For the PGs the important standards seem to be as follows: A FG pct. of .450, 18.0 P40, 5.0 A40 and 6.5 RSB40. Unlike SGs, it seems that the better a PG does in each one of these categories, the better he plays as a pro. Of particular importance seems to be a high number of assists. The 5.0 A40 number I tossed up there is more of a minimum. The best pro PGs racked up at least 7 assists per 40 minutes in college. Scoring isn’t as important as it is for the other positions, but scoring efficiently is. Put simply, a good PG has to be able to knock down a shot often enough to keep the defense honest. A low FG pct. in a college PG coupled with a high P40 is the sign of a mad bomber. Two other things that are important are an ability to get to the line and an ability to hit 3-pointers. Getting to the line goes with efficient scoring. As far as 3-point shooting, it seems more important to have a minimal ability, at least .333, moreso than hitting a real high pct. This is important, as noted in the Rajon Rondo comment last year.
Like the SGs, the RSB is somewhat important. I lowered their level to 6.5 per 40. That isn’t a hard and fast thing though, like the 7.0 seems to be for SGs. Steve Nash was over 6.5 only once in college, but he might be a special case as a late bloomer. Deron Williams was also an exception to this rule. Williams’ success this past year has me wondering if I need to tie team success into the PG ratings somehow. I’m not quite sure how I’d do something like that, but it’s something to be looked at for PGs in the future.
This is a weak class overall. Conley looks pretty good and some of the others have potential, but it’s not up to the level of recent classes and the depth is pretty poor. There’s very little in the way of prospects I would call mildly intriguing after the 11 listed here. For that reason, and because of some time constraints, I decided not to waste time ranking the likes of Mike Nardi, Vernon Hamilton and Will Franklin. One reason this group is thin is some of pretty good PGs, Ty Lawson and Darren Collison to name the two most prominent, stayed in college another year. Both should be hot items at this time next year.
| Freshmen PG Prospects | FG Pct. | 3 Pct. | P40 | A40 | A/TO | RSB40 | FTA40 |
| Mike Conley |
.518 |
.304 |
14.6 |
7.9 |
2.8 |
7.7 |
4.8 |
| All-Stars |
.459 |
.353 |
17.8 |
6.1 |
1.5 |
7.8 |
5.5 |
| Javaris Crittenton |
.450 |
.356 |
17.8 |
7.1 |
1.5 |
7.2 |
5.3 |
| Rotation Regulars |
.412 |
.338 |
13.4 |
6.0 |
1.6 |
6.8 |
4.2 |
| Journeymen |
.418 |
.328 |
15.6 |
6.1 |
1.6 |
6.3 |
4.4 |
| Never Played |
.410 |
.358 |
14.0 |
5.3 |
1.5 |
5.9 |
4.5 |
| Junior PG Prospects | FG Pct. | 3 Pct. | P40 | A40 | A/TO | RSB40 | FTA40 |
| All-Stars |
.485 |
.399 |
19.4 |
7.0 |
1.9 |
8.1 |
4.9 |
| Ramon Sessions |
.452 |
.380 |
16.2 |
6.2 |
1.9 |
7.7 |
5.6 |
| Rotation Regulars |
.440 |
.379 |
18.2 |
6.1 |
1.7 |
6.9 |
5.1 |
| Journeymen |
.429 |
.358 |
17.3 |
5.8 |
1.7 |
6.6 |
4.7 |
| Gabe Pruitt |
.416 |
.350 |
15.1 |
5.3 |
2.4 |
5.9 |
4.0 |
| Never Played |
.428 |
.376 |
16.8 |
5.3 |
1.6 |
6.8 |
4.5 |
| Senior PG Prospects | FG Pct. | 3 Pct. | P40 | A40 | A/TO | RSB40 | FTA40 |
| All-Stars |
.460 |
.370 |
20.7 |
5.9 |
1.6 |
7.5 |
5.2 |
| Acie Law IV |
.500 |
.458 |
21.3 |
5.9 |
1.9 |
5.3 |
6.4 |
| Rotation Regulars |
.452 |
.375 |
19.1 |
6.0 |
1.7 |
7.3 |
5.5 |
| Jamon Gordon |
.461 |
.268 |
14.4 |
5.7 |
2.0 |
9.9 |
3.9 |
| Mustafa Shakur |
.455 |
.325 |
13.2 |
7.7 |
1.9 |
6.4 |
4.9 |
| Aaron Brooks |
.460 |
.404 |
19.5 |
4.7 |
1.7 |
6.4 |
4.3 |
| Bobby Brown |
.468 |
.388 |
22.0 |
5.6 |
1.4 |
4.4 |
4.6 |
| Journeymen |
.435 |
.375 |
18.9 |
5.9 |
1.8 |
6.7 |
5.2 |
| Never Played |
.426 |
.370 |
17.3 |
5.4 |
1.7 |
6.6 |
4.8 |
1. Mike Conley Jr, Ohio State: Conley does just about everything a PG should. He can pass without turning the ball over too often, score and defend. His non-scoring numbers far exceed the average frosh PGs of the past who reached any level of success in the NBA. He led his team to the national title game and was probably their best player for most of the tournament. The only issue I might have with Conley as a pro would be his scoring ability. It’s not uncommon for freshmen PGs not to score much, but his 14.6 P40 is on the low side for a prospect. There’s also the outside shooting to think about. Conley hit only .304 on treys. That might be enough, but it’s pretty low. NBA PGs have to be able to hit the outside shot often enough to keep the defense honest. They don’t necessarily need to be deadly, just good enough. Conley’s .304 is right on that line. I’ll throw a couple of tables up that might better illustrate where Conley stands and whether the scoring is going to be a problem.
| Mike Conley Jr. | Games | Minutes | 3-point pct. | P40 |
| Non-Conference Games |
13 |
362 |
.211 |
13.9 |
| Conference Games |
20 |
651 |
.368 |
13.9 |
| Tournament Games |
6 |
218 |
.250 |
18.0 |
The conference games include a matchup with Tennessee that occurred in the middle of the Big 10 schedule. The good thing for Conley is he became a better 3-point shooter as the year progressed. I wouldn’t say we can declare him OK here, because he attempted only 69 treys over the course of the season, but this is encouraging. More important is the fact he became a strong scorer when his team needed him to be, in the tournament. The 18.0 includes the opening game against Central Connecticut, where he scored only 4 points in 28 minutes of a rout. So the 18.0 is probably a little low. This is impressive for two reasons. First it proves he can score when called upon. He did it against the best of the best in at the NCAA level. Next it shows he’s perfectly willing to be a pass-first PG, because during the season he was more concerned with running the offense and setting up teammates than he was with scoring.
This next table compares Conley to a collect of past freshmen PGs, all of whom averaged at least 7.5 A40.
| Player | A40 | FG pct. | 3-point pct. | P40 | RSB40 |
| Jason Kidd |
9.6 |
.463 |
.286 |
16.4 |
11.3 |
| TJ Ford |
10.1 |
.416 |
.152 |
13.7 |
7.5 |
| Ray Felton |
7.6 |
.398 |
.358 |
14.5 |
6.7 |
| Jacque Vaughn |
8.1 |
.467 |
.400 |
12.2 |
5.7 |
| Mateen Cleaves |
7.8 |
.401 |
.237 |
15.8 |
5.0 |
| Aaron Miles |
9.8 |
.413 |
.317 |
10.2 |
6.4 |
| Ken Satterfield |
7.5 |
.430 |
.298 |
13.0 |
6.7 |
| Omar Cook |
9.1 |
.360 |
.309 |
16.1 |
5.8 |
| Chris Thomas |
7.9 |
.389 |
.360 |
16.5 |
6.3 |
| Mike Conley Jr. |
7.9 |
.518 |
.304 |
14.6 |
7.7 |
What this shows is that piling up a bunch of assists as a college freshman brings no guarantee of NBA success. But it also shows that Mike Conley stacks up pretty well against the frosh passing wizards. He’s no Jason Kidd, but he has the best FG pct. and is second only to Kidd in RSB40. His scoring is middling, but we’ve already established that this isn’t a huge concern and is more likely a hidden strength.
Conley looks like a good one. His numbers look great and he has NBA-level athleticism. The weak outside shot is the only thing I can see sabotaging what should be a great pro career. But I don’t even know if that’s even a problem any longer. With freshmen you usually want to go a little more slowly, but this isn’t a typical freshman. Conley has amazing poise and court presence for a player this young. I feel he’ll be able to step right in and perform well fairly quickly.
2. Javaris Crittenton, Georgia Tech: Crittenton put up some strong numbers for a freshman. He was much better against weaker competition though. This table shows his performance in 7 games the Yellow Jackets played against smaller colleges in the non-conference part of the schedule against the 25 games he played against major conference competition:
| Javaris Crittenton | FG pct. | 3-point pct. | P40 | A40 | TO40 | A/TO |
| Against small college opponents |
.547 |
.526 |
21.4 |
12.6 |
4.7 |
2.7 |
| Against major college opponents |
.429 |
.317 |
17.0 |
6.0 |
4.8 |
1.2 |
Obviously he feasted on the weaker competition. I’m not sure how big a deal this is though. Just about every college basketball prospect will fatten his numbers up against the weak sisters of the NCAA. The same dynamic is probably at work in the pros also. Crittenton’s splits seem pretty extreme though. The positive would be that he’s just a freshman and it’s not a bad thing that he destroyed some weaker foes. The negative spin would be that if he couldn’t get it done against the best of the ACC, how the heck is he going to manage to in the NBA? With younger players, I think it’s best to be positive, while keeping an eye on the negative. It’s worth noting that he not only improved his play against major competition as the season wore on, but stepped up with 4 dominant performances down the stretch in wins over NC State, Florida State, Wake Forest and BC. That tells me there’s a good player in here who needs a little more time to find some consistency.
Taking the season as a whole, his numbers are very solid. He scores often and efficiently. He’s a good passer, a great ballhawk and he can hit the jumper. His turnovers are on the high side, but this isn’t a huge issue for freshmen PGs. Several good ones including Kidd, Billups, Terry and Iverson all turned the ball over more frequently than Crittenton did as a freshman. He’ll probably take a season or two to develop, but Javaris Crittenton is on track to become a good NBA PG. He needs to work on consistency and he’ll probably experience some growing pains adjusting to NBA play. He seemed lackadaisical at times when I watched him play and he won’t be able to get away with that at the next level. The best situation for him would be to go to a team that can afford to be patient with him. If too much is expected of him too soon, he could have an early career similar to that of Chauncey Billups. Billups was passed around to a few teams as a cap-balancer for a few seasons before finding a spot. Crittenton’s career could unfold the same way.
3. Acie Law IV, Texas A&M: Law hit 50% of his shots and this isn’t an easy thing for a college PG to do. Here’s a list of recent college PGs who have hit over half their shots while logging significant minutes. The list has some impressive names on it:
| Player | FG Pct. | 3-point pct. | P40 | RSB40 |
| Baron Davis |
.529 |
.308 |
14.9 |
8.7 |
| Andre Miller |
.549 |
.333 |
18.0 |
10.2 |
| Steve Francis |
.523 |
.388 |
22.2 |
9.8 |
| Kirk Hinrich |
.542 |
.478 |
19.3 |
8.8 |
| Jarrett Jack |
.514 |
.442 |
18.2 |
7.9 |
| Marcus Banks |
.514 |
.336 |
22.5 |
7.0 |
| Drew Barry |
.513 |
.427 |
15.0 |
7.9 |
| Melvin Booker |
.504 |
.405 |
20.8 |
5.9 |
| Travis Ford |
.527 |
.529 |
16.8 |
4.7 |
| Acie Law IV |
.500 |
.458 |
21.3 |
5.3 |
The good news for Law is half the players listed here have gone on to play at or near an all-star level in the NBA. The bad news is Law doesn’t have the high RSB40 number that seems to separate the all-stars from the rest of the group. In fact, Law’s RSB40 is extremely low and this could be a bad sign. Here’s a group of PGs who posted an RSB40 lower than 5.5 in the past 10 or so years:
| Player | RSB40 | FG pct. | P40 | A40 |
| Deron Williams |
5.4 |
.408 |
16.5 |
7.3 |
| Jacque Vaughn |
5.5 |
.427 |
12.9 |
7.9 |
| Chucky Atkins |
4.8 |
.432 |
20.3 |
4.2 |
| Shammond Williams |
5.3 |
.490 |
20.4 |
5.2 |
| Mateen Cleaves |
4.2 |
.421 |
15.4 |
8.7 |
| AJ Guyton |
4.9 |
.459 |
22.9 |
2.7 |
| Tyson Wheeler |
4.7 |
.402 |
17.5 |
7.1 |
| John Lucas |
4.0 |
.451 |
19.6 |
4.5 |
| Dan Dickau |
4.5 |
.441 |
24.2 |
5.4 |
| Acie Law IV |
5.3 |
.500 |
21.3 |
5.9 |
Deron Williams has become a star, but the others have struggled. The only one in the bunch who could be called a bust is Cleaves. None of the others were as highly thought of as Law is now. Only Shammond Wiiliams was close to Law as a scorer when you consider efficiency. Another reason this may not be a huge concern is Law posted RSBs of 5.8, 6.0 and 5.8 his previous 3 seasons. Not great numbers, but a little better and enough that it shouldn’t keep a scorer this good out of the league.
Law has been a scorer first and foremost. He can pass, but seems to prefer to shoot, which might make him more of a combo, or even a SG. The problem he faces is he’s going to be drafted as a PG. A rookie PG who’s bringing a shoot-first game with him from college seems like a good candidate to have some struggles, even though Law was hardly a mad bomber. PGs are brought in to run an offense, not to score. For this reason, I could see him having somewhat of a rough start. I do feel that he’s talented enough to settle into a role as a productive player eventually at one of the guard spots.
4. Ramon Sessions, Nevada: Sessions bounced backed from a brutal sophomore season and made himself into a decent prospect. As a junior he did everything well. His scoring was a little low at 16.2 P40, but several players including Deron Williams, Jacque Vaughn, Howard Eisley, Ray Felton, Jamaal Tinsley, Earl Watson and Alvin Williams to name a few have carved out decent NBA careers for themselves after posting a P40 of less than 16.2 in their junior year. I don’t see the low scoring as a huge issue. Especially since he was a pretty efficient scorer and he played on a team that had two established scorers in place in Fazekas and Kemp. It is a little worrisome that he’s below 1 SPG, but he was as high as 1.5 his freshman year and he rebounds well enough that I feel he’ll be able to handle the defensive end of things OK. I’m also not completely sold on his outside shot. He hit 38%, which is great, but it was for only 50 attempts and he had been at .200 on 30 attempts his two previous seasons. So the question of whether he can hit the open shot when needed is also hanging out there.
I could see Sessions hanging around the league for awhile the way the likes of other low-scoring college PGs Vaughn, Eisley and Watson have. His skills don’t blow you away, but he gets the job done in an efficient manner and he has good size. I feel he’s likely to end up in a rotation somewhere, be a starter for stretches and a useful player in the league for a good period of time. If the 38% on 3-point shooting is for real, he might be more than that.
5. Gabe Pruitt, USC: Pruitt did not have a good junior year compared to what he had accomplished previously. His numbers were down after he took over the PG position full time. His career has been fairly interesting though. He’s played a few different roles and it’s worth looking at his seasons and getting an idea of what he’s capable of:
| Gabe Pruitt | FG pct. | 3-point pct. | P40 | A40 | A/TO | RSB40 |
| Freshman |
.486 |
.450 |
16.4 |
4.2 |
1.2 |
6.0 |
| Sophomore |
.405 |
.380 |
20.0 |
3.6 |
1.2 |
7.9 |
| Junior |
.416 |
.350 |
15.1 |
5.3 |
2.4 |
5.9 |
As a freshman he was a promising SG who scored efficiently. His sophomore season he stepped up his scoring and defense to the point where he looked like a potential star. The efficiency was down, but he was just a sophomore. Last season he was asked to take over the PG duties after starter Ryan Francis was tragically killed. Pruitt stepped in and ran the offense smoothly and efficiently for a sweet 16 team. In his 3 seasons he’s been a deadly shooter, a good, though somewhat inefficient scorer and a decent PG. The problem is he’s done these things in different seasons and has never looked for one season like a particularly good prospect.
While I’m having some trouble seeing where he’ll fit, I believe Pruitt has enough skills that he can help a team in some way, eventually find a niche and stick around the league for a long time. A recent prospect his career reminds me of is David Lee. They’re very different players, but Lee also had a college career where he played differing roles from year-to-year and may have hurt his draft position doing so. But he also showed he had a diverse game and now he’s a solid NBA player. Pruitt is the same way. In 3 college seasons he’s shown he can be a strong passer, shooter, scorer and defender. A player with this many skills is a nice player to have around and I suspect he’ll be able to eventually get himself into a role somewhere.
6. Mustafa Shakur, Arizona: His season was disappointing, because of Arizona’s fade in the 2nd half. But Shakur had by far the best individual season of his career and looked more like a real prospect than he ever has. He was never a great scorer at Arizona, but that can’t be held against him too much, because he always played on a team that had at least a couple of NBA prospects who handled most of the scoring. His percentages were always decent and he actually led all PGs this year in FT/FG, or FT attempts per FG attempts which shows a good ability to get to the line, an important part of any PGs game. In fact, many PGs who have hung around the league a long time as reserves: Brevin Knight, Jacque Vaughn, Anthony Johnson, Speedy Claxton, Jamaal Tinsley, Derek Fisher and Rick Brunson, all had an FT/FG over .500 like Shakur has. But so did players like Kiwane Garris, Pointer Williams, God Shamgod and Derek Zimmerman who never made an impact. So I can’t say this ability to get to the line will keep Shakur in the league, just that it is a characteristic of PGs who tend to get work year after year. Another characterictic of a PG who makes the league is 7+ A40. Shakur is at 7.7, so he has some numbers in his favor.
I could see Shakur sticking in the league for awhile. I doubt he’ll have a huge impact, but looking at his game he can run an offense, he’s an efficient enough scorer and there’s nothing in his defensive numbers to suggest he’s weak in that area. He has enough that he could at least become a decent backup PG.
7. Petteri Koponen, Espoon Honka: A 19 year-old Finn. The impressive thing I see is he’s an efficient scorer, hitting .476 overall and .404 on treys. That’s important for a foreign player. His other numbers are only so-so: 1.50 A/TO, 16.2 P40 and 5.5 RSB40. He’s only 19, and it’s impressive that he’s doing this well in his country’s top league. It would be more impressive if it weren’t Finland. As I mentioned in the Yi Jianlian comment, players in countries with weaker leagues need to be pretty dominant to make the jump to the NBA. Koponen has been impressive, but hardly dominant. Right now I would call him an intriguing gamble. At 19, the upside is better than most. He’s a good fit for a team looking for a young PG to develop. But he’s quite a ways away from where he needs to be and would seem like a longshot to ever get there at this point.
8. Jamon Gordon, Virginia Tech: If this guy could just shoot the ball, he’d be a terrific prospect. He’s one of the best defenders available, averaging 2.5 SPG for his career and blocking 82 shots in 4 years, which is an amazing total for a guard. It’s extremely rare for a PG prospect to block over 20 shots in a season and he’s done it twice. Unfortunately, there’s little correlation between PGs who block shots and NBA success. He’s not a terrible scorer, hitting 46% of his shots over the past two seasons. But there are some negatives. After 4 seasons and 273 3-point attempts, he hasn’t hit over 30% in any season. That can be the kiss of death for a PG prospect. He’s never been very good at getting to the line either.
Gordon’s weak offensive game makes him an iffy prospect. I feel that he can do enough defensively that should be able to land somewhere as a role player. The fact that he can also run an offense is a plus. Because shooting, more than any other skill is something a player can learn and develop in later years, there is hope for Gordon to become more than a reserve. But the fact that he hasn’t shown any improvement in 4 seasons at Virginia Tech makes that a long shot. I like him as a second rounder. I think he’s a player who could become a good role player. But I don’t see him becoming much more than that.
9. Jared Jordan, Marist: Jordan has gotten over 8 APG for two consecutive seasons, which is an impressive feat. Less impressive is that he accomplished it at Marist in a weak conference. I did watch him play against Arkansas back in November and I came away impressed. Not that I’m a scout, but he seemed very active and athletic to me. Watching him at the time, I felt he could play in the NBA. But like I said, I’m not a scout and I can’t really tell those things just by watching a player.
Not too many small college players make it, let alone PGs. PGs who have made the jump from small conferences in recent years include Speedy Claxton, Anthony Johnson and Derek Fisher. None piled up assists like Jordan did, but all were more efficient scorers. Steve Nash, a player Jordan seems almost certain to be compared to at some point during the draft coverage, went to Santa Clara, which is more of a mid-major. Since I don’t have a ton of info on small college PGs, I’m just going to put down a few thoughts about Jordan and what I see in his numbers:
- He’s a great passer and that’s a good thing. His A/TO has been well above 2 his entire career and his A40 of 9.1 is a number few PGs reach in college. Since assists are one of the most important stats for a PG prospects to have, the fact that Jordan is so good at this really helps his chances.
- He’s been an inconsistent scorer. He’s been at 16.1 and 17.2 PPG the last two seasons, which is good, but his percentages haven’t been so hot. His best year was as a junior when he hit .487 and .374. His senior numbers were .425 and .298, but he did get to the line a lot more often as a senior.
- Defensively he’s at 7.7 RSB40, which is good. Still, I prefer small college players to be a little more dominant.
- He wasn’t too hot against the majors. He played well vs. Arkansas, but struggled against Minnesota, Oklahoma State and NC State.
Adding it all up, I can’t see Jordan as much more than an NBA reserve, if that. I guess his passing ability makes him a sleeper. I’m sure part of his scoring efficiency woes came from teams keying on him as his rep got bigger. It’s just that small college players don’t have a great history of making an impact and I can’t see anything in Jordan’s numbers that suggest he’ll be any different.
10. Aaron Brooks, Oregon: Brooks made himself into a prospect as a senior. He became the leading scorer for a team that made it to the elite 8 and he got his percentages up to the point where scouts had to take notice of him. I’m still wary of him as a prospect though. When a player suddenly steps up his senior year my reaction is to ask whether the improvement is real or not. I’m suspicious of a player who posts a dramatic increase in FG or 3-point percentage for a season while his other numbers remain static, because that could be nothing more than a hot streak. Brooks cranked up his percentages, but also showed improvement elsewhere:
| Aaron Brooks | FG Pct. | 3-point pct. | P40 | A40 | TO40 | RSB40 |
| Freshman |
.371 |
.368 |
10.8 |
4.1 |
3.6 |
5.0 |
| Sophomore |
.429 |
.371 |
17.8 |
5.6 |
3.9 |
5.3 |
| Junior |
.406 |
.336 |
13.4 |
5.4 |
3.0 |
5.8 |
| Senior |
.460 |
.404 |
19.5 |
4.7 |
2.8 |
6.4 |
What’s impressive about Brooks’ season is that he stepped up both the frequency and efficiency of his scoring. He also became a better defender. While he didn’t pass as often, he turned the ball over less, which is impressive because he was handling the ball as a scorer so often. Because his entire game improved and his improvement drove his team to a very successful season, I would say the numbers Aaron Brooks put up his senior season are probably real improvement and a good reflection of his real ability.
But I’m still not sure that makes him a much of a prospect. He’s never improved his passing, like Shakur did as a senior, and that should be the strength of a player who’s 6’0” 160. He’s not that good at getting to the line either and that’s a bad sign for a PG. He’s a backup at best. His quickness, quick trigger and ability to hit the trey might land him a spot on a team that likes to run and he’d be a great part-time fit in such an offense, but that’s about all he can expect.
11. Bobby Brown, Cal State-Fullerton: Brown also stepped up his numbers as a senior, hitting career highs in points, FG pct and assists. Like we did with Brooks, I thought it would help to look at Brown’s improvement to determine whether or not it’s something that’s going to kick him from bubble prospect to someone who should land in the league:
| Bobby Brown | FG Pct. | 3-point pct. | P40 | A40 | TO40 | RSB40 |
| Freshman |
.402 |
.405 |
15.9 |
4.2 |
2.8 |
3.8 |
| Sophomore |
.414 |
.348 |
17.6 |
4.9 |
3.4 |
4.2 |
| Junior |
.426 |
.377 |
18.9 |
4.9 |
3.6 |
4.7 |
| Senior |
.468 |
.388 |
22.0 |
5.6 |
3.9 |
4.4 |
Like Brooks, he improved both the frequency and efficiency of his scoring, which is good. He also passed the ball a little better, which is also good, even with the increase in TOs. He did nothing about his defense though and that’s not so good. As far as the improved percentages go, it’s not all that impressive. A lot of the improvement happened in his 3 games against small college teams where he was on fire, hitting 64% from both inside and outside the arc. Take away those games and his numbers fall to .443 and .348, which makes his season much less impressive. Because of this, I have to give Brown a thumbs down as a prospect. The improvement as a senior isn’t all that impressive with a closer look. He’s a shoot-first player who’s not a very efficient scorer and has defensive and passing numbers that are very weak for a prospect. His scoring might impress some team enough to keep him around as an end-of-bench project, but I doubt he has any staying power in the league.