2012 NBA Draft Profile: Moe Harkless

By Carlos Alberto Petry Junior



A six-foot-nine, 207-pound forward, Moe Harkless had a very productive freshman season playing for Saint John’s. In fact, he led all freshmen prospects in the NCAA in minutes per game (36.1).

Harkless has great size and length for a small forward, and he used it to his advantage in college, playing the passing lanes and having a very positive impact defensively. He also showed great offensive rebounding instincts, averaging three offensive rebounds a game. Another strength is his ability to score in transition, which should translate quite well to the next level.

An area of concern for the forward is his jump-shot. Harkless hasn’t shown any consistency with his jumper, shooting 21.5% from three-point range and 25% in spot-up situations. Overall, he made just 29.9% of his jump-shots.

At just 207 pounds, Harkless had some trouble in post-up situations on both ends of the court, and there’s no reason to believe that will change in the NBA, unless he gets a lot stronger. His lack of strength also creates problems for him when he tries to finish through contact.

At the next level, Harkless might struggle to create shots for himself early on in his career, as he lacks a go-to move, has a hard time going left (he made just 18% of his shots in that situation) and can’t really pull up off the dribble.

At the moment, most projections have him being picked anywhere between #15 and #25.

At #15, the Sixers don’t really need another forward, unless they plan on moving Iguodala or Young. At #16, the Rockets could be a possibility, though they also don’t seem to be the ideal fit, considering they already have Parsons to develop at that position.

At #17, the Mavericks could choose him depending on what their offseason plans are, but again, it doesn’t seem to be the best fit. The same can be said about the Wolves (#18), who should be looking for a shooter to complement Love and Rubio.

It’s hard to figure out what the Magic will be looking for, especially with a new general manager coming in and with Dwight Howard’s future up in the air. But Harkless wouldn’t be a terrible fit for them, considering how they really need to get younger at the swingman spots.

Having Chandler and Gallinari locked up to long-term deals, the Nuggets (#20) don’t seem to need another wing. With the #21 and #22 picks, the Celtics could make a lot of sense, especially if the team doesn’t re-sign Garnett and starts thinking about the future. Even if they do keep Garnett, Boston could still use some depth at small forward.

Another team that could be a good fit is the Hawks (#23), who didn’t really have any youth off the bench last season. However, their front office is said to be looking for a player who can contribute immediately, and there’s no guarantee Harkless can be that guy.

At #24, the Cavs could go for Harkless if they see him as a good fit next to Irving, Varejão, Thompson and whomever they pick at #4. Picks #25 through #29 are owned by playoff teams that might be willing to select a guy like that if they see the potential for him to be a difference-maker in a few years.

Overall, Harkless has plenty of upside and it’s reasonable to expect he’ll improve on his weaknesses. But it might take a couple of years for him to really develop into the kind of player he can be.

Editor's Note: The video is a courtesy of Valley of the Suns' Mike Schmitz, who has done a fantastic job putting these video profiles together for Draft Express and whose YouTube account can be subscribed here.

Carlos Alberto Petry Junior is a featured blogger for 'the Basketball Post', providing insight on the NBA. More of his stuff can be found here or on Siga NBA, his personal blog in Portuguese, and he can be followed on twitter @petryNBA.

 
Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
  • No comments exist for this post.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.