The transfer portal is often talked about in terms of fit, need and roster construction, and all of that matters. But sometimes, the appeal of a transfer is much simpler.
Can this guy go get a bucket? Can he create offense when a possession breaks down? Can he handle the kind of usage that comes with being one of the first names on the scouting report?
That is the lens for this list.
Using last season’s KEMBA ratings, I wanted to look at the transfers who rated as the top offensive creators at their previous schools and are now stepping into similar — or even bigger — roles somewhere else. This isn’t necessarily a ranking of the “best” transfers in the portal, and it isn’t meant to project who will have the biggest overall impact next season.
It is more specific than that.
These are players who already proved they could shoulder real offensive responsibility. Some did it as high-volume scorers, while others were initiators. However, all of them created advantages with the ball in their hands and had the ability to bend a defense over the course of a game.
Now, they are being asked to bring that creation to a new environment.
That transition is not always seamless. Usage changes, offensive system changes, and often, the level of competition increases. But for teams looking to add offensive punch through the portal, these are the kinds of players worth studying — not just because of what they averaged, but because of how much offense they were responsible for creating.
Here are the highest-rated transfer offensive creators from last season’s KEMBA model, and what their production might mean in their new homes.
1) Money Williams | 6'4" Guard | Montana ➡️ Boston College
KEMBA Rating - 33.5
Money Williams is a fun transfer evaluation because there is no mystery about what Boston College is getting.
The Eagles added a 6-foot-4 guard who had the ball constantly at Montana, took a ton of shots, made a lot of them, and carried a level of offensive responsibility that most transfers have not had to handle. Williams led the Big Sky in usage rate, ranked in the top five nationally in that category and was third in shot rate. He averaged 20.6 points, 4.3 rebounds and 4.7 assists while shooting 49 percent from the field, 35 percent from three and 87 percent from the free throw line.
That is the selling point.
Williams has already been the guy defenses were built to stop. He was asked to win late in possessions, create something without much help and take the kind of shots that usually come with being the focal point of an offense. For a Boston College team that needed more self-created offense, there is real value in adding someone who has lived in that role.
The interesting part is how he got those numbers.
Williams is not a blow-by athlete. He is more of a strong, crafty, ball-dominant scoring guard who uses his frame to create just enough room. He plays with good pace, has a strong handle and is comfortable taking contact on the way to his spots. He was excellent in isolation last season, ranking in the 95th percentile in isolation sets and the 89th percentile in efficiency, per Synergy. Most of his shot attempts came off the dribble because of Montana's dependence on him creating his own scoring opportunities.
That is not easy offense. Williams made it look manageable because he has touch, balance and confidence. He can attack a closeout, get a defender leaning the wrong way, use a pump fake, take one hard dribble and rise into a jumper. He also has enough strength to bump defenders off their line and finish through contact when he gets downhill.
The concern is that his shot profile asks a lot of him.
For someone with his size, Williams was only an adequate finisher at the rim. A lot of his production came from difficult midrange attempts and contested pull-ups, but he also ranked in the 94th percentile in efficiency on those looks.
That is both impressive and a little scary.
At Montana, Williams was good enough to turn tough shots into good possessions. In the ACC, that becomes harder. Defenders are longer, help gets there faster, and there are fewer clean pockets to operate in. The same shoulder bump that worked in the Big Sky might not create separation against an ACC guard or wing, and the same late-clock jumper that felt comfortable at Montana might look a lot more difficult against high-major size.
The passing gives Boston College something to work with.
Williams is not just a gunner. His assist rate ranked in the top 50 nationally, which matters because Boston College cannot just ask him to hunt shots for 30 minutes and call that an offense.
The issue is the mistakes.
Williams had a 21.2 percent turnover rate last season. That number is hard to ignore. Some of it comes with the role, but the ACC is not going to give him the same amount of room to probe, pick up his dribble and figure things out. He will have to make quicker decisions, especially when a second defender comes or when his scoring angle is cut off.
That also shows up in the film. Williams can get locked into scoring mode, even when the better play is the simple pass. He is talented enough to make some of those shots, but Boston College will need him to trade a few of the tougher attempts for cleaner possessions. That is probably the biggest swing skill in his profile.
Defensively, there are fair questions as well. Williams’ lack of burst showed up more against better competition, especially in ball-screen coverage and when he had to contain in space. Boston College does not need him to be a shutdown defender, but if he is going to have a major offensive role, he has to be solid enough on that end to avoid becoming a matchup target.
That is why this is such an interesting fit.
Williams brings something Boston College needed: a legitimate scorer who can create for himself and others. Programs in BC’s position are not usually landing perfect high-major creators, so there is logic in betting on a player who has already handled elite usage and produced efficiently.
But the translation is not automatic. His shot diet is difficult, he turns it over more than you'd like, and he is moving into a league where strength and craft alone will not always be enough.
The best version of this for Boston College is not Williams simply recreating his Montana role with better uniforms and tougher opponents. It is Luke Murray finding ways to use his size, pull-up shooting and late-clock confidence without asking him to win every possession by himself.
If that happens, Williams can give the Eagles real offensive juice and their most dangerous offensive weapon in quite some time.
2) Terrence Brown | 6'3" Guard | Utah ➡️ North Carolina
KEMBA Rating - 30.7
Terrence Brown is an easy transfer to understand for North Carolina.
The Tar Heels needed more proven guard scoring, and Brown gives them exactly that. He was one of the most productive offensive players in the Big 12 last season, averaging 20 points per game at Utah while carrying a massive share of the offense. For a UNC roster that has been rebuilt quickly under Mike Malone, there is obvious value in adding a veteran guard who is comfortable creating his own shot and getting to the free throw line.
The interesting part is figuring out what that role looks like in Chapel Hill.
Brown had to do a lot at Utah, partly because the Utes did not have many dependable scoring options around him. At North Carolina, the hope is that he will not have to force as much. With Neoklis Avdalas and Matt Able also in the backcourt, Brown should have more chances to attack off movement, play against a recovering defense, and use his downhill game without being asked to carry every possession.
That is where this gets compelling.
Brown’s scoring profile is useful, but it is also specific. He was a high-volume shooter, and he was not especially efficient on the tougher looks that filled out a lot of his shot diet. So while the 20-point average is real, the cleaner projection at North Carolina may come from asking him to do a little less — not more.
The first thing to know is that Brown is not really a shooter. He made only 32 threes last season — one per game — and shot 32.7 percent from deep. His game is built much more around getting inside the arc, playing through contact and finding ways to score in the middle of the floor. He can slither into gaps, stop for pull-ups, draw contact and work his way all the way to the rim.
That is where the appeal starts. Brown gets downhill. He ranked in the 90th percentile nationally in rim frequency, per CBB Analytics, and his free throw rate shows that he was not just settling for soft paint touches. He attempted 204 free throws and made 77.5 percent of them, which matters for a guard who plays the way he does.
The problem is that getting to the rim and finishing there are two different things.
Brown shot 55.7 percent at the rim last season, excluding dunks. That is fine, but it is not the number you want from a player whose value is tied so heavily to paint pressure. He was much better when he could get all the way to a dunk, but most of his rim chances were not that clean. And when he was pushed into non-rim twos, the efficiency fell off. Brown shot just 35.5 percent on other 2-point attempts.
That shot profile is my hesitation.
Brown is a volume scorer, but he is not an especially clean one. He posted a 108.1 offensive rating with a 33 percent usage rate and a 33.5 percent shot rate. Those are massive numbers. They also came for a Utah team that finished No. 128 in KenPom and went 3-19 against power-conference competition.
Some of that context is fair to Brown. Utah needed him to create because there were not many other places to turn. Defenses knew that, too. He was not operating with the spacing, personnel or optionality he should have at North Carolina.
That is the optimistic case.
At UNC, Brown should not have to work as hard for every touch. Avdalas can take on more of the primary creation. Able gives the backcourt another scoring option. Malone should be able to put Brown in more favorable spots, especially if he is used as an attacker off movement rather than someone asked to dribble through a set defense and rescue possessions.
That is probably the version of Brown that makes the most sense.
Let him attack closeouts. Let him catch the ball with an advantage. Let him use his strength and footwork against defenders who are already recovering. If his usage comes down and the quality of his chances improves, it is easy to see his efficiency taking a step forward even if the raw scoring dips a bit.
The risk is asking him to be more than that.
Brown was only in the 55th percentile as a pick-and-roll scorer, per Synergy, and Utah’s team success did not drastically change with him on the floor. His 51st percentile net rating differential is a pretty modest mark for someone with that level of offensive volume. Add in a defense that can be targeted, and the overall profile becomes less exciting than the points-per-game number suggests.
That is why Brown feels like an important piece for North Carolina, but not necessarily the piece I would want driving everything.
If he is a secondary scorer who attacks off Avdalas, lives at the foul line, trims some of the tougher midrange attempts and becomes passable enough from three to keep defenders honest, there is a real role here. Malone’s scheme should help with that.
But if Brown is a 30-plus usage guard again, that probably says more about UNC’s problems than his growth. The Tar Heels needed scoring, and Brown can provide it. They just need the North Carolina version to look cleaner than the Utah version.
3) PJ Haggerty | 6'4" Guard | Kansas State ➡️ Texas A&M
KEMBA Rating - 30.7
PJ Haggerty might be the easiest transfer on this list to talk myself into.
Part of that is the talent, which allowed him to be a second-team All-American two seasons ago at Memphis. Haggerty has been one of the best pure scorers in college basketball, averaging 23 points per game last season at Kansas State and 20.6 points per game across a career that has already taken him through four programs. He is 6-foot-4, physical, creative, comfortable with the ball and wired to attack. There are not many guards in the country who can match his combination of volume, downhill pressure and touch inside the arc.
The other part is the fit.
“Bucky Ball” is one of the more recognizable styles in the sport, and Texas A&M's success in McMillan’s first year showed it can work at the power conference level. The pace, the pressure, the rim attacks, the threes, the constant stress on the defense — it is not subtle. It asks guards to play fast, make decisions and punish teams before they can get organized.
That is a pretty good setup for Haggerty.
He has always been at his best when he can get downhill with space in front of him. He is not just fast in a straight line, either. Haggerty has a real feel for angles, body bumps and timing. He can play off two feet around the rim, use pump fakes against shot blockers, draw contact and still get to his touch finishes. Last season, he was fourth nationally in rim field goals per game among guards, which matters in an offense that wants to live at the rim and beyond the arc.
The three-point piece is also better than the reputation.
Haggerty is not a perfect shooter mechanically, and there are times when the shot looks rushed or a little short-armed. But he has shot nearly 39 percent on catch-and-shoot threes over the last two seasons, and that is the version Texas A&M should need most. He does not have to become an elite off-the-dribble shooter for this to work. He just has to punish defenses when McMillan’s offense creates clean catches for him.
That is why the fit feels so clean offensively.
At Kansas State, Haggerty was asked to do a lot on a team that did not function well. He posted a 31.7 percent usage rate, a 32 percent shot rate and got to the foul line 204 times. The production was real, but the environment was not exactly built to make his life easy. At Texas A&M, he should be able to get more of his offense within the flow of the system — early offense, cuts, rim runs, spot-ups, transition chances, and pick-and-roll possessions where he already has a runway.
That is the best version of Haggerty.
He can still be a high-volume scorer, but it should not have to look as labored. McMillan’s teams play fast, and Haggerty’s teams have been more than 3.5 possessions per 100 faster with him on the floor in each of the last two seasons. That is not a coincidence. He wants to run, he is dangerous before the defense is set and he has the strength to finish when the game gets chaotic.
The concern is not really whether Haggerty can score.
He can.
The concern is whether the scoring comes with the level of engagement and consistency Texas A&M needs from its best player. Kansas State was bad last season. Memphis had its own issues two seasons ago. Tulsa was a mess before that. Some of that is circumstance, and Haggerty has not always been in great situations. But when a player has been that productive on teams that have not won much, it is fair to ask how much of his game translates beyond the box score.
That applies defensively, too.
Haggerty has the tools to be good on that end. He is strong, quick enough laterally and has shown he can fight over screens, guard bigger players and use his hands to disrupt possessions. Before he was part of a bad Kansas State defense, there were real flashes of him being a positive defender.
The issue is consistency and a lack of focus. Some of that may come from how much he has had to carry offensively, but Texas A&M cannot afford for him to pick and choose possessions.
That is what makes this such an interesting swing.
If Haggerty is bought in, this could look obvious by January. He is the most talented player McMillan has ever had, and the system should highlight the best parts of his game. It is not hard to imagine him averaging around 22 points with better efficiency, more transition chances and enough secondary production to become one of the most valuable transfers in the country.
There is always some risk with a player this ball-dominant. But compared to the other high-usage scorers on this list, Haggerty’s path to translating feels much cleaner.
4) Chaze Harris | 6'6" Guard | South Alabama ➡️ Uncommitted
KEMBA Rating - 30.6
Chaze Harris is not officially a plug-and-play transfer yet.
He just finished his senior season at South Alabama, and needs a waiver for an additional year of eligibility after starting his career in the JUCO ranks. That matters, obviously. There is no evaluation without the eligibility piece being resolved first.
But if Harris does get that extra year, he immediately becomes one of the more intriguing guards available.
The scoring is what jumps out first, because it should. Harris averaged 19.2 points per game at South Alabama, won Sun Belt Player of the Year and finished fifth in program history for single-season points. He scored in double figures 29 times, had 12 games with at least 20 points, and produced three 30-point games, including a pair of 38-point performances.
That is real volume.
But Harris is not just a guard who got hot for a year and put up numbers because someone had to take the shots. He is 6-foot-6, handled a massive offensive role and still gave South Alabama a lot more than scoring. He averaged 4.7 rebounds, 4.9 assists and 1.6 steals while shooting 53.6 percent from the field. He was one of only two players nationally to average at least 19 points, 4.5 rebounds, and 4.5 assists while shooting 50 percent from the floor, joining Cameron Boozer.
That is the part that makes him interesting.
Harris had the ball all the time. His 36 percent usage rate ranked third nationally, and his 37.6 assist rate ranked 16th. That is a rare combination, even before getting to the efficiency. South Alabama asked him to score, create for others, get to the foul line and make enough plays defensively to help cover for the burden he carried offensively.
For the most part, he did it.
Harris is at his best when he is getting downhill. He puts pressure on the paint, uses his size well and has enough feel as a passer to punish teams when they send extra help. He attempted 255 free throws, the most in a single season in South Alabama history, and that number probably explains his game better than any single highlight does.
That is a good starting point for a transfer scorer.
He also has real playmaking chops. Harris finished ninth in South Alabama history for single-season assists with 162, and there were plenty of nights when his value showed up in a broader way than just scoring. He had 16 points, eight rebounds and nine assists against UTSA. He had 17 points, six rebounds and 10 assists against Georgia Southern. Even in the NIT at Auburn, he finished with 29 points and eight rebounds, which at least gives you a high-major data point where the production did not disappear.
The concern is obvious, though.
Harris is not a shooter right now. He went 4-for-22 from three last season and was in the eighth percentile nationally in 3-point shooting. He also shot just 59 percent at the free throw line, which complicates the projection because so much of his offensive value comes from getting fouled. A guard who takes that many free throws has to turn those trips into points.
That is the swing skill.
If defenses can go under ball screens, help off him or crowd the paint without feeling punished, the rest of his game gets harder. His size and strength will still matter, and his passing gives him a way to survive, but the spacing question is real. The ACC, Big 12, SEC — wherever he ends up — is not going to give him the same driving lanes he saw in the Sun Belt unless he proves he can make teams pay from the perimeter.
The turnover rate is the other part of the conversation. Harris had a turnover rate of 17.1 last season, which is the cost of giving a player that much offensive responsibility. However, some of it is also decision-making that has to tighten up if he is going to be a primary creator at the next level.
Still, I would rather bet on Harris’ profile than on a lot of empty scoring.
He has size. He gets to the rim. He creates for others. He rebounds well enough for a guard. He gets steals.
If Harris gets another year, he becomes a fascinating portal swing. There are clear flaws, and the shooting numbers are hard to ignore. But there are also not many 6-foot-6 guards who can put together this kind of scoring, passing and rim pressure profile.
The cleanest version of Harris at the next stop is not asking him to be a floor-spacing guard or a pure point guard. It is letting him be a downhill creator with enough structure around him to cut down the mistakes, keep the paint from getting too crowded and produce efficient offense.
5) Colby Garland | 6'0" Guard | San Jose State ➡️ Georgia Tech
KEMBA Rating - 27.6
Colby Garland makes a lot of sense for where Georgia Tech is right now.
Scott Cross is putting together his first roster in Atlanta, and the backcourt has started to come into focus. Troy transfer Victor Valdez gives the Jackets a bigger-bodied, versatile guard. Nasir Whitlock brings another experienced creator after carrying a major offensive role at Lehigh.
Garland adds something a little different.
He gives Georgia Tech a guard who can score at a high level without the whole thing needing to run through him every trip. Garland was excellent at San Jose State, averaging 20.3 points, 3.3 rebounds, and 4.6 assists while shooting 49 percent from the field and 37.2 percent from three. He started 27 of 29 games, earned third-team All-Mountain West honors and finished as one of the better offensive guards in the portal.
The numbers are strong on their own. They look better once you add the context.
Garland had a 29.4 percent usage rate and a 29.8 percent shot rate last season, so this was not empty efficiency in a small role. He carried real responsibility and still posted a 58 percent true shooting mark. In Mountain West play, he led the league in usage and shot rate while posting a 120 offensive rating.
That is the part that gets my attention.
Garland is only 6-foot, so the ACC translation is not automatic. He is not going to win with size, and finishing against ACC length will be a different challenge than what he saw at San Jose State. But smaller guards need something that separates them, and Garland’s separator is his touch.
Per CBB Analytics, only seven players in college basketball shot better than 50 percent on paint twos and 47 percent on midrange twos last season. Garland was one of them.
That is a useful foundation. He can score in the in-between areas without it feeling like a possession bailout. He knows how to create shots for himself, has enough touch to make them, and enough shooting to keep defenses from simply ducking under screens or packing the paint. Garland made 34 threes last season at a 37 percent clip, which gives him a cleaner path to playing next to another creator.
That matters on this roster.
The most logical version of Georgia Tech’s backcourt probably has Valdez as the primary organizer, Garland as the scoring guard, Kam Craft as the wing floor spacer and Whitlock as the utility guard who can bounce between roles. Whitlock is a good player and a sturdy secondary creator, but Garland’s Mountain West profile gives him a real argument to be higher in the pecking order than you might expect.
That does not mean Garland has to dominate the ball.
He can run ball screens, but he can also attack off the catch, work against a rotating defense, take late-clock possessions and punish matchups. His 31.9 assist rate is not nothing, either. EvanMiya gave him an A+ playmaking grade, and that shows up in the way he can create for others once the defense commits to him.
The cleanest role is probably not full-time point guard — it is offensive weapon.
The concern is defense.
Georgia Tech’s backcourt has talent, but it is not especially big. Garland is 6-foot and, if the Jackets are playing multiple smaller guards together, they will need the frontcourt to cover a lot of ground behind them.
Garland’s individual profile reflects some of that concern. EvanMiya graded him as an A offensive player and A+ playmaker, but only a C+ defender. His DBPR was in the negatives, meaning he graded out as a below-average defender last season.
Garland has improved at every stop, going from Drake to Longwood to San Jose State, and increasing his role without losing efficiency. That is a good sign. His game has already scaled from smaller roles into featured ones, and now Georgia Tech is betting it can scale once more.
He does not need to be the entire offense for that bet to work.
He just needs to be a reliable shot-maker in a backcourt with multiple handlers, someone who can score efficiently, create enough for others and give Cross a proven offensive answer as the Jackets’ roster comes together.