Portal Target Profile: Could Mizzou extract the best from Jalen Washington?

• Name: Jalen Washington
• Position: Post
• HT/WT: 6-10/235
• Hometown: Gary, Ind.
• Previous School:North Carolina

Background

A top-60 prospect out of Gary (Ind.) West Side, Washington arrived at North Carolina envisioning himself as a modern four-man. While his physique featured broad shoulders, a plus-5-inch wingspan, and large hands, Washington preferred facing up and putting the ball on the floor. There were also moments where he showcased a soft touch as a shooter.

When he committed to UNC in July 2021, recruiting outlets rated Washington a five-star talent. Yet a right knee injury hampered his career. Washington tore his ACL as a sophomore, and an improper surgery required two more corrective procedures, scuttling his senior season at West Side.

Washington moved to Chapel Hill while still recuperating, missing the first 10 games of his freshman season. That same campaign also saw the Tar Heels’ frontcourt anchored by Armando Bacot and Pete Nance, limiting Washington to a modest 5.6 minutes per game. Then, Bacot used an extra year of eligibility to stick around UNC for a fifth season, a gap year that rendered Washington an understudy as a sophomore.

Circumstances were supposed to be different this year. 

Roster churn last spring and failures in the portal left coach Hubert Davis with a big-man rotation of Washington, Ven-Allen Lubin, Cade Tyson, and Jae’Lyn Withers. Only Washington stands taller than 6-foot-7. Over the first eight games, Washington’s size earned him a place in the starting five, a payoff that had been a long time in coming. 

The promotion didn’t last long. As we’ll see, Washington’s offensive skill set remained limited to play-finishing as a short-roll big, timely cuts after screening, and rim runs. He only made 29.6 percent of his catch-and-shoot jumpers; again, he’s not a mauler on the block. After a 5-4 start, Davis swapped Lubin for Washington in the starting five. Eight games later, on Jan. 25, Washington injured his knee against Boston College. 

While Washington missed just one game, he didn’t see the starting lineup again and only reached double figures once over the latter half of the season. Reporting around the program indicated that the staff liked Washington, but it was also cognizant that it desperately needed reliable production out of his roster spot. So, the player and program parted amicably.

How does Washington operate on offense?

We can dispense with any notion of creative prowess. Washington’s top touch this season came snagging feeds as a roller. After that, he scrounged for putbacks. Then, there were cuts and dump-offs around the rim. 

The good news is those opportunities – rudimentary as they are – were also fruitful. Per Synergy, Washington averaged 1.47 points per shot around the cup, finishing among the 95^th percentile for Division-I players. That efficiency more than outstrips what Josh Gray provided for Missouri this season. 

Isolating Washington’s most frequent play types makes a great first impression. Who doesn’t love the idea of a big who doesn’t need to dominate the ball to make a dent in the scoring column? Meanwhile, Washington’s game has the positive side effect of putting at least three fouls on an opposing defense when he’s on the floor. 

Dissecting the scheme behind those touches isn’t a complex discussion, either. Most of the time, the Tar Heels aligned in five-out and used a rudimentary trigger action – turnouts, away screens, or ram screens – to flow into a pick-and-roll. To Washington’s credit, he’s more than competent at creating a friendly angle and timing his roll perfectly to make himself a viable target. 

His agility and footwork remain reliable enough to quickly flip a screen or re-screen after a dribbler backs out. Washington’s massive mitts let him snag all manner of passes in the crowded confines of the lane. He’s skilled enough to finish with either hand, and his internal gimble is good enough to remain on balance for tough finishes. 

Clips of Washington cutting, though, are what caught my attention. UNC would occasionally trot out some sets that share traits with MU’s offense: entering the ball to a big at the elbow or top of the key, high and low splits for guards, and the occasional bit of chin action. 

Admittedly, some of these cuts blur the line with delayed rolls, but that’s navel-gazing. What matters is Washington’s not trotting to the dunker spot and pitching a tent. Davis trusted him enough to start possessions inverted, connect actions, and work his way down to the paint. 

Washington looks far more comfortable in those situations than Gray could ever hope. Reliable footwork, while not all that engrossing, to avoid handoffs getting nuked or simply pivoting to read split action. Do I harbor much hope that Washing will start pinging precise feeds all over the floor? His 5.1 percent assist rate strongly hints the answer is no. 

Yet maneuvering to keep MU’s offense on time would be a modest upgrade. More importantly, it will keep an extra defender out of the lane if Mark Mitchell decides to attack a mismatch downhill.

Showing you clips of stickbacks wouldn’t be all that enlightening, but it’s worth putting a pin in the fact Washington is effective at foraging on the offensive glass. His 9.8 offensive rebound percentage isn’t elite, but it would have been the highest mark on last season’s roster. 

And if a big man passes through Chapel Hill, their time in the Carolina break teaches them to do one thing well: bolt from rim to rim on the break. If that big doesn’t get fed on a rim run, they know how to hit a body quickly and establish a deep seal for a quick entry pass. Washington doesn’t possess elite end-to-end speed, but he can pick it up and put it down faster than Gray. 

There you have it. That’s the extent of Washington’s tool kit. Or at least the play types with enough of a sample for us to draw some conclusions about what he can offer MU. The obvious question is whether coach Dennis Gates and his staff could add to Washington’s suite of skills. 

Over three seasons, Washington has made 18 of 53 catch-and-shoot jumpers when spaced out to the perimeter. That’s a respectable 33.9 percent clip but also an absurdly low volume. Conversely, Washington has averaged 1.048 PPP as a post-up threat during his three seasons. That efficiency would have ranked in the 82^nd percentile nationally this season. However, we’re talking about 62 possessions over three years. 

The pitch for Washington coming out of high school was his polish would be a separator. He could be a big who was comfortable taking trail 3s or popping. He could face up and attack a mismatch. However, three years of data don’t quite bear that scouting consensus out. 

If MU opts for Washington, he’ll be the second reclamation project added to the frontcourt this offseason, one where MU also needs to see demonstrable progress by Peyton Marshall and a healthy Trent Burns. Meanwhile, Nicholas Randall isn’t expected to come in and make a quick impression. 

Gray’s game was a blunt instrument, but it wasn’t speculative. You knew he could rebound. You knew he could lean on stronger bigs. And maybe he might notch a couple of buckets. There was no complex development plan. MU took Gray for what he was: a stock big man. Adding Washington would up the risk profile to get a return that proved elusive for a blue blood.

How does Washington perform on defense?

Early in non-conference play, it wasn’t an overreaction to appraise UNC’s defense as horrific. 

Over the first eight games, which coincided with Washington’s presence in the starting five, the Tar Heels ranked 147^thnationally in efficiency. That included a two-point defense parked at No.173. By mid-December, national outlets were dissecting what had gone awry. Peers like Kansas, Michigan State and Alabama feasted at the rim, too. 

Now, the Tar Heels stabilized and cauterized the wound in ACC action, but it’s hard to ignore that its abysmal start overlapped with Washington’s time in the starting five. Perusing Synergy data also shows that Washington finished in the 19^th percentile nationally for efficiency as a rim defender. 

So, is Washington’s play-type data undoubtedly a horror show? Except it’s not. He wasn’t routinely abused on the low block. He’s average when guarding rollers, and his spot-up efficiency was a strength. Looking at his most common play types, you might draw the opposite impression of his defensive capabilities.

As always, drawing soft conclusions from play-type data and the film clips is probably best. 

Quantifying defense can be tricky. We might know the scouting report for the opponent. Breakdowns elsewhere can create downstream consequences that erode a player’s defensive profile. For example, Synergy can be squishy when assigning a rim possession to a primary perimeter defender or a big man in rotation. UNC’s guards stunk as on-ball stoppers early, and maybe some of that seepage might have stained Washington. 

Sometimes, lineup data offers us a decent proxy. Per EvanMiya, North Carolina’s defensive efficiency declined by 2.8 points per 100 possessions when Washington was on the floor. That’s not great, but it’s tolerable. The more significant issue was the drag Washington created offensively by sapping UNC’s efficiency by 4.9 points per 100 possessions. It’s also helpful to consider who Washington spent the most time with on the hardwood.

What do the two weakest lineups have in common? Freshman Ian Jackson is running on the wing. The Heels allowed 15.3 more points per 100 possessions with him on the floor. By contrast, adding Withers to the mix could buttress a lineup. Playing four-guard lineups to speed up the pace and force opponents to shrink their personnel also meant Washington routinely handled clean-up duty.

Queuing up clips of Washington, though, can offer some modest relief. 

His shoulders might be broad, but Washington hasn’t packed on mass, and his core looks lean. It’s natural to wonder how effectively he can hold ground during post-ups. But the footage turns out to be mostly favorable. Power dribbles don’t knock him off-kilter, and he’s hard to dislodge when playing directly behind his man. It also appears to be a core principle. You rarely see Washington use a three-quarter front to deny an entry pass. 

Washington doesn’t chase blocks, either. He’s all about maintaining position, playing vertically, and trusting his 7-foot-4 wingspan to complicate finishes. And because he’s not cheating or fronting, he doesn’t often get caught on the high side or leveraged for spins and drop-steps. When that does happen, though, Washington’s a bit foul-prone, getting dinged for hand-checks or getting his lower torso into his man as they go to finish.

The film also affords us helpful context around friendly efficiency numbers for Washington guarding spot-ups. It turns out that many of the jumpers he’s guarding are taken by big men trying to stretch a defense, and they are rarely in positions where Washington is more than one pass away. Slower shooting motions and short recoveries are helpful. 

Similarly, Washington’s handling opposing post-players when trying to neutralize pick-and-pops. 

This is all good, but Washington’s swing skill is how he fares when handling mismatches in space. The data, at least, is not kind to Washington. He allowed 1.307 PPP as a primary defender in isolations, pick-and-rolls and handoffs.

Those possessions deserve scrutiny if Washington winds up in Columbia, but it’s vital to keep scale in mind. However, they only comprise 20 percent of his overall sample. Stripping them out means Washington allowed 0.813 PPP, an efficiency that would have ranked in the 71^st percentile nationally and been on par with Mark Mitchell. 

Summary

Let’s say it’s late April, and MU has whiffed on several targets. Washington’s availability would be a coup. From a macro perspective, he fits the brief for MU. He can finish at the rim. He can competently man up against opposing big men inside. He rebounds consistently and can supply some rim protection at the margins. 

Yet it’s only the second week of portal season. The big man market is deep and might get more diverse as this week unfolds. Some of those options might profile as more natural or consistent scorers when posting up on the block. Or perhaps they might offer a more expansive body of work as a spacer and roller. 

No one is dismissing Washington’s utility. But does he project as a starter? Because that’s what MU likely needs heading into next season. And the depth and diversity of the market offer the Tigers a chance to score a clear upgrade instead of a utilitarian reserve. You can also see the logic in trying to buff and shine Washington’s game. He’s likely more affordable, leaving more budget to fill two critical perimeter vacancies. 

However, the combo guard market remains relatively sparse, and if it doesn’t rapidly improve, that rationale breaks down pretty quickly. Nobody would deny that MU needs reinforcement in the post. But there are two vital questions. Should Washington be a primary option? And is now the time to add him.