Were there questions about Ace Bailey`s game at the next level? How will Tre Johnson and Jeremiah Fears perform in the NBA? Did Egor Demin and Cedric Coward warrant lottery picks?
To explore these and other key questions following the 2025 NBA draft, ESPN spoke with nearly a dozen college basketball coaches. These are the individuals who have spent the last few years observing and strategizing against these very players. They shared their perspectives on the draft`s major narratives and top prospects.
Cooper Flagg, Dylan Harper Stand Apart
Ever since Cooper Flagg reclassified into the 2024 high school class in August 2023, there has been little doubt about the top prospect. Widely regarded as one of the premier high school talents in recent memory, Flagg had been the consensus favorite for the No. 1 pick for two years, a prediction the Dallas Mavericks confirmed on Wednesday. He was arguably the best player in college basketball last season, earning the Wooden Award and leading Duke to the Final Four. He posted averages of 19.2 points, 7.5 rebounds, and 4.2 assists, silencing doubts about his shooting by hitting 38.5% from beyond the arc.
Opposing college coaches expressed no reservations about his potential to succeed in the NBA.
“He possesses a certain confidence, toughness, and is physically ready to contribute immediately,” one coach shared with ESPN. “For a young player heading to the NBA, it`s challenging if they haven`t been the main option before. But he`s navigated all those scenarios. Playing off ball screens, coming off down screens, rebounding and pushing tempo – he displayed his versatility throughout the year. He`s done it all at the highest level of college basketball.”
Flagg`s shooting was initially a question mark coming out of high school, but the Maine native significantly improved over his freshman season at Duke. He shot 44% from three in ACC play, hitting multiple threes in nine different games.
“Early in the season, you could go under ball screens against him. By the end of the year, you couldn`t,” another coach noted. “The NBA relies heavily on isolation plays. So, his ability to create space and beat defenders off the dribble will be something he needs to refine.”
Coaches also felt that Flagg`s placement with the Mavericks would positively impact his development, largely due to the opportunity to play alongside veterans like Kyrie Irving.
“I believe he fits in well,” a coach commented. “He won`t face pressure as the primary offensive focus every night. For a young player, that can sometimes shake confidence, but I don`t foresee that being an issue with him.”
Even without being Dallas`s top offensive threat, Flagg is widely considered the leading candidate for Rookie of the Year.
“If he can consistently contribute around 15 points, 8 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 steals, and a block… he`ll win Rookie of the Year,” an ACC coach predicted, “assuming Dallas stays healthy and performs well.”
Virtually every college coach interviewed agreed on a clear distinction between Flagg at No. 1 and Harper at No. 2, placing them in categories of their own.
“Harper is as skilled a player as we`ve faced in the past decade, comparing him to talents like Markelle Fultz or Paolo Banchero. He`s better than Jabari Smith. I`m extremely high on him. I think he`s closer to Flagg than the third pick is to him,” one opposing coach said of the new San Antonio Spurs guard. “He`s a master of the pick-and-roll. No matter the defensive strategy, it might take him a possession or two, but he`ll figure out how to beat it.”
“Flagg and Harper are the only two, in my opinion, with All-NBA potential,” another coach added. “There`s such a significant gap – it`s almost as if the subsequent players aren`t Tier 3, but Tier 4. That`s how substantial I believe the difference is between Dylan and everyone else.”
The Next Tier
No. 3: VJ Edgecombe, 76ers
VJ Edgecombe benefited significantly from Ace Bailey`s slight draft slide. The Bahamas native showcased remarkable athleticism during his single season at Baylor, steadily improving his offensive consistency and playmaking throughout the year. He now joins a dynamic backcourt in Philadelphia alongside Tyrese Maxey and Jared McCain.
“Before seeing him play live, I had my doubts, wondering about the hype,” one coach admitted. “But then we played against him, and he was simply relentless. His athleticism is top-tier, and his shot became much more reliable as the season progressed, especially from the perimeter.”
“He might be the most athletic player or prospect in this draft class,” another coach added. “He`s a high-flyer who plays bigger than his size. He could defend positions 1 through 5 in college and likely can do the same in the NBA given the mobility of modern fives. His positional versatility, athleticism, and defensive effort are impressive.”
His fit alongside Maxey and McCain raises some questions, though several coaches pointed out that concerns about his offensive role might exist regardless of his landing spot.
“Can he be a primary scoring option?” a Big 12 coach questioned. “He`s not the type of player you give the ball to and expect him to create his own shot consistently. He`s effective as a slasher, in pick-and-roll situations, excellent in transition, strong on offensive rebounds, and does the small things well. The only potential negative is figuring out how he`ll generate points in the NBA.”
No. 4: Kon Knueppel, Hornets
Kon Knueppel, one of three Duke players selected in the top 10, saw his draft stock soar last fall and maintained a high position throughout the Blue Devils` successful season. Playing a supporting role to Cooper Flagg, Knueppel averaged 14.4 points and shot over 40% from three-point range, proving to be a clutch shotmaker late in the season and during the NCAA tournament. He was widely considered the draft`s top catch-and-shoot perimeter threat. His experience thriving without being the team`s main offensive option could appeal to Charlotte, where he`ll play alongside LaMelo Ball and Brandon Miller.
“He was a huge factor for Duke last season, serving as the Robin to Cooper Flagg`s Batman,” one coach stated. “When you have a player capable of scoring 30 points in a game who isn`t the primary focus on scouting reports, that`s incredibly valuable. The NBA covets players who can make shots, and if you have that ability, you`ll have a long career.”
While Knueppel seems like a relatively safe pick for the Hornets with a high floor, opposing coaches noted he might lack the ceiling of other players in this tier. His main area for improvement will be on the defensive end.
“Players can be rendered ineffective on the floor in the NBA if they can`t defend,” one coach explained. “Can Kon hold his own guarding one-on-one? He has the physical size and frame, but is his lateral quickness sufficient? This is hard to fully evaluate against Duke because they mask defensive weaknesses well and provide a lot of help. They limit space for opposing offenses, so he rarely had to defend in isolation in college. He`ll need to prove he can do that.”
No. 5: Ace Bailey, Jazz
A year ago, Ace Bailey was often discussed alongside Flagg and Harper at the top of the draft board. He displayed flashes of his potential during his freshman season at Rutgers, but lingering questions led to a slight drop in his stock. Listed at 6-foot-10 in college, he measured 6-7 1/2 at the combine. He was also notably the only U.S. prospect who did not visit any NBA team facilities during the predraft process, canceling a scheduled visit with the 76ers.
From a purely on-court perspective, coaches were understandably impressed by his scoring talent.
“He`s versatile, possesses good size, and has the skills of a guard,” one Big Ten coach commented. “He`s the ideal NBA wing prototype. He`s a difficult matchup because he can move well. While not an elite athlete, he`s a good one. He can shoot over defenders, and his ability to make contested shots adds significant value.”
However, will these attributes consistently translate to the NBA? And what about other aspects of his game?
“If you`re Kevin Durant, relying on difficult shots works because he`s 7-1,” one coach said. “Ace isn`t going to be someone who just stands in the corner.”
“The criticism against him, whether in high school or at Rutgers, is his defensive disengagement,” another Big Ten coach stated. “He doesn`t need to become an All-NBA defender, but he absolutely needs to commit more on that end.”
No. 6: Tre Johnson, Wizards
Tre Johnson`s offensive prowess kept him firmly in the top half of the lottery discussion for much of the cycle. The former top-five recruit averaged 19.9 points and shot close to 40% from three in his lone season at Texas.
While he was the primary offensive option for the Longhorns, most opposing coaches believe his optimal NBA role – assuming he isn`t immediately Washington`s main scoring threat – is as a `microwave` scorer off the bench or a specialized catch-and-shoot option. Given the Wizards` perimeter struggles and the recent trade of Jordan Poole, Johnson fits their needs well.
“He`s simply a scoring guard,” a coach stated. “He`s one of the best shooters in the draft. He`ll need to learn he doesn`t need to dribble endlessly before shooting, but he has the potential to be a borderline All-Star because of his shooting ability. He could be a catch-and-shoot specialist hitting 50%.”
Questions surrounding Johnson primarily concern the other facets of his game and whether he contributes enough beyond scoring to impact winning at the highest level.
“He`s a fantastic individual talent,” another coach added. “But if you`re not scoring, what else are you doing to help the team win? The best players in the world inevitably have off nights.”
No. 7: Jeremiah Fears, Pelicans
Oklahoma freshman Jeremiah Fears was arguably the biggest riser over the past year. Just a year ago, he wasn`t in this draft class, but he reclassified to 2024, committed to Oklahoma, and quickly emerged as one of the nation`s most dynamic guards despite turning 18 only in October.
“He`s wired to score,” one coach remarked. “I`d compare him somewhat to Cam Thomas of the Nets. However, Fears is a better playmaker than Thomas was coming out of college. He can read defenses; you can double-team or trap him off a ball screen, but he reads the situation perfectly, unlike other freshmen who might get flustered. He`s also a surprisingly athletic player.”
His perimeter shooting might ultimately determine his ceiling. He shot 28.4% from three for the season, making only 15 three-pointers across 18 SEC games.
“He`s inconsistent as a shooter,” an opposing coach noted. “He needs to build up his physique, but he`s very young, only 18. As he physically matures, he`ll be better equipped to handle the physicality, drive into the paint, and take on greater command of the point guard position.”
More First-Round Storylines
Egor Demin: Lottery`s Biggest Riser
Had the draft occurred at the beginning of the last college basketball season, the selection of former BYU guard Egor Demin at No. 8 by the Brooklyn Nets wouldn`t have been surprising. The Russian native was ranked No. 7 in ESPN`s November mock draft after generating significant buzz following his arrival from Real Madrid. However, an inconsistent freshman season at Provo caused his stock to fluctuate, landing him at No. 13 in ESPN`s final predraft projection.
On Wednesday, however, Demin climbed back into the top 10.
Opposing coaches held mixed views on his immediate impact potential in the NBA.
“He`s huge,” one Big 12 coach said. “Ball pressure bothers him, he plays somewhat upright, and he`s deliberate. But he can make every read on the court… He has a slight burst because he changes pace from slow to medium, which can throw you off. He can pass over the top of guards. You might think, `Oh, that`s just college,` but he`s also taller than most NBA guards. His passing is elite. His shooting is better than his percentages suggest. And I believe he`ll improve with the increased spacing in the NBA.”
“I don`t think he shoots well, nor do I think he defends effectively,” countered another coach. “But teams are intrigued by a big guard who can pass.”
Demin was one of five first-round selections for the Nets, with three – Demin, Nolan Traore (No. 19), and Ben Saraf (No. 26) – possessing extensive international experience. This was a notable haul, especially considering all three were projected in the lottery back in November. “The Nets are clearly confident in their international scouting team, drafting three international players who many felt underachieved this year,” one coach observed. “There was evidently a strong belief in Demin`s abilities before he arrived in the United States.”
Khaman Maluach: Duke`s Third Top-10 Pick
Following Flagg and Knueppel, there was a longer wait than expected for Khaman Maluach`s name to be called, but the Suns ultimately selected him at No. 10. He didn`t have the extensive college production of 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.
“You can put him on the floor, and he`s going to influence the game with his size and shot-blocking, as well as his defensive and offensive rebounding,” one opposing coach noted. “In the NBA, having a center like that is essential, but young players like him require time. He does possess some skills; he hit a three early in the year and has the potential to step out and shoot threes.”
Another opposing coach questioned how advanced his skill level truly is and whether his perceived ceiling might be lower in reality.
“I see him as a big man who primarily catches lobs. He`s massive, but I don`t find him to be an exceptional athlete,” the coach commented. “He`s not like Dereck Lively II, who was a different kind of mover, a different athlete, and had more skill. Maluach isn`t as good in any of those areas. I don`t think he has the same potential.”
“Ultimately, he`s still a project,” another coach added.
Phoenix can afford to be patient with Maluach, especially since they also acquired veteran center Mark Williams from Charlotte by trading two first-rounders. At pick No. 10, some of the risk is reduced.
“He`s the kind of player archetype whose stock often rises over time,” one coach stated. “It remains to be seen if his shot will translate consistently. Mechanically, it doesn`t look bad, but he hasn`t reached a point where he`s taking or making them with real consistency. However, it wouldn`t surprise me if that`s something he develops over time.”
“I like the vertical threat he poses as a finisher at the rim, I`m impressed by his shot-blocking, and the defensive versatility he offers. He does need to rebound the ball better. But he`s not someone who will enter the league and slack off.”
Cedric Coward: From D3 to Lottery Pick
Cedric Coward`s journey was one of the most compelling storylines leading up to the draft. Beginning his college career at the Division III level with Willamette University in Oregon, Coward was barely on NBA draft radars this time last year, having just finished his second season at Eastern Washington in the Big Sky Conference.
Coward transferred to Washington State, where he played only six games before a shoulder injury ended his season. However, after standing out at the combine, he solidified his position as a potential top-20 pick and chose to stay in the draft rather than return for his final college season at Duke, where he had committed via the transfer portal.
On Wednesday, the Grizzlies traded up to select him at No. 11.
“What struck me about him was his continuous improvement each year,” a Big Sky coach shared. “When he first arrived as a D-III transfer, we didn`t know much about him. He was a thin player with length, still developing his offensive game. He played incredibly hard and positively impacted winning. He started shooting the ball better, reaching a point where he shot it very well in the limited games he played last year. He constantly added to his game, becoming a bit more polished, refined, and smoother every time we faced him.”
Playing alongside Ja Morant and Jaren Jackson Jr., Coward won`t be expected to carry a heavy offensive burden initially. Opposing coaches believe he has the potential to become a high-quality role player in the NBA.
“He has genuine catch-and-shoot ability,” one coach said. “He possesses an effective mid-range game; he was tough to guard in the post. He can play facing up. He`s a pretty good defender and blocked a lot of shots. He contributes to winning in many ways. He doesn`t need to be a primary scorer, and I`m not sure he ever will be.”
The main question is whether pick No. 11 was too high for a player who started only eight career games against major conference opponents.
“Watching him this year, he looked like an NBA player. He made a huge physical leap,” said one coach, who added that Coward`s high-end potential shares characteristics with Kawhi Leonard. “He`s going to help you win in some capacity. He can significantly impact the game, whether coming off the bench or if he develops into a starter. He`s the type of player you bet on.”
Carter Bryant: Most Unproven Lottery Pick
When the 2024-25 college basketball season concluded, it seemed uncertain whether Carter Bryant would declare for the draft. He started only five games as a freshman at Arizona and scored in double-figures only a few times.
However, as the spring progressed, it became evident Bryant wouldn`t be returning to college. His draft stock steadily climbed, moving from a likely first-rounder into the top 20 and ultimately landing at No. 14 with the Spurs.
Measuring 6-6 ½ without shoes, Bryant shot nearly 39% from three-point range in Big 12 play, making multiple threes in nine games after the start of 2025.
“He has the right positional size, athleticism, shooting touch, and defensive versatility, with the potential for further growth,” one Big 12 coach remarked. “In limited opportunities, he showed some flashes offensively, suggesting he might have some playmaking ability and can make passes. It wasn`t consistently displayed, but he did it enough. Whether contested or open, he can get his shot off. He has room to improve in speeding up his shot, but the NBA values big wings who can shoot.”
The Spurs will need to be patient, as he has only shown his capabilities in flashes.
Veterans Become Higher First-Round Priority
While the upper half of the first round largely consisted of freshmen – the first eight picks were college first-years, and 18 freshmen were taken in the first round – the trend of older players being drafted earlier continued this year.
Cedric Coward, Walter Clayton Jr., Nique Clifford, Danny Wolf, and Yanic Konan Niederhauser all transferred at least once and played at least three college seasons, with Clifford, Clayton, and Niederhauser being 22 or older. Older college players like Ryan Kalkbrenner (No. 34), Johni Broome (No. 35), and Chaz Lanier (No. 37) were also selected relatively early in the second round.
This trend gained momentum last year with first-round selections like Zach Edey, Devin Carter, Dalton Knecht, Dillon Jones, Baylor Scheierman, and Terrence Shannon Jr.
What accounts for this? A primary factor is the increased financial opportunities for student-athletes in college, enabling more players to stay. Additionally, the prevalence of the transfer portal has allowed standout players from mid-major programs to gain exposure at higher levels and boost their draft stock.
“Financially, they are rewarded for staying. This allows them to be more prepared and refined for the next level,” one coach explained. “For high-end lottery picks, you`re drafting based on potential upside. But if I`m a playoff team or a team still developing, acquiring an older, more mature player who can reliably contribute in a role is a smart move. You`re getting a player in the prime of his career, offering more immediate value in Year 1 or 2, perhaps less so in Year 6 or 7.”
However, this trend might be nearing its end. A significant number of players projected as borderline first-rounders chose to return to college before the withdrawal deadline this spring, including Yaxel Lendeborg (Michigan), Alex Condon (Florida), Tahaad Pettiford (Auburn), Labaron Philon (Alabama), and Darrion Williams (NC State). Others like Isaiah Evans (Duke), JT Toppin (Texas Tech), and Alex Karaban (UConn) didn`t even test the draft waters.
These players, among many others, received substantial compensation for staying in school. But with the House vs. NCAA settlement and potential salary caps impacting earning potential in the new revenue-sharing era, will the financial incentive to remain in college be enough to keep players out of the draft in the future?
“I anticipate it shifting back the other way with revenue sharing,” a high-major coach stated. “Looking at the revenue share figures, many SEC schools are dedicating most of their money to football. Their basketball revenue share numbers are projected between $2 to $3 million. This year, with collectives, some teams had access to $10 to $12 million. We had players on our team who returned because they would earn more here than by going in the second round. But with those numbers decreasing, I can see potential first-rounders or high-second rounders choosing to enter the league instead.”
“I believe this will be one of the last years we see this trend,” another coach added. “Many talented players are staying in college because of NIL. Once revenue share takes effect and the NIL market stabilizes, you`ll see more of these fringe first-rounders stay in the draft. It used to be that if you were a top-40 prospect, 90% would stay in the draft. Now, it`s shifted to needing to be a top-20 player to feel confident staying in.”
A consequence of so many players opting to remain in college rather than enter the draft was the lack of perceived “sure things” in the second round. One coach highlighted that 14 second-round picks received guaranteed deals last year, while only two of the first 47 picks landed two-way contracts.
This might not be the case this year.
“It`s arguably one of the weakest second rounds ever. NIL is a huge part of that,” the coach commented. “Consider all the players who would have been late first or early second-round picks; they would have significantly altered things. It wasn`t a strong draft class to begin with, but with all those guys returning, after pick No. 35 or so, I`m unsure if I`d offer guaranteed deals to many of these players.”
Other Notable First-Rounders
No. 9: Collin Murray-Boyles, Raptors – First non-freshmen picked
Collin Murray-Boyles presents a truly unique profile. He measured just 6-6 ½ without shoes, yet almost all his offensive production came near the basket. He attempted only 39 three-pointers over 60 games at South Carolina but was dominant in the paint.
Murray-Boyles managed to overcome his height disadvantage in college, making an impact defensively and with his passing. However, he will need to expand his offensive skill set at the next level.
“He has a somewhat unconventional game, and the NBA is often drawn to players who are versatile,” one coach observed. “He has the potential to be a very effective defender. While not exceptionally tall, he has good physical measurements and strength. He can do a bit of everything – pass, rebound – though he`s not a strong shooter at this point. I see him as a complementary player rather than someone with truly elite individual talent who will immediately carry an offense. If he`s on a good team, he can help it function, but I question if Toronto is that kind of team yet.”
No. 13: Derik Queen, Pelicans
No. 25: Jase Richardson, Magic
No. 27: Danny Wolf, Nets – Mixed reviews
Coaches were divided in their assessments of this trio of Big Ten draftees.
Maryland`s Derik Queen established himself as one of the most skilled big men in college basketball last season, highlighted by his game-winning buzzer-beater against Colorado State in the NCAA tournament. However, questions linger about his maturity, and his lack of elite athleticism could potentially limit his upside.
“He is incredibly skilled,” one Big Ten coach stated. “His passing ability is exceptional. On film, you might think he`s not athletic, but in person, it doesn`t matter as much. If he can develop a consistent motor, I genuinely believe he has the chance to become a tremendous NBA player.”
Michigan State`s Jase Richardson saw his draft stock fluctuate considerably over the past few months. He initially rose into the first round, even lottery projections, after Tom Izzo moved him into the starting lineup in February. However, after measuring just over 6 feet without shoes at the combine, Richardson`s projection dropped into the 20s, and he ultimately didn`t receive an invitation to the green room.
Orlando decided to select him at No. 25.
“I like Jase Richardson. He`d be a nightmare to coach against in college next year, but I`m less convinced about his NBA outlook,” one Big Ten coach commented. “He`s a 6-foot guard whose primary strength is scoring – not necessarily shooting, but getting points. He`s not a strong defender and not a particularly dynamic playmaker for others. He`s undersized. So, is he Trae Young? Is he T.J. McConnell? Is he Davion Mitchell?”
Michigan`s Danny Wolf had a unique role in the Big Ten last season. Coach Dusty May utilized the 6-11 Yale transfer as a playmaker with the ball due to his excellent decision-making out of ball screens and passing talent. However, there are questions about how this role translates to the next level.
“He can operate in pick-and-rolls, and as a big man, he makes incredible passes,” one coach said. “But he also turns the ball over frequently. With his likely role in the NBA, he won`t be afforded the opportunity to make one great pass followed by two careless turnovers. An NBA team won`t tolerate his turnover rate.”
“Part of his appeal is his ability to do many things, but he doesn`t excel at any single one,” another coach added. “Will a team try to hone one skill to make him elite, or will they be satisfied with his versatile but less specialized game?”
No. 18: Walter Clayton Jr., Jazz – NCAA tournament impact
Walter Clayton Jr.`s rise to No. 18, fueled by an outstanding NCAA tournament run, was highlighted by one coach. Clayton was phenomenal during Florida`s national championship run, averaging 24.6 points in the Gators` first five tournament games, including 34 points in the Final Four against Auburn and 30 points against Texas Tech.
“He`s a perfect illustration of how winning elevates a player`s draft stock,” the coach stated. “He went from a mid-to-late second-round prospect to a late first-round pick. Florida`s deep tournament run provided him a significant platform to showcase his abilities. That performance alone earned that young man millions of dollars.”
No. 20: Kasparas Jakucionis, Heat
No. 29: Liam McNeeley, Hornets – Biggest slides of opening night
Illinois` Kasparas Jakucionis was ranked No. 10 on Jonathan Givony`s Big Board and projected at No. 11 in ESPN`s final predraft mock, while UConn`s Liam McNeeley was No. 17 on Givony`s board and mocked at No. 20. Both fell notably below their previous evaluations. Multiple coaches believed these two players could provide tremendous value for the teams that drafted them.
Jakucionis appeared to be a legitimate All-American candidate during nonconference play, averaging 16.4 points, 5.6 rebounds, and 5.4 assists through 14 games. This stretch included impressive 20-point outings against Arkansas, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Missouri.
While one Big Ten coach agreed that this pick offered good value for the Heat and could be a good fit for Jakucionis alongside Tyler Herro, he also understood the reasons for the slide.
“He`s a scorer at all three levels,” the coach said. “He played with excellent pace variation. As the season progressed and teams scouted him more effectively, his production somewhat normalized. However, he plays with toughness. He isn`t an elite athlete. His stats declined in the latter half of Big Ten play, and he`s someone opposing teams could target defensively in isolation.”
McNeeley was a five-star recruit out of high school but was hindered by an injury during the middle of his freshman campaign at UConn. He is a talented shotmaker with good size and delivered some of the best individual performances among freshmen last season, including 26 points and eight rebounds against Gonzaga, and 38 points and 10 rebounds against Creighton.
One Big East coach suggested that McNeeley`s ankle injury, which caused him to miss eight conference games, impacted his efficiency and effectiveness on both ends of the court, possibly contributing to his draft slide.
“I don`t believe he`s the 29th-best player in this draft,” the coach commented. “He`s 6-8 and his shooting is much better than his percentages indicate. He`s highly competitive. I think he`s a more complete basketball player than he gets credit for, particularly in his ability to drive the ball and pass.”
No. 22: Drake Powell, Nets – Surprise pick
The selection of North Carolina wing Drake Powell at No. 22 was somewhat surprising, marking the Nets` third first-round pick. He had an inconsistent role as a freshman for the Tar Heels, averaging 7.4 points per game, but he tested exceptionally well at the combine, arguably ranking as the best athlete with top scores in both max vertical leap and standing vertical leap.
Can he provide immediate help to Brooklyn? Opposing coaches expressed some uncertainty.
“He fits the mold of a `3-and-D` player, but is he truly proficient enough at either shooting threes or defending effectively to fit that profile?” one ACC coach pondered.
“Much of the positive sentiment around Powell stems from the excitement surrounding the end of his high school career, where people saw a player who wasn`t a great shooter but possessed size, versatility, good passing ability, feel for the game, and athleticism – perhaps even potential as a big point guard,” another coach added. “Then he arrived at North Carolina and became a full-time wing player with distinct offensive limitations.”
No. 30: Yanic Konan Niederhauser, Clippers – Made the cut
The Penn State big man capped off his remarkable ascent by being selected with the final pick of the first round. Yanic Konan Niederhauser significantly boosted his draft stock during the predraft process, progressing from averaging 12.9 points last season for the Nittany Lions to participating in the G League Elite camp and subsequently earning an invitation to the NBA draft combine. It`s worth remembering he averaged only 7.3 points at Northern Illinois just two seasons prior.
“He`s just scratched the surface of his potential. He`s someone who could develop into a player similar to Dereck Lively II in the NBA,” one coach commented. “I believe if he had returned to college, he would have been a lottery pick next year.”
Second-Round Notes – Second-round values
No. 35 Johni Broome, 76ers
No. 42: Maxime Raynaud, Kings
No. 48: Javon Small, Grizzlies
No. 53: John Tonje, Jazz
Auburn`s Johni Broome, Stanford`s Maxime Raynaud, West Virginia`s Javon Small, and Wisconsin`s John Tonje were highlighted by coaches as players offering good value in the second round. Two coaches specifically mentioned that the perceived gap between Broome – a consensus first-team All-American and widely considered the runner-up for Player of the Year – and first-round big men like Murray-Boyles seemed too wide.
“He`s a player with athletic limitations. There are probably other criticisms regarding his age and so forth,” one coach acknowledged. “But he was Player of the Year in the best conference in the country and reached the Final Four. That level of accomplishment must carry some weight at the next level. He did everything asked of him and produced consistently night after night. What more could he have done? He had a historic season in a conference that was historically strong.”