Essential The Official ESPN Insider Thread (ESPN+)

[Skooby]

Quarterbacks
1. *Josh Allen, Wyoming
2. **Sam Darnold, USC
3. *Josh Rosen, UCLA
4. Baker Mayfield, Oklahoma
5. *Lamar Jackson, Louisville
6. Mason Rudolph, Oklahoma State
7. Kyle Lauletta, Richmond
8. Mike White, Western Kentucky
9. Luke Falk, Washington State
10. *Chase Litton, Marshall



Running backs
1. *Saquon Barkley, Penn State
2. *Derrius Guice, LSU
3. *Ronald Jones II, USC
4. Nick Chubb, Georgia
5. Sony Michel, Georgia
6. Rashaad Penny, San Diego State
7. *Nyheim Hines, NC State
8. *Kerryon Johnson, Auburn
9. Royce Freeman, Oregon
10. Kalen Ballage, Arizona State



Fullbacks/H-backs
1. Jaylen Samuels, NC State
2. Dimitri Flowers, Oklahoma
3. Nick Bawden, San Diego State
4. DeAndre Goolsby, Florida
5. Khalid Hill, Michigan
6. Austin Ramesh, Wisconsin
7. Deon Yelder, Western Kentucky
8. Marcus Martin, Slippery Rock
9. Daniel Marx, Stanford
10. Donnie Ernsberger, Western Michigan
Wide receivers
1. *Calvin Ridley, Alabama
2. *D.J. Moore, Maryland
3. Anthony Miller, Memphis
4. *Christian Kirk, Texas A&M
5. James Washington, Oklahoma State
6. D.J. Chark, LSU
7. *Courtland Sutton, SMU
8. Dante Pettis, Washington
9. *Tre'Quan Smith, Central Florida
10. DaeSean Hamilton, Penn State


Tight ends
1. Dallas Goedert, South Dakota State
2. *Hayden Hurst, South Carolina
3. *Mark Andrews, Oklahoma
4. Mike Gesicki, Penn State
5. *Jordan Akins, Central Florida
6. Ian Thomas, Indiana
7. Troy Fumagalli, Wisconsin
8. Jordan Thomas, Mississippi State
9. Will Dissly, Washington
10. Durham Smythe, Notre Dame


Offensive tackles
1. *Kolton Miller, UCLA
2. Mike McGlinchey, Notre Dame
3. *Connor Williams, Texas
4. *Geron Christian, Louisville
5. *Orlando Brown, Oklahoma
6. Tyrell Crosby, Oregon
7. Martinas Rankin, Mississippi State
8. *Brian O'Neill, Pitt
9. Desmond Harrison, West Georgia
10. Chukwuma Okorafor, Western Michigan


Guards
1. *Quenton Nelson, Notre Dame
2. Isaiah Wynn, Georgia
3. Will Hernandez, UTEP
4. Austin Corbett, Nevada
5. Colby Gossett, Appalachian State
6. Braden Smith, Auburn
7. Wyatt Teller, Virginia Tech
8. Skyler Phillips, Idaho State
9. *Sam Jones, Arizona State
10. Sean Welsh, Iowa


Centers
1. *James Daniels, Iowa
2. Billy Price, Ohio State
3. Frank Ragnow, Arkansas
4. Scott Quessenberry, UCLA
5. Mason Cole, Michigan
6. *Will Clapp, LSU
7. Coleman Shelton, Washington
8. Jake Bennett, Colorado State
9. Brian Allen, Michigan State
10. Bradley Bozeman, Alabama


Defensive ends
1. Bradley Chubb, NC State
2. Marcus Davenport, Texas (San Antonio)
3. *Breeland Speaks, Mississippi
4. Tyquan Lewis, Ohio State
5. *Sam Hubbard, Ohio State
6. Andrew Brown, Virginia
7. *Rasheem Green, USC
8. *Arden Key, LSU
9. Da'Shawn Hand, Alabama
10. Kylie Fitts, Utah



Defensive tackles
1. *Da'Ron Payne, Alabama
2. *Vita Vea, Washington
3. *Taven Bryan, Florida
4. B.J. Hill, NC State
5. Maurice Hurst, Michigan
6. *Harrison Phillips, Stanford
7. Nathan Shepherd, Fort Hays State
8. Deadrin Senat, South Florida
9. *Tim Settle, Virginia Tech
10. Derrick Nnadi, Florida State


Inside linebackers
1. *Roquan Smith, Georgia
2. *Tremaine Edmunds, Virginia Tech
3. Rashaan Evans, Alabama
4. *Leighton Vander Esch, Boise State
5. Genard Avery, Memphis
6. Oren Burks, Vanderbilt
7. Micah Kiser, Virginia
8. Josey Jewell, Iowa
6. Darius Leonard, South Carolina State
7. Nick DeLuca, North Dakota State
8. Oren Burks, Vanderbilt
9. Darius Leonard, South Carolina State
10. *Christian Sam, Arizona State


Outside linebackers
1. Harold Landry, Boston College
2. Lorenzo Carter, Georgia
3. Uchenna Nwosu, USC
4. Ogbonnia Okoronkwo, Oklahoma
5. *Malik Jefferson, Texas
6. Kemoko Turay, Rutgers
7. Shaquem Griffin, Central Florida
8. *Jerome Baker, Ohio State
9. *Josh Sweat, Florida State
10. *Jeff Holland, Auburn

 

[Skooby]

Cornerbacks
1. *Denzel Ward, Ohio State
2. *Jaire Alexander, Louisville
3. *Josh Jackson, Iowa
4. M.J. Stewart, North Carolina
5. *Mike Hughes, Central Florida
6. *Donte Jackson, LSU
7. *Isaiah Oliver, Colorado
8. *Carlton Davis, Auburn
9. Anthony Averett, Alabama
10. Duke Dawson, Florida


Safeties
1. *Minkah Fitzpatrick, Alabama
2. **Derwin James, Florida State
3. *Justin Reid, Stanford
4. **Jessie Bates, Wake Forest
5. *Ronnie Harrison, Alabama
6. *Terrell Edmunds, Virginia Tech
7. Godwin Igwebuike, Northwestern
8. *DeShon Elliott, Texas
9. Kyzir White, West Virginia
10. Marcus Allen, Penn State


Kickers, punters and long-snappers
1. Johnny Townsend, Florida (P)
2. JK Scott, Alabama (P)
3. Daniel Carlson, Auburn (K)
4. *Eddy Pineiro, Florida (K)
5. *Michael dikkson, Texas (P)
6. Tanner Carew, Oregon (LS)
7. Shane Tripucka, Texas A&M (P)
8. Trevor Daniel, Tennessee (P)
9. Ryan Winslow, Pitt (P)
10. Drew Brown, Nebraska (K)

 

[Dame Dash's Motor Oil]

@Skooby

Ranking the most outstanding players in the Final Four

 

[Morethan1]

@Skooby

Ranking the most outstanding players in the Final Four

Top 25 players at the Final Four
by John Gasaway on 2018-03-22 22:17:00 UTC (original: Ranking the most outstanding players in the Final Four)

Quick, name the Most Outstanding Player of the South Region.

Officially speaking, that honor belongs to Ben Richardson of Loyola-Chicago.

Meanwhile, in the West Region, your 2018 MOP is none other than Charles Matthews of Michigan.

See how this works? The most outstanding player is the individual who is having the best tournament for the team that's still playing.

Well, if the NCAA can do it, we can too. Here are the top 25 players at the Final Four. Taking a page from MOP selection protocol, these rankings are based on tournament performance alone.

Scraped at insider2text.xyz, brought to you by HeheStreams — No ads, No Bullshyt Live & On-Demand NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL Streaming



Watch for these tournament standouts this weekend in San Antonio, and keep in mind, a "low" ranking among a group so plainly overpopulated by peak performers is no slight whatsoever. In the immortal words of Troy McClure, "If you ask me, they're all winners."


1. Malik Newman, Kansas Jayhawks
Newman's incredible tournament is being represented in some quarters as a player-development triumph scored by Bill Self. That is perhaps a backhanded way of saying the sophomore wasn't setting the world on fire at the beginning of the season, which is a valid assertion.

Still, wherever the credit for this rather stunning performance rightfully resides, let's not overcomplicate what we're seeing. Newman has made more 3-pointers in the tournament (13) than any other player in San Antonio. He is shooting 45 percent from out there, and he's hitting better than half of his 2s, as well. The evaluators who saw the erstwhile Mississippi State star as a potential one-and-done candidate back in 2015-16 might have been on to something after all.

2. Jalen Brunson, Villanova Wildcats
Back in October, of course we all knew that Loyola-Chicago would make the 2018 Final Four, and that Brunson, a 6-foot-2 point guard, would single-handedly resurrect the sport's previously moribund post-up game. (Right? Anyway, that's our story.) Jay Wright's junior is giving opponents fits by backing them down in the paint. Thanks in part to Brunson's tournament-long tribute to Jahlil Okafor, the Wildcats beat a No. 3 seed by double-digits, even though they shot 4-of-24 on their 3s.

3. Ben Richardson, Loyola-Chicago Ramblers
On paper, Richardson is a pass-first combo guard and, again on paper, that's pretty much what he has been in the tournament. But forget paper -- just look at the results over the past four games. The 6-foot-3 senior is hitting his shots (draining 44 percent of his 3s), distributing the ball and even pitching in on the defensive glass. His 23-point performance against Kansas State gave the Ramblers their first comfortable win of the tournament.

4. Charles Matthews, Michigan Wolverines
Matthews is the highest-ranked player on this list to have fouled out of a game in this tournament. It happened against Houston, and the sophomore was limited to 11 points in a game the Wolverines very nearly lost. Conversely, when Matthews is available for the entire game, he's averaging 18 points per outing and Michigan is winning without the last-second heroics of Jordan Poole.

5. Mikal Bridges, Villanova
If Bridges is ranked this high after tying the mark for the worst perimeter shooting performance of his entire career (0-for-5) against Texas Tech, there must be other qualities to recommend the young man. True enough: Bridges is still, incredibly, hitting 46 percent of his frequent tournament 3-point attempts, even after his oh-fer against the Red Raiders. If you're Kansas, you're rightly concerned about the 6-foot-7 junior returning to form in his next game.

6. Devonte' Graham, Kansas
This portion of the list is reserved for great players coming off poor shooting performances. In the tournament, Graham has converted just 32 percent of his 3s and 36 percent of his 2s. Yet he's way up on this list, rightly, because he has been doing what he always does: Self's point guard has shot as many free throws as 3s (and hit 80 percent of those tries at the line), while dishing the assists and, yes, the hockey assists that have freed up the likes of Newman and Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk for open looks beyond the

 

[Morethan1]

7. Clayton Custer, Loyola-Chicago
Like his team, Custer has been slightly turnover-prone in the tournament, and, again like his team, the 6-foot-1 junior is in the Final Four anyway. Apparently, the giveaways were nothing that great shooting from both sides of the arc and a few assists couldn't overcome. Not to mention it was Custer's game winner against Tennessee that picked up the thread from Donte Ingram's game winner against Miami and passed it along to Marques Townes' game winner against Nevada.

8. Moritz Wagner, Michigan
Wagner is still looking for his first career 3 (he was 0-of-7 from out there in the regional final), but the 6-foot-11 junior showed his true capability when he dropped 21 points on Texas A&M in just 30 minutes. Having a career 39 percent 3-point shooter as your 5-man complicates things for opposing defenses, even when that 5-man's shots aren't falling.

9. Udoka Azubuike, Kansas
Self might need to slightly adjust the sport's customary foul clock with Azubuike's playing time. While the 7-foot sophomore is somewhat foul-prone, he is a thoroughly dominant force of per-possession nature who shoots 41 percent at the line and air-balled a free throw against Duke. In other words, if Azubuike fouls out around the last media timeout in a close game with a bunch of offensive boards and about 30 minutes already under his belt, what's not to like?

10. Eric Paschall, Villanova
With the exception of the aforementioned Azubuike, Paschall has had the best tournament of any player in San Antonio in terms of offensive rebounding. That ability turned out to be huge for a perimeter-oriented Villanova team that was utterly incapable of making perimeter shots in the regional final. With Paschall and Omari Spellman on the floor to clean up misses, Wright's uncannily accurate offense has a margin for error on the rare occasions when it is less accurate.

11. Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman, Michigan
Among the players at the Final Four, only the legendary iron man of Lawrence, Kansas, himself (that would be Graham) has been on the floor for more tournament minutes than Abdur-Rahkman. Apparently, John Beilein finds him indispensable. The senior that Michigan fans refer to simply as MAAR showed off his versatility rather indelibly in a 24-point and seven-assist outburst against Texas A&M in the Sweet 16.


The tournament has tipped off. Your picks are locked in. It's time to find out how your bracket is holding up. Check your brackets

12. Lagerald Vick, Kansas
There are three players in San Antonio who have reached double figures for made 3s in the tournament: Newman (13-of-29), Bridges (11-of-24) and Vick (10-of-21). The 6-foot-5 junior was supposed to be the best option for opposing defenses looking desperately for a Jayhawk who could be left very briefly unattended on the perimeter. Someone forgot to tell Vick.

13. Aundre Jackson, Loyola-Chicago
Porter Moser likes to bring Jackson in off the bench and limit his minutes above and beyond what mere foul trouble would dictate. You can't argue with results. When the 6-foot-5 senior is on the floor, he carries the tournament's highest possession-usage rate of any player at the Final Four. If anything, he should shoot even more often: Jackson is ripping through tournament opponents to the tune of 66 percent 2-point shooting.

14. Omari Spellman, Villanova
Spellman might have something special in store for the Final Four. The 6-foot-8 redshirt freshman is hitting his 3s when he's not faking shots from beyond the arc and driving defenders into the paint. He also is taking care of business on the glass at both ends of the floor, while dueling Azubuike for the honor of being the best tournament rim-defender in San Antonio.

 

[Morethan1]

15. Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk, Kansas
Opponents try to get Mykhailiuk to do his shooting inside the arc, and with good reason. (He's hitting just 42 percent of his 2s in the tournament.) When that strategy fails, however, the senior will make you pay. It was Mykhailiuk's 3 with 26 seconds remaining in regulation against Duke that set the stage for KU's win in overtime.

16. Cameron Krutwig, Loyola-Chicago
He is the Azubuike of Rogers Park, or maybe it's the Jayhawk who is actually the Krutwig of Lawrence. Anyway, neither player has attempted a 3-point shot in his young career, making both true oddities in 2018. Krutwig's outstanding season-long 2-point success rate might have triggered schedule-related skepticism, but now that he has converted 56 percent of his tries inside the arc against Miami, Tennessee, Nevada and Kansas State, you best be believing.

17. Donte DiVincenzo, Villanova
There have been moments in the tournament in which DiVincenzo has seemed like a turnover about to happen. Nevertheless, he's hitting his shots and, with Brunson busy in the paint, "The Big Ragu" actually boasts the Final Four's highest tournament assist rate adjusted for playing time.

18. Duncan Robinson, Michigan
Robinson logs consistently heavy minutes coming off the bench, and he hits his 3s. That was true during the regular season (26 minutes a game, 39 percent 3-point shooting) and it has been true in the tournament, as well (26 minutes, 41 percent).

19. Marques Townes, Loyola-Chicago
After transferring to Loyola from Fairleigh dikkinson, Townes has recorded significant improvement in his shooting both from the line and beyond the arc. In addition to draining what turned out to be the game-winning 3 with 6.3 seconds remaining against Nevada, the junior had a great all-around game against the Wolf Pack, posting 18 points to go along with five assists.

20. Phil Booth, Villanova
Booth hasn't had much luck with his 3s since returning from a hand injury in late February, but the junior has, as always, been a capable distributor, while serving as a surprisingly active defensive rebounder in the tournament.

21. Donte Ingram, Loyola Chicago
It was Ingram who got this whole "thrilling 40th-minute Rambler victory" thing off the ground with his game winner from well beyond the 3-point line against Miami. (That seems like a long time ago.)



22. Zavier Simpson, Michigan
In a Final Four conspicuously short on Jevon Carter-type perimeter defenders, Simpson could be your best bet to see a takeaway in the making. The sophomore has recorded 11 steals over the past three games, including six against Texas A&M alone.


23. Lucas Williamson, Loyola-Chicago
A year ago, Williamson was playing for Whitney Young High in Chicago. Now he's one of just a handful of freshmen who will see significant minutes at the Final Four. If his 3s fall the way they did during Missouri Valley Conference play, look out.

24. Silvio De Sousa, Kansas
For this penultimate spot, a spirited competition erupted between no fewer than five players, all of whom average between 11 and 14 minutes per tournament game: De Sousa, Isaiah Livers and Jon Teske for Michigan, and Dhamir Cosby-Roundtree and Collin Gillespie for Villanova. De Sousa gets the nod here for his 10-rebound effort in 26 high-pressure minutes against Duke.

25. Jordan Poole, Michigan
Yes, Poole has logged just 30 total minutes in the tournament. Still, Michigan wouldn't be here without him. Ask Houston.

 

[Dr. Narcisse]

@Skooby @Morethan1
Kiper's 2018 NFL Mock Draft 3.0: Quarterbacks at 1, 2, 3, 5, 15

 

[Dame Dash's Motor Oil]

@Skooby @Morethan1

What this McDonald's class means for the next NBA draft

Thanks in advance

 

[Morethan1]

@Skooby @Morethan1

What this McDonald's class means for the next NBA draft

Thanks in advance

What this McDonald's All American class means for the 2019 NBA draft
by Jonathan Givony on (original: What this McDonald's class means for the next NBA draft)

The 24 best high school seniors conducted three practices and one private scrimmage under the watchful eyes of dozens of NBA decision-makers this week in Atlanta, leading up to the McDonald's All American Game on Thursday (7 p.m. ET, ESPN/WatchESPN).


The feedback from NBA executives in Atlanta, including numerous general managers, was decidedly mixed, with quite a bit of grumbling regarding the format of the practices, the competitiveness of the participants and the overall quality of the 2018 high school class, which should form the backbone of the 2019 NBA draft.

A distinct lack of energy and urgency prevailed in all three practices, as many of the best players coasted, seemingly not having much to prove despite the presence of such a large number of people in the stands who will have a huge role in deciding the outlook of their professional careers. Many fingers were pointed at the coaching staffs of both teams for failing to motivate the players to compete and not putting them in position to showcase their talents to the fullest extent with more challenging drills and greater accountability.

The private scrimmage, attended live by NBA executives, family members, McDonald's All American Game committee members and ESPN employees (including us) was better, even though the lack of star power and overall depth of NBA-caliber talent was certainly evident.

Virtually every NBA executive we spoke with was disappointed in the lack of sure-fire All-Star players at the top of this class. This might cause some teams to lower their asking prices during the offseason for 2019 draft picks, as this is widely shaping up to be an abnormally weak group of prospects available to be picked throughout the first round. A trickle-down effect appears to be happening this year, as a number of highly regarded prospects who were expected to enter the 2018 NBA draft reportedly are heavily considering returning to school for another year. Of course, unexpected prospects pop up every year, either during the college season, such as Trae Young, or once they're in the NBA, such as Donovan Mitchell. A few late risers could strengthen the 2019 class, but for now, the top-flight prospects are lacking.

The headliners of this group appear to be R.J. Barrett and Cam Reddish, both wing players headed to Duke. Reddish has been underwhelming in particular, struggling to shoot the ball all week in practice, seemingly changing his mechanics from attempt to attempt and not demonstrating much confidence in his ability to knock down shots from beyond the arc, noticeably hanging his head after misses. He likely has the highest pure talent level of anyone in this group, as he has all the tools physically and skill on both ends of the floor, but the question marks about his mental approach might scare some teams.

Barrett is the clear-cut alpha dog of this group, and he looked to establish that early and often in the private scrimmage with an overall strong performance. Still, NBA scouts question the extent of his long-term upside, with some comparing him to a Jimmy Butler-type prospect if he reaches his prime. Butler is a star NBA player, but he has clearly maximized his potential. A prospect with that kind of ceiling -- especially one with questions about his approach to the game -- isn't exactly what some teams are craving with the No. 1 pick.

 

[Morethan1]

After that, things fall off considerably. Zion Williamson is a tremendous athlete who has gotten himself into far better shape over the past few months, and he is a better passer and competitor than he gets credit for. With that said, he is very limited with his ability to score outside the paint, and at 6-foot-6, he might not have a position even in today's fluid NBA. Romeo Langford is an outstanding overall talent with prototypical physical tools, including size, length and terrific quickness getting off his feet. He has advanced scoring instincts creating shots for himself inside the arc, getting low to the ground with strong ballhandling skills and footwork, as well as the ability to finish creatively around the basket. His jump shot remains a work in progress, though, and he lacks a degree of feel and toughness on both ends of the floor, having a tendency to blend in at times.

NBA scouts will be watching the McDonald's game intently to see if any of these four top prospects show something different than what they demonstrated in the practices and scrimmage. Just how dynamic of an athlete is Barrett precisely, and how high is his upside? Can Reddish find some consistency in his approach and show more of a killer instinct? What exactly will Zion's role be in the NBA, and what can he hang his hat on outside of highlight-reel dunks? Can Langford develop into a go-to scorer at the NBA level? What is his ceiling? These are some of the questions NBA people will be asking.

Although some of the so-called elite prospects in this class -- such as E.J. Montgomery, Moses Brown, Nazreon Reid and Jordan Brown -- had very disappointing showings, leading some scouts to question their inclusion in the game, a number of players were able to separate themselves over the course of the week and show that they are better players than previously considered.

Devon Dotson (No. 24 in the ESPN 100) was a borderline pick for this game based on recruiting rankings. Over the course of the week, he showed not only that he belongs but also that he might have a case to be considered the best point guard in the class. He has gotten bigger and stronger and has terrific quickness and ability to accelerate in the open court, showcasing an extra gear that allowed him to get in the paint repeatedly all week. He also did a great job of blending his scoring and playmaking. He's a smart and competitive player who looks tailor-made to step into the role vacated in Kansas' offense by senior Devonte' Graham, thanks to his ability to operate in pick-and-rolls, push the ball in transition and execute in the half court. Dotson's jumper always has been considered a weakness over the years, but he has made significant strides with this part of his game, a testament to his excellent work ethic, and he hit a number of deep 3-pointers both with his feet set and pulling up off the dribble. -- Givony

 

[Morethan1]

Scouting the All American standouts
Nassir Little intrigued NBA scouts with his tremendous physical profile and continually improving shooting stroke, cementing himself as one of the top long-term prospects in the class, potentially right behind Barrett and Reddish. Standing 6-foot-6 with a chiseled frame and a 7-foot-1 wingspan, he's strong and long enough to slide up to the 4, which is his more comfortable position offensively. He's explosive off two feet in space and has both the foot speed and girth to check either forward spot while switching onto the perimeter regularly. He has played with inconsistent energy at times in the past but was quite competitive during both practice sessions and the scrimmage. In addition to his defense, Little has value as a rebounder and floor spacer. His catch-and-shoot mechanics looked much more fluid in this setting, and he showed the ability to create space off the bounce with step-backs. Watching Little grab and go in transition, switch on the perimeter and make open shots certainly caught the eye of NBA scouts. It's his feel for the game and ability to make quick decisions against scrambling defenders that likely will determine his upside.

Kentucky commit Keldon Johnson introduced himself to most NBA scouts for the first time, and he made a strong impression thanks to his slimmed down 6-foot-6 frame, powerful athleticism, aggressive mentality and shooting potential. Johnson showed out as one of the more competitive players to take the floor in Atlanta. He attacked the rim with physicality into right- and left-hand finishes, crashed the offensive and defensive glass, went toe-to-toe with Barrett in the mid-post and brought vocal energy in practice settings. Becoming a consistent threat from the perimeter will be key for Johnson long-term, especially because he's more of a momentum athlete than an overly twitchy, half-court shot creator. He gets good rotation and is certainly capable, but he isn't overly dynamic as a shooter and tends to turn down open jumpers once he misses one or two attempts. Johnson did show that he's more than just a straight-line slasher, though, as he can play out of pick-and-roll and facilitate on the move. Known for his confident approach to the game, Johnson has some alpha dog qualities that should allow him to stand out right away at Kentucky.


Playing for droves of NBA scouts for the first time in his career, Jalen Smith helped himself as much as any prospect here. Better known as "Stix" to his teammates, the lanky, 6-foot-9 Maryland signee is an energetic, modern big man who can space the floor while protecting the rim and rebounding on the other end. He's quick off the floor as a shot-blocker and an active rebounder, but it's his shooting stroke that makes him so intriguing to NBA scouts. He's made tremendous progress with his mechanics since we first evaluated him with USA Basketball in Colorado Springs in June 2016, as he shoots an easy ball with great balance and rotation. Although he has filled out in his upper body with wide shoulders, Smith is still thin-waisted with twigs for thighs, and he struggles with contact despite his competitive nature. As a somewhat late bloomer, Smith still has room to improve his feel for the game and overall offensive polish. But his rapid improvement and modern fit as a PF/C made him one of the most intriguing short- and long-term big man prospects in Atlanta.

Scraped at insider2text.xyz, brought to you by HeheStreams — No ads, No Bullshyt Live & On-Demand NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL Streaming



Vanderbilt signee Darius Garland stood out as arguably the most skilled guard to take the floor, asserting himself during the scrimmage by putting pressure on the rim in space, knocking down shots off the bounce and facilitating with creativity and timing. Garland is a slight, explosive point guard with a tight handle, a unique ability to shift gears on a dime and excellent pace to his game as both a scorer and playmaker. Although he has gotten a bit stronger, Garland's average physical profile -- 6-foot-2, 175 pounds with a 6-foot-5 wingspan -- limits his defensive versatility, finishing potential and long-term upside, even with his competitive nature. Scouts will get a better feel for Garland in a more spirited setting at the Nike Hoop Summit, but he certainly helped prove that he's skilled enough to play in the NBA once his body catches up to his game. He projects as an instant-impact starter under Vanderbilt coach Bryce Drew. -- Schmitz

 

[Dame Dash's Motor Oil]

Thanks man I'll rep u tomorrow

 

[Dr. Narcisse]

@Skooby @Morethan1
Projecting booms, busts among top 2018 QB prospects

 

[Malta]

Virtually every NBA executive we spoke with was disappointed in the lack of sure-fire All-Star players at the top of this class. This might cause some teams to lower their asking prices during the offseason for 2019 draft picks, as this is widely shaping up to be an abnormally weak group of prospects available to be picked throughout the first round.

@KevJ


Kings pick is straight garbage water, a wing heavy draft with weak bigs, GENIUS!

 

[Skooby]

@Skooby @Morethan1
Projecting booms, busts among top 2018 QB prospects

Projecting booms, busts among top 2018 QB prospects

There are no sure things in the NFL draft, but quarterback may be the riskiest position of all. No defense revolves around a single player the way every offense revolves around the quarterback. Trust your offense to the wrong young quarterback, and your team isn't going to climb back into playoff contention. Recent history is littered with teams that drafted a quarterback high, only to find out that player couldn't play at the NFL level.

The lessons of history can at least help us figure out how much of a risk each quarterback prospect will be. That's the point of Football Outsiders' Quarterback-Adjusted-Stats-and-Experience (QBASE) projection system. It looks at college performance, experience and expected draft position (to incorporate scouting information that college stats will miss). To allow some time for development, QBASE projects a quarterback's efficiency (passing only) in Years 3-5 of his career, according to Football Outsiders' defense-adjusted yards above replacement (DYAR) metric. 50,000 simulations produce a range of potential outcomes for each prospect, with players drafted later generally having a larger range of possibilities.

QBASE favors quarterbacks expected to go high in the draft who also have a relatively long résumé of college success according to the stats. Those stats include completion percentage, yards per attempt and team passing efficiency. These numbers are adjusted both for the quality of the defenses that a prospect had to face as well as the quality of his offensive teammates. QBASE is meant to only be used on players chosen in the top 100 picks; after that, the judgment of scouts becomes even more important, and statistics become even less predictive.

It's important not to overestimate the importance of a small difference in the QBASE projections. Most of this year's top quarterbacks are grouped together in the middle of the scale. It's a bit of a surprise that Sam Darnold came out with a lower QBASE rating than some of the other top prospects -- Josh Rosen, for example. But if I were the analytics director for an NFL franchise, I would feel no need to disagree with a scouting director who placed Darnold ahead of Rosen.

However, there is one top prospect who QBASE clearly likes ahead of all the others, and one top prospect whose statistical profile is a gigantic red flag. We explain both projections below, along with the QBASE projections for six other top quarterbacks based on Scouts Inc. rankings for the 2018 draft.

Baker Mayfield, Oklahoma Sooners


Scouts Inc. ranking: No. 13

Projecting Mayfield
Mean Projection, Years 3-5: 1480 DYAR
Bust (< 500 DYAR) 29.3%
Adequate Starter
(500-1499 DYAR) 21.8%
Upper Tier
(1500-2500 DYAR) 20.7%
Elite (>2500 DYAR) 28.2%


Baker Mayfield's stats at Oklahoma were completely ridiculous, so it's no surprise that a stat-based projection system such as QBASE loves him with the heat of a thousand suns.

One of the stats included in QBASE is adjusted passing yards per attempt. This metric looks at yards per attempt, then adds 20 yards for each touchdown and subtracts 45 yards for each interception. Mayfield is the only quarterback in FBS history to top 12.0 APYA in a season, and he's done it twice: 12.3 APYA in 2016, and then 12.9 APYA in 2017. Mayfield also completed more than 70 percent of his passes as a senior, and Oklahoma's offense was No. 1 in Football Outsiders' passing S&P+ rating.

On top of this, the No. 1 predictor of NFL success for top quarterback draft picks is still how many years of starting experience they had in college. Mayfield is the only one of this year's top prospects with four years of starting experience. (Luke Falk, likely to be drafted later, started for three and a half seasons.)

As with Rosen, QBASE docks Mayfield a bit because he played with high-quality teammates. Both OT Orlando Brown and TE Mark Andrews are likely to be drafted in the first three rounds this year, and WR Marquise Brown and G Ben Powers are likely to go in the first three rounds of the 2019 draft. However, Mayfield does not get docked for playing an easy Big 12 schedule. Because of the Big 12 championship game, the Sooners had to play twice against TCU, which at No. 15 in S&P+ was the Big 12's best pass defense. Mayfield also had to face Ohio State (No. 12) and Georgia (No. 6), so the average pass defense he faced was ranked 52.8, the same as Rosen and better than any of this year's prospects other than Darnold.

Put all these elements together, and Mayfield has the fourth-highest QBASE projection of any prospect since 1997. The only players projected higher were Philip Rivers, Carson Palmer and Donovan McNabb. Here are the top 10 prospects since 1997 based on the current formula:

Top 10 in QBASE since 1997
Player QBASE Drafted Career
Yardage Career
TDs
Philip Rivers 1,964 No. 4, 2004 50,348 342
Carson Palmer 1,916 No. 1, 2003 46,247 294
Donovan McNabb 1,799 No. 2, 1999 37,276 234
Baker Mayfield 1,480 ? ? ?
Russell Wilson 1,288 No. 75, 2012 22,176 161
Peyton Manning 1,279 No. 1, 1998 71,940 539
Marcus Mariota 1,277 No. 2, 2015 9,476 58
Byron Leftwich 1,216 No. 7, 2003 10,532 58
Aaron Rodgers 1,216 No. 24, 2005 38,502 313
Ben Roethlisberger 1,211 No. 11, 2004 51,065 329


None of this is a guarantee that Mayfield is going to be a star in the NFL. Situated near the QBASE top 10 are prospects who didn't pan out, including John Beck, Matt Leinart and Christian Ponder. But based on his college performance, Mayfield has the best odds of any quarterback in this class of being an elite starter in the NFL, and the lowest odds of being a bust.

Josh Allen, Wyoming Cowboys


Scouts Inc. ranking: No. 7

Projecting Allen
Mean Projection in Years 3-5: -83 DYAR
Bust (< 500 DYAR) 62.7%
Adequate Starter
(500-1499 DYAR) 20.7%
Upper Tier (1500-2500 DYAR) 11.5%
Elite (>2500 DYAR) 5.2%


Like Darnold, Allen was only a two-year starter in college. But Allen's statistics are horrifying compared to Darnold's.

Allen has an obscenely powerful arm, but it's a howitzer without a targeting system. He completed just 56.3 percent of his passes last year. Here is the list of quarterbacks chosen in the top 100 picks since 2005 despite having a completion rate below 58 percent in their final college season: Andrew Walter (2005), Jake Locker (2011), Christian Hackenberg (2016), Connor Cook (2016) and C.J. Beathard (2017). That's it.

Last year, Wyoming finished 119th in passing S&P+, out of 130 teams in FBS. That will be the lowest rank ever for a quarterback chosen in the top 100 picks of the NFL draft. Yes, I know, Allen wasn't playing with a bunch of NFL-bound talent around him. He also wasn't facing a lot of NFL-bound talent on defense. The average opponent faced by Wyoming ranked just 83.5 in pass defense S&P+. Allen's performance against top opponents was brutal. He threw two interceptions and zero touchdowns against Iowa, with just 4.35 yards per attempt. He completed just 9 of 24 passes with 64 yards and a pick against Oregon. He completed 44 percent of passes with two picks and only 131 yards against Boise State.

Since 1997, there have been 27 quarterbacks chosen in the top 100 with QBASE ratings below zero. The best of these quarterbacks was either Josh McCown or Brian Griese. It's a terrible group of quarterback busts. Negative-QBASE passers chosen in the first round include Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, Kyle Boller, Rex Grossman, J.P. Losman and Patrick Ramsey.

Allen supporters talk about how his 2016 season was much better than his 2017 season, and it was. In 2016, Wyoming finished 52nd in passing S&P+. Allen still couldn't complete more than 56.0 percent of his passes. If we pretend Allen's 2017 season never happened, then Allen has a QBASE of 161, still the worst of this year's top prospects.

Sam Darnold, USC Trojans


Scouts Inc. ranking: No. 3

Projecting Darnold
Mean Projection in Years 3-5: 412 DYAR
Bust (< 500 DYAR) 51.9%
Adequate Starter
(500-1499 DYAR) 29.0%
Upper Tier (1500-2500 DYAR) 15.1%
Elite (>2500 DYAR) 4.1%


Based on Football Outsiders' passing S&P+ stats, the USC Trojans had college football's No. 3 passing offense when Darnold was a redshirt freshman in 2016. That dropped to 10th in his sophomore year -- but 10th out of 130 FBS teams is still pretty good. So why is Darnold's QBASE lower than that of other prospects expected to be chosen after him in this year's draft?

The problem is that Darnold has only two years of experience as a starting quarterback in college football, and the track record of top-100 quarterbacks with only two college years started is downright lousy. The best among them are Cam Newton, Joe Flacco, Michael Vick and Alex Smith. Aaron Rodgers could count as either a two-year or three-year starter, since like Newton, he also had a year starting in junior college. But for the most part, highly drafted quarterbacks with only two years of college starting experience have underperformed their draft position. Included on the list are some of the biggest busts in NFL draft history: JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Blake Bortles, Mark Sanchez and so forth.

Of course, there was a two-year college starter selected in the later rounds of the draft who turned out to be pretty successful in the NFL: Tom Brady. But Brady is the historical outlier of all outliers, not a historical precedent on which you base a top-five draft pick.

To overcome this penalty in QBASE, a prospect needs to have dominating statistics. Cam Newton did. Alex Smith did. Sam Darnold did not. His stats don't particularly stand out when compared to Josh Rosen, Lamar Jackson or Mason Rudolph.

All college quarterbacks are a risk in the NFL. Does Darnold's lack of college experience somehow negate what scouts see on film? No, but we're trying to determine here which quarterbacks are high-risk and which quarterbacks are really high-risk.

In Darnold's defense, the track record of two-year starters may look a lot better with a couple of more years of data. Carson Wentz was a two-year starter, as were Deshaun Watson and Jameis Winston. Also, Darnold faced the most difficult 2017 schedule of any of this year's top quarterback prospects, and his raw statistics are a little more impressive in that light. But that element is already factored into Darnold's QBASE rating.