Gerald Henderson legacy

[Lord Ash]

All due respect, but was Gerald really the best player by a wide margin? Personally I would think that Jon and Kyle were right there with him... they had similar scoring averages, with Kyle getting more rebounds than Gerald by a decent margin and Jon having more assists and playing more minutes, and I think both were at least as "important" to the team, what with Jon playing point and Kyle being basically our only big... I know that Gerald has much greater physical tools and a LOT of upside, but I am reluctant to say he was the best player by a large margin.

Also, I have to admit, when I consider what sort of legacy a player leaves, I do expect a lot. Gerald had a wholly unremarkable freshman year on a Duke team that struggled mightily, including a loss at UNC, a loss in the first round of the ACC tournament, and a loss in the first round of the NCAA tournament. His sophomore campaign was obviously better, and capped by his last-minute basket against Belmont, but overall the team still lost to UNC to end the year, lost in the ACC tournament, and underachieved in the NCAAs. His junior year was his best, and the team won the ACC tourney, although Gerald went 1 for 14 against 'Nova and we obviously lost. To me, to really leave a positive, stand-out "legacy" (which is such a "loaded" phrase and I think entails as much emotion and memory as it does brute numbers) requires something more, and I am not sure if Gerald really achieved that as a player.

I don't think Gerald owed Duke anything, and he was a very good player who was a LOT of fun to watch... I wish him all the best as a Duke guy... but I still don't consider him to have the type of legacy that a number of other players do, and the type of legacy that I expect Jon Scheyer to be remembered for or maybe even Kyle Singler to be remembered for.

[slower]

All due respect, but was Gerald really the best player by a wide margin? Personally I would think that Jon and Kyle were right there with him... they had similar scoring averages, with Kyle getting more rebounds than Gerald by a decent margin and Jon having more assists and playing more minutes, and I think both were at least as "important" to the team, what with Jon playing point and Kyle being basically our only big... I know that Gerald has much greater physical tools and a LOT of upside, but I am reluctant to say he was the best player by a large margin.

Seconded.

[phaedrus]

"The discrepancy in NBA draft position, as usual, had more to do with untapped potential than collegiate accomplishment."

Given that Ewing averaged 3.4 points per game in his 127-game NBA career, it seems like they had it nailed.

I don't think anyone would dispute that Gerald had and has more room to grow. Meanwhile, Gerald is averaging 3.5 points per game right now. I expect he will improve, but that says little about his stature as a college player.

[jimsumner]

"All due respect, but was Gerald really the best player by a wide margin? "

Let's don't take my opinion. Let's try the Atlantic Coast Sports Media Association, the men and women who follow ACC sports for a living.

Gerald Henderson was 4th in voting for All-ACC.
Kyle Singler was 9th.
Jon Scheyer was not in the top 15.

So, it's not just my opinion.

All-American voters agreed.

And ask any ACC coach last year who they game-planned for and they'll all tell you that they started with Henderson.

[ncexnyc]

"All due respect, but was Gerald really the best player by a wide margin? "

Let's don't take my opinion. Let's try the Atlantic Coast Sports Media Association, the men and women who follow ACC sports for a living.

Gerald Henderson was 4th in voting for All-ACC.
Kyle Singler was 9th.
Jon Scheyer was not in the top 15.

So, it's not just my opinion.

All-American voters agreed.

And ask any ACC coach last year who they game-planned for and they'll all tell you that they started with Henderson.

WOW, so since the writers say it's so, that makes it the gospel truth. ESPN highlight reel plays are nice, but I think if we took a poll on this board, the majority of folks would say that last year our season turned around when Jon took over the PG role. I think that makes him just as important as G, if not more so.

[Wander]

I think if we took a poll on this board, the majority of folks would say that last year our season turned around when Jon took over the PG role. I think that makes him just as important as G, if not more so.

Scheyer being our best option at point guard over Greg Paulus and Nolan Smith has little or nothing at all to do with how good Henderson was.

It needs to be said that losing to Belmont would have likely been the most embarrassing loss in Duke history (maybe in the history of the NCAA tournament? I don't know). I'd also like to point out that Henderson was voted as the team's defensive MVP last year, despite everyone here thinking that Scheyer or Smith was better on defense.

[Acymetric]

Look, G was a good player. A really good player. But if we're talking legacy, G the only thing G has is a hand in the ACC championship his final season. I'm not sure I would put Ewing over G, he certainly accomplished more but wasn't necessarily a huge part of those accomplishments. That is an interesting discussion.

But there are so many players that left a bigger mark on Duke, and were better players at Duke, that discussing G's legacy is silly. I liked watching him play, and follow what he does in the NBA and hope he does well, but I don't think the mark he left is enough to call it a legacy. That word is only loosely connected to talent.

[ncexnyc]

Scheyer being our best option at point guard over Greg Paulus and Nolan Smith has little or nothing at all to do with how good Henderson was. .

You're right it has nothing to do with how good a player is, but it's very important when we're discussing a player's value to a team.

And if you want to talk about G's Belmont play and how it would have reflected on the team had we lost, well then how about Ewing dropping 18 on Notre Dame and how that would have looked if that team was bounced in what I believe was an early round game.

[Wander]

And if you want to talk about G's Belmont play and how it would have reflected on the team had we lost, well then how about Ewing dropping 18 on Notre Dame and how that would have looked if that team was bounced in what I believe was an early round game.

Then the team would have lost in the 2nd round and it would have looked bad. But it wouldn't have been anything historic.

I don't want to sit here and trash talk Ewing. He was a good college player, but definitely not as good as G.

[Cockabeau]

At times he was spectacular...but considering all three seasons he played, I consider him solid.

[_Gary]

I have to say I'm absolutely shocked that I've read the responses I have in this thread on two levels:

1) I can't believe the poor attitude I'm picking up with regards to Gerald Henderson and Duke University. The guy left after three years, like several other great Duke players have done in recent years, and we've got posters here that seem to begrudge him that or think it tarnishes what he did while at Duke. Incredible - and totally ridiculous.

2) I honestly can't believe there are people arguing about the original poster's question/comment. I thought that was a slam dunk. I love Daniel, but it's not even close comparing him with Gerald. It's just not. Gerald was absolutely the better of the two and he was more than just an "average" Duke guy, as the original poster mentioned.


Gary

[ncexnyc]

Then the team would have lost in the 2nd round and it would have looked bad. But it wouldn't have been anything historic.

I don't want to sit here and trash talk Ewing. He was a good college player, but definitely not as good as G.

Maybe, maybe not when you consider where that 2002 was ranked and what was expected of it.

As for Ewing being a better player than G, I believe that isn't the discussion, at least not for me. I believe it has to do with the term legacy, which was used. For that I have to look at a player full body of work and what was accomplished individually and as part of a team.

I wish G were still with us, but he isn't. I don't begrudge him for doing what's best for him.

[Hermy-own]

I have to say I'm absolutely shocked that I've read the responses I have in this thread on two levels:

1) I can't believe the poor attitude I'm picking up with regards to Gerald Henderson and Duke University. The guy left after three years, like several other great Duke players have done in recent years, and we've got posters here that seem to begrudge him that or think it tarnishes what he did while at Duke. Incredible - and totally ridiculous.

2) I honestly can't believe there are people arguing about the original poster's question/comment. I thought that was a slam dunk. I love Daniel, but it's not even close comparing him with Gerald. It's just not. Gerald was absolutely the better of the two and he was more than just an "average" Duke guy, as the original poster mentioned.

Gary

I completely agree. As previous posters have mentioned, on last years team, who did the other team game plan against? Gerald. Who provided the drives that opened the offense up for Sheyer and Singler? Gerald. Who did we go to in the clutch? Gerald.

I love Sheyer and Singler, but on last years' team, G was the most important player. And the argument that G had more opportunity to shine because he was on a weaker Duke team holds no water - if G were on a team with a dominant post presence, that would only open up more opportunities for him, not take away from his playing time. G may not be Jason Williams, JJ Reddick good, but G is better than Ewing.

With all respect to Ewing, who was a great contributer to great Duke teams. I hate pitting one Duke player against another, because it is so hard to know what a player would do with different teammates - and because I don't want to bash Ewing at all. Which is why I spent most of my post on Gerald's good qualities, not any weaknesses of Ewing's.

[Acymetric]

I have to say I'm absolutely shocked that I've read the responses I have in this thread on two levels:

1) I can't believe the poor attitude I'm picking up with regards to Gerald Henderson and Duke University. The guy left after three years, like several other great Duke players have done in recent years, and we've got posters here that seem to begrudge him that or think it tarnishes what he did while at Duke. Incredible - and totally ridiculous.

2) I honestly can't believe there are people arguing about the original poster's question/comment. I thought that was a slam dunk. I love Daniel, but it's not even close comparing him with Gerald. It's just not. Gerald was absolutely the better of the two and he was more than just an "average" Duke guy, as the original poster mentioned.


Gary

Its not that it tarnishes it...its that he didn't do as much. Many of these great players that left after 1-3 years (I would argue all other 3 year players) had bigger impacts on Duke than G did. This isn't a knock on G, its simply the way it is. Compare him to guys like Mike Dunleavy, Carlos Boozer, and Jason Williams, all 3 year guys. Doesn't really even compare. Even some of our 2 and 1 year guys made bigger impacts, and accomplished bigger things. Some people on this thread may be bitter that G left, but that certainly isn't me. I'm just being honest here. The comparison to Ewing is flawed, yes. But for those of us that are arguing about the use of "legacy" here...he just didn't do enough to justify those words. He proved he was a good player, but which of his accomplishments give him a "legacy" at Duke?

[DevilHorns]

But for those of us that are arguing about the use of "legacy" here...he just didn't do enough to justify those words. He proved he was a good player, but which of his accomplishments give him a "legacy" at Duke?

The word "legacy" has a standard definition that we all know, but we as fans adjust the cut-off for what constitutes a player leaving a "legacy." I would argue for example (and I'm probably not alone here) that a player like Greg Paulus definitely has left a legacy at Duke based on his heart and leadership. Stats and championships can help define a legacy, but thats not all that matters.

The one thing I've read on this thread thats really upset me is the idea of players like G becoming an afterthought of the program 5 years out. Thats ridiculous.

[Cockabeau]

I think Geralds legacy in the three years was that of a very good to a solid player.

The thing that I don't understand with Gerald was-why leave after your junior year after the way it ended? I really thought that another year in college may have help his development as a player. Combined with the opportunity to go out with a bang with your fellow classmates,Jon and Lance. Thats what soured me a little with Gerald was the way he left.

[Duvall]

I think Geralds legacy in the three years was that of a very good to a solid player.

The thing that I don't understand with Gerald was-why leave after your junior year after the way it ended?

It was probably the millions of dollars.

[SeattleIrish]

Agreed - if someone had offered me millions to leave college my jr. year, I would have done so without hesitation. And this is coming from a guy who loved colleage so much he went for 12 years!

s.i.

[VaDukie]

I know that talking about retired jerseys are just a radioactive subject, but there is one constant in the Coach K era. Every player to have his jersey retired earned All-America honors in two seasons and was a consensus 1st team All-America selection his final year. The closet miss was Trajan Langdon, who earned All-America honors in 1998 and 1999 but only received 1st team honors in 1999 from the NABC. I am not saying that this is the criteria that Coach K uses, but it is consistent.

G was a 3rd team selection on most lists last year, including the Associated Press (generally considered the standard bearer). If he returned there is no question he would have made every preseason 1st team list and possibly have garnered preseason POY. Whether or not he would have matched that preseason potential we'll never know, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that we would have had #15 retired this season if G had returned.

[dukemsu]

I loved Dan, great college player. But he was never the guy you went to for a bucket when you had to have it, which G was for most of last season. There was a stretch where G was basically unguardable. It ended badly, and left, but G was a better player than Dan in every area with the possible exception of ballhandling.

G was a credit to Duke Basketball and Duke University. I sense there's a bit of anger that he didn't return for his senior year. That will fade.

dukemsu