With the PFs, rating them turns out to be fairly simple. Or so it seems according to recent history. There are 4 categories that seem to be important: FG pct., points per 40 minutes, rebounds per 40 minutes and the sum of steals and blocks per 40 minutes. I would say that rebounds and FG pct. are probably most important, but the rospect can’t be weak in any one area. It’s also nice of they’re over 6’8”, or at least have real long arms, and play in a strong conference. As is the case with centers, passing and outside shooting are certainly nice skills to have, but there is no trend of successful prospects doing either better than unsuccessful prospects If they don’t do those first 4 things well, the passing and shooting won’t make them anything more than a role player.
This is a strong overall year for PFs. Horford and Noah both look like future stars to me. Brandan Wright also looks good, but he has some work to do. There are also a few decent prospects behind them who could surprise. Paul Millsap’s surprise success last season could have scouts looking for the next Millsap and give more opportunities to similar players. As is the case in any year where a particular position is strong, there could well be good players available in round 2. That will be the case more than ever this season, as both the centers and SFs are loaded with good prospects also.
Next year could also be a strong year for PFs, as players like Darrell Arthur, Richard Hendrix, Tyler Hansbrough, Josh Heyvelt, Carlos Monroe, Joseph Jones and Joey Dorsey all look like strong prospects who are returning to college.
The numbers below are where each major college prospect ranks against the average numbers of previous groups of players. I’m not sure whether these should be taken seriously or with a grain of salt at this point, but I thought it was an interesting way of looking at things. The numbers for the prospects have been pace-adjusted.
| NCAA Freshman PFs | FG Pct. | Points40 | Reb40 | St40+Bl40 | A/TO | PPS |
| All-star level |
.567 |
19.6 |
12.5 |
3.7 |
0.5 |
1.45 |
| Brandan Wright |
.645 |
20.2 |
8.5 |
3.8 |
0.6 |
1.54 |
| Rotation Regular |
.515 |
18.2 |
11.1 |
3.3 |
0.5 |
1.37 |
| Journeyman |
.483 |
18.8 |
10.5 |
2.8 |
0.4 |
1.29 |
| Never made it |
.518 |
15.3 |
9.8 |
2.9 |
0.6 |
1.37 |
| NCAA Sophomore PFs | FG Pct. | Points40 | Reb40 | St40+Bl40 | A/TO | PPS |
| All-star level |
.560 |
20.8 |
12.7 |
4.4 |
0.6 |
1.38 |
| Rotation Regular |
.538 |
19.8 |
11.2 |
3.3 |
0.5 |
1.46 |
| Journeyman |
.506 |
18.5 |
10.1 |
2.5 |
0.5 |
1.37 |
| Josh McRoberts |
.502 |
14.8 |
8.9 |
4.2 |
1.4 |
1.31 |
| Never made it |
.531 |
17.1 |
9.9 |
2.7 |
0.6 |
1.41 |
| NCAA Junior PFs | FG Pct. | Points40 | Reb40 | St40+Bl40 | A/TO | PPS |
| All-star level |
.595 |
23.2 |
12.6 |
4.3 |
0.6 |
1.53 |
| Al Horford |
.608 |
18.8 |
13.5 |
3.7 |
1.2 |
1.64 |
| Joakim Noah |
.605 |
18.3 |
12.9 |
4.4 |
0.9 |
1.67 |
| Rotation Regular |
.543 |
21.2 |
11.2 |
3.4 |
0.7 |
1.45 |
| Jason Smith |
.579 |
21.8 |
13.2 |
2.7 |
0.6 |
1.67 |
| Glen Davis |
.484 |
20.6 |
12.2 |
2.8 |
0.8 |
1.39 |
| Journeyman |
.521 |
19.9 |
10.5 |
2.9 |
0.6 |
1.42 |
| Never made it |
.531 |
18.1 |
10.4 |
2.6 |
0.7 |
1.42 |
| NCAA Senior PFs | FG Pct. | Points40 | Reb40 | St40+Bl40 | A/TO | PPS |
| All-star level |
.595 |
23.2 |
12.6 |
4.3 |
0.6 |
1.53 |
| Nick Fazekas |
.568 |
26.9 |
14.6 |
3.0 |
0.9 |
1.49 |
| Rotation Regular |
.526 |
20.5 |
11.2 |
3.2 |
0.7 |
1.45 |
| Stephane Lasme |
.611 |
16.8 |
11.9 |
7.4 |
0.4 |
1.66 |
| Carl Landry |
.597 |
25.1 |
9.7 |
2.8 |
0.4 |
1.75 |
| Rashaun Freeman |
.609 |
20.6 |
11.6 |
1.4 |
0.4 |
1.44 |
| Journeyman |
.506 |
20.5 |
10.5 |
2.9 |
0.6 |
1.41 |
| Jermareo Davidson |
.407 |
17.1 |
10.1 |
3.9 |
0.9 |
1.14 |
| Terrence Roberts |
.545 |
11.9 |
10.8 |
3.0 |
0.7 |
1.38 |
| Ekene Ibekwe |
.494 |
15.8 |
11.7 |
5.5 |
0.3 |
1.37 |
| Mario Boggan |
.540 |
22.6 |
9.0 |
2.2 |
0.6 |
1.44 |
| Never made it |
.514 |
18.5 |
10.5 |
2.6 |
0.7 |
1.38 |
| Chris Richard |
.690 |
13.4 |
7.9 |
1.4 |
0.4 |
1.75 |
| Warren Carter |
.485 |
18.2 |
8.1 |
2.2 |
0.8 |
1.35 |
1. Al Horford, Florida: Al Horford looks like a terrific prospect to me. He’s not on the level of Oden or Durant, but is 3rd behind those two. The only thing that keeps his ranking down a little is he doesn’t score a lot of points. But I’m not going to get too concerned about the lack of scoring from Horford or any Florida player. The Gators were a team that shared the ball and spread the scoring to everyone. I have little doubt Horford could have scored 20+ PPG if need be. He hit over 60% of his shots, got to the line a lot and showed all the characteristics of a great college scorer. He’s a great rebounder, despite playing next to one of the best rebounders in the country. He’s one of two players on this list with an A/TO >1. Defensively he looks strong, but it’s hard to tell for sure. He gets a lot of blocks and steals, and those numbers are probably a little suppressed due to the presence of Noah. He’s not exactly a Hibbert when it comes to shutting opponents down. No opposing inside player dominated against Horford, but there were some decent games by Darrell Arthur, Randolph Morris and Richard Hendrix. Another thing to like about Horford is he won’t turn 21 until the season starts. That’s the age of a typical sophomore.
Horford looks like a future star to me. He does all the necessary PF things well, and he’s one of the best passing big men in the nation. I’m struggling a little for a comparision. The great PFs all scored more often at this level, rebounded and defended about the same and didn’t pass as well. I suppose that puts Horford a notch below the typical all-star PF, but Florida was not the typical situation, because no Gator scored a lot of points. The low P40 is a concern, but I’m comfortable explaining it away as a quirk of his team. I see Horford as a solid NBA player who will become one of the better big men in the league. His ceiling is a perennial all-star PF and that puts him at the top of this group.
2. Joakim Noah, Florida: Noah looks like every bit the prospect Horford is, perhaps even moreso. He’s close in most important categories and is better in both steals and blocks. He’s also taller and gets extra points for being the leader of a great team. Noah would likely have been the top pick last year had he declared. This season he seemed to be playing whatever role might be needed of him. Here’s his numbers from the season split into 3rds:
| Joakim Noah | FG Pct. | P40 | R40 | A40 | TO40 | S+B40 |
| First 13 games |
.644 |
19.6 |
12.6 |
5.1 |
3.9 |
4.8 |
| Middle 14 games |
.630 |
19.4 |
11.9 |
2.7 |
4.1 |
3.8 |
| Final 13 games |
.534 |
15.5 |
13.9 |
2.6 |
3.4 |
4.7 |
During the first third of the season, Noah was a great passer, even leading the Gators in assists at one point. He was scoring less than he had as a sophomore, but was rebounding better. In the middle third, the numbers dropped some. This is something that would be expected, due to the conference schedule starting and the competition being better. For the final third he raised his rebounding to a ridiculous level, stepped up his defense and was less involved in the offense. Now this could be just me reading into numbers and perceptions too much, but I got the impression that Noah, more than any other player, was focused on team success. After all, he was the leader of the 3 who came back to repeat. He was the one who gave up being the top overall draft choice. So he probably had the most invested in repeating as champions. Is it possible that the variance in his numbers over the course of the season reflects a willingness on his part to do whatever the team needed him to do? Early on he was the team’s best passer, because that got the other players involved. This team was remarkably balanced on offense. Their starting 5 all averaged between 10.3 and 13.3 PPG. Only 70 FGAs separated the player who was first and fifth on the team in FGAs. Four players averaged over 2 assists per game. This was a team that got everyone involved and that’s something that could have had its roots in Noah’s early season passing frenzy. Later in the year, when the team was starting to slump a little, Noah gave up a lot of his offense, and possibly a few spots in the draft, to focus on defense and rebounding, which he did as well as any college big guy down the stretch, because it was what the team needed from him. It seemed to me he did whatever the team needed him to do. Since the result was a championship, he deserves credit for such.
Even if I’m reading things wrong and Noah’s numbers slipped a little because of indifference and laziness on his part, this is still an excellent prospect. I nudged Horford ahead of him in the final analysis, because Horford is 16 months younger, played center and Noah’s TOs did go up this year. But it’s also worth noting that Noah was a higher percentage scorer with the same number of points as Horford until late in the year, when his FG pct. slumped for the first time in his career. He’s also a similar rebounder and has better defensive numbers than Horford. I don’t feel there’s as much difference between the players as the mocks and pre-draft buzz are suggesting. I mean I love Horford, but the idea that he’s suddenly a can’t miss star to Noah’s non-scoring stiff (another Mark Madsen as one scout reportedly whispered to the Chicago Tribune’s Sam Smith) is nothing short of ridiculous.
Last year at I thought Noah looked like a Kirilenko type. I think he might be better than that now, as Kirilenko was never this good as a rebounder. I shouldn’t throw out this comp and I don’t mean he’s going to be such a player, but Noah has some characteristics of Bill Russell if you think about it. He’s a winner, having been the vocal leader of back-to-back NCAA champions just like Russell; He’s a defender, rebounder and passer first and a scorer second, just like Russell was. I’m not saying this is the next Russell, who’s going to come into the league, be so dominating defensively that other players simply retire and start a dynasty. Russell was one of the bigger players in the league when he entered and during most of his career, while Noah is smallish for a PF/C. But I could see Noah using his rebounding abilities, passing skills and quickness on defense to trigger some killer fast breaks like Russell did during his career.
I’m probably going a little overboard there. It’s likely my contrarian reaction to a terrific player being put under a microscope and unfairly downgraded. As for his future, I don’t see Noah as a big time scorer in the NBA, and that could hurt him some whenever the hardware is handed out. I do see him as a very valuable player who does a lot of things well, piles up big numbers on rebounds, assists, blocks and steals, hits a very high percentage of his shots and generally does the things that help his team win. He’ll be the type of player every team should want to have.
3. Brandan Wright, North Carolina: Wright has some work to do as a prospect. He’s a weak rebounder and he’s going to have to get bigger than his listed 210 lbs before he can handle playing PF in the NBA. His two skills–inside scoring and shotblocking—point to him playing PF, so improving the rebounding and getting bigger is a must.
I’ll mention the good stuff about Wright first, then address the rebounding. He can score and defend inside as well as few NCAA freshmen ever have. On a team that’s full of good scorers, the 20.2 per40 is most likely lower than his real ability. He’s also a better than average passer, doesn’t have a turnover or foul problem and gets to the line a lot. But if he doesn’t improve his rebounding, he’s going to have trouble becoming anything more than an NBA role player.
I want to look at whether or not Wright can improve his rebounding to the point where he can become the player most mocks have listed right behind Oden and Durant for most of the year. First I’ll toss up a couple of tables. The first one shows freshmen PFs who posted a FG pct. of at least .600 while playing significant minutes, as Wright did this past season.
| Player | FG Pct. | P40 | R40 | S+B40 |
| Rasheed Wallace |
.604 |
18.2 |
12.7 |
4.8 |
| Antawn Jamison |
.624 |
18.4 |
11.8 |
2.2 |
| Tyrus Thomas |
.608 |
19.1 |
14.2 |
6.4 |
| Ike Diogu |
.616 |
23.9 |
9.7 |
1.5 |
| Jelani McCoy |
.676 |
13.7 |
9.3 |
5.2 |
| Andre Hutson |
.613 |
14.3 |
9.9 |
3.6 |
| Michael Southall |
.610 |
18.3 |
10.7 |
5.2 |
| Brandan Wright |
.645 |
20.2 |
8.5 |
3.8 |
This shows it’s a good thing to be able to rebound as a freshman if you plan on NBA success. The two successful players on the list, Wallace and Jamison, could both rebound well as a frosh. The one young player who looks like almost a lock to be successful, Thomas, boarded better than any of them. The players who didn’t board well as a freshman haven’t been as successful, though Diogu still could develop. Southall was sidetracked by personal problems more than anything.
Next I have to ask if there’s any chance Wright can improve his rebounding to the point where it isn’t an issue. Anything is possible, but the question is do players typically improve their rebound rate after their freshman season? Here’s a group of players who averaged less than 9 rebounds per 40 minutes as NCAA freshmen, as Wright did, but improved their rebounding to the point where it wasn’t a weakness.
| Player | Freshman R40 | Draft year R40 | % increase | Best NBA R40 |
| Brandon Bass |
8.4 |
10.8 |
28.6 |
10.6 |
| Mark Blount |
8.3 |
10.4 |
26.8 |
9.8 |
| Calvin Booth |
9.0 |
10.0 |
11.1 |
10.9 |
| Cal Bowdler |
7.5 |
13.3 |
77.3 |
8.2 |
| Michael Bradley |
8.9 |
11.5 |
29.2 |
12.5 |
| Jason Caffey |
8.1 |
10.7 |
32.1 |
9.7 |
| Travis Knight |
8.8 |
13.4 |
52.2 |
12.6 |
| Mamadou N’Daiye |
8.7 |
11.8 |
35.6 |
12.4 |
This shows improvement is possible. There are other examples too. Players who never or barely made the NBA like Casey Shaw, Steve Hamer, Alvin Jones and AJ Bramlett to name a few all improved their rebounding numbers during their college careers to the point where what had been a weakness was turned into a strength. There also David Lee, who was a so-so rebounder his first 3 seasons at Florida and is now one of the NBA’s best. So rebounding can be improved. Does this make Brandan Wright a better prospect and worthy of the #3 selection some mocks have him going at? I’d say yes and no. The list of players who improved were all marginal prospects to begin with and none had any serious impact in the NBA. Wright is considered a premier prospect, in a group just behind the two uber prospects, Oden and Durant. The fact remains that any PF who has been an all-star the past several seasons was a much better rebounder than Wright as an NCAA freshman. This isn’t a case like Horford’s and Noah’s low scoring totals being explained away by playing on a strong team. Carolina had no real good rebounders. Hansbrough was OK, but that would also be considered his weakest point. That Wright couldn’t step up his boardwork on a team lacking in any great rebounders is a huge concern.
Wright has enough in the way of skills and potential that he’s worth a high draft pick. But as we’ve seen with Marvin Williams and Corey Maggette, posting impressive numbers as a freshman playing on a wildly talented team doesn’t necessarily make a player a great prospect. Wright has potential, but there are questions about whether he’s big enough to play PF, whether he can play some SF if he isn’t and whether he can rebound enough to stay on the court if he does. Right now all I see is a role player. An inside scorer who can give a team an instant lift offensively, but has a somewhat limited game and will need teammates to pick up some slack for him in areas where he’s weak. A good player, and definitely one to draft before the players listed below, but not one any team should be drafting higher than #10 in this loaded draft.
4. Nick Fazekas, Nevada: Fazekas is one of those players that I just can’t figure out why the scouts and experts don’t like him a little more. He’s the best per minute rebounder of all players who played mid-major and above, a strong scorer both inside and out, an above average passer, the best outside shooter among big men and he doesn’t get embarrassed on defense. That sounds like a pretty decent player to me, not one that should be looking at the prospect of fighting for a job on whichever team selects him in round 2.
What I wanted to do with Fazekas was compare him to recent PFs who were also good 3-point shooters in college. Listed with Fazekas in the table below are 13 PFs who attempted at least 60 treys and hit .333 on them in their draft year. I stuck with juniors and seniors, because Fazekas is in his senior year and I didn’t feel frosh and sophs were a proper comp in this situation.
| Player | 3-pt. Pct. | 2-pt. Pct. | P40 | R40 | S+B40 |
| Troy Murphy |
.349 |
.499 |
24.0 |
10.2 |
2.8 |
| Eduardo Najera |
.342 |
.450 |
18.0 |
9.7 |
3.0 |
| Walter McCarty |
.467 |
.564 |
18.3 |
9.3 |
4.3 |
| Kenny Thomas |
.370 |
.603 |
20.6 |
11.6 |
4.6 |
| John Wallace |
.420 |
.501 |
24.5 |
9.6 |
3.1 |
| Pat Garrity |
.370 |
.516 |
26.2 |
9.4 |
1.4 |
| Matt Bonner |
.480 |
.538 |
19.8 |
7.8 |
2.2 |
| Scott Padgett |
.381 |
.543 |
17.4 |
8.1 |
2.6 |
| Jerald Honeycutt |
.333 |
.502 |
24.7 |
8.0 |
5.0 |
| Hanno Mottola |
.350 |
.549 |
17.8 |
7.0 |
1.1 |
| Matt Freije |
.356 |
.452 |
24.7 |
7.2 |
1.9 |
| Jason Collier |
.369 |
.473 |
20.9 |
11.3 |
2.3 |
| Ryan Gomes |
.380 |
.540 |
23.1 |
8.8 |
1.8 |
| Nick Fazekas |
.431 |
.591 |
26.9 |
14.6 |
3.0 |
What I wanted to show here is that Fazekas is more than the 10-15 minute per game PF who brings a different look to the team with his outside shot. Fazekas is a much better rebounder than all these players, a more efficient inside scorer than all except Thomas and a better defender than a majority of them. In other words, this isn’t just another soft big man with a jump shot good enough to keep him in the league. Fazekas is a good inside player who also has the ability to step outside and consistently hit shots from as far as 3-point range.
Fazekas has enough skills that he should be able to find a place in the league and stay there for a long time. He does have some issues with defense and that’s probably the main reason he’s getting so little respect in pre-draft buzz. Those concerns are legit, as he’s never been one to shut an opponent down. But there’s still a lot to like here. At the low end he’s good enough to be another Padgett or Garrity and stick around the league for a long time in such a role. More likely his rebounding ability gets him PT almost immediately and his inside/outside scoring ability helps him keep it.
5. Stephane Lasme, Massachusetts: Lasme is a shotblocker first and foremost. His other numbers are also strong, but to gauge his chances I wanted to compare his year against years of great shotblockers. Here are some PF-Cs from the past several years who blocked over 5 shots per 40 minutes. I omitted pure centers who were great shotblockers like Magloire, McIlvaine, Przybilla and Olowokandi, because Lasme is a PF and not a similar type of player. I listed the players in rough order of professional accomplishment, from best to worst:
| Player | Blocks40 | FG Pct. | Points40 | Rebounds40 | A/TO | PF40 |
| Marcus Camby |
5.1 |
.477 |
26.7 |
10.7 |
0.70 |
3.4 |
| Theo Ratliff |
6.3 |
.544 |
17.7 |
9.3 |
0.45 |
4.2 |
| Emeka Okafor |
5.0 |
.599 |
21.8 |
14.2 |
0.43 |
2.9 |
| Etan Thomas |
5.7 |
.617 |
17.7 |
10.7 |
0.30 |
4.0 |
| Brian Skinner |
5.5 |
.598 |
18.8 |
11.7 |
0.21 |
4.5 |
| Eddie Griffin |
5.4 |
.429 |
21.8 |
13.2 |
0.73 |
2.9 |
| Justin Williams |
6.3 |
.515 |
13.0 |
12.8 |
0.26 |
3.6 |
| Ken Johnson |
5.5 |
.578 |
16.9 |
9.9 |
0.34 |
3.5 |
| D’or Fisher |
5.9 |
.561 |
15.8 |
9.3 |
0.53 |
4.4 |
| Stephane Lasme |
6.3 |
.611 |
16.8 |
11.9 |
0.35 |
4.2 |
With the exception of Ratliff, the better players were generally better scorers and rebounders in college. The A/TO doesn’t seem to matter much, as seems to be the case with anything regarding big men. Most of these numbers are for junior or senior year, with the exception of Skinner and Griffin who are freshmen. Lassme’s 16.8 P40 is closer to the two who didn’t make it, Johnson and Fisher. His rebounding number fits in with the more successful players. I think right now his numbers put him in with Thomas and Skinner. That makes him a usable reserve/occasional starter who lasts a long time in the league.
6. Jason Smith, Colorado State: Smith is a solid prospect. He does everything well enough, though I’d like to see the defensive numbers a little higher. I stuck him between rotation regular and journeyman, because his TOs are high and the conference he played in, the Mountain West, isn’t quite at the top echelon of the NCAA.
As I mentioned above, his TOs are high, but the entire team seemed to be TO-prone, so it could have been a coaching problem. The blocks number could also be a little low, because Smith, despite being 7’0”, actually did play PF with Colorado State. Stuart Creason played center, led the team in blocks and this may have affected Smith’s numbers in both blocks and rebounds.
There are negatives and positives with Smith. Most of the key numbers for PFs are solid, but he commits a lot of turnovers. He has enough size to play some center, but played against slightly lesser competition than most prospects in college. Another negative is that his team finished 6-10 in a mid-major conference. To me that might be the scariest thing about Smith, but I’ve mentioned that it could have been a bad situation. My feeling is that he starts a little slow, but after a season or two he emerges as a decent reserve at both PF and center, mainly because of his rebounding and inside scoring abilities. He might become a starter eventually and his height should keep him in the league for a long time, but I doubt he’ll become anything resembling a star.
7. Josh McRoberts, Duke: McRoberts ranks very low in these rankings, because he doesn’t do 3 of the 4 important PF things very well. He hit barely over 50% of his shots, he didn’t score that often and he’s a poor rebounder. Defensively he’s pretty solid and he’s the best passing PF available. He’s also shown some ability to hit the outside shot. But as the table shows, he falls short of even the average washout prospect in all but one category.
So is McRoberts doomed as a prospect? Not really. He’s not a likely NBA all-star, but a lot of this stuff can be explained away. The lack of scoring and low efficiency doesn’t concern me too much. He did hit over 60% of his shots as a freshman and I suspect his real level is somewhere between that and the 50% he hit as a soph. As a soph he was the only big guy on the court for Duke and was likely doubled quite a bit. The fact that he didn’t score a lot of points is not a huge concern, since he plays on a talented roster where FGAs aren’t easy to come by.
Defensively he’s pretty impressive. In blocks and steals he trails only Lassme, Noah and Ibekwe among the prospects. If you look at the Duke box scores, the only two games where inside players really dominated the Devils were late season back-to-back losses to North Carolina and NC State, where Hansbrough, Wright, Costner and McCauley all had strong games. Before that he held most opposing players in check. I don’t know if playing as the only big guy in a perimeter offense wore him down by season’s end, or if he just wasn’t into it and wanted to get to the next step in his career. He certainly declared and hired an agent quickly.
The rebounding is a problem. He’s played two seasons and over 2000 minutes. The fact that he’s been a poor rebounder while playing alongside another good inside player in Williams and was still a poor rebounder as the only big guy on the team is a bad sign. Rebounding isn’t typically something a young player can improve on dramatically either. It does happen, but not as often as with passing, defense or scoring. The fact that he is so weak right now, suggests this will always be a problem.
McRoberts looks like his top end as a prospect is an NBA reserve. He does enough things well and is a good enough athlete that some team should be able to find a use for him. But the fact that he can’t rebound is going to keep him from becoming anything but a reserve.
8. Tiago Splitter, Tau Ceramica: His thing of pulling out of the draft a few years in a row hasn’t worked out real well for him. Last year he may have been a top 10-15 pick. This year he’s a bubble first rounder. His numbers don’t impress me all that much. He’s a decent inside scorer, but his rebounding is substandard and that’s going to hurt him.
9. Glen Davis, LSU: Davis does some things well, but has a problem putting the ball in the hoop consistently and that’s a huge problem, since that’s what the game is about. PF prospects who can’t hit at least 55% of their shots in college rarely have a huge impact. Davis has been a little below 50% for his career.
While the FG pct. is almost fatally low for a prospect, there are things to like about Glen Davis and reasons to believe he’ll stick around the league for a long time, if as nothing more than a reserve. The most important thing he has going for him is he’s a very good rebounder. He’s also not timid about scoring, is a good passer and a decent defender. He knows how to get to the line and doesn’t commit a lot of fouls. If you take the .484 out of the equation, he looks like a very good prospect. But we can’t do that, because the .484 is a huge part of the total Glen Davis package.
Davis looks like the player who will be able to do what it takes to stick around. In his three seasons at LSU he’s made subtle additions to his game. He’s become a better passer, rebounder and shooter. He’s lost weight, which is usually a good sign. This year he took fewer shots and passed the ball more often, which is a sign he’s a good team player. Something I’ve noticed over the years is that players who are able to make changes in their games during their college career are also good at sticking around the league for awhile. My feeling is he’ll be able to find himself a role and do what’s needed to stick around. He’s probably not much more than a reserve, but he might become a usable one eventually.
10. Ali Traore, Le Havre: Traore is a better rebounder than Splitter, but doesn’t have the offensive game and is a poor shot blocker. The experts seem to love his athleticism, but question his motivation. That seems right, considering the low number of blocks and the fact he doesn’t get to the line much at all. I’d be a little more confident about coaching fixing these problems if he weren’t 22. The numbers are only decent to begin with and say he’s a player no worth bringing in if the effort isn’t going to be there.
11. Carl Landry, Purdue: Landry was an offensive machine in his two seasons at Purdue. He scored a ton of points and did so efficiently. His other numbers weren’t terrible either. Players who score this often and efficiently as Landry has done usually make it in the league on one level or another. Whether this is because their gaudy numbers gets their foot in the door as a #1 draft pick or because this is always an indication a player is a great prospect is not known. Here’s a quick list of recent NCAA PFs who averaged over 23 P40 and .570 in the same season, along with some of their other numbers along with Landry:
| Player | Points40 | FG Pct. | Rebounds40 | A/TO | S+B40 |
| Elton Brand |
24.2 |
.620 |
13.4 |
0.61 |
4.7 |
| Carlos Boozer |
25.7 |
.665 |
12.2 |
0.59 |
2.1 |
| Antawn Jamison |
26.8 |
.599 |
12.7 |
0.49 |
1.8 |
| Brian Grant |
23.6 |
.654 |
12.0 |
0.77 |
2.2 |
| Raef Lafrentz |
25.6 |
.584 |
12.9 |
0.39 |
2.0 |
| Joe Smith |
25.5 |
.578 |
13.0 |
0.57 |
5.4 |
| Danny Fortson |
28.5 |
.620 |
12.1 |
0.36 |
1.4 |
| Corliss Williamson |
28.1 |
.626 |
10.6 |
0.82 |
3.2 |
| Alan Henderson |
26.7 |
.597 |
11.1 |
0.61 |
3.9 |
| Ike Diogu |
24.9 |
.575 |
10.7 |
0.37 |
3.2 |
| Nick Collison |
23.2 |
.590 |
12.4 |
0.70 |
4.0 |
| Marcus Fizer |
27.2 |
.582 |
9.2 |
0.53 |
2.2 |
| Michael Bradley |
24.5 |
.692 |
11.5 |
0.92 |
3.2 |
| Cliff Rozier |
23.5 |
.625 |
13.8 |
0.46 |
3.9 |
| Julius Michalik |
24.0 |
.577 |
6.8 |
0.71 |
1.9 |
| Deon Thomas |
26.7 |
.633 |
9.4 |
0.80 |
2.9 |
| Carl Landry |
25.1 |
.597 |
9.7 |
0.41 |
2.8 |
This is an interesting group. As a quick tangent, I can’t but wonder what happened to Joe Smith and how Michael Bradley was able to post such amazing numbers in college. As I was at the time, I remain flabbergasted that Carlos Boozer lasted until round 2 of one of the weaker drafts in memory. As for this group of great college scorers, rebounding seems to be an important part of their success. The best NBA players in the group had at least 12 per 40 minutes. The only two over 12 who haven’t been successful were Collison, who had a serious injury, and Rozier, who had some personal issues that kept him from succeeding. Landry is at 9.7 rebounds and that says he’s going to have a tough time in the pros.
Landry’s other issue is he’s only 6’7”. That’s short for a PF. Similar height-challenged players like Boozer and Williamson been able to put together decent careers, but they were both better rebounders. Landry’s sub-par rebounding is bad enough, but the fact that he was the only decent rebounder on his team suggests the 9.7 might even be a little bloated. Rebounding is important at every position, and points to a player’s athleticism and ability to dominate at the level below the NBA. Landry’s inability to rebound at even a mediocre level for a prospect will most likely keep him from making a big impact at the pro level. I can’t see him having the impact of Boozer or Williamson and will more likely struggle to find a place in the league.
12. Zoran Erceg, FMP Zeleznic Beograd: Erceg is interesting as a prospect, because he can shoot the lights out. He hit .433 on 60 treys and .673 overall. The problem is he’s a very poor rebounder, averaging only 7.6 per 40 minutes, which makes him look like more of an SF. If a team has a need for a gunner at PF, he looks like a pretty good candidate.
13. Ekene Ibekwe, Maryland: Would need to make it as a defensive specialist. He doesn’t score efficiently enough or frequently enough to be very impressive there. His numbers in blocks and steals are up there with the best of this group and he’s a good enough rebounder. Any player who can rebound and defend inside is a useful player and because of that Ibekwe has a decent chance of making a roster.
14. Jermareo Davidson, Alabama: Davidson took a huge dive as a senior. He had posted a FG pct. of .477 as a junior and needed only to boost that up to become a strong prospect. Instead he went the other way, hitting only .407 as a senior. Sometimes, a low FG pct. can be excused as a season-long shooting slump, but in Davidson’s case that’s a tough argument, because his career high, .577 as a sophomore, was accomplished taking fewer than 5 FGs per game. PFs who shoot under 50% in college rarely make it. The few who have either entered the draft early, Antoine Walker; or are utilized mainly as outside shooters: Pat Garrity, Scott Padgett and Brian Cook. There was also Reggie Evans, who was a dominate rebounder in college. Davidson’s other numbers look OK and they might even be a little suppressed, as he played alongside a player, Hendrix, who’s actually a better PF prospect.
From watching Davidson play, his problem seems to be obvious. He just doesn’t go strong to the hoop. He was more apt to try and lay the ball in as opposed to dunking. At least that was my impression from the few times I saw him play. I don’t know if becoming an aggressive finisher is something that can be coached into him or not. It wasn’t during his 4 seasons at Alabama, not to say the staff didn’t make the effort.
If this can be fixed, I would say this is a player worth gambling on. The size/athleticism combo is pretty impressive and his defense is solid. But I wonder about a player who looks like a dominator, but hits barely over 40% of his shots. I also wonder about the on-court intelligence of a player who leads his team in FG attempts when he’s only the 5th on the team among rotation players in efficiency. His athletic potential makes him an intriguing player in round 2, but players with numbers like this rarely make it and the fact that he hasn’t fixed this in 4 college seasons makes him a long shot.
15. Rashaun Freeman, Massachusetts: Freeman was the offensive half of the UMass frontline, while Lasme was the better defender. Freeman is a strong inside scorer and a good rebounder. Defensively he’s pretty weak, though he was better in previous years and may have spent his senior season staying out of Lasme’s way. He’s also a poor passer and was foul prone during his senior season.
I don’t know that his scoring is enough to carry the rest of his weak game. I do know that inside scoring is something that’s in short supply in the NBA and if Freeman can bring some of what he had in college to the next level, he might convince some team to keep him around.
16. Terrence Roberts, Syracuse: Roberts was actually scoring more until February when some of the scoring load shifted to youngsters Devendorf and Rautins. Until then he looked more like the player he was his junior year, only a better rebounder:
| Terrence Roberts | FG Pct. | Points40 | Rebounds40 | Steals + Blocks40 |
| Junior year |
.558 |
13.2 |
9.4 |
3.3 |
| Senior Nov-Jan |
.593 |
14.1 |
11.0 |
3.0 |
| Senior Feb-Mar |
.452 |
9.0 |
10.8 |
3.2 |
He had been playing well in conference games up to that point, and he picked things up in the conference tournament and NIT, but he wasn’t part of the offense for the final month of conference play.
I shouldn’t make a huge deal out of this. Roberts isn’t a great prospect to begin with. He didn’t score enough when he was getting more a few more looks and he only became a decent rebounder his senior year. He looks like he could become an NBA scrub, if he plays strong defense, but that’s probably his high end.
17. Mario Boggan, Oklahoma State: It was a good senior season for Boggan. He hit the game-winning shot in the best college basketball game of the regular season and looked like a real prospect for the first time in his career. Like Davis, he lost some weight and made himself a better player, which is always a good sign for a prospect.
An interesting, and negative, note on Boggan is how his season went in the tank after he dropped the 37/20 on Texas in the 3OT thriller.
| Mario Boggan | FG Pct. | PPG | RPG | OSU Record |
| Through 1/16 Texas game |
.585 |
22.0 |
8.1 |
16-2 |
| After 1/16 Texas game |
.482 |
14.8 |
6.6 |
6-11 |
This is probably more of an indication of the affect of a major college schedule vs. a weak non-con schedule. The Texas game was only their 3rd Big 12 game. Still, the team was looking like a top 4 seed at the time and they fell apart to the point they couldn’t even take Marist in round one of the NIT.
Boggan has an outside chance at making it. He’s too small o be a full-time NBA PF, but is probably versatile enough to play both forward positions and he has decent, but not great range.
18. Chris Richard, Florida: He’s not really a sleeper prospect, as I’ve heard mentioned. He’s more like a good college player who got exposure playing an important, but minor role on one of the great teams of all time. He was a guy who was in the right place at the right time.
There’s always the chance with a player like Richard that his numbers are suppressed by playing alongside college superstars. I just don’t see that as being the case here though. The .690 is great, but looks like it could be a lot of garbage points to me. There’s little else here that’s impressive. He’s a below average passer and and rebounder and he’s foul prone. I can’t see anything in his numbers that would suggest Chris Richard is an NBA-caliber player.
19. Warren Carter, Illinois: Another PF who doesn’t do the PF things all that well. Carter is a good passer and outside shooter, but doesn’t do any of the important PF things well enough to move himself past likely washout status.
One never knows for sure which players will be the ones to step up their games a notch after college and make the NBA despite mediocre NCAA numbers. For this reason I can’t discount the possibility of Warren Carter making it. But to make it he’ll need to improve his game quite a bit, because right now he’s not there.
20. Rashad Jones-Jennings, Arkansas-Little Rock: He was one of the best rebounders in the nation. After the success Paul Millsap had last season, I felt Jones-Jennings was worth a mention. Jones-Jennings doesn’t bring the complete game Millsap had, but he’s not terrible. He hit only 50% of his shots and that’s the biggest negative.
21. Caleb Green, Oral Roberts: Green peaked as a freshman and has seen his numbers flat-line since then. He’s still a decent enough prospect, but there just hasn’t been any improvement, other than a slight increase in A/TO. The best thing about him is his ability to score. He’s been over 20 PPG for the past two seasons and has been ridiculously efficient, because he gets to the line over 10 times per game. His rebounding numbers are solid and there’s no one area where his numbers are terrible for a prospect. But he’s only 6’8” with mostly an inside game and his numbers were put up in a weak conference. At this point he’s a long shot.