The highly anticipated 2014 NBA Draft is approximately two months away. The country’s many mega-talented underclassmen didn’t disappoint, enjoying big season in college basketball before deciding to go pro rather than chase March glory one more time.
This isn’t a Mock Draft, but it’s how we would order the top 15 underclassmen, based on upside, what we saw from them this year, and how we expect them to develop.Â
1. Jabari Parker, Duke
Positives: Carmelo Anthony clone; will average 15 points per game immediately. Pressure will not faze the Chicago star who has dealt with sky-high expectations his entire life — such as being compared to Derrick Rose throughout high school.
Negatives: Defense will be a challenge, as will scoring in the paint against bigger, stronger opponents.
2. Joel Embiid, Kansas
Positives: Rebounding, shot-blocking presence from the jump; it will be hard to pass on the 7-foot Cameroonian who has only been playing basketball for three years, pointing to his ample room for growth.
Negatives: A project on offense, will need time to develop for a team that likely won’t have the benefit of time.
3. Andrew Wiggins, Kansas
Positives: Gifted athlete who can develop into superstar; second leap unparalleled at college level; jump shot better than advertised.
Negatives: Floats in and out of games; lacks killer instinct; lithe frame will get him pushed out of the paint often.
4. Julius Randle, KentuckyÂ
Positives: Has an NBA-ready body; determination and intensity to deal with adversity; better ball handler than most realize and has versatile skill-set.
Negatives: Won’t be able to overpower defenders inside as he did at Kentucky; lack of jump shot will need to be remedied.
5. Aaron Gordon, Arizona
Positives: Perennial All-Star in the making; Gordon displayed impressive passing prowess, shot-making, lockdown defending ability, rebounding and shot-blocking at Arizona.
Negatives: Lacks consistency in all facets of his well-rounded game; like Wiggins, has yet to consistently display aggressiveness scouts would like to see more of.
6. James Young, KentuckyÂ
Positives: Gifted shooter; high-level athlete; good size for a shooting guard.
Negatives: Defense needs work — lots of it — and ball handling suits him better as a forward, which will not be his position in the pros.
7. Marcus Smart, Oklahoma State
Positives: Physical, aggressive style should translate well at both ends of the floor immediately.
Negatives: Jump shot remains a concern; his outburst in a loss at Texas Tech — when Smart pushed a trash-talking fan — certainly raised a red flag.
8. Noah Vonleh, Indiana
Positives: Sneaky-good prospect overlooked because of the proliferation of the higher-hyped freshmen and limited talent around him in Bloomington; double-double machine and has ball skills few 6-foot-10 forwards  have because of past experience as a point guard.
Negatives: Hasn’t proven he can score outside of the paint; lanky frame is lacking muscle to withstand pounding he will face.
9. Gary Harris, Michigan State
Positives: Lights-out shooter can fill it up from the perimeter; can defend both guard spots and has skill-set to develop into a part-time point guard.
Negatives: Somewhat undersized for a shooting guard — his likely NBA position; may have needed another year at Michigan State after missing time due to injury this season.
10. Nik Stauskas, Michigan
Positives: Not just a spot-up shooter, though it is his greatest strength;Â has playmaking ability and size at 6-foot-6 to see over smaller defenders to create for teammates.
Negatives: Quickness — or lack thereof — will be his biggest challenge.
11. Jerami Grant, Syracuse
Positives: Projects as a shutdown defender at the small forward spot; rebounding machine; should start off as nice piece off the bench for playoff team, if taken at middle or bottom of first round.
Negatives: Offense remains work in progress; consistency on jump shot has eluded him, which is why we believe another year of development at Syracuse would have been the prudent choice.
12. TJ Warren, N.C. State
Positives: Rare underclassman with a refined offensive game (averaged 24.9 points per game, tops in the ACC); understands how to create his own shot and move without the ball.
Negatives: Dealt with weight problems at the start of his career; N.C. State fell well shy of expectations in his two seasons in Raleigh, which speaks to a lack a of leadership; defense is a glaring hole in his profile; far-from-inspiring rebounding.
13. Kyle Anderson, UCLA
Positives: Smart, instinctive player; basketball IQ through the roof; has faced doubters entire life. Arguably most unique prospect in draft because of unusual combination of size (6-foot-9) and point guard ability.
Negatives: No set position; lacking foot speed and athleticism; perimeter shot needs work.
14. Tyler Ennis, Syracuse
Positives: Has won at every level; knows how to play point guard position; understands shortcomings and will tirelessly work at eliminating them.
Negatives: Average athlete and mediocre shooter who wore down during college season, not even half the length of the NBA schedule.
15. Rodney Hood, DukeÂ
Positives: Southpaw sharpshooter, overshadowed by Blue Devils teammate Jabari Parker, has mid-range game to go with long-distance marksmanship, and shooting remains the sport’s EZ Pass.
Negatives: Limited athlete needs to add muscle to avoid getting overpowered inside and develop off right hand.