Were there concerns about Ace Bailey`s on-court game at the next level? How will Tre Johnson and Jeremiah Fears translate to the NBA? Did Egor Demin and Cedric Coward warrant lottery picks?
To address some of the key questions following the 2025 NBA draft, ESPN gathered perspectives from nearly a dozen college basketball coaches. These coaches have spent the past few years watching and game-planning against these very players, offering unique insights into the biggest storylines and top prospects.
- Cooper Flagg and Dylan Harper Stand Apart
- THE NEXT TIER
- No. 3: VJ Edgecombe, 76ers
- No. 4: Kon Knueppel, Hornets
- No. 5: Ace Bailey, Jazz
- No. 6: Tre Johnson, Wizards
- No. 7: Jeremiah Fears, Pelicans
- MORE FIRST-ROUND STORYLINES
- Egor Demin: Lottery`s Biggest Riser
- Khaman Maluach: Duke`s Third Top-10 Pick
- Cedric Coward: From D3 to Lottery
- Carter Bryant: Most Unproven Lottery Pick
- Veterans Become Higher First-Round Priority
- OTHER NOTABLE FIRST-ROUNDERS
- No. 9: Collin Murray-Boyles, Raptors
- No. 13: Derik Queen, Pelicans
- No. 25: Jase Richardson, Magic
- No. 27: Danny Wolf, Nets
- No. 18: Walter Clayton Jr., Jazz
- No. 20: Kasparas Jakucionis, Heat
- No. 29: Liam McNeeley, Hornets
- No. 22: Drake Powell, Nets
- No. 30: Yanic Konan Niederhauser, Clippers
- SECOND-ROUND NOTES
- No. 35: Johni Broome, 76ers
- No. 42: Maxime Raynaud, Kings
- No. 48: Javon Small, Grizzlies
- No. 53: John Tonje, Jazz
Cooper Flagg and Dylan Harper Stand Apart
Ever since Flagg decided to reclassify in August 2023, his position at the top of the class has been undisputed. Widely regarded as one of the most exceptional high school prospects in recent memory, Flagg was projected as the No. 1 pick for two years, a prediction the Dallas Mavericks confirmed on Wednesday. He was the dominant force in college basketball last season, earning the Wooden Award and guiding Duke to the Final Four. His statistics included 19.2 points, 7.5 rebounds, and 4.2 assists, while he silenced doubts about his shooting by hitting 38.5% from the perimeter.
College coaches opposing him expressed absolute confidence in his readiness for the NBA level.
One coach commented, “He possesses a confidence, toughness, and is physically prepared to make an immediate impact. It`s tough for a young player entering the NBA if they haven`t been the primary option before, but he`s experienced all those scenarios. Playing off screens, using pindowns, rebounding and pushing in transition – he demonstrated his versatility throughout the year, performing at the highest college level.”
Coming out of high school, Flagg`s shooting was questioned, but the Maine native significantly improved during his freshman year at Durham. He shot 44% from deep in ACC play, hitting multiple three-pointers in nine games.
Another coach observed, “Early in the year, you could go under screens against him. By the end of the season, you couldn`t. The NBA is very isolation-heavy. So, he`ll need to develop his individual moves and ability to beat defenders off the dribble.”
Coaches also felt Flagg`s placement was ideal for his growth, particularly playing alongside veterans like Kyrie Irving.
“I believe he`s a great fit,” one coach stated. “He won`t be the constant focal point every night, which can sometimes shake a young player`s confidence. With him, I don`t have that concern.”
Even without being the Mavericks` primary scoring threat, Flagg is considered the strong favorite for Rookie of the Year.
An ACC coach predicted, “[If he can] simply be a well-rounded contributor with 15 points, 8 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 steals, and a block… he`ll win Rookie of the Year, assuming Dallas stays healthy and is good.”
Virtually every college coach surveyed agreed that there was a significant gap after Flagg at No. 1 and Harper at No. 2, placing them in a tier of their own.
Regarding the new San Antonio Spurs guard, one opposing coach remarked, “He`s as talented a player as we`ve faced in the last decade, whether you recall Markelle Fultz or Paolo Banchero. He`s superior to Jabari Smith. I rate him extremely highly. I think he`s closer to Flagg than the player at No. 3 is to him. He`s a pick-and-roll expert. It doesn`t matter what defensive scheme you use; it might take a possession or two, but he`ll figure out how to beat it.”
Another coach added, “To me, only Flagg and Harper have All-NBA potential. The drop-off is so steep – the next group isn`t Tier 3, it`s Tier 4. That`s how significant I believe the difference is between Dylan and everyone else.”
THE NEXT TIER
No. 3: VJ Edgecombe, 76ers
Edgecombe was a major beneficiary of Ace Bailey`s draft slide. The native of the Bahamas displayed remarkable athleticism throughout his single season at Baylor, enhancing his offensive consistency and playmaking skills as the year progressed. He now joins a promising backcourt alongside Tyrese Maxey and Jared McCain.
One coach admitted, “Until I watched him live, I was skeptical. `He`s a guaranteed top-five pick?` And then we competed against him, and he was simply relentless. His athleticism and his shot improved significantly as the season wore on, becoming more reliable from long range.”
Another added, “He has to be the most athletic player or prospect in this draft. He`s a high-flyer and plays bigger than his size suggests. He could guard positions 1 through 5 in college and likely can in the NBA as centers are more mobile now. His versatility, athleticism, and defensive effort are standout.”
His fit alongside Maxey and McCain could be a point of concern, though several coaches noted that questions about his offensive role would exist regardless of his landing spot.
A Big 12 coach questioned, “Can he be a primary scorer? He`s not someone you can give the ball to and say `go get us a basket.` He`s just not that player. He`s effective as a slasher, in pick-and-roll, great in transition, strong on offensive rebounds, and handles all the crucial little things. But if there`s a weakness, it`s how he`ll generate points in the NBA.”
No. 4: Kon Knueppel, Hornets
The second of three Duke players selected in the top 10, Knueppel saw his draft stock soar last fall and maintained that position throughout the Blue Devils` successful season. Playing a supporting role to Flagg, Knueppel averaged 14.4 points while shooting over 40% from beyond the arc, showcasing his shot-making ability late in the season and during the NCAA tournament. He was widely considered the best catch-and-shoot perimeter threat in the draft. His comfort with not being the primary offensive option could appeal to Charlotte, where he`ll play alongside LaMelo Ball and Brandon Miller.
One coach remarked, “He was a critical player for Duke last season, serving as the Robin to Cooper Flagg`s Batman. Having a player capable of scoring 30 points in a game but not being the main focus on scouting reports is dangerous. The NBA values players who can make shots, and if you possess that skill, you`ll have a long career.”
While Knueppel appears to have a high floor, making him a reliable choice for the Hornets, opposing coaches suggested he might not possess the same ceiling as other prospects in this tier. His key area for improvement is on the defensive end.
“Players can get played off the floor [in the NBA],” one coach noted. “Can Kon defend effectively in one-on-one situations? He has the size and build, but does he have the necessary foot speed? That`s something you don`t fully evaluate against Duke because of their defensive schemes, how much help defense they provide. They restrict offensive space, so he rarely had to defend in isolation. He needs to prove he can do that.”
No. 5: Ace Bailey, Jazz
A year ago, Ace Bailey seemed poised to be in the top mix with Flagg and Harper. Bailey displayed flashes of his high-level talent during his freshman campaign at Rutgers, but persistent questions led to a slight fall in the draft. He was listed at 6-foot-10 in college but measured 6-7 1⁄2 at the combine. He was also the only U.S. prospect who didn`t visit an NBA team facility before the draft, canceling a visit with the 76ers.
From an on-court perspective, coaches understandably admired his scoring prowess.
A Big Ten coach commented, “He`s versatile, possesses size, and has skills akin to an off-guard. He`s the archetypal NBA wing. He`s a really challenging player to defend. He moves well; while not an elite athlete, he`s good. He can shoot over defenders, and his ability to make contested shots adds value.”
However, questions remain about how consistently this translates and other facets of his game.
One coach stated, “If you`re [Kevin] Durant, sure, relying on tough shots can work. But he`s 7-1. Ace isn`t going to be a corner stand-still shooter.”
Another Big Ten coach noted, “The criticism leveled against him, both in high school and at Rutgers, is his defensive disengagement. He doesn`t need to become an All-NBA defender, but he requires buy-in on the defensive end.”
No. 6: Tre Johnson, Wizards
Johnson`s offensive capabilities have kept him in the top half of the lottery discussion for much of the draft cycle. The former top-five recruit averaged 19.9 points and shot close to 40% from beyond the arc during his sole season at Texas.
While he was Texas`s primary offensive option, most opposing coaches believe his best role in the NBA, assuming he`s not immediately Washington`s main scorer, would be as a microwave scorer off the bench or a specialized catch-and-shoot option. The Wizards struggled significantly with perimeter shooting and recently traded Jordan Poole, making Johnson an easy fit.
A coach described him as, “He`s purely a scoring guard. He`s one of the premier shooters in this draft. He`ll need to learn he doesn`t need to dribble the ball eight times before shooting, but he has the potential to be a borderline All-Star due to his exceptional shooting. He can be a catch-and-shoot specialist and shoot 50%.”
The concerns regarding Johnson center on the rest of his game and whether he contributes enough in other areas to help teams win at the highest level.
Another coach added, “He`s a fantastic individual talent. But if you`re not scoring, what else are you doing to help win? Inevitably, even the world`s best players have off nights.”
No. 7: Jeremiah Fears, Pelicans
The freshman from Oklahoma was arguably the biggest riser over the past year. He wasn`t even considered for this draft class a year ago but chose to reclassify to 2024 and commit to Oklahoma. There, he emerged as one of the nation`s most dynamic guards despite not turning 18 until October.
One coach commented, “He`s naturally inclined to score. I somewhat compare him to [Nets guard] Cam Thomas. He`s a more advanced playmaker than Thomas was coming out of college. He has the ability to read defenses; you can double-team or trap a ball screen, but he`ll react perfectly, whereas other freshmen might get flustered. He`s also surprisingly athletic.”
His perimeter shooting will likely determine his ceiling. He shot 28.4% from three for the season, making only 15 total three-pointers in 18 SEC games.
An opposing coach noted, “He`s inconsistent, not a reliable shooter. He needs to build up his physique, but he`s very young, only 18. As he matures physically, he`ll be able to take greater control of the point guard position, drive into the paint, and handle physicality.”
MORE FIRST-ROUND STORYLINES
Egor Demin: Lottery`s Biggest Riser
Had the draft occurred at the start of the college basketball season, the former BYU guard being drafted at No. 8 by the Brooklyn Nets wouldn`t have been a surprise. The Russian native was ranked No. 7 in ESPN`s November mock draft after creating significant buzz upon his arrival from Real Madrid. However, an inconsistent freshman season in Provo caused his stock to fluctuate, landing him at No. 13 in ESPN`s final pre-draft mock.
On Wednesday, however, Demin made his way back into the top 10.
Opposing coaches had mixed views on his immediate NBA readiness.
A Big 12 coach said, “He`s enormous. Ball pressure affects him, he plays somewhat upright, he`s deliberate. But he can execute every read on the court… He has a slight burst because he transitions from slow to medium pace, which can throw you off. He passes over the top of guards. You might say, `Oh, that`s college,` but he`s taller than most guards in the NBA too. His passing is elite. He`s a better shooter than his percentages indicate. And I think he`ll improve with the NBA spacing.”
One coach offered a contrasting view: “I don`t think he shoots well, and I don`t think he really defends. But people are intrigued by a large guard who can pass.”
Demin was one of five first-round selections for the Nets, with three of them — Demin, Nolan Traore (No. 19), and Ben Saraf (No. 26) — having significant international experience. It was an intriguing haul, given all three were projected in the lottery back in November. One coach commented, “[The Nets are] clearly committed to their international scouting team, selecting three international players who most felt underperformed this year. There was obviously faith in who Demin was before he came [to the United States].”
Khaman Maluach: Duke`s Third Top-10 Pick
After Flagg and Knueppel, there was a longer-than-expected wait for Maluach`s name, but the Suns ultimately chose him at No. 10. He didn`t have the extensive college production of the other top-10 picks, but his 7-2 height, 9-6 standing reach, and 7-6 ¾ wingspan, combined with his defensive potential, are highly appealing to coaches.
One opposing coach noted, “You can put him on the court, and he`ll impact the game with his size and shot-blocking, his defensive and offensive rebounding. In the NBA, you need a center like that, but for young ones, it will take time. He does possess some skill; he hit a three early in the year and has the potential to step out and shoot threes.”
Another opposing coach questioned how developed his skill level truly is and whether his perceived ceiling is actually lower.
The coach said, “I see him as a lob-catching big. He`s huge, but I don`t think he`s an exceptional athlete. He`s not like Dereck Lively II, who moved differently, was a different athlete, and had more skill. Maluach isn`t as good in any of those areas. I don`t believe he has that same potential.”
Another coach added, “Ultimately, he`s still a project.”
Phoenix can afford to be patient with Maluach, having also acquired veteran center Mark Williams via trade. Being selected at No. 10 somewhat reduces the risk.
One coach commented, “He`s the kind of player type that typically rises on draft boards over time. Whether his shot is translatable remains to be seen. Mechanically, it doesn`t look poor, but he hasn`t reached a point of consistently taking or making them. However, it wouldn`t surprise me if he develops that over time.”
“I like the vertical threat he provides at the rim as a finisher. I love his shot-blocking and defensive versatility. He needs to improve his rebounding. But he`s not someone who will enter the league and coast.”
Cedric Coward: From D3 to Lottery
Coward was one of the most compelling stories leading up to the draft. He began his college career at Division III Willamette University. A year ago, he was barely on NBA draft radars, having just finished his second season at Eastern Washington in the Big Sky Conference.
Coward transferred to Washington State but played only six games before missing the rest of the season due to a shoulder injury. However, after impressing at the combine, he solidified his position as a top-20 pick and chose to stay in the draft rather than return to college at Duke, where he had committed via the transfer portal.
On Wednesday, he was selected No. 11 by the Grizzlies, who traded up for him.
A Big Sky coach recalled, “What stood out to me about him was his constant improvement each year. When he first arrived as a D-III transfer, we didn`t really know who he was. He was a skinny kid with length, still developing his offensive game. He played incredibly hard and contributed to winning. His shooting started to improve, to the point where he shot very well in the limited games last year. He kept adding to his game, becoming a bit more refined and smoother every time we played him.”
Surrounded by Ja Morant and Jaren Jackson Jr., Coward won`t be expected to carry a large offensive load early on, but opposing coaches believe he`ll easily become a high-quality role player in the NBA.
One coach said, “He possesses the ability to shoot, genuinely catch-and-shoot. He has an effective mid-range game; he dominated us in the post. He can play facing up. He`s a pretty good defender, blocking many shots. He does so much to impact winning. He doesn`t need to be the primary offensive option, and I`m not sure he ever will be.”
The main question: Was No. 11 too high for a player who started only eight career games against major conference opponents?
One coach who saw him this year stated, “He looked like an NBA player. He made a massive physical leap.” Adding that Coward`s highest potential shares traits with Kawhi Leonard. “He will help you win in some way. He can significantly impact the game, whether coming off the bench or developing into a starter. He`s someone you`d bet on.”
Carter Bryant: Most Unproven Lottery Pick
At the end of the 2024-25 college basketball season, Bryant`s draft decision seemed uncertain. He started only five games as a freshman at Arizona, scoring in double digits just a few times.
However, as the spring progressed, it became clear Bryant wouldn`t return to college. His stock steadily climbed, moving from a likely first-rounder into the top 20 and eventually to No. 14 with the Spurs.
Measuring 6-6 ½ without shoes, Bryant shot nearly 39% from three-point range in Big 12 play, hitting multiple three-pointers in nine games after the start of 2025.
A Big 12 coach commented, “He has the ideal positional size, athleticism, shooting ability, defensive versatility, and potential for growth. In limited minutes, he showed glimpses offensively, indicating he might have some playmaking ability and can make passes. It wasn`t extensively showcased, but he did it enough. Whether contested or open, he can get his shot off. He has room to improve in that area, needing to quicken his shot, but the NBA highly values big wings who can shoot.”
The Spurs will need patience, as he`s only shown these abilities in flashes.
Veterans Become Higher First-Round Priority
While the top half of the first round was predictably dominated by freshmen — the first eight picks were all first-year college players, and 18 freshmen were selected in the first round — the trend of older players being drafted earlier continued this year.
Coward, Walter Clayton Jr., Nique Clifford, Danny Wolf, and Yanic Konan Niederhauser all transferred at least once and played at least three years in college. Clifford, Clayton, and Niederhauser are all at least 22 years old. Older college players like Ryan Kalkbrenner (No. 34), Johni Broome (No. 35), and Chaz Lanier (No. 37) were picked relatively early in the second round.
This trend significantly emerged last year, when Zach Edey, Devin Carter, Dalton Knecht, Dillon Jones, Baylor Scheierman, and Terrence Shannon Jr., all older players, were first-round picks.
Why is this happening? Primarily, it`s linked to the increased financial opportunities available to student-athletes through NIL, allowing more players to remain in college. Additionally, the rise of the transfer portal enables standout players from smaller conferences to shine at higher levels and boost their draft stock.
One coach explained, “Financially, they are rewarded for staying. It makes them a bit more prepared and polished for the next level. For high-end, lottery guys, you`re drafting for potential. But if I`m a playoff or play-in team still developing, getting an older, experienced player who you know can contribute in a specific role is a smart investment. You`re acquiring a player in the prime of their career. You get more immediate value in Year 1 or 2, perhaps less in Year 6 or 7.”
However, this trend might be short-lived. Many players projected borderline first-round picks opted to withdraw from the draft and return to college this spring, including Yaxel Lendeborg (Michigan), Alex Condon (Florida), Tahaad Pettiford (Auburn), Labaron Philon (Alabama), and Darrion Williams (NC State). Some, like Isaiah Evans (Duke), JT Toppin (Texas Tech), and Alex Karaban (UConn), didn`t even enter the draft process.
All these players, among many others, were well-compensated for their decision to stay in school. But with the House vs. NCAA settlement and potential salary caps impacting player earnings potential in the new revenue-sharing era, will the financial incentive to return to college be sufficient to keep players out of the draft in the future?
A high-major coach predicted, “I believe it will reverse course with revenue sharing. Looking at revenue sharing figures, many SEC schools are directing most funds towards football. Their revenue share numbers are around $2 to $3 million. This year, with collectives, some teams had $10 to $12 million. We had a couple of players on our team return because they`ll earn more here than if they went in the second round. But as those numbers decrease, I anticipate more potential first-round or high-second round players entering the league instead.”
Another coach added, “I think this will be one of the last years of this trend. Many genuinely good players are staying in college because of NIL. Once revenue sharing takes effect and the NIL market stabilizes, you`ll see more of these fringe first-rounders stay in the draft. Previously, if you were a top 40 prospect, 90% would stay in the draft. Now, that has shifted, requiring you to be a top 20 player to feel secure staying in.”
A consequence of these players remaining in college rather than entering the draft was the perceived lack of guaranteed hits in the second round. A coach pointed out that 14 second-round picks last year received guaranteed deals, while only two of the first 47 picks received two-way contracts.
That scenario might not repeat this year.
The coach stated, “It`s one of the weakest second rounds ever. A significant reason is NIL. Consider all the players who would have been late first or early second-rounders; it would have completely changed things. It wasn`t a strong draft class to begin with, but with all those guys returning, after pick 35 or so, I`m unsure I`d offer guaranteed deals to many of these players.”
OTHER NOTABLE FIRST-ROUNDERS
No. 9: Collin Murray-Boyles, Raptors
First Non-Freshman Pick: Murray-Boyles possesses a truly unique profile. He measured just 6-6 ½ without shoes but did almost all his offensive work near the basket. He attempted only 39 three-pointers in his 60 games with South Carolina but was dominant in the paint.
Murray-Boyles overcame his size disadvantage in college, making an impact defensively and with his passing. However, he will need to expand his skill set at the next level.
One coach observed, “He has a somewhat unique game, and the NBA is drawn to players who can do a little bit of everything. He has the potential to be a very good defender. He lacks great height but has good size in terms of measurements and strength. He can do a little bit of everything – he can pass, he can rebound; he`s not a very good shooter currently. I think he`s a solid player, but he`s more of a complementary piece. I don`t think he individually possesses outstanding talent that will impact immediately. If he`s on a good team, he can help it function. But I`m not sure Toronto is that team.”
No. 13: Derik Queen, Pelicans
Mixed reviews: Maryland`s Queen established himself as one of the most skilled big men in college basketball last season, highlighted by his buzzer-beater against Colorado State in the NCAA tournament. However, concerns about his maturity and limited athleticism could cap his perceived potential.
A Big Ten coach said, “He`s incredibly skilled. I admire his passing ability. Watching film, you might think he`s not athletic. But in person, it`s irrelevant. If he can develop consistent effort, I genuinely believe he has the chance to be a fantastic NBA player.”
No. 25: Jase Richardson, Magic
Mixed reviews: Michigan State`s Richardson saw his stock fluctuate over the past few months, rising into the first round and even the lottery after Tom Izzo moved him into the starting lineup in February. But after measuring just over 6 feet without shoes at the combine, Richardson`s projection dropped into the 20s, and he ultimately didn`t receive a green room invitation.
Orlando saw value and selected him at No. 25.
A Big Ten coach commented, “I like Jase Richardson. He would have been a nightmare to coach against in college next year, but I don`t envision it [in the NBA]. He`s a 6-foot guard whose main skill is scoring – not necessarily shooting, but scoring. He`s not a great defender or a particularly dynamic playmaker for teammates. He has below-average size. So, is he a Trae Young? A T.J. McConnell? A Davion Mitchell?”
No. 27: Danny Wolf, Nets
Mixed reviews: Michigan`s Wolf had one of the more intriguing roles in the Big Ten last season. Coach Dusty May utilized the 6-11 Yale transfer as a playmaker with the ball in his hands due to his decision-making out of ball screens and passing ability. However, questions exist about how this will translate to the next level.
One coach stated, “He can operate in pick-and-roll situations; as a big man, he can make incredible passes. But he`s prone to turnovers. In his NBA role, he won`t be able to follow one incredible pass with two poor ones. An NBA team won`t simply tolerate his turnovers.”
Another added, “Part of his appeal is his ability to do many things, but none of them exceptionally well. Will a team try to help him excel at one specific thing, or will they be content with his diverse skill set?”
No. 18: Walter Clayton Jr., Jazz
NCAA Tournament Impact: Clayton`s ascent to No. 18, following an exceptional NCAA tournament performance, was highlighted by one coach. Clayton was outstanding during Florida`s championship run, averaging 24.6 points in the first five tournament games, including 34 points against Auburn in the Final Four and 30 against Texas Tech.
The coach remarked, “He`s a prime example of how winning impacts a player`s draft stock. He went from a mid-to-late second-round projection to a late first-round pick. Florida`s run, and his ability to showcase his talents on that stage, literally made the kid millions and millions of dollars.”
No. 20: Kasparas Jakucionis, Heat
Biggest Slides: Illinois` Jakucionis was ranked No. 10 on Jonathan Givony`s Big Board and projected at No. 11 in ESPN`s final pre-draft mock. He fell significantly below these expectations. Multiple coaches believed he could be excellent value for the teams that drafted them.
Jakucionis appeared like a legitimate All-American during nonconference play, averaging 16.4 points, 5.6 rebounds, and 5.4 assists over 14 games, including a stretch of 20-point games against top opponents.
While one Big Ten coach agreed this landing spot was good value for the Heat and potentially a good fit alongside Tyler Herro, he also understood the reason for the slide.
The coach said, “He`s a scorer at all three levels. He played with excellent pace changes. As the season went on and teams scouted him, he came back down to earth a bit. But he plays with toughness. He`s not an elite athlete. His stats declined in the second half of Big Ten play, and he`s someone teams could target and isolate defensively.”
No. 29: Liam McNeeley, Hornets
Biggest Slides: UConn`s McNeeley was No. 17 on Givony`s board and mocked at No. 20, also falling notably below his evaluations. Multiple coaches believed he could be excellent value for the teams that drafted them.
McNeeley was a five-star recruit from high school but was hampered by an injury during the middle of his freshman season at Storrs. He`s a shot-maker with size and had some of the best individual performances by a freshman last season: 26 points and eight rebounds against Gonzaga, plus 38 points and 10 rebounds against Creighton.
One Big East coach thought McNeeley`s ankle injury, which caused him to miss eight conference games, impacted his efficiency and effectiveness on both ends, likely contributing to his draft slide.
He stated, “I don`t believe he`s the 29th-best player in this draft. He`s 6-8 and a much better shooter than his percentages reflect. He`s very competitive. I think he`s a slightly more well-rounded basketball player than he gets credit for, regarding his ability to drive and pass.”
No. 22: Drake Powell, Nets
Surprise Pick: The North Carolina wing was somewhat of a surprise at No. 22. The Nets used their third first-round pick on the former five-star recruit. He had an inconsistent role as a freshman for the Tar Heels, averaging 7.4 points, but tested as arguably the best athlete at the combine, leading all players in both max vertical leap and standing vertical leap.
Can he immediately help Brooklyn? Opposing coaches have questions.
One ACC coach wondered, “He fits the mold of a 3-and-D player, but is he truly proficient enough at either to fulfill that role?”
Another coach added, “Much of the perception about Powell stems from the excitement surrounding his high school career, where people saw a player who wasn`t a good shooter but had size and versatility. He was a good passer with some feel for the game, a good athlete, potentially a big point guard. Then he went to North Carolina and became solely a wing player with significant offensive limitations.”
No. 30: Yanic Konan Niederhauser, Clippers
Made the Cut: The Penn State big man capped his rapid rise by being selected with the last pick of the first round.
Niederhauser boosted his draft stock as much as anyone during the pre-draft process. He went from averaging 12.9 points last season for the Nittany Lions to impressing at the G League Elite camp and earning an NBA draft combine invitation. Notably, he averaged just 7.3 points at Northern Illinois two seasons prior.
One coach enthused, “He`s only scratched the surface. He`s someone who could become like a Dereck Lively type player in the NBA. I believe if he had returned to college, he would have been a lottery pick next year.”
SECOND-ROUND NOTES
No. 35: Johni Broome, 76ers
Auburn`s Broome stood out to coaches as a value pick in the second round. Two coaches pointed out that the gap between Broome – a consensus first-team All-American and the perceived runner-up to Flagg for Player of the Year – and first-round big men like Murray-Boyles should not have been so wide.
One coach acknowledged, “He`s a player with athletic limitations. There are probably other critiques, like his age, etc. But he was named Player of the Year in the nation`s best conference and reached the Final Four. Some of that success must translate to the next level. He did everything asked of him and produced consistently every night. What more could he have done? He had a historic season in a conference that was historically one of the best ever.”
No. 42: Maxime Raynaud, Kings
Stanford`s Raynaud was highlighted by coaches as a value pick in the second round.
No. 48: Javon Small, Grizzlies
West Virginia`s Small was highlighted by coaches as a value pick in the second round.
No. 53: John Tonje, Jazz
Wisconsin`s Tonje was highlighted by coaches as a value pick in the second round.
