Portal Profile: Will Mizzou get the chance to reboot Rylan Griffen?

• Name: Rylan Griffen
• Position: Wing
• HT/WT: 6-6/190
• Hometown:Dallas
• Previous School:Kansas

Background

How relevant are the contents of this profile? Unclear.
Last week, Griffen returned to Tuscaloosa to explore the possibility of a reunion with Alabama, where he spent the first two seasons of his career. And since that visit, the Crimson Tide struck out on Cedric Coward, a Washington State wing and one of the better prospects still on the market. So, a viable path toward reconciliation exists.
Meanwhile, Griffen’s also being wooed by Texas A&M, which has a new coach and a completely turned-over roster. That potentially means College Station might be a place capable of offering him more minutes, touches, and NIL compensation.
Griffen, who averaged 6.3 points and 2.1 rebounds at Kansas, remains on the market for now. By last week, the Tigers were in the nascent stages of wooing a player who strafed them two seasons ago inside Coleman Coliseum. Under normal circumstances, we might hold off taking a deep dive into Griffen’s game to see whether MU gets more durable traction. Yet there is also this reality: the top end of the market is mostly devoid of affordable options. 
So, it’s worth detailing what wares he might provide.

To say the past year has been turbulent is an understatement for Griffen.

In March 2024, his pure shooting stroke helped power Alabama to its first Final Four. That 39.2 percent clip from 3-point range also made him an attractive target for a program like KU, which was coming off one its worst shooting seasons in Bill Self’s tenure. Leaving Tuscaloosa and an ideal system fit would have only made sense in a few instances. Venturing to Lawrence was one of them.

It’s fair to say that coupling didn’t pan out. 

Griffen’s acclimation was stilted early on. But it also made sense. In early December 2024, Griffen told reporters that Self’s offense was a radical departure from the one Oats uses, and he was struggling with shot selection. He was shooting too little, averaging two fewer catch-and-shoots per game. It was the main reason Self lifted Griffen from KU’s starting lineup after a handful of games.

“I can get better at reacting instead of thinking,” Griffen told The Kansas City Star.

Then, he sat out a loss at Creighton with the flu and was still recovering when KU arrived in Columbia for the Border War. A couple of weeks later, he took a shot in the face against Brown and sat out the second half. Going into Christmas, Self professed that he wasn’t disappointed in Griffen. To him, high-major transfers experience a transition like that of JUCO players, where their processing speed in a new system takes time to catch up. 

His tone changed after Griffen went incognito in a home upset by West Virginia. He scored three points in 12 minutes. What was becoming apparent was Griffen’s success wasn’t translating under the lights at Phog Allen Fieldhouse. 

“Nothing,” Self answered when asked what he saw from Griffen and fellow transfer A.J. Storr. 

In many ways, Griffen embodied a Kansas squad that groped for consistency. Griffen might struggle against West Virginia but put up 14 in a rout of UCF. He’d go AWOL at TCU before notching 17 points in a double-overtime loss to Houston. Along the way, Self said he worried less about Griffen’s shooting than other facets of his fame. To Self, Griffen’s best games correlated with forcing turnovers or chasing offensive rebounds. 

Griffen returned to the starting five in early February, but he slumped down the stretch, going 17 of 71 in 11 games before the NCAA tournament. “Maybe I’m off now, but it matters when you make them,” he told the Star. “You’ve got to make them at the right time.”

Unfortunately, the timing always seemed off. 

What kind of bounce back does his shooting need?

Sometimes, discerning what a player might offer requires complexity and nuance.

Not in Griffen’s case. 

He’s a floor spacer – full stop. However, it wasn’t preordained. Coming out of high school, Griffen, a former top 50 talent, gave off vibes as a potential three-level scorer and hints of defensive tools. Whether he reached that ceiling hinged on adding functional strength. Instead, he leaned into a 3-and-D mold that suited Oats’ style of play. 

Self didn’t coax Griffen to Lawrence to diversify his scoring package. He brought in Storr to operate as a slasher. Griffen’s job description was brief: punish defenses who ran bodies at Hunter Dickinson on the block or seal off gaps against Storr. Math backed up that thinking, too. Griffen averaged 1.193 points per spot-up jumper at Bama. And vitally, Griffen didn’t overextend himself as a driver, taking 18 percent of his shots at the rim as a sophomore with the Tide. 

Presumably, the brief would be the same in Columbia. 

So, what happened to undermine the vision Self had in his head? On paper, Griffen was average. He sank 35.2 percent of catch-and-shoot 3-balls for KU, including 37.9 percent of guarded looks. Yes, that’s lower than what he shot off the catch (40.1%) with Oats, but functionally, we’re talking about a difference of two open 3-balls rippling twine over the course of 33 games.  

In aggregate, Griffen didn’t experience a massive erosion in his shooting percentage. But it could appear that way because his tally dipped by one shot per game. Again, that hesitation is one reason Griffen slipped in the Jayhawks’ rotation. And as we can see from his play-type data, subsidiaries of spot-ups didn’t always reap profits. 

But on film, Griffen looks precisely the same. 

Shooting off movement is often assumed to be how well a shooter uses a variety of screens to shake a defender and find space. Watching Griffen underscores a more subtle form. He’s savvy about relocating to make passing reads easier. It might be drifting slightly toward the corner or lifting to the wing. He might bump a half step into the slot, perfectly positioned for kick out if a defender stunts to the nail. And he’s adept at filling in behind a ball-handler attacking the middle gap. 

That feel is a byproduct of two years in Oats’ system, which relies on shooters to understand how to position themselves without ruining double gaps for drivers. The process was sound, but it had to be frustrating for Self to potentially see Griffen only convert 15 of 47 open catch-and-shoots from long range. That’s not exactly exploiting the gravity created by Dickinson or DaJuan Harris. 

The clips below are probably what the hall-of-famer had in his mind’s eye.

We see Griffen holding down the weak-side corner. He’s bumping over positions to be ready for extra ball reversals. He can give Dickinson easy passes from the block if Griffen’s man digs down. Had Griffen buried five more open spot-up 3s – one every six games – he’d have matched the performance from his sophomore season.

While Griffen doesn’t explode into his shot motion, everything from the waist up is pristine. His shot pocket sits just below his chest. His load is quick and direct. The release point is elevated enough that even big men closing out don’t pose much trouble. And the ball comes off his hand cleanly and with consistent rotation. 

The real culprit for Griffen’s depressed shooting percentages came on the break. Per Synergy Sports, he was just 2 of 12 on 3-balls attempted after running the wing in transition. He made just 21.7 percent of 3s attempted when KU played in the open floor – more than 16 percentage points lower than his handiwork with the Tide. 

That’s jarring because Griffen should have been comfortable in those situations. And it’s worth filing away if he winds up at MU. Some of the allure diminishes if he can’t hit shots after running to a spot above the break. Theoretically, MU wants Griffen as an antidote to opponents building a wall if Anthony Robinson, Sebastian Mack, Annor Boateng, or T.O. Barrett come barreling down the floor to rack. That’s harder if Griffen can’t punish transition defenses that get caved in. 

By contrast, Griffen’s woes in the lane shouldn’t come as a surprise. 

When he played off the bounce with the Tide, the end goal was a paint touch that let him get on balance and play off two feet. That…didn’t happen in Lawrence. You can see the film below. Digest it for context, but also understand MU isn’t targeting Griffen for his untapped potential to meet dudes at the rim and prevail.

There’s a vital distinction to keep in mind, too. Griffen can play in ball screens and handoffs, but he’s effective when a defender dips under the screener. Why? MU’s base offense, which is the delay series, a second-side action might entail a guard sprinting in zoom action, chase action, or flowing a spread pick-and-roll. The default goal is to put a guard’s defender in a trail position and supply an attack angle. With Griffen, it’s to create enough separation for him to rise and fire. 

That wasn’t quite the case in Lawrence, where Griffen turned the corner and drove into gaps. MU might have to help him recalibrate his decision-making in those on-ball scenarios. 

We can discuss whether Griffen’s addition addresses the Tigers’ most pressing needs offensively, but the scope of work to maximize him isn’t daunting. While the scheme isn’t unimportant, psychology and confidence probably carry more weight with a player like Griffen. If he never quite felt settled in Lawrence, it’s not unreasonable to assume it leeched into other parts of his game. 

Now that there is definitively a clean break with Bama and one season left in his collegiate career, perhaps it will provide Griffen with the impetus and focus to rediscover his former self. 

Is Griffen a potential liability on the defensive end?

There are no words to mince about Griffen at the other end of the floor. 

Per Synergy, he finished in the 21^st percentile nationally for efficiency. That’s worse than his performance in Tuscaloosa. As we’ve discussed in our forums, Griffen’s defensive engagement might be the most significant variable in whether this works. 

Early in his career, he was slotted into a pack-line-inspired system content to give up 3s and funnel drivers to long-limbed rim protectors. Griffen spent his time herding instead of guarding. So, it makes sense that his defensive metrics weren’t spotless.

Life in Lawrence brought a radical shift. 

Yes, Self has ditched playing twin posts and the high-low offense. However, he has not flinched about fundamental principles his players must abide. There’s no switching. Forget no-middle tactics. He’s still a stickler for sitting down, winning the first slide and fighting over screens. Griffen’s underlying play-type data looks gnarly, but we need to understand the shift in outlook he encountered. 

In some ways, last season was a sunk cost for Griffen learning to play legitimate one-on-defense for a coach who, unlike Oats, doesn’t have an on-and-off relationship with getting stops. Self tilled the soil. The question is whether Gates and Co. could come along and use it to reap a bounty. 

That prospect, however, looks remote when you watch Griffen try to keep his man out of the lane. He allowed 1.15 points per shot on rim attempts taken in the half-court. That’s simply not good enough. The film doesn’t help either. 

Problems crop up from the start. Griffen’s rarely sitting low in a defensive stance. His hips are stiff and his first slide is laggard. Dribblers often have little trouble muscling their shoulders past him. But even if Griffen does beat them to a spot, any amount of contact puts him on tilt, giving a driver a chance to reset and go again. 

Against closeouts, he’ll bite on shot fakes. And the lack of functional core strength means he can’t decelerate under control and stay in front. It often looks like he’s trying to avoid clattering into a driver. That means an attack angle is open. When Griffen’s in trail position, he might lack the footspeed to make ground or bend to get skinny around a screen. 

While I didn’t see Self admonishing the junior, the critiques might have been more subtle. Whenever a reporter asked about Griffen having a good game, the KU coach rarely discussed shot-making. He’d point out that Griffen created deflections, got floor burns for loose balls, or won 50-50 battles for long rebounds. 

The subtext is also easier to discern when considering the 15-game stretch between November and late January where Griffen came off the bench. During that stretch, he made 39.1 percent of his 3-point attempts. That’s on par with his performance for Oats. But he was also giving up 1.182 PPP on defense. 

Griffen’s work on the defensive glass throughout his career (9.6 DR%) has always been pedestrian for his position. He’s also never been all that disruptive, posting a 2.5 STOCK% across three seasons. Griffen’s efficiency in creating that febrile disruption is also poor. For example, he commits two fouls for every block or steal generated. 

Now, consider that track record and the possibility that he doesn’t resuscitate his jumper. MU will have acquired an average floor spacer, a sub-par individual defender, and a wing who doesn’t help the Tigers tilt possession math in its favor. Moreover, there’s nothing in Griffen’s background to suggest he’s a reliable handler and facilitator.

Reductive as it might sound, this addition falls apart quickly if Griffen’s shot-making peaks at pedestrian. 

Summary

During portal season, the posture is to assume the best. Griffen’s case is banking on two years of high-level shooting in the SEC. That’s an easy assumption. We saw him do it. Why can’t he do it again? 

From my seat, we might discount the role and influence of Oats’ system or the possibility that Griffen might again struggle with acclimating to a new one. Coach Dennis Gates’ approach melds triangle, five-out, and pistol concepts. It’s always possible for the Tigers to come down, play in a five-out alignment, have Robinson attack a double-gap and play out of it. But fundamentally, the Tigers want pieces capable of playing in split cuts or various read-based concepts.

That’s not how Griffen was trained. You could mask that by having him passively stand in the weak-side corner or interchange on the two-side of the floor. But fundamentally, his job would be banging in catch-and-shoots. The upside is how to leverage shooting out of stationary handoffs or one-dribble 3s in ball screens. 

Should that search come up empty and Griffen shoots 35 percent from deep, his presence won’t move the needle. Simultaneously, MU might be weaker defensively and still be short on guards who are comfortable bringing the ball up the floor and running the offense. 

Consider this: MU had one of the nation’s best pure shooters on its roster last season. That same player, Caleb Grill, had putrid defensive metrics. When Grill was on the floor, MU allowed 7.7 more points per 100 possessions, according to EvanMiya.com’s lineup data. The actual splits might not be as extreme with Griffen, but the premise is still valid. Unless he’s running an efficient canning operation, his value diminishes. 

Yet true alternatives to Griffen dried up over the past week. There are still a handful of sweet-shooting veterans in the portal, but they played at woebegone low-major programs and (stunningly) have worse defensive resumes than Griffen. If the Tigers come up empty, there’s a plausible case for standing pat with two vacancies. However, the risk is overstating the impact Griffen could have if the Tigers picked him up off the rebound. 

Remember that MU didn’t target Griffen when he hit the portal on March 31. Here are some guards it pursued ahead of him: Quimari Peterson, Nik Graves, Sebastian Mack, and Kennard Davis. The Tigers only circled back to him after Griffen canceled a visit to Kentucky on April 21. Moreover, MU’s outlook became sobering on April 24 when half a dozen guards started wrapping up their recruitments. At that time, Griffen looked to be among them. 

While no doubt his stroke could be helpful, there’s also an element of face-saving at work involved. The Tigers are still projected as a quality squad for next season. They lead the SEC in returning production. Predictive metrics will likely have them inside the top 25 when the preseason arrives. On paper and in databases, evidence suggests this is an NCAA Tournament. Whether Griffen raises their ceiling, though, is debatable.