In this list, not only is the performance from PIT taken into consideration, but
also the player’s potential for the NBA level. There were some guys that had a
great week, but just don’t project well, which is why they are missing.

Jon Brockman (15.3 points, 16.3 rebounds,
2.3 assists, 45% FG)


Jon Brockman


Came out with a chip on his shoulder to prove that he belongs,
and it resulted in a great week for him. He has a very strong body with a low
center of gravity that allows him to clear space. On the O glass is where his
greatest traits come to the forefront, his relentless approach and great anticipation
allow him to grab rebounds that are even out of his initial rebounding zone. While
the ball is in the air, he does not waste time by following its trajectory, but
instead he is always in motion and getting to the highest percentage rebounding
spots. Even though his strength and energy make him very effective in a setting
like this, one has to wonder how effective a 6’7 PF with limited athleticism and
offensive skill can be at the next level. Most of his points came from his ability
to crash the glass, or on broken plays, but he showed very little in terms of
low post moves. For him to have any sort of chance, he needs to prove that he
is a threat as a spot up shooter from midrange. Although his form looks fairly
good, he was not able to find consistency on the few shots that he did take. In
the pick and roll oriented NBA, his value will drastically increase if he can
become a threat from 15-17 feet. His performance may have been enough to propel
him into the late 2nd round, but he will need to show more offensive game if he
is to stick on a roster beyond summer league.

Jermaine Taylor (21.3 points, 3.7 rebounds,
46% FG)

Over the past few seasons, Taylor has proven that he is a scorer, so coming into
PIT his mentality to continue to attack simply translated from what has been expected
of him. In the early going, it was evident that his teammates deferred to him
and that he would be given the ultimate green light. He showed his athleticism
at times as well as his ability to finish around the rim even when contested by
help side defenders. His 1st step seems to have improved over the last little
while, showing better ability to create separation when working out of his jab
sequence. Operating off screens has been his forte in college, and he showed that
ability here by making good reads and getting numerous open shots. He is a very
good transition player, possessing a great feel for when to take off on the break,
which resulted in many easy opportunities (although some were clear leak outs).
What he didn’t show this week is a reliable outside shot, even though his form
looks good (and his college stats prove otherwise). The distanced three gave him
fits (he only made 3), and more alarming is the fact that some of his misses were
not even close. Another major problem for Taylor is creating his own shot off
the dribble, he is decent when he can make one move and go, but when the defender
forces him into a counter move, he is nowhere near as effective. His athleticism
is also subdued in the half court, because he needs a clear path in order to explode
to the rim. Even though he looked wild and trigger happy at times, overall, Taylor
showed some nice things and he certainly helped his stock.

Leo Lyons (13.7 points, 7.7 rebounds, 2.0 assists,
44% FG)

After spending most of his time in college on the block or as a spot up shooter,
Lyons used the new environment to show that his perimeter game is also very polished.
Playing on the wing for a large portion of his games, Lyons displayed nifty ballhandling
and showed a very nice first step to get by the defense on many occasions. With
his size and ability to put the ball on the floor, he immediately creates match
up problems because it is difficult for opposing big men to stay with him, or
for the smaller wings to battle with him inside. With that said, he failed to
show his ability to do much damage with his back to the basket when working with
players his size. He shows a strong preference to the face up game, but when his
is crowed and forced to back people down, his poor footwork and bad body control
leave him attempting difficult shots. He doesn’t have much body mass, so it is
easy to dislodge and force him away from the basket and into fading shots. Working
off the dribble he gets carried away sometimes by trying to do too much, which
stagnates the offense and clogs the lanes. He is very good when he attacks immediately
before the defense can get set, but when he waits too long he has a hard time
getting by the defender and he ends up going into traffic. Continuing to improve
his footwork inside and adding new moves to his low post repertoire will contrast
well with his face up and perimeter game, making him a more versatile and more
intriguing prospect.

Garret Siler (16.7 points, 8.3 rebounds, 1.3
blocks, 64% FG)

The biggest surprise and one of the most intriguing prospects of the week was
definitely Siler. Looking like a legit 7’ footer with tremendous size, what is
most impressive with him is the fact that he runs the floor fairly well and he
has great feet for someone his size. He runs with short, somewhat choppy steps,
but he is very efficient and does not fatigue as fast as one would expect. Inside,
he is very good because he has great hands and a soft touch, and if he catches
a defender on his back he is pretty much unstoppable because of his wide base
and strength. He had a number of dunks off drives and dishes, showing some very
underrated explosiveness. However, his foot speed is very limited, posing a great
problem defensively as opposing big men face him up and attack at will. His rebounding
is also not very impressive as he seems to lack instinct and he struggles with
players that are quicker to get into better rebounding position. He did block
4 shots this week, but he did not show much in terms of anticipation and weak
side help. His offensive game is strictly confined to within 5 feet, outside of
that range, he does not even look to shoot the ball. He finished 8-14 from the
foul line and he is a 66% shooter for his career, but his release is jerky and
he moves the ball to the side as he is about to release it, causing some inconsistencies
in his release. Overall, this was a great week for Siler to show his game alongside
bigger and better competition and it definitely earned him some workouts if not
a spot in the late 2nd round.

DeMarre Carroll (16.3 points, 10.3 rebounds,
3.7 assists, 57% FG)


DeMarre Carroll


Earned the Tournament MVP for his play, and rightfully so.
His game is catered to this type of setting as he doesn’t have to worry about
getting looks, but rather he can create opportunities for himself by being in
constant motion and attacking the O glass. He plays with great energy and has
a good feel for the ball, which equates to him being in the right spots when the
offense breaks down. If he is forced to look for his own shot, whether it is in
the low or mid post he is just not very comfortable. He prefers getting his looks
from spot ups or cuts around the basket that don’t require him to hold on to the
ball for long periods of time. He runs the floor extremely well and thanks to
his size and athleticism he can finish the break with some authority. Defensively,
he has nice length and good lateral foot speed which make him a good one on one
defender as well as a threat in the passing lanes and as a shotblocker. While
he is a nice role-player, Carroll lacks the necessary polish and go-to moves to
ever become a serious threat on the offensive end, but having said that, all the
other things he brings to the table still give him a good chance for the next

Make sure to check back for prospects 6-10 from Portsmouth.



    Lyons’ game reminds me of David West when he came out of Xavier after his senior year. I think that they possess similar skill sets and mentalities. They both have the ability to stretch the floor, while also using their quickness to blow by other posts and finish around the rim. Is this a fair assessment at all?

    Carroll is somewhat comparable to Josh Howard, in my opinion. Obviously, his athleticism and nba potential pale in comparison to Howard’s, but they do have some similarities. They each have similar body types, each played mostly power forward in college but showed the ability to handle and make smart decisions in the open floor, and have aggressive mindsets, both attacking the rim and pressuring the opposition defensively. I think Carroll could be a nice pickup for someone.

    Taylor looks like a classic case of a undersized, scoring shooting guard stuggling to make a smooth transition to the nba. Sure, he put up some guady numbers at PIT, but I dont think he has a spot in someone’s rotation at the next level. He’s not a great ballhandler, has very limited court vision, and did not face a very high level of competition in college. I’m not completely ruling out the possibility that he could become a Kelena Azibuke-type player at the next level, but I think that its highly unlikely. Some team would be making a huge mistake by taking him in the first round.

    I don’t know anything about Garrett Siler, but true seven footers are hard to come by, so who knows.

    I love Brockman, but I just don’t think that he has enough athleticism to make an impact in the nba. I understand that rebounding is one ability that translates well to the next level, and that there are a number of undersized power forwards who get the job done, but Brockman’s just not that guy. He can’t finish strong like Millsap, Maxiell, or Landry. He can’t defend like Chuck Hayes. However, he can rebound like Reggie Evans, so I’ll give him a slight shot at making an nba roster. I do not think that he will get drafted.

  2. Disagree Slightly with Appleby_15
    Appleby_15 made some excellent comments, but I disagree slightly with his opinion of Brockman.

    Brockman reminds me a lot of Paul Milsap, who led the NCAA in rebounding 3 years in a row. Every NBA GM passed on Milsap in the first round and I’ll bet many of them regret that decision. Remember, you can find a scorer anywhere, but rebounders are rare gems. Incredibly, most NBA GMs still haven’t figured that out.

    I’m not saying Brockman’s another Milsap, but they have a lot in common. They play a very similar game, they’re approximately the same height and weight, and coaches don’t depend on either one for scoring, they want them to rebound. Any points they put on the board are gravy.

    In my book, Brockman should be a very early second round choice. He should become a valuable role player in the NBA and I think he will more successful than BJ Mullens, who might be a first round pick. That’s a scary thought.

    Note on Rebounding Stats

    Am I the only one who notices that CBS, ABC, and ESPN rarely include rebounding in their half time stats? That tells me the guys who make those decisions don’t understand the game.

  3. Garret Siler
    Inside, he is very good because he has great hands and a soft touch, and if he catches a defender on his back he is pretty much unstoppable because of his wide base and strength. He had a number of dunks off drives and dishes, showing some very underrated explosiveness.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.