Power Forward - 1997 Usenet Draft

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
96-97 Villanova  32 1005 187  416  47 140 121 152  193  88  66  91  33  56  542
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           32 1005 187  416  47 140 121 152  193  88  66  91  33  56  542
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
96-97 Villanova  31.4  45.0  33.6  79.6  6.0  2.1  2.8  1.0  1.8  16.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           31.4  45.0  33.6  79.6  6.0  2.1  2.8  1.0  1.8  16.9

Tim Thomas is being rated in this draft mostly on potential, which I can't
say he is any closer to reaching since he came out of high school one year
ago.  Many scouts had him pegged as a lottery pick back then, ahead of Air
Kobe.
	His potential, however, is nothing to sniff at.  Absolutely superior
quickness, as well as excellent ball-handling skills, are tantalizingly
packaged in his 6-10 frame.  He looks great running the floor.  Any
polished half court skills are not so apparent.  He's only a freshman, but
so was Shareef Abdur-Rahim.
	He is looked at as a power forward because his body looks more readily
transformable into a muscle bound NBA body than most young players.  But
his game looks much more like a small forward's.  The double-edged word
"finesse" comes to mind with him.  Webberitis--too much dribbling, too much
flash--might be the preliminary diagnosis of any hoops doctor watching him
play last year.  Too many times last year Villanova suffered a soft
performance under the basket from their physically imposing (at least on
paper) front line.  Thomas must shoulder part of the blame.  
	Unless he develops an interest in the power game, look for him to resemble
a Kevin Garnett. . . or a Charles Smith. . . at the pro level.

      Tim had a very solid freshman year at Villanova.  He showed flashes of greatness, but sometimes he
dissapeared. At times he would just settle for 3 pointers and never looked for penatration.  When he
concentrated on getting a good shot he would get one most of the time.  Tim is very quick and athletic.
He makes steals and has potential to block a shot or 2two here and there in the NBA.  He was not
selfish and never hogged the credit for wins. One worry I have though is his performance against Ron
Mercer and Kentucky.
Who I compare him to-Shareef Abdur-Rahim
The worst he could be-Charles Smith

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
94-95 Cincinnati 34  797 190  355   0   1 134 196  258 119  38  75  13  32  514
95-96 Cincinnati 33  909 222  413   0   1 220 292  316 118  45  83  13  40  664
96-97 Cincinnati 33  986 243  392   0   1 217 281  299 108  36 100  15  19  703
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          100 2692 655 1160   0   3 571 769  873 345 119 258  41  91 1881
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
94-95 Cincinnati 23.4  53.5   0.0  68.4  7.6  1.1  2.2  0.4  0.9  15.1
95-96 Cincinnati 27.5  53.8   0.0  75.3  9.6  1.4  2.5  0.4  1.2  20.1
96-97 Cincinnati 29.9  62.0   0.0  77.2  9.1  1.1  3.0  0.5  0.6  21.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           26.9  56.5   0.0  74.3  8.7  1.2  2.6  0.4  0.9  18.8

    Danny Fortson emerged as a low-post terror during his sophomore
season at Cincinnati, and continued in that direction as a junior. 
Fortson uses his strong frame and good leaping ability to be an
excellent rebounder.  Offensively, he is very productive, as he shoots
well from the floor, and will pass the ball back out if he does not have
a shot.
     The only doubt about Fortson has to do with his size.  He is 6'7",
which is generally considered short for a power forward.  Some also
wonder whether he can cut it weighing in at 260 pounds, at that height.
     Danny Fortson is a mid-late lottery pick.  The doubts are there,
but Fortson looks like he can play at the next level.  His strength and
toughness will help him greatly.

DANNY FORSTON has dominated the power forward postion since his frsehman 
year. He is increddibly strong once the ball is in the paint it's all 
most impossiable to get it out of his hands. He muscular forward with a 
uncommon shooting touch. He likes to get most of his points by gettng 
postion in the box his frame allows this at will. He has good hands and 
array of moves that usally results in a score or a free throw. Passing is 
not his trait but it's also not his job. He uasally gets in foul trouble 
from his nonstop physical play. But other than that he doesn't have any 
crippling weaknesses other than he needs to exspnd his jump shoot.

I do not think that Danny Fortson will be an impact player in the NBA. 
Like Corliss Williamson, Fortson is a bulky 6-7 player without explosive
leaping ability. This lack of explosiveness will make it difficult for
Fortson to finish around the basket in the NBA.  It is true that Fortson
has remarkable touch and good physical strength, but he will he will not
be able to simply bully his way inside for easy layups and short jumpers
in the NBA like he did at Cincinnati.  Leapers like Chris Webber, Vin
Baker and Shawn Kemp (and even P.J. Brown) will probably swat his
below-the-rim finishes into row ZZ, especially considering the fact that
teams with top shotblockers like Erick Dampier and Kelvin Cato have shut
Fortson down during NCAA Tournament games.  On the bright side, Fortson
can make very tough catches in traffic and has the potential to become a
good face-up shooter because of his soft touch.

On defense, Fortson will have an even tougher time.  Fortson has
displayed a propensity for getting into foul trouble against bigger
opponents and always seems a step slow defensively.  Fortson's height
and lack of leaping ability will be a liability against 6-10 power
forwards and his lack of quickness will make it impossible for him to
guard NBA small forwards out on the floor.  

Very few 6-6 and 6-7 power forwards have become impact players in the
NBA.  The few that have excelled like Charles Barkley, Larry Johnson,
Anthony Mason, and Clarence Weatherspoon have either explosive leaping
ability or the versatility to play out on the perimeter.  Since Fortson
possesses neither of these dimensions, it seems likely that he will
struggle in the NBA like Byron Houston and Corliss Williamson have. 
Some NBA team will probably invest a top 12 pick on Fortson, but I do
not feel that Fortson will be anything more than an average player.

                 G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
94-95 Michigan   31  830 161  342   3   7  59  98  158 102  36  64  34  14  384
95-96 Michigan   32  908 194  380   1   4  58  98  223  92  42  66  25  21  447
96-97 Michigan   35 1055 173  341   1   5  84 117  218  95  40  70  31  26  431
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           98 2793 528 1063   5  16 201 313  599 289 118 200  90  61 1262
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
94-95 Michigan   26.8  47.1  42.9  60.2  5.1  1.2  2.1  1.1  0.5  12.4
95-96 Michigan   28.4  51.1  25.0  59.2  7.0  1.3  2.1  0.8  0.7  14.0
96-97 Michigan   30.1  50.7  20.0  71.8  6.2  1.1  2.0  0.9  0.7  12.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           28.5  49.7  31.3  64.2  6.1  1.2  2.0  0.9  0.6  12.9

     Maurice Taylor has been symbolic of Michigan over the three seasons
he played there.  Like Michigan, he has a lot of talent, but has not
fully lived up to it.  Despite that, he is as ready for the NBA as most
underclassmen who have entered the NBA Draft this season.
     A very good athlete, Taylor plays a little like a combo forward at
the offensive end.  He can occasionally drive to the basket from the
outside, but looks more comfortable on the low post.  He is a good
offensive rebounder, and has decent range on his outside shot.
     Defensively, Taylor is not bad, but he could use some improvement. 
The area he could probably stand the most improvement in is rebounding,
as one would expect better rebounding numbers from someone as strong and
athletic as Taylor.
     The biggest knock on Taylor is leadership.  Steve Fisher thought
that Taylor could be the team leader the past two seasons.  So far,
Taylor has not done the job.  While Fisher must shoulder much of the
blame for Michigan's late-season fades during each of the last two
seasons are reason to suspect that Fisher might not be able to cut it
much longer, and that Taylor is not a good leader to his teammates.
     Maurice Taylor never put up great numbers at Michigan, but do not
let that fact fool you.  Taylor is ready to play with the big boys in
the NBA.  His overall game still needs some polish, but he is probably a
mid-late first round pick.  He might even sneak into the lottery.

Do not select him in the draft!  This guy has disappeared in games
throughout his career.  Despite some amazing talent (strong, good
shooter, quick) he just hasn't produced.  His rebounding totals in
particular are just awful considering his talent.  I just can't see his
attitude or effort improving just because he is in the pros.  I see him
slipping completely out of the first round.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
94-95 W Virginia                  Did Not Play - Ineligible
95-96 W Virginia 26  660 107  191   3   8  58 101  170  62  24  66  29  20  275
96-97 W Virginia 27  702 138  245   5  16  61 117  232  55  23  54  31  26  342
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           53 1362 245  436   8  24 119 218  402 117  47 120  60  46  617
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
94-95 W Virginia            Did Not Play - Ineligible
95-96 W Virginia 25.4  56.0  37.5  57.4  6.5  0.9  2.5  1.1  0.8  10.6
96-97 W Virginia 26.0  56.3  31.3  52.1  8.6  0.9  2.0  1.1  1.0  12.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           25.7  56.2  33.3  54.6  7.6  0.9  2.3  1.1  0.9  11.6

Gordon Malone has great potential to be a solid contributor at the 4 spot in
the NBA but the question is can he adjust?  He was one of the best centers in
the Big East last year at West Virginia, but at 6-11 and only 220 lbs. he
just isn't strong enough to guard the likes of David Robinson or Shaquille
O'Neal, so who ever drafts him has two options:
1.) Have him put on 30 lbs so he can be a force down low.
2.) put him at power forward and hope he's quick enough to guard the more
athletic players
Malone can play there's no doubt about it.  He's only a junior and could've
stayed in school another year which would've been a good decision, but
unfortunately it's too late for that, so he's gonna have to try his luck on
June 25th.

I saw him play once, against NC State in the NIT.  I was at the game,
and watched him a lot, more than you could on TV.  This is a report
based on limited info, but better than nothing...  he is an outstanding
athlete.  In this game (2nd round NIT) he had a couple of dominant
spurts, then would disappear.  This seemed to occur because a)  his
teammates wouldn't get him the ball a couple of times down the floor,
and he'd hang his head,  or  b) Catlett would take him out of the game
just as he was heating up.  He showed good low post moves and 12-15 foot
range, but often seemed clueless as to how to get open to get the ball.

He's a major project, and really needs the right coach.  But if I were
LA Clippers or some other team with a good big man coach in need of a
back-up C-PF (Minnesota?), I might wager my 2nd round pick on him.  He
could be the first big man off the bench for a top team;  he could also
be a CBA/Europe lifer.

Gordon Malone is a kid who is full of potential and can play with a lot of
energy.  His best area is around the paint.  He blocks shots, forces
turnovers, dunks with zeal, and rebounds well.  His two weak spots are his
occasional lapse of focus and his size.  He is very strong for his size,
but can be held down by bigger forwards and centers.  He was an occasional
disciplinary case who missed four or five games due to the popular
"violating team rules" cover-all.  He does have a nice jump shot for a big
man, but sometimes uses it at the wrong time.  However, whenever Gordon was
ready to play and metally focused on the game, he could be virtually
unstoppable. Different reports have him as a late first round pick.  The
pros feel he has the ability; he just needs to bulk up.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT  FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
93-94 UNLV       22  738 140  284   0   1 135  220  256  73  10  61  26  26  415
94-95 UNLV       21  737 116  238   1   4 124  186  209  60  26  76  10  18  357
95-96 CS-Bkrsfld 30  998 201  342   0   1 180  262  324  83  17 101  33  27  582
96-97 CS-Bkrsfld 33 1097 228  398   0   1 252  354  442  89  15  84  34  32  708
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          106 3570 685 1262   1   7 691 1022 1231 305  68 322 103 103 2062
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
93-94 UNLV       33.5  49.3   0.0  61.4 11.6  0.5  2.8  1.2  1.2  18.9
94-95 UNLV       35.1  48.7  25.0  66.7 10.0  1.2  3.6  0.5  0.9  17.0
95-96 CS-Bkrsfld 33.3  58.8   0.0  68.7 10.8  0.6  3.4  1.1  0.9  19.4
96-97 CS-Bkrsfld 33.2  57.3   0.0  71.2 13.4  0.5  2.5  1.0  1.0  21.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           33.7  54.3  14.3  67.6 11.6  0.6  3.0  1.0  1.0  19.5

Kebu is another of the college centers making the transition to power
forward.  An acclaimed player at UNLV, he had some troubles there and
went for anonimity at Bakersfield.  His game has not changed much,
having a range of about 3-4 feet and relying on mainly dunks and
putaways to score.  Where Stewart excels at is shot blocking.  He has
great timing and feel for the skill, but at his height and new position,
Kebu will need to learn to play sometimes further from the basket, and
this may hinder him his first year or two.  Kebu is an above average
rebounder, but most of his rebounds were against lower level
competition, so it is hard to gauge how successful he will be at that in
the pros.  Kebu will probably be drafted in the late first or early
secon rounds of the draft, depending on the team's need.       

I don't know where you got your profile of Kebu Stewart, but it's not very
accurate. As opposed to the profile, Kebu's greatest strength is
rebounding, not shot blocking. As a Cal State - Bakersfield alumnus and
avid Roadrunner basketball fan, I've had the pleasure of watching first
hand Kebu's on court skills over the past two years. During this time, I
could probably count the number of shot blocks he has made on my fingers.
However, rebounding is a different story. In fact, I could probably count
the number of times Kebu did not grab at least ten rebounds over the past
two years on one hand, not to mention the numerous times he grabbed 15 or
more. Another error in his profile is the notion that his rebounding skills
aren't up to par with top players. I might have agreed with this until I
heard of his dominating performances at both the Portsmouth Pre-Draft
Tournament and the Nike Desert Classic. I think Kebu's performances against
the other top players at these camps proved that he can rebound with the
best of them (and usually better).       

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
93-94 VCU        22  277  23   52   0   0  12  21   67  35   9  14  14   4   58
94-95 Temple                      Did Not Play - Transfer Student
95-96 Temple     32 1117 183  384   2   4 133 199  287  62  24  87   7  14  501
96-97 Temple     31 1201 175  366   2   6 148 193  278  64  38  60  22  29  500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           85 2595 381  802   4  10 293 413  632 161  71 161  43  47 1059
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
93-94 VCU        12.6  44.2   0.0  57.1  3.0  0.4  0.6  0.6  0.2   2.6
94-95 Temple                Did Not Play - Transfer Student
95-96 Temple     34.9  47.7  50.0  66.8  9.0  0.8  2.7  0.2  0.4  15.7
96-97 Temple     38.7  47.8  33.3  76.7  9.0  1.2  1.9  0.7  0.9  16.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           30.5  47.5  40.0  70.9  7.4  0.8  1.9  0.5  0.6  12.5

Marc Jackson is an old school, back-to-the-basket scorer.  Which is to 
say, 35-years ago, with his bulk, footwork, coaching, Jackson could've 
been an all-star center in the NBA.  But in today's game he lack's the 
requisite explosiveness to play the 4, the height to play the 5.  

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
93-94 Ga Tech    29  565  62  122   1   1  24  50  128  60  15  38  26  15  149
94-95 Ga Tech    30  658  75  145   0   0  25  49  151  74  14  41  35  19  175
95-96 Ga Tech    36 1097 129  202   0   0  60 103  264 114  47  58  65  33  318
96-97 Ga Tech    27  880 102  200   1   4  57  79  222  78  24  50  54  26  262
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          122 3200 368  669   2   5 166 281  765 326 100 187 180  93  904
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
93-94 Ga Tech    19.5  50.8 100.0  48.0  4.4  0.5  1.3  0.9  0.5   5.1
94-95 Ga Tech    21.9  51.7   0.0  51.0  5.0  0.5  1.4  1.2  0.6   5.8
95-96 Ga Tech    30.5  63.9   0.0  58.3  7.3  1.3  1.6  1.8  0.9   8.8
96-97 Ga Tech    32.6  51.0  25.0  72.2  8.2  0.9  1.9  2.0  1.0   9.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           26.2  55.0  40.0  59.1  6.3  0.8  1.5  1.5  0.8   7.4

Eddie Elisma--  Weighs about 60# less than he needs to.  He went on a
10-game tear early in the ACC season, playing briefly as if he were a
real player.  Then he woke up...  not a bad position rebounder if you
don't need to push anyone to get to the ball.  Decent shot blocker. 
Genuinely bad concentration, vanishes for games at a time.

	Could make the NBA as a very deep bench player, someone hoping he'll
gain 50 lbs.  But he's not nearly as good as Othella Harrington, and
look at what happened to Othella...

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 ODU        29  866 173  309   0   0  80 105  263  77  21  57  73  26  426
93-94 ODU        31  905 249  455   0   0 103 151  279 102  42  66  73  30  601
94-95 ODU         4   99  21   37   0   0  10  12   29   7   2   8   6   2   52
95-96 ODU        31  852 182  321   0   4  78 123  232 108  26  58  50  32  442
96-97 ODU        33 1034 241  438   1   1 113 158  283  96  34  66  84  27  596
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          128 3756 866 1560   1   5 384 549 1086 390 125 255 286 117 2117
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 ODU        29.9  56.0   0.0  76.2  9.1  0.7  2.0  2.5  0.9  14.7
93-94 ODU        29.2  54.7   0.0  68.2  9.0  1.4  2.1  2.4  1.0  19.4
94-95 ODU        24.8  56.8   0.0  83.3  7.3  0.5  2.0  1.5  0.5  13.0
95-96 ODU        27.5  56.7   0.0  63.4  7.5  0.8  1.9  1.6  1.0  14.3
96-97 ODU        31.3  55.0 100.0  71.5  8.6  1.0  2.0  2.5  0.8  18.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           29.3  55.5  20.0  69.9  8.5  1.0  2.0  2.2  0.9  16.5

     Odell Hodge came back from an injury during his sophomore season to
live up to the potential that fans and analysts knew he had.  He was the
key player in Old Doninion's trip to the NCAA Tournament this past
season.
     Hodge is a beast on the low post with his huge frame (6'9", 280). 
He is strong, will bull his way to the basket, and always goes strong,
thus drawing fouls.  He is a good post scorer.  Defensively, Hodge is a
force when healthy.  He is a good rebounder and shot-blocker.  Hodge
plays with intensity and desire at all times, and can take over ball
games.
     Before the season, Hodge looked like a very good NBA prospect. 
However, despite a good senior season, his stock has dropped because he
put on about 20 pounds.  He may not be able to make it at 6'9", 280; if
he was a few inches taller, he would have a much better chance as a
center.  Now, Hodge is probably a late second round pick, but do not be
shocked if he is not drafted at all.  That would be a loss to a team
that passes on him, because his attitude alone can improve a team.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
93-94 Minnesota  26  254  27   70   0   0  10  23   65  37   3  13   5   2   64
94-95 Minnesota  31  620  91  195   0   0  45  84  144  81  23  62  11  19  227
95-96 Minnesota  32  849 106  221   0   0  66 127  206  97  25  61  24  24  278
96-97 Minnesota  35  834 125  217   0   1  66 115  221  86  40  54  25  30  316
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          124 2557 349  703   0   1 187 349  636 301  91 190  65  75  885
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
93-94 Minnesota   9.8  38.6   0.0  43.5  2.5  0.1  0.5  0.2  0.1   2.5
94-95 Minnesota  20.0  46.7   0.0  53.6  4.6  0.7  2.0  0.4  0.6   7.3
95-96 Minnesota  26.5  48.0   0.0  52.0  6.4  0.8  1.9  0.8  0.8   8.7
96-97 Minnesota  23.8  57.6   0.0  57.4  6.3  1.1  1.5  0.7  0.9   9.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           20.6  49.6   0.0  53.6  5.1  0.7  1.5  0.5  0.6   7.1

John Thomas played a key role in Minnesota's Final Four appearance.
Although he is going to have to play PF in the NBA, Thomas can bang with
the best of them. He needs to work on his foul shooting and his overall
range...he also needs to work on getting position for rebounding. He's a
good player in the clutch that will someday make a good backup (or even
starting) PF in the NBA. According to sources, he's been holding his own
at pre-draft camps which could help his stock considering he's playing
against Duncan, Battie, Foyle, and Cato.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Kentucky   34  511  71  146   2  17  44  65  155  65  56  37  11  34  188
93-94 Kentucky   33  875 104  217   1  14  63 108  232  89  80  86  15  47  272
94-95 Kentucky   33  619  91  171   2   8  37  62  157  60  56  47  16  39  221
95-96 Kentucky    5   51   6   12   0   1   5   7    8   6   3   7   2   1   17
96-97 Kentucky   38  933 116  211   5  12  63 101  225 109  79  76  20  66  300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          143 2989 388  757  10  52 212 343  777 329 274 253  64 187  998
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Kentucky   15.0  48.6  11.8  67.7  4.6  1.6  1.1  0.3  1.0   5.5
93-94 Kentucky   26.5  47.9   7.1  58.3  7.0  2.4  2.6  0.5  1.4   8.2
94-95 Kentucky   18.8  53.2  25.0  59.7  4.8  1.7  1.4  0.5  1.2   6.7
95-96 Kentucky   10.2  50.0   0.0  71.4  1.6  0.6  1.4  0.4  0.2   3.4
96-97 Kentucky   24.6  55.0  41.7  62.4  5.9  2.1  2.0  0.5  1.7   7.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           20.9  51.3  19.2  61.8  5.4  1.9  1.8  0.4  1.3   7.0

Any one drafting Jared Prickett will be disapointed, he does not belong
in the NBA. He is slow, can't jump, defend, shoot, or pass. He
ocasionally rebounds.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
93-94 Charleston 28  695 114  191   1   1  57 103  205  62  14  42  46  20  286
94-95 Charleston 27  900 141  280   0   2  68 107  281  65  25  43  44  17  350
95-96 Charleston 29 1008 168  308   2   6  84 142  330  63  37  59  50  39  422
96-97 Charleston 32  997 197  371   4  11 108 177  303  75  32  55  63  36  506
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          116 3600 620 1150   7  20 317 529 1119 265 108 199 203 112 1564
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
93-94 Charleston 24.8  59.7 100.0  55.3  7.3  0.5  1.5  1.6  0.7  10.2
94-95 Charleston 33.3  50.4   0.0  63.6 10.4  0.9  1.6  1.6  0.6  13.0
95-96 Charleston 34.8  54.5  33.3  59.2 11.4  1.3  2.0  1.7  1.3  14.6
96-97 Charleston 31.2  53.1  36.4  61.0  9.5  1.0  1.7  2.0  1.1  15.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           31.0  53.9  35.0  59.9  9.6  0.9  1.7  1.8  1.0  13.5

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT  FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
93-94 Boston Col 34  912 127  274   0   0 100  171  243 105  24  81   7  29  354
94-95 Boston Col 28  991 215  418   0   8 190  264  254  89  45 122  17  39  620
95-96 Boston Col 30 1021 190  403   9  28 198  281  287 106  44  94  22  39  587
96-97 Boston Col 30 1020 139  314   4   9 210  287  245  98  47 103  17  31  492
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          122 3944 671 1409  13  45 698 1003 1029 398 160 400  63 138 2053
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
93-94 Boston Col 26.8  46.4   ERR  58.5  7.1  0.7  2.4  0.2  0.9  10.4
94-95 Boston Col 35.4  51.4   0.0  72.0  9.1  1.6  4.4  0.6  1.4  22.1
95-96 Boston Col 34.0  47.1  32.1  70.5  9.6  1.5  3.1  0.7  1.3  19.6
96-97 Boston Col 34.0  44.3  44.4  73.2  8.2  1.6  3.4  0.6  1.0  16.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           32.3  47.6  28.9  69.6  8.4  1.3  3.3  0.5  1.1  16.8

     Danya Abrams was part of more success at Boston College than most
others who have played at BC in recent times, as BC went to the NCAA
Tournament in three of his four seasons, including reaching the Elite
Eight during his freshman year, when he started along with four seniors.
     Danya has a big body (6'7", 265), and knows how to use it
effectively.  He is also a great leader, as he placed the team on his
broad shoulders and carried it as far as he could go during his
sophomore and junior seasons.  During his sophomore season, he was about
all BC had as they tried to reload.  In his junior season, he once again
carried the team, though not as much as during his sophomore season, as
he had some more players to help him out.  His All-American season was
the main reason that BC made the NCAA Tournament and advanced to the
second round, as he led BC in scoring and rebounding.  Many felt that BC
returned to the tournament a year early.  His numbers declined during
his senior season, in part because he did not have to be the entire
team, or even the biggest part of it.  Still, he was a force, and the
team's MVP.
     Offensively, Danya is a good post player, and has decent range on
his outside shot.  He can hit from about the foul line with consistency.
Defensively, he is a good rebounder, but is somewhat foul-prone.  He is
a worker at both ends.
     Danya Abrams is projected by many as a late second round pick.  To
be honest, a team at that point in the draft would have to be
certifiably nuts not to draft this kid, as I see him as having the
quality of a late first-early second round pick.  Danya is good guy, and
he plays the game with the right attitude; he is the kind of player any
coach would want on his team.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Georgetown 33 1022 102  264   0   2  83 129  234  84  52  75  23  21  287
93-94 Georgetown 31  448  35   86   0   1  34  47  117  46  18  45   4  10  104
94-95 LSU                         Did Not Play - Transfer Student
95-96 LSU        27  623  72  185   9  31  52  70  147  62  37  69  15  22  205
96-97 LSU        30  992 158  324  20  41 116 155  230 104  40  88  16  27  452
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          121 3085 367  859  29  75 285 401  728 296 147 277  58  80 1048
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Georgetown 31.0  38.6   0.0  64.3  7.1  1.6  2.3  0.7  0.6   8.7
93-94 Georgetown 14.5  40.7   0.0  72.3  3.8  0.6  1.5  0.1  0.3   3.4
94-95 LSU                   Did Not Play - Transfer Student
95-96 LSU        23.1  38.9  29.0  74.3  5.4  1.4  2.6  0.6  0.8   7.6
96-97 LSU        33.1  48.8  48.8  74.8  7.7  1.3  2.9  0.5  0.9  15.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           25.5  42.7  38.7  71.1  6.0  1.2  2.3  0.5  0.7   8.7

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
93-94 Missouri   22  147  18   36   0   4  10  16   30  22   2   8   3   7   46
94-95 Missouri   29  784 102  197  38  80  70  90  154  98  18  45  10  14  312
95-96 Missouri   33  762  79  180  41 104 100 113  165  81  41  33   8  25  299
96-97 Missouri   33  922 128  260  61 147  77  97  161 112  43  54  10  25  394
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          117 2615 327  673 140 335 257 316  510 313 104 140  31  71 1051
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
93-94 Missouri    6.7  50.0   0.0  62.5  1.4  0.1  0.4  0.1  0.3   2.1
94-95 Missouri   27.0  51.8  47.5  77.8  5.3  0.6  1.6  0.3  0.5  10.8
95-96 Missouri   23.1  43.9  39.4  88.5  5.0  1.2  1.0  0.2  0.8   9.1
96-97 Missouri   27.9  49.2  41.5  79.4  4.9  1.3  1.6  0.3  0.8  11.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           22.4  48.6  41.8  81.3  4.4  0.9  1.2  0.3  0.6   9.0

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
93-94 Navarro                     Statistics Unavailable
94-95 Navarro                     Statistics Unavailable
95-96 Providence 30  671  94  191   0   0  24  60  225  99  20  68  29  20  212
96-97 Providence 35  902 149  277   0   0  35  84  272 111  23  60  54  29  333
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Div I TOTALS     65 1573 243  468   0   0  59 144  497 210  43 128  83  49  545
 

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
93-94 Navarro               Statistics Unavailable
94-95 Navarro               Statistics Unavailable
95-96 Providence 22.4  49.2   0.0  40.0  7.5  0.7  2.3  1.0  0.7   7.1
96-97 Providence 25.8  53.8   0.0  41.7  7.8  0.7  1.7  1.5  0.8   9.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Div I TOTALS     24.2  51.9   0.0  41.0  7.6  0.7  2.0  1.3  0.8   8.4

Rueben Garces was the latest in a recent series of JUCO players (Eric 
Williams, Derrick Brown) to have success at PC. While Rueben may have an 
NBA body, his game may be a year or two away from the big time.  Garces 
was the Friars starting center for the past two seasons and his tenacious 
rebounding and post presence enabled Austin Croshere to take advantage of 
his outside skills.
Garces' numbers were limited by persistant foul trouble, particularly in 
his first year, a senior season full of injuries, including back trouble 
and a hairline fracture in his leg. He never complained, always gave 
quality minutes and was an integral part of PC's Elite Eight run this 
year.
Defensively, Garces is a physical defender, a good shotblocker and a 
tenacious rebounder. On offense, his carelessness with the ball down low 
that was so prevalent in his junior year diminished greatly, he showed 
potential range to 15 feet with his jumper, developed a pretty effective 
jump hook, and as always, had some monster dunks during the season.
He might make a good late 2nd round choice for a successful team looking 
for a diamond in the rough.