[JNixonParticipant]

 40: Kevin Jones, 6’8 250, PF, West Virginia, Sr.

A prospect who has been on the NBA radar for a little while, Kevin Jones is firmly on the radar now after a big time Sr. season were he was a 20 ppg 10 rpg performer for WVU. This improvement came a little later than expected after a fairly underwhelming Jr. season when he was supposed to be the featured player, but it is welcomed nonetheless. 1^st Team All Big East performer as a Sr. and Honorable Mention as a Jr. Physically Jones is OK. He is about an inch or so undersized for an average PF at 6’8, but he has a wide 250 lb build and a good 7’1 wingspan as well. Really added to his frame his last 2 years and has improved his body. Athletically, Jones is clearly below average. He lacks leaping ability, explosiveness, noteworthy agility and speed, but he does have adequate quickness, probably due to how hard he competes.

On offense, Jones is a fairly basic player. He likes to face the rim more than play with his back to it. The best aspect of his game is his jumper anywhere from 10-12 ft. He really is effective from just inside of mid-range and that’s where he likes to go the most. He can shoot from as far as about 22 ft., but not with enough consistency right now for it to be a major weapon. Not afraid to shoot the 3 ball, is really hit or miss when he does. Shot breaks down a little more the farther he is from the rim. As a post player, Jones is simple but effective most times. He can make jump hooks with either hand and he shows a good turnaround when he turns his left shoulder. Works hard to seal down low and enjoys the physical battle, never shying from contact. Shows good hands. Probably won’t be a big factor as a low post player in the NBA though. Doesn’t have good enough ball-handling skills to be a stretch PF. Really crude handle and a below average 1^st step. Plays a bit too straight up to be an effective slasher. Has to have his shots created for him or has to work hard himself to get them. Plays hard, but also within himself. Not a turnover or mistake prone player at all. Quite possibly the best offensive rebounder in this draft class. Has unbelievable instincts and played with as much energy as any player in college basketball. Works really hard on the court, and is good at slipping through greases of the defense to get high percentage shots. Only OK getting to the FT line. Not going to excel in the transition game. Has solid potential as a 4ht or 5^th option player. A fiery, competitive player who is vocal. High basketball IQ.

Defensively, Jones is active and energetic enough to be adequate. Plays with the toughness you like to see from an undersized PF, but he can be limited against athletic 4’s and PF’s with size at times. Has the wingspan to put up a fight, but sometimes just doesn’t have enough athleticism to consistently hold some guys. An OK defensive rebounder, but not spectacular. Wont be a shot-blocking threat at all.

Jones has role player potential. He reminds you of Udonis Haslem with his style of play, he can hit mid-range shots, play with energy and he’s tough. He’s not physically gifted and he’s not an impressive athlete, but he plays with passion and will do dirty work. He wont be more than a 4^th or 5^th option when he’s on the floor, but he is a solid option. He needs some work offensively, but he has time and he is still growing up. Should be a rotation PF in time.

 

39: William Buford, 6’5 210, SF/SG, Ohio State, Sr.

A 4-year starter and a steady contributor for some really strong Ohio State squads, William Buford is checking at 39. Buford came to Ohio State as a highly touted recruit and McDonalds All-American, and proved to have a real solid career in Columbus, being an impact player immediately. 3-time Honorable Mention All-Big 10 performer, and is the 3^rd leading scorer in OSU history. Physically, Buford is alright but not great. He has adequate height for a swingman at 6’5, and he has improved his long frame and gained about 25 lbs since he was a Fr. A solid 6’10 wingspan. Athletically, Buford is just decent. He is more fluid than explosive, but his explosiveness, quickness, speed and leaping ability are all just decent but don’t stand out.

Offensively, Buford’s jump shot is his biggest strength. He never really was as potent with his jumper as he should’ve been his Sr. year, because he saw more defensive attention. He is effective off screens, spotting up, and off of about 2 rhythm dribbles. Moves pretty well without the ball and doesn’t need to pound the ball at all to score. He is really good at pulling up off the elbow and making shots. Comfortable with pull-up jumpers in rhythm from as far out as 20 ft. Shooting mechanics are really nice, as he shows good elevation, a solid release point, silky smooth touch, and a fluid release. Is really good with his feet set and wont miss many shots when he’s open. Does struggle with athletic defenders and tight contests. Had his worst scoring games when matched up with long and athletic defenders. Has a good mid-range game and is a threat to score when running defenders through screens. Very reliant on his perimeter shot to open up other aspects of his game. As a slasher, Buford is mediocre. Rarely takes the ball off the way to the rim off the dribble. Doesn’t show a good command of crossovers or moves with the ball. Extremely likely to pull-up off the bounce when going right, but even more so when going left. Shows a real limited ability to handle the ball and create offense for himself. Wont be an isolation threat at all. When he does get to the rim he isn’t a great finisher due to his middling explosiveness. An underrated passer, who is good at finding the open man in the flow of the offense. There have been a few times that he gets shot-happy, but generally is unselfish. Is a solid transition player who can play above the rim when he’s at full-speed. Never really got to the line much in college, but was good when there.

Defensively, Buford is adequate. He shows nice fundamentals and has improved his willingness to defend more and more every year. He sometimes has trouble dealing with the more explosive wings and he isn’t exactly the quickest player. Wont gamble for steals that often or deny his man the ball aggressively, and prefers to play more fundamental. Effective rebounder from the wing.

Overall, Buford shows some decent skills, but he also has limitations. His jump shot is his bread and butter and really open up his game. He is able to get shots without handling the ball much and he is really experienced. His lack of ball-handling will limit him though, as will his just OK physical tools and athleticism. He will probably develop into a serviceable defender, but quick guards give him trouble. He has the shot teams will like, but a team will have to deal with his weak points if they like him.

[Wahoo757Participant]

Why isn’t Mike Scott in your top 60?

[iguapops420Participant]

 Buford will end up top 10 from this draft IMO as will Doron Lamb simply off of their ability to fill a role and play fundamental D.

 

[JNixonParticipant]

Cause I dont feel he is one of the 60 best prospects

[Wahoo757Participant]

Obviously. You don’t have to be a smart ass about it. I meant what elements of his game do you not like or do you think will fail to translate to the NBA? I mean you have Bernard James listed 51st and Mike Scott destroyed him in their matchups and I think that was just a microcosm for their talent disparity, and James has 3 years on him as well so I’m baffled as to how James is at least 10 spots higher. Unless 2 inches really makes that much of a difference for you in evaluating talent.

[JNixonParticipant]

How was I being a smart ass? I literally answered the question you asked me.

I think its nice that he did good against Bernard James, its cool to know. Jacob Pullen did good last year against Corey Joseph. Pullen isnt in the NBA, Joseph was a 1st round pick. I’ve seen times where a guy just didnt match up with a guy who was a better prospect. There are better ways to gauge a prospect, like niche. Scott could be good, Im not perfect, but I dont have him in my countdown. Shrug.

[Wahoo757Participant]

Alright it’s your opinion, you’re entitled to it, I’m not going to argue over it. Bu you knew you were giving me a condescending answer when I asked about Mike Scott, and you knew exactly what I was implying when I asked why he wasn’t in your top 60, your definitely smart enough to recognize that, that’s why I called you a smart ass.

[HaleParticipant]

It’s the internet bro, just because you read it one way doesn’t mean that’s how they intended it.

[JNixonParticipant]

 Heartache and pain in a nba draft forum. Sad, sad story

[RUDEBOY_Participant]

lol…Mike Scott will get some looks ,he’s a quality rebounder with a nice wingspan, thats strong and athletic..But he has poor footwork,he’s a poor defender,an undersized power forward that cant shoot…If he had range out to 10 feet and was a better ball handler that might help his draft chances..

 

[Wahoo757Participant]

"an undersized power forward that cant shoot…If he had range out to 10 feet and was a better ball handler that might help his draft chances.."

I need a Stephen A. Smith Oh Lord and So Disrespectful sound button for this. This is just so inaccurate. Mike Scott has one of the best mid range jumpers of any PF or C in the draft, and I don’t think I’m exaggerating with that, he shot 55% with his jump shots.

[YSUFan10Participant]

 Mike Scott should be picked anywhere from 30-45. And Mike Scott definetly is one of the best mid range jump shooting big men in this years draft. Besides dunks and free throws he probably scored most of his other points by facing up and sticking mid range jumpers. Its almost his bread and butter, and it makes him such a hard cover.

[Author]

Posts