the most productive rebounder on a minute basis in the entirety of available data for this tournament. 

He has similarly crushed the U20 Euros and Lithuania Pro League: he put up an unreal 19% OREB and 28% DREB across 48 games of LKL+NKL. He isn’t a Zach Edey/DeJuan Blair level rebounding prospect given the lower comp level, but Krivas really isn’t THAT far off. Throw on his massive 7’5 wingspan, and Krivas is pretty easily the best rebounding prospect in the class if he declares, and should be one of the best rebounders in the league from day 1.

Rebounding is often a measure of physicality, but in Krivas’ case, I think it’s a unique look at his unreal anticipation and impressive feel for the game. Again, his 4.2% assist/1.4% steal/6.1 FC may seem horrifying, but make no mistake: Krivas has a legitimately great feel for the game. This is a guy who has shown a history of racking up steals at a pretty great rate for his size: across ~ 100 Lithuanian league games, he was above 2% steal. He averaged ~ 1.5 steals/40 across all FIBA tourneys. Much of this is just being at the right place at the time: he’s able to anticipate reads through gaps and use his length to make easy pickoffs. But he’s also a legit great passer. He can make pretty solid reads out of the post, though he can be overambitious and thereby turnover prone (>17% TO in 100 NKL/LKL games).

But his passing feel is especially demonstrated through his FIBA numbers. Despite a middling 0.7 A:TO in FIBA and 4% assist rate in NCAA, Krivas has put up 12.5% assist, 20.4% assist, and 14.2% assist in his last 3 FIBA stretches. And before you question the value of FIBA Euros in ascertaining playmaking upside, consider an all time passing development case in Domantas Sabonis, who was a complete non passer in all NCAA and European pro league games but had a 7 game stretch where he was a productive primary initiator for Lithuania’s FIBA U18 team. With a consistent steal and assist track record, coupled with his sheer size and length, Krivas has a pretty cool combination of tools and feel that could lead to seemingly unexpected offensive development.

The list of strengths is getting a bit ridiculous. This is a dude who can rebound at an Edey-lite level, potentially shoot, generate steals and assists, and has one of the strongest FIBA production profiles ever. After all, he was 35 PER at U18 Euros, 35 PER at U20 Euros (led tourney), and 37.6 PER at U20 Euros (led tourney). 

It’s probably important to reiterate that Mr. Krivas is a 7’2 individual with a giant 7’5 WS. I once wrote about the history of underclassmen who measured at the NBA combine with a WS over 7’4 WS. It is an insane list with an insane hit rate. Oh, and he might sound like an uber slow Euro big with painful verticality and terrible lateral movement. Well the verticality is probably true, but Krivas legitimately moves very well. In fact, he measured at 3.55 s for the sprint and 11.88 for the agility drill, which was significantly better than his peer Aday Mara (4.04 and 12.81, respectively) and somewhat comparable to Pacome Dadiet (3.47 and 12.29) and Salaun (3.63 and 11.84). This is obviously a tongue in cheek comparison, since Dadiet and Salaun are definitely faster and prolly just didn’t know how to game the system effectively (hence their massive leaps at the combine), but their relative closeness to Krivas still underscores how well he can move. With his incredible wingspan, solid movement for size, and strong feel (adept steal and pass generator), Krivas theoretically shouldn’t be much of a defensive liability. In fact, most of his positive net rating was via defense: Arizona’s defense was 6.4 points better/100 possessions with Krivas on the court, and 7.7 p/100 against t100 comp. Much of this was through his rebounding goodness: opposing teams rebounded 3.3% worse and shot 3% worse at the rim with Krivas on the court. 

Herein lies the issue: Krivas had an undeniably positive effect on defense this past year, but most of that came from mitigating second chance points and less from actually blocking shots. Despite his 7’5 WS, he measured with a paltry 22 inch standing vert that would be amongst the lowest in the NBA. He clocked a pedestrian 12.9% HC dunk rate, and had just a 4% block rate this year. He’s definitely a physical player capable of backing down guys in the post en route to a heavy postup diet, and he’s put up ~ 50 FTr in nearly every context; but the lack of verticality is somewhat of a stifler. I think it’s fair to project a bit of improvement: he was hovering above 6% block in Lithuania, and he’s averaged a whopping 4 blocks per 40 (~10% block) across 14 FIBA games in the last two years. I am well aware that the NCAA and NBA are far different than FIBA tourneys (where bigs are much more prone to dominate given the differential rules) and Lithuania (LKL and NKL have “grown men” but its a pretty weak league generally). It’s not a 1:1 comparison, but is it not fair to project some improvements for one of the most productive youth FIBA careers we’ve ever seen?

Not every latent strength has to actualize for Krivas to return legit NBA value. European bigs tend to be a bit of a mystery box, even when we have significant track records for them in various youth simulacrums. The common thread does seem to be rebounding: from Sabonis, Mirotic, and Gasol to Freedom, Zubac, and Vucevic, there are tons of elite rebounding/productive Euro centers that found a role (because of their feel, productivity, and outlier rebounding). We know Krivas is productive, we know he’s going to bring immediate offensive and defensive value with his rebounding, and we know that he has exceptional length, agility, and feel for position. But what’s stopping him from reaching the path of these European contemporaries?  Is path to being a quasi-Vucevic possible for Krivas, especially since Vuc has a similar WS? Can he be a Nikola Mirotic type? If he stays in school a year or two more, can he emerge as a virtuoso passer on par with Sabonis and Gasol? Or will he never really put it together and have a Garuba type career? 

I think there’s some very conceivable flaws with Krivas, some that he may never be able to overcome. But I think we’re also completely undermining a sneaky upside tail, one that may be particularly manifestable given the departure of starter Oumar Ballo. 7’5 wingspans do not grow on trees, nor do prospects with long ass wingspans have the feel or outlier rebounding or historic production profile of Krivas. One of the greatest producers in FIBA youth history is potentially eligible for the draft, and it’s about time he’s given his due credit.

The post Roundtable: Underrated Returners appeared first on Swish Theory.

Keyonte George ended his high school career as a consensus five-star recruit and Top 10 prospect. He started this scouting cycle off with a bang during an electric run of performances playing with Baylor at GLOBL JAM over the summer. Keyonte is one of the premier guard scorers of this draft class and his entire bag was on display with crafty finishes, handle fluidity, off ball movement and pull-up shot creation beyond the arc. Paired with a defensive intensity rarely seen in star guard scorers, George has all the makings of a lottery pick entering his freshman year.

Offense

Keyonte is a shooter, first and foremost. His form is clean and compact both off the catch and off the bounce. Extending out to the college and NBA three point line should not be an issue, he has confidence pulling up from well beyond the arc without needing to drastically change his form. With his quick release and elevated set point George should be a formidable shooter even with a strong contest. Shooting is George’s signature skill and he has real star upside if he can continue to add to his repertoire.

While Keyonte has thrived as a shot maker, most of his looks come off the catch or out of the pick and roll, where he can step into his jumper. He has flashes of creativity handling the ball and getting downhill but does not yet possess the bevy of step-backs and space creation tricks you see in star shot creators. The mechanics of his jumper off the bounce are promising and should pay dividends as he grows more confident and creative getting to his spots. 

George is strong with solid short-area quickness but is not an incredibly explosive vertical athlete. He is able to get into the paint with his nimble handle and well timed cuts but struggles to finish through size and length at the rim. He does a good job absorbing contact both on the drive and in the air but could stand to be a little more creative as a finisher. He wasn’t asked to create much for others in high school but he showed flashes of vision and accuracy. Reading the defense and finding open teammates more consistently would help to counteract some of his difficulties finishing in traffic.

Defense

Defensively Keyonte is a fiery competitor. He has a strong build and thrives guarding in isolation, walling of ball handlers and playing with his chest. There are few guards in this class with George’s combination of tenacity and strength as a defender. He uses his power and quickness well fighting through screens and should be a formidable option at the point of attack. There are occasional lapses in technique and awareness, but those are things that should clean up with time. George has the tools and aptitude to be an impact defender moving forward. 

As an off-ball defender Keyonte has moments of brilliance rotating from the wing to pick off passes but has recurring moments of disengagement. He does a good job fighting through screens off-ball but often reacts late, left chasing his man well behind the play despite his efficient screen navigation. Remaining engaged both in help and tracking his man off-ball would go a long way towards shoring up his defensive output.

There may not be a better college situation for George to clean up around the edges of his defensive game. With the help-heavy scheme Baylor deploys under the defensive minded Scott Drew, Keyonte should have plenty of opportunity for growth. Scott Drew and his staff at Baylor have done an excellent job developing two-way guards in recent history and Keyonte should fit like a glove.

Overview

Keyonte George kicked off draft season before most of his counterparts and did so in spectacular fashion at GLOBL JAM. Entering the year he feels like a safe bet to go in the lottery, fueled by flashes of brilliant shot-making and voracious defense. If he can remain engaged defensively and improve his rim pressure, the sky is the limit. Every year of development is of the utmost importance for teenage prospects and Keyonte could not have chosen a better fit for this upcoming season. If the summer was any indication of what’s to come, George may find his way into the top five.

The post Keyonte George appeared first on Swish Theory.