Hoops League Season 7 Big Board

Hoops League Season 7 Big Board

1. Papa John, C, Lincoln Tech (22, 4/4 In and Out)

a. Strengths

i. Arguably the best college scorer we have seen since Darth Jor-El or Anthony King

ii. Insanely efficient, particularly from 3pt range

iii. Strong rebounder

iv. Good handles

b. Weaknesses

i. Does not play very well off-ball

ii. Average defender

c. Overall Summary

John has been by far the best player in college basketball this year, and pretty much every HLA executive has their eyes on him. A prolific scorer, good rebounder and average defender who simply wins games on his own, John is the perfect fit for the modern HLA, providing volume scoring at truly mind-boggling efficiency clips. A bona-fide superstar in the making, John’s reputation is so high that even teams with established centers will have to swallow hard before passing him up.

d. Projection: Top-3 pick

i. Potential Fits: ARZ, ATL, NY, IND, HOU, CHI

2. Lauren Bird, F, Emory (22, 4/4 Pure Scorer)

a. Strengths

i. Prolific scorer, well capable of creating her own shot

ii. Scores incredibly well in and out

iii. Efficiency from the field is crazy

b. Weaknesses

i. No defense

ii. Doesn’t rebound much

iii. Pretty much offers nothing besides scoring

c. Overall Summary

The above says it all: Bird doesn’t do much besides score. But boy, oh, boy, does she score, and boy, oh boy, is scoring important in the league. Players who do almost nothing besides score are crucial pieces on contending teams: Polan Stronk, Anthony Bridges, Samuel James, Westbrook Darius, Antony King…the list goes on. Bird, on the strength of her incredible prolific scoring alone, and in spite of her struggles in Hoops Madness, is all but guaranteed to go in the top 3.

d. Projection: Top-3 pick

i. Potential fits: Most any team

3. Paolo Smuc, C, Texas-Arlington (20, 3.5/3.5 All Around)

a. Strengths

i. Incredible volume scorer with reasonable efficiency

ii. Simply takes over games with consistency

iii. Great ballhandler, no turnovers—can even set up others sometimes by drawing defensive attention

iv. Efficient—scores high volume while

b. Weaknesses

i. Not a tremendous midrange shooter; could stand to improve his touch outside the paint

ii. Only an average rebounder and defender

c. Overall Summary

Smuc is among the best prospects in his class. A great scorer and decent defender, he has been a bright spot on a poor team, winning POTG in every game. There are some concerns that he is too ball-dominant and will take away airspace from other players, and he definitely needs to improve on defense and in midrange, but that can all come in good time. He profiles as a future All-Star, based on his college play.

d. Projection: Lottery pick (Top 8)

i. Potential fits: ATL, NY, STL, IND, HOU

4. Tyler Dynamite, F, Texas Tech (22, 4/4 2-Way Sharpshooter)

a. Strengths

i. Knockdown 3pt shooter; lights out at times

ii. Tremendous defender who rebounds fairly well

iii. Capable of shouldering the offensive load as well as playing in the background

b. Weaknesses

i. Turnovers and ballhandling

ii. Does not create his own shot

c. Overall Summary

Dynamite is an excellent two-way player already, as he proved in leading Texas Tech to the title with Alex Roze. He’s demonstrated an ability to be the primary, secondary, or even a tertiary scorer, provided he has someone else helping to get him open. Well-experienced, a proven performer, and a high-ceiling player, Dynamite’s only potential drawback aside from his inability to create shots is his age. Still, most teams, contending, rebuilding or otherwise, are elated whenever they have an opportunity to get their hands on a talented two-way player with a sweet shot from downtown capable of playing complementary basketball. Dynamite is a surefire lottery pick, and, depending on how the lottery balls bounce, may even go number one.

d. Projection: Lottery pick (Top 8)

i. Potential fits: Pretty much anywhere

5. Walter Chamberlain, C, Ohio State (21, 3.5/3.5 Post Scoring Rebounder)

a. Strengths

i. One of college’s best volume scorers, with solid efficiency

ii. Plays good defense on the glass and the interior

iii. Turnovers are mostly not a problem

iv. Can hit midrange jumpers and even the occasional three

b. Weaknesses

i. Iffy shot selection from time to time

ii. Concerns about his ability to fit into a larger scheme

c. Overall Summary

Chamberlain put Ohio State on his back for nearly the entire season, and their surprising fall in the tournament does not change that. He’s not a generational talent, per se, but he’s absolutely among the best in his class, and that will land him in the top picks despite this being a big man-heavy draft. What will be interesting to see is whether he goes to a well-established team, or is drafted by a rebuilding (or perhaps altogether new!) franchise. How he adjusts to HLA play will be on the minds of many this coming season.

d. Projection: Lottery pick (Top 8)

i. Potential fits: Expansion franchises, ARZ, VAS, IND, NY, STL

6. Jermaine Salcedo, F, Boise State (20, 3.5/3.5 Pure Scorer)

a. Strengths

i. Obviously has a good touch from all over the floor

ii. Can pour points on in a hurry at mild efficiency

iii. Rebounds nicely for an offense-first forward

iv. Tremendous touch inside the paint; well above forward average

b. Weaknesses

i. Doesn’t shoot the ball from 3pt range as efficiently as one might want to see

ii. Absolutely no defense

iii. Some concerns about his dribbling ability

c. Overall Summary

No doubt a talented volume scorer, Salcedo offers a hot commodity to the modern HLA, particularly at the forward position. His shooting touch alone pretty much guarantees he will slot in somewhere in the first round. Still, concerns over his defense are real, and it may be that he will struggle to adapt to the show’s level of defense. His upside enough guarantees he will get a look from many teams with needs at the forward spot.

d. Projection: First-round pick

i. Potential fits: ARZ, HOU, ATL, SD

7. Jamison Jay Lee, C, Loyola-Illinois (21, 3.5/3.5 Post Scoring Rebounder)

a. Strengths

i. World-class glass cleaner

ii. Volume scorer at good efficiency

iii. Capable of hitting 3s every now and then, and solid from midrange

iv. Decent shot blocker

b. Weaknesses

i. Ballhandling is a definite concern

ii. Little to no perimeter defense; could get exposed on switches

c. Overall Summary

Jay Lee is very similar to Chamberlain higher up on this list, but isn’t quite as prolific a scorer while being a marginally better rebounder. His skill set is developed enough such that he will probably go fairly high to a team in want/need of a backup center, and could potentially grow into the starter role.

d. Projection: Late first-round pick

i. Potential fits: ARZ, HOU, NY, LA, STL

8. Jaxton Scott, F, Hawaii (20, 3.5/3.5 2-Way Sharpshooter)

a. Strengths

i. Very solid shooter, both in the paint and outside of it

ii. Excellent defense, particularly on the perimeter

iii. Fits well in a larger scheme; not a ballhog

b. Weaknesses

i. Turnovers are egregious

ii. Efficiency is middling

iii. Blocked shots below desired level for forwards.

c. Overall Summary

Scott is a very valuable player in the modern HLA, offering high upside on both ends of the floor. There are concerns about his efficiency, ballhandling, rebounding, and interior defense, but his shooting touch and perimeter D are simply too valuable to let him slip out of the first round.

d. Projection: First-round pick

i. Potential fits: HOU, NY, BOS, POR, ATL, ARZ

9. Cole Walker, F, Boise St. (22, 4/4 2-Way Shot Creator)

a. Strengths

i. Very HLA-ready. Has a skillset that should fit into the league from day one

ii. Takes and makes smart shots. Gets to his spots and sets his feet

iii. Very efficient from 3pt range

iv. Excellent at picking pockets

b. Weaknesses

i. Concerns about his shooting touch translating over to the big league are real

ii. Doesn’t block enough shots to be a great defender at the SF/PF slot

iii. Needs to improve his rebounding

c. Overall Summary

Walker is the type of player every HLA team is loath to have – a strong two-way player who can get his own shots while doing a good job to deny those of others. One wonders if his shooting touch will translate over to the big league, but if his college efficiency is any indication, teams need not be worried. He projects to be a bench player from day one, ready to add to a contender.

d. Projection: Late first, early 2nd

i. Potential fits: BOS, SD, MIA, ATL, SF

10. Ai Galloway, F, South Carolina (22, 4/4 2-Way Shot Creator)

a. Strengths

i. HLA-ready

ii. Fairly efficient for a small forward

iii. Good shot from behind the arc

iv. Strong perimeter defender

b. Weaknesses

i. Rebounding, or the lack thereof, sticks out

ii. Blocked shots are not where they should be

iii. Questions about his shooting touch crossing over

c. Overall Summary

Galloway is essentially a carbon copy of Cole Walker, though he spent a bit more time at the 3 than Walker, and played along another star in South Carolina. He offers significant day-one value in the same areas, while being a bit more developed on defense and less so on offense. He’ll likely go late round one to a contender.

d. Projection: Late first, early 2nd

i. Potential fits: BOS, MIA, SD, ATL, SF

11. Alex Roze, G, Texas Tech (22, 4/4 2-Way Shot Creator)

a. Strengths

i. Versatile offensive player; capable of playing positions 1-3

ii. Strong perimeter defender

iii. Effective shooter from inside the arc

iv. Able to run the point; solid passer

b. Weaknesses

i. Not a great shooter from downtown

ii. Struggles with inconsistency sometimes

iii. A bit on the old side

c. Overall Summary

Roze hasn’t done a ton to distinguish himself in college as a star, but he is certainly talented and has performed fairly well. To make it in the modern HLA, Roze will need to improve his touch from beyond the arc and further hone his perimeter defensive skills.

ii. Projection: Late first, early 2nd

1. Potential fits: Most any team

12. Leo Lion, G, Boston College (18, 3/3 Sharpshooting Playmaker)

a. Strengths

i. Very good ballhandler; few to no turnovers

ii. Gets himself and others open for shots; good shot creator

iii. Fairly strong passer for his class

iv. Passable 3pt shooting skills

b. Weaknesses

i. Average to below average perimeter defender

ii. Poor shot selection inside the arc; needs to display more maturity

iii. Inconsistent touch from the field

c. Overall Summary

Lion is averaging a double-double on somewhat inefficient spilts, but he has been arguably the best player on one of college’s best teams. He’s shown great upside as an offense-first PG, but there are no shortage of those in the league. His efficiency will have to improve to catch the eye of HLA scouts, but he has shown that he likely has what it takes to make the league.

ii. Projection: Late first, early 2nd

1. Potential fits: ARZ, SF, VAS

13. Marcus King III, G, Oakland State (20, 3.5/3.5 Slashing Playmaker)

a. Strengths

i. Great interior game, decent midrange shot

ii. Talented ballhandler and passer

iii. Plays passable perimeter defense

b. Weaknesses

i. Not a 3pt shooter

ii. Shot selection is sometimes questionable

iii. Concerns about his ability to share the rock

c. Overall Summary

One of the few players in the draft with legitimate floor general upside, King III can pass with the best of them, but doesn’t do it often enough. He needs to mature, but once he does, he should be a fine rotational PG capable of creating for himself and for others, a prospect that attracts teams in need of guard depth.

d. Projection: Late first, early 2nd

i. Potential fits: CHI, ARZ, HOU, POR

14. Koby Williams, F, Boston College (21, 3.5/3.5 All Around)

a. Strengths

i. Swiss Army knife; does a bit of everything

ii. Scores in and out very well

iii. Rebounds exceptionally well for a forward

b. Weaknesses

i. Not very forceful as a scorer

ii. Defense could stand to improve a bit before he’s really league ready

iii. One wonders if his ceiling is high enough to get him higher up

c. Overall Summary

Quietly one of the best players on one of college’s best teams, Williams will have a lot of eyes on him heading into the draft. If Boston College goes the distance this year, he will rocket up this board. Even if they don’t, though, Williams is an exceptionally useful player, able to play positions 1-4 if needed and capable of scoring, rebounding, and playing a little defense. He needs to mature a bit, but with a little G League time, he could be a vital asset to a contending team.

d. Projection: Late first, early 2nd

i. Potential fits: SF, POR, BOS, MIA, LA

15. Elliott Ash, F, Michigan St. (21, 3.5/3.5 2-Way Shot Creator)

a. Strengths

i. Solid scoring inside and outside

ii. Great perimeter defense

iii. Scores well in volume, but does not ballhog

b. Weaknesses

i. Turnovers could become a problem

ii. Unintelligent shot decisions at times; not great at creating his own shot

iii. Rebounding and blocking are not up to par

c. Overall Summary

Ash is nothing anyone hasn’t seen before, but he’s good at what he does, and is one of the most well-prepared players for the HLA, ready to contribute to a contending team off the bench from day one. He won’t be a superstar, but he adds above-average value on both ends as an on-ball defender and secondary scorer. These traits make him a good bet to be taken by a contending team looking for forward depth late in round one.

d. Projection: Late first, early 2nd

i. Potential fits: BOS, POR, MIA, SF

16. Cameron Green, C, Florida A&M (22, 4/4 Interior Force)

a. Strengths

i. Crazy efficient interior scorer

ii. Rebounds the basketball very well

iii. Top drawer shot blocker

b. Weaknesses

i. Turnovers could become an issue

ii. Does not create his own shot nor seek the shot enough

c. Overall Summary

In a draft with little superstar potential, players like Green are probably more valuable than they otherwise would be. He’s a traditional paint-mucking center, with admirable physical skill and efficiency on both ends that is near unrivaled. Best of all, he is one of the most league-ready players in the draft. The center spot is so deep in this class that he slips farther than he should, but he’s too good to fall farther than this.

d. Projection: Late first, early 2nd

i. Potential fits: SD, VAS, NY, BOS, STL

17. Damin Colb, C, Hawaii (19, 3/3 Post Scoring Rebounder)

a. Strengths

i. Highly efficient inside scorer

ii. No turnovers

iii. Puts it up in volume and in a hurry

iv. In and out scorer; good from the midrange

b. Weaknesses

i. Inside game a little weak; could run into trouble against a strong defensive center

ii. Rebounding a bit below where it should be

c. Overall Summary

Colb would go higher if this draft wasn’t quite so deep at the 5-spot. He scores well on a good team and does the right things on both ends of the floor. But his upside is not as high as that of other centers, particularly on the all-important glass. He will have to develop some before making an impact on the HLA.

d. Projection: Early to mid-2nd round pick

i. Potential fits: VAS, ARZ, IND, SF

18. Lyle Barr, C, Chicago St. (20, 3.5/3.5 Rebounding Stretch)

a. Strengths

i. Great volume scorer capable of putting the team on his back

ii. Can hit from deep, a valuable skill for a big man these days

iii. Slightly above average defender

b. Weaknesses

i. Efficiency stats not where they should be for a defender

ii. Not as imposing on the glass as most centers

iii. Some concerns about his lob-catching ability and paint game

c. Overall Summary

Barr has seen his stock go up recently due to his tournament performance. Still, with center being such a loaded position in the big leagues, it’s hard to see a team spending early draft capital on Barr. That said, Barr will be a beast when his time comes. He’s got good rebounding upside, plays capable defense, and scores well in the midrange. In the right scheme, he could be a star.

d. Projection: Early to mid-2nd round pick

i. Potential fits: VAS, ARZ, BOS, NY

19. Eddie Obama, G, South Carolina (18, 3/3 2-Way Shot Creator)

a. Strengths

i. Capable of fitting in a larger scheme

ii. Good stroke that can land from deep

iii. Attacks the rim well

iv. Solid perimeter defender

b. Weaknesses

i. Needs to get his dribbling up

ii. Poor, poor passer

iii. Does not crash the glass

iv. Makes bad decisions with the ball more frequently than others

c. Overall Summary

Obama is a polarizing prospect, having shown himself well capable of winning or losing his team the game in college. He’s no doubt talented, but needs to shape up a bit before playing in the big leagues. His shooting touch alone should get him a look from teams in need of guard depth.

d. Projection: Early to mid-2nd round pick

i. Potential fits: CHI, VAS, HOU, ARZ

20. Justin James, C, Michigan St. (20, 3.5/3.5 Lockdown Rebounder)

a. Strengths

i. Very solid defender all over the floor

ii. Perimeter defense well above average for a center

iii. Rebounds well

iv. Efficient interior scoring

b. Weaknesses

i. Only a complementary player; lacks real star potential

ii. Inside finishing not super strong; could struggle against HLA play

iii. Ballhandling skills, or lack thereof, somewhat concerning

c. Overall Summary

Defense is at a premium in the modern league, and Justin James was college’s best defender all year. His perimeter defense is particularly valuable as a rare asset for the modern center. Nevertheless, James has his drawbacks, the most notable being a limited ceiling, which is a severe detractor in such a strong big man class. His unique skillset ensures he will find a spot in the modern HLA, but it's unlikely to see him in the first round.

d. Projection: Early to mid-2nd round pick

i. Potential fits: BOS, LA, VAS, HOU, ARZ

21. Lorenzo Carver, G, Koality College (18, 3/3 Pure Scorer)

a. Strengths

i. Shoots the ball fairly well from the field, especially downtown

ii. Above average rebounder as a guard

iii. Capable of sharing the ball

b. Weaknesses

i. Not developed enough as a scorer

ii. Not a defender in any sense of the word

c. Overall Summary

Carver is a valuable asset in a guard-starved class, but to a fault. He’s got an absolute cannon with decent accuracy, but he needs refining before seeing big-league action. When he develops, he’ll be a nice hired gun off the bench to come in and microwave a team’s offense.

d. Projection: Early to mid-2nd round pick

i. Potential fits: Most any team

22. Nasir Jones, C, Austin (20, 3.5/3.5 Interior Force)

a. Strengths

i. Very solid inside the paint

ii. Efficient volume scorer

iii. Rebounds the ball well

iv. Strong shot blocker

b. Weaknesses

i. Turnovers could become an issue

ii. Interior defense may not stand the test of the HLA

c. Overall Summary

Jones is another fairly cliché center, but his skill set and production are notable. He’ll need some G League time, which lands him in the second round, but in time he should carve out a good role in the league.

d. Projection: Mid-2nd round

i. Potential fits: POR, IND, ARZ, LA, HOU

23. Swag Stone, G, Koality College (21, 3.5/3.5 2-Way Shot Creator)

a. Strengths

i. Very strong perimeter defender

ii. Decent scorer; above average efficiency

iii. Passes the ball fairly well

b. Weaknesses

i. Not a deadeye from downtown

ii. Sometimes takes poor shots

iii. Questions about his ability to transition into a big-league offense

c. Overall Summary

Stone is a fine player with few definite flaws, but he also does not have a lot that sets him apart. His strongest selling point is his perimeter defense, which could prove useful when combined with his likely league-average offense.

d. Projection: Mid-2nd round

i. Potential fits: SD, HOU, LA, MIA

24. ZayVon Carter Jr., G, Oklahoma St. (20, 3.5/3.5 2-Way Shot Creator)

a. Strengths

i. Good scorer on reasonable efficiency splits

ii. 3pt touch is definitely there

b. Weaknesses

i. Average defender

ii. Does not pass the ball well; some concerns about ballhandling ability

iii. Very little distinguishes him from any other player

c. Overall Summary

Carter is a fine guard, but that’s about all one can say for him. Scoring guards are a dime-a-dozen in the league, and Carter has done virtually nothing in college to make himself stand out among them. Perhaps with time he will develop into a dynamic two-way player, as is his ceiling, but at the moment, it’s hard to see him becoming much more than a rotation 2-guard. Still, those are valuable – just look at the career King Ntilikina has carved out for himself. Carter will fit somewhere in the league, just not as a star.

d. Projection: Mid-2nd round pick

i. Potential fits: ATL, POR, STL, SF

25. Dennis Jezus Alehandro, F, Minnesota St. (20, 3.5/3.5 3-Level Scorer)

a. Strengths

i. Can absolutely put the ball in the basket

ii. Good handle on the ball and does not turn it over much

iii. Sets up teammates via assists at an above-average rate for a forward

iv. Rebounds at a good clip for a SF

b. Weaknesses

i. Poor defender

ii. Needs to attack the rim more rather than settling for the 3

iii. 3pt shot is somewhat inconsistent

c. Overall Summary

Jezus Alehandro scores well, but somewhat inefficiently. Beyond his scoring, he does not offer teams much. Minnesota St.’s poor record this season also does not reflect well on him, given that he is their leading scorer. Alehandro profiles as a bench forward, potentially a rotation starter, who is primarily a spark plug. Scoring is so valuable in this league that he will have a home, but his defensive liabilities and inconsistency from the 3pt line preclude him from being anything more than a second rounder.

d. Projection: Mid-to-late 2nd round

i. Potential Fits: ATL, LA, VAS, NY, BOS

26. Caleb Darrah, F, Boston College (20, 3.5/3.5 2-Way Shot Creator)

a. Strengths

i. Excellent perimeter defender

ii. Capable shooter from inside the arc and outside

iii. Doesn’t turn the ball over

iv. Fits excellently in a larger scheme

b. Weaknesses

i. Not a good rebounder

ii. Interior defense is suspect

iii. Efficiency is a concern

c. Overall Summary

Darrah’s mild output should be contextualized by his being surrounded by solid players at Boston College. He’s got a decent skill-set, but nothing really jumps off the page besides the perimeter defense. That alone makes him more valuable than many forwards in this draft, but he projects to need serious G-League time before making the league.

d. Projection: Mid-to-late 2nd round

i. Potential fits: BOS, ARZ, ATL, VAS, NY, HOU

27. Allen Bolton Williams, F, Reed College (21, 3.5/3.5 2-Way Shot Creator)

a. Strengths

i. Intelligent ballhandling decisions. Takes and makes good shots

ii. Very efficient and scores nicely

iii. Perimeter defense is high-quality

b. Weaknesses

i. Mediocre rebounding

ii. Serious risk for turnovers on passes

iii. Blocking below desired level for a forward

c. Overall Summary

Another fairly standard player, Bolton Williams is worth a look from a contending team in need of forward depth, solid defense and reasonably efficient scoring. The wealth of forwards in this draft makes him slip down to here.

d. Projection: Mid-to-late 2nd round

i. Potential fits: BOS, LA, ATL, MIA, CHI, SF

28. Francisco Dominguez, F, Florida A&M (21, 3.5/3.5 3-Level Scorer)

a. Strengths

i. Good shooting touch, particularly from behind the arc

ii. Fits well as a second or third scorer

b. Weaknesses

i. Inefficient inside the line

ii. Poor shot selection

iii. Ball handling is well below average

iv. Dose not score in volume

c. Overall Summary

Dominguez numbers are not very good, no, but they have suffered due to his having two very solid teammates to share the ball with in Joe Kidd and Cameron Green. That he has been able to score at the clip he has is an encouraging factor for HLA teams looking for a hired gun, similar to TJ Marshall or Benz Buckets from last season. He’s got decent upside but needs to flesh out his skillset and is too raw to go higher than here.

d. Projection: Mid-to-late 2nd round

i. Potential fits: SD, ATL, NY, BOS, VAS

29. Gordon Rice, G, Florida A&M (19, 3/3 Slashing Playmaker)

a. Strengths

i. Great drive, or drive-and-kick, player

ii. Excellent ballhandler

iii. Capable passer with upside

b. Weaknesses

i. Not a good shooter, and he has questionable shot selection

ii. Little to no perimeter defense

c. Overall Summary

In such a guard-desperate draft, Rice may well go higher. He has decent upside as a backup or rotation guard, capable of playing the one or the two, and attacking the rim well. Shooting is a very valuable asset in the modern HLA, however, and Rice lacks that. He needs a lot of development time, but deserves a look down here.

d. Projection: Mid-to-late 2nd round

i. Potential fits: Most any team

30. Andre Santos, C, David Brown University (18, 3/3 Inside Finisher)

a. Strengths

i. Best inside touch in college

ii. Crazy good efficiency

iii. Scores in volume without fatiguing – great physical build and durability

b. Weaknesses

i. Dribbling is a concern – can’t create his own shot

ii. Defense and rebounding are well below average for a center

c. Overall Summary

One of the most intriguing prospects in the draft, Santos has a wild, high-flying game that is backed by crazy athleticism and a well-polished skillset. Yet he lacks key traits necessary for a HLA center, such as defense and rebounding. If he can put it all together, the league will be on notice. For the moment, he looks like the next Tyler Moore, which is a fine thing to be, but lands him in the second round.

d. Projection: Mid-to-late 2nd round

i. Potential fits: ARZ, VAS, NY, LA

31. Joe Kidd, F, Florida A&M (20, 3.5/3.5 Slasher)

a. Strengths

i. Great inside player

ii. Solid ballhandling—no turnovers

iii. Really efficient

b. Weaknesses

i. Not assertive enough as a scorer

ii. Mediocre defense

c. Overall Summary

We didn’t see enough of Kidd at Florida A&M, where he really didn’t get the requisite touches to match his clear offensive prowess. He’s got great upside on the offensive side of the floor, but his defense is not good enough to warrant him being on the floor unless he is seriously contributing on offense. Kidd will have to learn to make noise on the floor before being taken seriously.

d. Projection: Late 2nd, early 3rd

Potential fits: Most any team

32. Luke Johnson, G, Miami (18, 3/3 Sharpshooting Playmaker)

a. Strengths

i. Solid passing skills that should fit into the league from day one

ii. Great ballhandler—does not give up the rock

iii. Scores in decent volume for a player his age

b. Weaknesses

i. Just not efficient from 3pt range

ii. Simply plays no defense

iii. Raw skillset- needs development time

c. Overall Summary

Johnson is a one-sided player, and that side of his is good but not great. Passing without turning the ball over is a valued ability in the Hoops League, and Johnson will be able to offer that from day one. There is concern about his ceiling, because truly good guards in the modern league need to be able to create shots for themselves as well as others. We’ve seen Vun Brunson, Jose Mendes, Jon Rahm, and Aaron Fiedelak all make that adjustment, though, and Johnson is young enough that there is hope.

d. Projection: Late 2nd, early 3rd

i. Potential fits: Pretty much any team

33. Buckets McGee, F, Austin (18, 3/3 All Around)

a. Strengths

i. Capable scorer from most spots

ii. Able to shoulder the offensive load when needed

iii. Good potential to play positions 1-3

b. Weaknesses

i. Very little defense makes him a liability on that end

ii. Rebounding not where it should be for a forward

iii. Turnovers could become a problem

c. Overall Summary

McGee has a good build, but is raw and relatively unheralded. He offers good support on the offensive side of the ball already, but his defense is well behind even the average for his age. With some time, he could develop into a useful bench piece.

d. Projection: Late 2nd, early 3rd

i. Potential fits: Most anywhere

34. Bimbo Boozer, C, Boston College (18, 3/3 All-Around Center)

a. Strengths

i. Can knock down the midrange J

ii. Strong enough to make noise in the interior

iii. Good ballhandler by C standards

iv. Can poke out a few steals every now and then and blocks some shots

v. Efficient scorer

b. Weaknesses

i. Not assertive enough; doesn’t really take over games

ii. Good but not great rebounder; might not be enough in modern game

iii. Only an average shot-blocker and dunker

c. Overall Summary

Boozer has a great all-around skillset, but is clearly under-developed as a freshman center. He’s benefited from a solid supporting cast in his efficiency stats, likely. Boozer needs to assert himself in games consistently to make noise in a congested HLA center market.

ii. Projection: Compensatory 3rd round to undrafted

1. Potential fits: None at the moment

35. Sir Papi, F, South Carolina (20, 3.5/3.5 2-Way Sharpshooter)

a. Strengths

i. Good shooting touch

ii. Already a well-developed perimeter defender

iii. Highly efficient

iv. Rebounds fairly well

b. Weaknesses

i. Turnovers

ii. Cannot create his own shot

iii. Didn’t see a lot of the ball; underdeveloped on offense

c. Overall Summary

Papi is another cliché player, offering a raw but still useful skillset. His defense is above average, but his offense is not where it needs to be for a HLA regular. He’s got decent upside, though, and will probably go to a developing team thin at the forward spot.

d. Projection: Compensatory 3rd round to undrafted

i. Potential fits: VAS, ATL, NY, SD, ARZ, HOU

36. Brad Bryant, G, New York College (21, 3.5/3.5 Sharpshooter)

a. Strengths

i. Well able to run the point; good ballhandler and passer

ii. Rebounds decently for a guard

iii. Solid perimeter defender

b. Weaknesses

i. Horrible shooter, terrible efficiency

ii. Can’t hit the 3-ball

c. Overall Summary

Bryant has some of the skills necessary to be a successful HLA guard, but is missing the complete package. It’s possible he gets grabbed in a late round by a team desperate for guard help, but he may also go undrafted. Either way, he figures to be a long-term G League project.

d. Projection: Compensatory 3rd round to undrafted

i. Potential fits: None at the moment

37. Leroy Jenkins, F, Hawaii (19, 3/3 2-Way Slasher)

a. Strengths

i. Great inside touch

ii. Good defense, particularly close to the rim

b. Weaknesses

i. Poor output, poor efficiency

ii. Not a good rebounder

iii. Numerous turnovers despite low usage

c. Overall Summary

Jenkins has been buried on a talented Hawaii squad, true, but his production, or lack thereof, has been very disappointing. He’s got talent, and players of similar build and skills have made it big time the league (see: Julius Carter, Justin Taylor). But Jenkins is far away from their defensive skill, and has not proven himself on offense either. It’s hard to see any team spending a pick on such a raw player.

d. Projection: Undrafted

i. Potential fits: None at the moment

38. Ha’cream Abdul Biggums, C, Jacksonville (19, 3/3 Post Scoring Rebounder)

a. Strengths

i. Fairly efficient volume scorer

ii. Passable rebounder and shot-blocker

b. Weaknesses

i. Skills most everywhere are below average

c. Overall Summary

In another year, Abdul Biggums might be a more enticing prospect for a team desperate for center depth. But this draft class is a case of too many cooks in the center kitchen, and he simply doesn’t have the skills nor the ceiling to compete with many in this draft class. Perhaps he will find a spot on a roster down the line, but at the moment, his prospects look grim.

d. Projection: Undrafted

i. Potential fits: None at the moment