NBA Draft: Top 10 Small Forwards
The small forward field is filled with valuable complimentary pieces that can add balance to an uneven unit. Nobody on this list necessarily has superstar potential, but many are capable of earning long-term starting roles or holding significant reserve responsibilities. Small forwards are generally the most versatile athletes in the sport, and that's certainly the case with a number of the following prospects. Here are our top ten small forwards who've declared for 2012.
1. Harrison Barnes 6-8 223 SF UNC
Barnes' image took a hit after an NCAA tournament meltdown, but that shouldn't hinder his stock as a long-term prospect. Physically, Barnes fits the NBA small forward mold like a perfectly shaped Tetris piece. His ability to catch and shoot with range, fluidity and a high release point make him a constant threat as a floor-spacer off the ball. This is a skill that keeps his basement high while minimizing his risk- worst case scenario he's assigned to spotup duties as a shooter and slasher, a useful service to offer. But Barnes overall polish as an offensive player should prevent any limitation of his potential. He's a class act, smart kid, and presents a win-win option for teams in need of some shot-making.
2. Michael Kidd Gilchrist 6-7 232 SF UK Fr.
I'm sure many of you are questioning how we can rank Barnes over MKG. A fair debate. But it's also easy to let Kidd-Gilchrist's likeability factor cloud one's judgement in terms of projecting the extent of his potential. Offensively he's still somewhat raw, and isn't a likely option to create half court offense. However with room in front of him, there's no one better. While Barnes sees separation as an opportunity to pull up, MKG sees it as his chance to ferociously attack the rim. His athleticism, explosiveness and strength allow him to burst through the slightest of gaps, absorb contact and finish in traffic. While his perimeter game is certainly not a strength, he's proven capable of pulling up off one dribble or spotting up given he's balanced and set. But it's his off-ball activity, relentless motor and unteachable intangibles that make him such a treasured commodity. Though his offensive ceiling is lower than Barnes, he can certainly be picked in front of him. He's the ultimate glue-guy, an outright winner and a legitimate two-way player.
3. Moe Harkless 6-7 207 SF St. John's Fr.
If it takes four stages to summit a mountain, then Harkless just completed his first. It could be 3-4 years down the road before he really hits his stride, but when he does, the team that owns his rights will be thrilled with their investment. I'm high on Harkless, and have watched him as close as any prospect this year. He has the fluidity of a small forward with the interior instincts of a 4. Harkless has the ability to hit tough shots at awkward angles- it's creating the easy ones that will be his challenge moving forward. Harkless' jumper was inconsistent, but he showed accuracy when balanced. Physically he's long and athletic, which helps him tremendously making plays off the ball. Defensively he anticipates, closes out on shooters and regularly contests shots. Yes, he lacks the strength to defend the post, but his length and mobility will allow him to guard opposing 3s. Right now, he's an impact player off the ball. By 2015, he could be a threat with it.
4. Terrence Jones 6-9 240 SF Kentucky So.
Terrence Jones' stock has dipped from the start of his freshman year, which can be attributed to inconsistencies and a questionable motor. My take: Being surrounded by an unusual amount of talent has at times flushed out Jones' potential production, which has led to frustration that deflates confidence and motivation. But in terms of talent, Jones has it. A combo-forward who can play off one foot or two, in the post or on the perimeter. Facing up, Jones has a deceptively quick first step and the mobility to effectively use angles and attack the rim. Though he shot 32% from downtown, he's proven capable of knocking down shots out of the triple threat or spotting up. Plus with a deeper three-point line, there should be better spacing for Jones to get comfortable. His versatility at 6'9 should help generate interest starting in the late lottery. If a coach can carve out a specific role for Jones to fill while keeping him motivated, Jones could end up being a valuable long-term contributor to a front court unit.
5. Royce White 6-8 260 SF/PF Iowa St.
White's game requires evaluators to extend the boundaries of their thinking box. His style isn't out of the box when you consider the success of guys like Anthony Mason and Boris Diaw, who owned similar skill-sets. But White is clearly a unique prospect because of what he offers at his position, which can be classified quite possibly as a point-forward. His ability to facilitate from multiple spots on the floor, handle the ball and work the glass allow his counterparts to concentrate on fulfilling their respective roles. White lacks upside, and his anxiety disorder could be a concern to mid-first round buyers. But if his disorder doesn't derail things, he's a safe bet to fit in and help improve a unit's on-court chemistry and rhythm.
6. Jeffrey Taylor 6-7 220 SF Vanderbilt Sr.
One of the most encouraging qualities or patterns to show prospective employers is gradual improvement. Jeffery Taylor is in the midst of his ascent towards becoming a multidimensional contributor, which is what kept him from first round consideration in years past. He shot a lights out 42% from downtown on almost two makes per game, after hitting only one three-ball his whole sophomore year and shooting 34% as a junior. Taylor is a phenomenal athlete at 6'7 with defensive lockdown potential, but it's his offensive game that's given his stock such a boost. Possessing the ability to defend, finish at the rim and spot-up make Taylor an attractive prospect as a reliable role player.
7. Quincy Miller 6-9 210 SF Baylor Fr.
Miller probably killed it playing 1 on 1 in his driveway growing up. He's outstanding in isolation, with the ability to create and knock down shots that are difficult to contest. At 6'9 with his perimeter skills, Miller could end up presenting opposing forwards with a serious mismatch. Unfortunately his infamous ACL tear in high school has hampered his speed and explosiveness, which limits his overall ceiling. But after declaring for the draft following his freshman year, it's possible he's drawn interest at the back of round 1. One of those guys who needs a few years to develop, his offensive upside might be worth it.
8. Kostas Popanikolaou 6-8 230 SF Panathinaikos (Greece) 1990
Kostas Popanikolaou's strong performance in the Euroleague Final Four has put him back on the NBA radar just a month before the draft. Though a sub-par to average athlete, his motor and competitiveness help neutralize some of his physical limitations. He's a lefty sharpshooter with long arms, substantial height and numerous complimentary qualities. Papanikolaou won't generate much of his own offense, but his potential as a role player could trigger interest from teams looking to improve spacing and offensive efficiency.
9. Kris Joseph 6-7 220 SG/SF Syracuse Sr.
Few prospects are as frustrating to evaluate as Joseph, who looks the part but fails to play it all too often. However that's why them call them prospects, and not final products. Though he still struggles as a shot-creator, Joseph has improved his overall perimeter game, which includes spotting up and one-dribble pullups. His three-point shot and range, which I have consistently pegged as the difference between teams viewing Joseph as a raw athlete compared to a basketball player, looked much improved his senior year (especially his mechanics). Joseph's strengths play to up-tempo ball where he can get out and run, slash off the ball and finish in transition. Inconsistencies over a full college career will unfortunately temper any excitement he generates during predraft workouts. But if he can maximize his services by becoming a legitimate spot-up threat, teams will feel more inclined to take a chance on the athletic wing from Syracuse.
10a. Draymond Green 6-6 235 SF Michigan St. Sr.
Everybody loves Draymond. Hard not to, right? But as a prospect, he does have his flaws. Though named Big Ten Player of the Year, Green hasn't mastered any one skill that is coveted by NBA teams. He does however contribute in practically every category across the board, and presents a low-risk, low-reward option for prospective teams. The fear that Green won't be able to create his own offense can be padded by the fact that he can pass, rebound and spread the floor. His maturity, leadership qualities, work ethic and intangibles will help generate interest from teams looking for cushion as opposed to firepower.
10b. Darius Miller 6-6 210 SF Kentucky Sr.
Miller is likeable because he rarely puts himself in position to make a mistake. He's efficient- Miller gets to his spot on the floor, runs his assigned route and hits open shots at a high rate. His contribution will come mostly in the midrange coming off curls and back screens, but don't expect any magic from Miller off the dribble. There's nothing flashy about his game, but his efficient play could be used in an offensive set that struggles to convert once the top few options get shut down. He does have bust potential if he struggles to get open looks, but Miller's a risk worth taking in the second round.
Honorable Mention: Larry Anderson 6-6 215 SG/SF Long Beach St. Sr. , Olu Ashaolu 6-6 230 SF Louisiana Tech Sr., Bradford Burgess 6-7 220 SF VCU Sr., Jae Crowder 6-5 210 SF/PF Marquette Sr., Olek Czyz 6-7 200 SF Nevada Sr., Kenny Gabriel 6-8 209 SF Auburn Sr., Draymond Green 6-6 230 SF/PF Mich St. Sr., Eric Griffin 6-8 201 SF/PF Campbell Sr. , Terrance Henry 6-10 195 SF/PF Miss Sr.Robbie Hummel 6-7 225 SF Purdue Sr., Orlando Johnson 6-5 230 SF UCSB Sr., Tony Mitchell 6-6 210 SF Alabama Jr., Rakim Sanders 6-4 228 SF Fairfield Sr., John Sherna 6-7 220 SF Northeastern Sr., Tornike Shengalia 6-8 220 SF Rep of Georgia 1990, , Chace Stanback 6-7 185 SG/SF UNLV Sr., Wesley Witherspoon 6-7 215 SF Memphis Sr., Alex Young 6-6 190 SG/SF IUPUI Sr., Tomislav Zubcic 6-11 225 SF/PF Croatia 1990
Glad someone gave Barnes his due, I said in the summer of 2010 that Kidd-Gilchrist and Barnes were two players to look out for as potential rivals in the NBA, but Barnes staying and MKG declaring have made it even more interesting.
The difference between the two is very close in terms of ability, but stylistically they couldn't be further apart, and that makes for an interesting battle. I hope they both get taken in the East (seems likely) so we get to see them battle in a playoff series without having to wait for a Finals matchup (or a change of team like Melo and Lebron).
In every category, except shooting, MKG far surpasses Barnes. He's more athletic, better defensively, better rebounder (offensive and defensive), better passer, better motor, more explosive. You also have to look at the "potential" factor. Barnes was higher ranked last year. MKG has a higher ceiling. If he develops his, ugly, jumpshot the margin only increases.
Developing that ugly jump-shot is a big if, some guys just never seem to make that adjustment, because they are too set in their ways. Look at what Tyreke Evans was able to accomplish as a rookie with one of the ugliest jumpers I've seen from a guard in a long time. But yet, three years in he's failed to fix the form and develop a better shooting stroke, and now that teams are backing off him, he's failed to develop. MKG is the same, I know he's got a great work ethic, and I want him to succeed, but Barnes has years of honing his jump-shot on MKG, and having an elite skill offensively can really set you apart.
MKG is an amazing defender, but his handle isn't exceptional, he tends to lay it in a lot, which will get him in trouble in the NBA, and while you hope and pray he sorts out that jumper and refines his handles, if he doesn't we could be looking at another Tony Allen.
I know it sounds like I don't like MKG, but I really do, its just that people need to understand the difference in potential and skill right now between Barnes and MKG isn't as big as you'd think.
I guess a few people didnt watch the NCAA tourney. barnes has been wildly overrated for two years. MKG is far and away a better prospect. I predict MKG goes #2 and barnes around 8 or 9. Harkless has crazy upside......but he's only 18. Its gonna take a year or two. Jae Crowder is next on my list, then Royce White (who is really more a four)....and then jeff Taylor. Defense is really significant in the pros. Barnes is at best average, MKG is elite. Taylor is close to elite. Harkless could be. But the second round has tons of value: Tony Mitchell if his head is right could be a steal. Eric Griffin is a four in the body of a three right now. But he is intriguing. Dray Green is a bit of a "problem tweener"...same for terrence jones. Orlando Johnson is better put in with the twos. Will Barton is a two who could grow into a good three. Kris joseph might not even get drafted. Back to barnes....he's a mediocre athlete.....nice jumper if given room....but watch what happened to him when kendall marshall got hurt. He was awful. MKG is going to be a star. I cant understand how anyone sees barnes ahead of him. But thats what makes this fun.
I understand Gilchrist does more and I think he will be drafted before Barnes. Those two guys are closer than some people think as prospects , Gilchrist does all the little things and is very versatile , but Barnes has the higher offensive potential which is the most important part of the game to be good at. By no means am I saying Barnes will be better than Gilchrist , but people that scoff at the notion of Barnes possibly being drafted higher just aren't being sensible. If Barnes is a 20ppg scorer for 8-10 years he is most likely the better player. Also through January this past season Barnes was shooting 49% from the field and 45% from 3 , he then reinjured his ankle much worse and seemed to loose his ability to get by guys. I am a UNC fan and Barnes was very underwhelming down the stretch and started becoming a bit of a chucker , even before Marshall got hurt. I will be very interested to see how he does in the league because I think he will be a better NBA player than college player when it is all said and done.
Remember both of these guys are 19-20 years old and far from being what they will be as pros when they are 24-25 years old. Don't base your positive or negative opinion of a guy based off of 2 months of poor or good play especially when they are still developing as players.
MKG is a beast, an 18 YO beast, youngest player in the draft also.
At 18 he lacks only one thing in the rare and full package he brings to the table.
Considering how he's all about passion, desire, heart and toughness, no doubt he'll spend some time in the gym shooting the ball.
However, nobody will never teach his mindset to barnes.
Barnes march 2012 was absolutely the same player he was in march 2011, sure it wouldn't be the case for MKG.
Sure he never played with a 10 assists PG, sure he won it all too.
His due ? LOL.
Good thing for barnes he can only finish in teams where he really fits well.
Cali teams, buddy team or sniper in DC....
Please think before you type and coherency no matter what your view is will be greatly appreciated.
For everyone who thinks that a high motor wing man and high motor big man are the same are wrong. The wing is a skill position first being able to run around tirelessly is great but when you can't shoot from deep or have any kind of in between game on the wing you will struggle hustle or not.
If MKG has to spend all his time inside to be productive is he truly a wing player? The elite wing players in the nba can blow your doors off offensively. Just like Wade and james just did to the Pacers or Durant and Westbrook did to the Lakers. The GM's who are loving MKG up now will be the same ones in a couple years who say he is a liability because of his shooting.
If you think I am lying, when John Wall came out it was the same thing. Wall is better athlete, has a better handle, and is faster than MKG, scarier still he shoots better too(34% from college 3@kentucky vs 25% MKG). He is currently a career 41% shooter, and what do the same people who loved him say now? He is a liability because he can't shoot.
2's and 3's are the guys you run off screens to get jumpers, that go iso and score over their defender like we have watched Jordan, Kobe, and now Durant do to win games. Barnes has a better chance to become that offensive star that teams look for than MKG, that's not hate thats just the truth. Here come the negs
This position is really deep this year. Would anyone be surprised if 5 to 7 of these guys became NBA starters?
I think in the world of hyper media reports players reputations fluctuate without any balance to what is stated. Miami is down 2-1 to Indiana and you have columns stating that D. Wade or Bosh would be traded. The Lakers are up by 10 entering the 4th quarter and lose 3 games and now they must trade Pau, replace Sessions, get rid of Bynum. I say all that to say that the media is who created the unrealistic expectations of Harrison Barnes. Chad Ford said that Barnes reminded him of Kobe Bryant. Clearly an exaggeration and now Chad Ford is the same guy now questioning Barnes' motor etc. The problem was created by the unreal expectations.
MKG is a player who plays really hard. But in the NBA he will be a 3. In the NBA you need your 2/3 to be able to either put the ball on the floor, shoot it, or both. Players who come into the league without those skill sets struggle and typically turn into defensive role players.
But the issue is with how each is being characterized. Now people are ignoring MKG's limitations and highlighting all of Barnes'. Honestly with MKG I worry about a player who has a limited offensive game at the 3 position. Not many have come into the league with those question marks and panned out. With Barnes you know he has the skill set but some question his so called motor. Each player will flourish depending on what situation they are placed in and what the expecations are when they get there.
Drafting MKG at #2 as some have projected to me is a huge cause for concern for someone who is basically a hustle player.
I think people are looking at this all wrong. When scouting these players we need to look at them both as complete players and not just a scorer or defender. Everyone says MKG is a great passer but he only averaged 2 assists on a team where Marquise Teague is a scoring pg, and Doron Lamb was a 2 playing some point, but they were both scorers. So MKG is an okay passer. Harrison Barnes is also an okay athlete. MKG is better athletically, but Harrison Barnes is definitely the better scorer. MKG is better on defense but Harrison Barnes isn't a defensive liability. MKG is seen as the better defender because of his superior athleticism.
At this point you have a good scorer/shooter, a good defender and an okay athlete in Barnes against a good open floor player, great defender, and superior athelete in Kidd-Gilchrist. That's a toss up. Because drafting off of potenital isn't working that much anymore, also. What if MKG doesn't reach his potential, then you have tony allen/gerald wallace at the small forward position, if Harrison Barnes doesn't reach his potenital you have Luol Deng/glen rice, I would rather Loul over Tony Allen, that's just me.
What a lot of people don't seem to realize about MKG is that the scouts are enamoured with him because of his ability to improve becase of his motor. A guy that has that kind of work ethic is bound to work his butt off in the gym when the cameras aren't on. Barnes while he's highly skilled right now, hasn't improved in his 2 years in college, becasuse he lacks a motor.
What is he going to do when his shot isn't falling? He's a liability defensively, so if his shot isn't falling, he's not going to play and get better. The same thing cannot be said about MKG, he'll do all the other things that win teams games. It's funny reading these comments about Barnes having a greater skill level then MKG. Getting rebounds, playing defense, passing, outworking your opponent are all skills, but people like to think the only skill involved in basketball is how well can you shoot.
I see this mistake with Tim Tebow. Working hard does not mean that a player will automatically improve to a certain level.There is also an assumption that individuals who play smoothly are not workers or do not work as hard as guys who are known for their work ethic. It's false. Tim Tebow isn't the only football player who works super hard. His work ethich is mentioned so much because to some it excuses his limitations. And that is my opinion on that. With both of these players they work hard; but Tebow still cannot accurately pass the ball or consistently read a defense and MKG at this early stage struggles with creating his shot and wit his shooting mechanics.
There is also this idea that Barnes lacks a motor. This is potentially inaccurate. Perceptions are at play here. Most skilled players are discussed in terms of their smoothnes and how effortless that most of them play the game. It does not mean that player does not play hard or as hard as someone whose game is built around effort plays. It just means their contributions are different.
Be very careful when talking about who plays hard and who doesn't. Who studies and who doesn't. I see this mistake with Tim Tebow. "Well he will become a great passer because he just outworks everyone". That is stated as if he is the only player who works his butt off when the truth is his work ethic is brought up because that is the strength of his game. If he could throw the ball accurately you wouldn't hear so much about his work ethic. Trust me.
And if MKG had the ability to get 30 then trust me... you wouldn't hear too much about his motor.
Therefore I don't see where he is going to be explosive besides on the brake. He is going to struggle in the halfcourt and he will be playing against grown men. I think Barnes is better Offensively. I think Barnes will post up better and take guys off the dribble better too. Barnes is way better. MKG will be as good as his PG. I think he will need to play with a gifted passer to be a great scorer and not just a defender who gets some dunks on the brake.
MKG and Barnes are both very good prospects.
MKG is more than just a hustle player. He is a skilled rebounder and defender. Yes, those are skills. He doesn't have a great jumper, but he has time to develop one. I don't know how you can watch this guy play and think he's just a hustle guy. He has tons of natural ability and all you want in terms of intangibles.
Barnes probably needs to be more agressive. For whatever reason he didn't seem to have an ability to penetrate to the rim and that's a problem. I think he can fix with time and become a great player.
I think it's foolish to put either of these guys down. Some players have weaknesses which are almost impossible to resolve. But that's not the case for either MKG or Barnes.
The question was how can anyone watch MKG and say that he is a hustle player. The question is how can you not? He is a very good rebounder and defender; and thos are really good skills; however those are skills based upon effort and desire. Great defenders have a desire to want to play defense. Good rebounders just attack the missed shot.
When I watch MKG I see someone who is effective based upon his effort. He outworks and over powered players at the college level. I did not see him putting the ball on the floor in a way that demonstrated he can create his shot. He is great on straight line drives after close outs. He shows an inconsistent ability to knock down open shots. In fact; if you go back to the tournament games he scored mostly on offensive rebounds, transition, and drives against poor closeouts.
At the NBA level to score you will have to be more than just stronger than the opponent. You will have to be able to pull up, hit a floater, and understand how to change speeds/direction. Right now he does not have that in his game.
That is why most see his strength at this time in his effort and teamwork. Just my thoughts.
.. but I digress.
I think you overestimate the imprtance of right-now skill, and you might be confused by the use of the term "motor". In-game, it of course means the effort you exert to gain position, drive and contribute for your team. But I've heard this term used to describe MKG's practice habits as well, which includes his desire to expand his skill set. He may never possess the all-around offensive skill set of LeBron (who does?), but I contend that he ALREADY has a more complete offensive game than Barnes. Some people think "offense" means how many scoring moves can you display, regardless of your efficiency. You also have to account for offensive rebounding, court vision, dribble-drive and other attributes in which Gilchrist is clearly superior.
Bottom line, I think Michael is going to land somewhere on the Kawhi Leonard - good Ron Artest spectrum. Barnes projects AT BEST as a Glen Rice type. More likely, he's a Stacey Augmon or Mike Dunleavy level player
Anyone who has watched barnes more then 2 games can clearly see he's a floater. He stands on the premiter and looks for jumpshots. Anything is "potetentially" wrong, but it's obvious he has no motor, if he did, then he would've shown it in the 2 years in college. Some people have the it factor, they're winners. MKG is a winner.
Funny how some are comparing him to Tebow, the guy won everywhere he's been. I'm not a big fan of him, but I sure would take a winner and a guy with a high skill level like MKG over Barnes.
For those who obsiouly don't know much about basketball, motor doesn't only mean hard work in practice alone, it means doing all the little things to help your team win, like rebounding, playing defense (neither of which barnes does ver well). Barnes will be out of the league in 4 years cuz he can't play D, and if you can't put up serious numbers you better play D, barnes isn't going to do either.
I hope his car has good horsepower and brakes. I do think he'll get a lot of points on the break.
Augmon was a nasty defender who could not shoot a lick. Their games are different, and skill set is opposite.
Harrison Barnes is only as good as the point guard on the floor. MKG is a piece that can compliment the players around him.. Barnes has a knack for scorng but doesn't do anything else considerably well. MKG fills in the rest of those categories. As far as MKG's jump shot...that is the easiest thing to work on in the pros. And defense is necessary at the SF position considering how offensively talented the position is in the NBA today so MKG definitely gets the nod
I've seen a lot of Barnes the last two years and a lot of MKG..Now what MKG does is bring some of everything to the table. Yet his jumper is a work in progress off the dribble and I haven't seen him create space with the dribble as well. The kid can slash to the lane and get to the bucket given the smallest windows of opportunities.
With Barnes you have a kid who's offensive game is refined very well. He's not the athlete nor defender MKG is but he's not a liability in those areas either. Barnes can create space with the dribble but doesn't attack the rim as often as he should.
The reason why Barnes production was terrible come March is b/c Marshall wasn't there to get him in the spots that he likes or should I say comfortable. I really don't think you can say MKG is a better prospect than Barnes or vice versa. The both have limitations that kind of equalize things. Just depends on what you're looking for as a team..If you need a guy who can defend or do some of everything then MKG is your guy...if you need a guy to put the ball in the basket then you like Barnes..
before the draft, people fall in love with the most athletic players, equating that with NBA upside. Then guys like Kevin Love or Evan Turner or Ryan Anderson or Klay Thompson or Jeremy Lin turn out to be the guys you should have drafted, despite lacking elite athleticism, because they can shoot the rock and understand how to play the game.
Perry Jones III I believe should be included on this list more than the PF list that he will probably be on. And his upside makes him intrigueing... It wouldn't surprise me if after the workouts someone took a chance on him over MKG or Barnes for SF. PJ3 has yet to prove he's got the killer instinct which makes him a bigger risk perhaps, but he has skills and enormous talent. All 3 of them can ball.
He tends to lay it in a lot......just about all SF lays it in a lot. Look at the dunk count with SF. They all lay it in a lot. Also many NBA scouts have D.Miller at the end of the first round to a top team
MKG averaged 12 ppg on 54% shooting as a freshman.
Barnes averaged 16 ppg on 42% shooting as a freshman.
The difference in ability on the offensive end between Barnse and MKG is not huge and is not in Barnes favor necessarily for every team.
Barnes may have excellent footwork, but the idea that he is some elite shot creator or iso scorer is a myth. He just doesn't get to the rim, and, sorry to say it, but he lacks the athleticism to be a dynamic scorer as an NBA wing. If he ends up as a 20 ppg scorer, it will be in a similar manner to how Danny Granger scores. He isn't like Paul Pierce or Carmelo, each of whom are much better at getting to the rim and are superior shooters.
MKG may not appear to be a star scorer because he doesn't score in isolation or drill perimeter shots, but his ability as a slasher, as well as his all-around game, makes him the top sf in this year's draft. Barnes is not an elite shooter, and his offensive game is too reliant on his jump shot. He will score, but he won't be the effcient threat MKG is.