When is the last time we had a protypcial PF?

[BjoeHusker]

Thinking back, the most recent guys I can come up with are Bernard Garner (6'7", 245lbs) and Andrew Drevo (6'8" 250). Just thinking we have missed a true PF for quite some time.

[Huskerpapa]

How about Quincy Hankins-Cole?

[BjoeHusker]

ProtOtypical! Forgot the "O"

Hankins-Cole? Sigh

[Huskerpapa]

But here is Quincy post-Nebraska...

August 2012 Pure Youth, Taiwan – Joined Club to play in Tournament in Fujian, China vs NBL and CBA Teams

Tournament Champions

Tournament MVP

2011 – 2012 Ungmennafelagio Snaefell, Iceland Express League

18.2ppg, 13.0rpg, 2.7apg, 1.5spg, 0.8bpg, FG: 53.8%, 3PT: 31.8%, FT: 76.5%

1st in Express League in rebounds per game & total rebounds

1st in Express League in efficiency

Eurobasket.com All-Icelandic League 2nd Team

2010 – 2011 Pikeville College (Mid-South Conference, NAIA D1)

12.9ppg, 8.0rpg, FG: 54%, 3PT: 36%, 24.1mpg

NAIA D1 National Championship

NAIA D1 National Championship 1st Team All-Tournament

[HuskerFever]

But here is Quincy post-Nebraska...

That kid really could have done some special things if he stuck around. And remember Holley? That was a duo I would have liked to see more of.

[ShortDust]

I always liked QHC

[nebrasketball10]

How are you defining prototypical? Size? Because Drevo isn't what I would consider a prototypical PF...

Ubel is probably a few lbs shy, but not far off of prototypical. Hankins-Cole was about as prototypical PF as you get (in my eyes). As was Chris Balham, Alonzo Edwards, Shang Ping, Jeremy Barr, Kyle Marks (a little less so), Jim Ledsome, BJ Walker, John Turek, Wilson Thomas, Steffon Bradford, Andy Markowski...

The problem is that we haven't had any difference makers at the position for quite some time.

For the record, from the list above, Markowski and Bradford are the two that I would consider most prototypical (at least that we really got to see play much at all).

[Neebraska]

I thought Balham was the prototypical size and he certainly looked the part, QHC was right about there, but both lacked any offensive threat. Bradford was pretty close, but otherwise you are back to Big O, Chubick, and probably our best one in the last 25 years, Tony Famer.

[Norm Peterson]

How are you defining prototypical? Size? Because Drevo isn't what I would consider a prototypical PF...

Ubel is probably a few lbs shy, but not far off of prototypical. Hankins-Cole was about as prototypical PF as you get (in my eyes). As was Chris Balham, Alonzo Edwards, Shang Ping, Jeremy Barr, Kyle Marks (a little less so), Jim Ledsome, BJ Walker, John Turek, Wilson Thomas, Steffon Bradford, Andy Markowski...

The problem is that we haven't had any difference makers at the position for quite some time.

For the record, from the list above, Markowski and Bradford are the two that I would consider most prototypical (at least that we really got to see play much at all).

I'm pretty sure Ubel is a bigger dude than Balham, Edwards, Marks or Ledsome. Defintitely a bigger dude than Wilson Thomas, Steffon Bradford or Andy Markowski. Bradford, in fact, was a little undersized but played very big. And Wilson Thomas was more the size of an Ade Dagunduro. Andy was tall but a bit skinny.

In terms of size, Ubel is comparable to Turek and Ping. Drevo was actually probably heavier than just about everyone else listed. I think he played pretty heavy. Probably about 265#.

[Norm Peterson]

Rather than rely on memory and guesswork, I went back and looked it up at Huskers.com.

basketball10, your prototypical PFs, Markowski and Bradford, measured in at 6-8, 215# and 6-6, 240# respectively.

Drevo was 6-8 and 250# (but I think they did an Almeida with him and shaved a few pounds when they wrote it down.

Ubel is 6-10 and 235#. Balham was 6-8 and 235#. Walker was 6-9 and 240#. Edwards was 6-7 and 230#.

Hankins-Cole was listed at 6-8, 240#, but Wilson Thomas was only 6-6 and 215#.

So, what are the parameters that you consider to be prototypical for a PF?

[nebrasketball10]

I'm pretty sure Ubel is a bigger dude than Balham, Edwards, Marks or Ledsome. Defintitely a bigger dude than Wilson Thomas, Steffon Bradford or Andy Markowski. Bradford, in fact, was a little undersized but played very big. And Wilson Thomas was more the size of an Ade Dagunduro. Andy was tall but a bit skinny.

In terms of size, Ubel is comparable to Turek and Ping. Drevo was actually probably heavier than just about everyone else listed. I think he played pretty heavy. Probably about 265#.

Agreed with all. Ubel is listed at 6' 10", I believe, and would be the tallest of all listed. The shortest two would be Thomas and Bradford (both probably around 6' 6"), but they PLAYED like a prototypical PF. I would call a prototypical power forward someone in the 6' 7" - 6' 10" range. Weight could range anywhere from 215 and athletic to 250 and built.

My point was/is, we've had plenty of prototypical PFs, just no difference makers at the position.

[huskerhook]

I actually think that we have had some pretty decent prospects at that position but because of our lack (or durability) of a true big man they have been asked to play out of position.

Ubel would be a servicable pwr forward if he wasn't playing center all the time... not a world beater but solid. When you put him at center (5 spot) and ask him to guard and be guarded by another teams big man he kinda disappears. I think that could be said for others like QHC.

Like the new board couldnt figure out what was going on for awhile

[BjoeHusker]

Rather than rely on memory and guesswork, I went back and looked it up at Huskers.com.

basketball10, your prototypical PFs, Markowski and Bradford, measured in at 6-8, 215# and 6-6, 240# respectively.

Drevo was 6-8 and 250# (but I think they did an Almeida with him and shaved a few pounds when they wrote it down.

Ubel is 6-10 and 235#. Balham was 6-8 and 235#. Walker was 6-9 and 240#. Edwards was 6-7 and 230#.

Hankins-Cole was listed at 6-8, 240#, but Wilson Thomas was only 6-6 and 215#.

So, what are the parameters that you consider to be prototypical for a PF?

Thanks Norm for looking that up. I guess I'm just trying to think who the last "true" PF was. A guy who should be playing the 4, not some guy that's forced to play the 4 because we have no talented bigs. Recruited to play the 4. I like the QHC vote, but for me it's hard to determine as he didn't stay around long enough. The best I can come up with is Bernard Garner, Andrew Drevo, Bruce Chubbick, and Dapries Owens. I thought QHC and BJ Walker both had potential

[Norm Peterson]

Agreed with all. Ubel is listed at 6' 10", I believe, and would be the tallest of all listed. The shortest two would be Thomas and Bradford (both probably around 6' 6"), but they PLAYED like a prototypical PF. I would call a prototypical power forward someone in the 6' 7" - 6' 10" range. Weight could range anywhere from 215 and athletic to 250 and built.

My point was/is, we've had plenty of prototypical PFs, just no difference makers at the position.

Sorry, but you had me confused. I thought you were talking about prototypical size. You said Ubel was a few pounds light of prototypical, which I guess I don't agree with. And certainly he falls within the range you've now described above. Of course, so did Andrew Drevo whom you said was not prototypical. And Wilson Thomas, whom you said was prototypical, falls outside your range.

I would agree we haven't had many difference makers at power forward, but that's true of us at just about every position. Who was our last difference maker at small forward or shooting guard?

I'm also not sure I understand how you would say Wilson Thomas played like a prototypical power forward. If you're not talking about size, can you explain what you mean by prototypical, then? Because Wilson Thomas would not be a player who would come to my mind in any discussion about the prototypical power forward at Nebraska. In the '01-'02 season, he started only 3 games and averaged under 5 points per game. If that's our prototype, we might want to break the mold and start over.

[Norm Peterson]

I'm not sure how we drifted off topic and started talking about the difference makers we haven't had at PF. The original question was when was the last time we had a prototypical PF at Nebraska. I guess you have to define that. Nebrasketball10 offers a pretty broad range of physical measurements. I think when most people think of a prototypical PF, though, they're not thinking of the 6-7, 215# pounder who might get you some good minutes at the spot. They're thinking of the beefy, athletic, tall guy who can clean the glass and either post up or square up facing the basket from mid-range.

I think Wes Wilkinson, his senior season, was one of the better power forwards we've had here in awhile. And while Steffon Bradford was certainly a good player, he was just a touch undersized at the PF spot and, therefore, in spite of the fact he gave you double figure scoring for his two seasons here, I think we'd be hard pressed to call him prototypical.

I think you could say Quincy Hankins-Cole had the prototypical body type of a PF, but we just didn't get a lot out of him in the year he was here. So productivity and having a prototypical PF body aren't necessarily the same thing. Still, you'd like to see us put a lineup out there where we have a 6-9, 240# athlete at PF who can not only clean the glass but also do some damage on the offensive end, both posting up and facing the basket. Y'know, a Karl Malone-type. That's a prototypical power forward. Hopefully Pitchford (and Agau?) can be that guy.

[nebrasketball10]

Sorry, but you had me confused. I thought you were talking about prototypical size. You said Ubel was a few pounds light of prototypical, which I guess I don't agree with. And certainly he falls within the range you've now described above. Of course, so did Andrew Drevo whom you said was not prototypical. And Wilson Thomas, whom you said was prototypical, falls outside your range.

I would agree we haven't had many difference makers at power forward, but that's true of us at just about every position. Who was our last difference maker at small forward or shooting guard?

I'm also not sure I understand how you would say Wilson Thomas played like a prototypical power forward. If you're not talking about size, can you explain what you mean by prototypical, then? Because Wilson Thomas would not be a player who would come to my mind in any discussion about the prototypical power forward at Nebraska. In the '01-'02 season, he started only 3 games and averaged under 5 points per game. If that's our prototype, we might want to break the mold and start over.

I missed your second post when you looked up heights/weights. I gave a broad range of prototypical PFs, and I think there can be. A slightly undersized guy (6'7) can make up for that with athleticism. To me, a prototypical PF's role revolves around rebounding and defense. You used Malone as your example, I was thinking Rodman (who, go figure, is actually slightly undersized, but PLAYED like a PF). I think you could have a big-bruiser style (6' 9" 250), or a longer, more athletic style (6' 9" 220 with wingspan and hops).

I would agree that Thomas was a bad example, I just remember him playing like a PF (always on the glass, and pretty good defense).

Drevo and Wes played outside-in. That's why I wouldn't consider them prototypical PFs. Both would go inside, but it certainly wasn't their preference.

Clear as mud?

[Norm Peterson]

Thanks for the reply, 10. No, that actually clarified where you were coming from. Thanks.

I actually think Wes had the ability to go inside and post up but Collier just didn't use him like that. But when he did have those opportunities, he'd score as often as not. He was actually really good posting up inside because he was not only quick but also decisive and he had the length that he could create decent enough space with this length and quickness to get off good shots inside. I would have liked to have seen Wes post up more. Especially along side Maric, because the two of them could create some real match-up issues.

Rodman, to me, is not the prototypical PF. I think Charles Barkley made the point that all he's in there for is to rebound and lots of guys could average big numbers in rebounding if that's the only thing they were trying to do. My ideal (prototypical?) PF is going to be a guy who can score. Both with his back to the basket as well as facing it. I want to see a guy whose motor is always going and who isn't afraid to bang a little bit and has the brawn to back it up. Make Lance Jeter 5 inches taller and that's the guy I'm looking for.

[nebrasketball10]

Thanks for the reply, 10. No, that actually clarified where you were coming from. Thanks.

I actually think Wes had the ability to go inside and post up but Collier just didn't use him like that. But when he did have those opportunities, he'd score as often as not. He was actually really good posting up inside because he was not only quick but also decisive and he had the length that he could create decent enough space with this length and quickness to get off good shots inside. I would have liked to have seen Wes post up more. Especially along side Maric, because the two of them could create some real match-up issues.

Rodman, to me, is not the prototypical PF. I think Charles Barkley made the point that all he's in there for is to rebound and lots of guys could average big numbers in rebounding if that's the only thing they were trying to do. My ideal (prototypical?) PF is going to be a guy who can score. Both with his back to the basket as well as facing it. I want to see a guy whose motor is always going and who isn't afraid to bang a little bit and has the brawn to back it up. Make Lance Jeter 5 inches taller and that's the guy I'm looking for.

Understood. I think it was a mixture of Wes PREFERRING to play outside in and Collier not really asking/forcing him to go inside more. Then again, Collier's offensive sets didn't really require him to get inside more. I know a lot of the assistant coaches were on him a lot about posting up more and using his height/length/athleticism to take advantage of matchups.

In regards to prototypical PFs, I think we just have different philosophies. I see the PF as more of a role player. If I'm drafting a team, I probably hold off on the PF and plan on drafting a role player that is strong, athletic and can rebound/defend.

[Norm Peterson]

I want a PF who is an offensive weapon. I want a guy who, when he sets a high screen and the defense hedges the screen, that they can kick the ball back to him and he can knock down that open 3 and make them pay for hedging the screen. But I also want a guy who can exploit a mismatch down low and post up. So if they switch on the screen instead of hedging, I want a guy who can exploit the mismatch and score down low. I want a guy who is a decent shooter out to 3 pt range. And I want him to be a long and athletic rebounder.

I guess I don't see the PF as just a role player unless that's all you have for options at the 4. I look back to ISU when they made their run to the Elite 8 with Marcus Fizer. Probably 65-70% of their offense came from their point guard and their power forward with everyone else filling in as role players. If you're in a situation like Nebraska where you're hoping for 2 difference makers to build the team around, those would be the two spots I'd pick.

[nebrasketball10]

That would be a fun game for a new topic. If I was selecting two positions, it would be wing (in the form of a Thomas Gardner like player) and a center. I could stand with a solid role-playing point guard and power forward.

[Norm Peterson]

If you're going to build around two players (going off the conventional wisdom that you need two elite players to turn your team around) I would say I want an elite PF and an elite PG. To me, an elite PF is a guy who can step out and hit the three as well as post up and score over defense. Jared Sullinger would be an example, but there are many, many examples of this kind of player.

An elite PG would be a guy who can stroke it from deep but can get dribble penetration and either draw and dish or get to the rim. Must be able to effectively shoot off the dribble at least to mid-range. We've had a guy like this in the not-too-distant past. I think he wears an NBA championship ring.

Surround them with credible players at the other three spots. So, my SG needs to be able to fill it up from beyond the arc; my SF needs to be able to slash and finish around the rim; and my center has to be able to hold down the middle, block shots and rebound. And if he has decent moves and good touch within 5 feet of the basket, so much the better.

But if I had the opportunity to choose between an elite PF and an elite C, I think I go with the PF just because a PF with 3-pt range gives you a variety of different ways to score. You're obviously going to have some big man setting screens on the perimeter and it's a whole lot more likely that a PF will be able to hit the open 3 when the opportunity presents. That gives you more versatility, more options. KU, for example, has had some decent centers but they've had some great power forwards.

[nebrasketball10]

I get your point. I just think a dominant center is more of a difference maker, especially if you have the other role players in place - like you said. A dominating (scoring) point guard can certainly be every bit as much of a difference maker as a wing player like I suggested (think Jamaal Tinsley), but I'd still go with the wing because of the potential matchup issues. Plus, I would be fine with a role-playing point guard that manages the offense.

[Norm Peterson]

I think our chances of landing a top shelf power forward are better than landing a top shelf center just because there are far fewer centers that are truly elite. Having said that, take a look at the players who have been named Big 12 Players of the Year in hoops. In the conference's 16 seasons, power forwards have been named POTY 10 times. A Center has only been named POTY once, and that was Venson Hamilton who really was a power forward playing center by default. That would be 11/16 power forwards as POTY in the Big 12. That's 68%.

In the B1G, since 1985, Centers have been named POTY thrice. Power forwards 5 times. And point guards have been named B1G POTY 9 times compared to 6 small forwards.

I'm not sure that necessarily strengthens my arguments other than it shows that, historically, PFs seem to make more of an impact. And I think that's because the good ones tend to have more opportunities to make an impact.

[nebrasketball10]

Agreed PF are generally more available/common - which is probably why they have been POTY more. But if you look at the greatest players ever at PFvs. the greatest centers ever... which would you say have had a more dominant presence? I would make the same argument for wing players versus PGs.

[Huskerpapa]

I don't believe Walt was our answer at PF, but we seem to have a couple who now tend to fit the mold.