Josh McRoberts profile

[CDu]

Well, he DID get to play with one guy who had one of the best seasons for a guard in the history of college basketball and another guy who had several post-player-related records for Duke, and he was hardly "otherworldly." I agree the 2007 season wasn't all his fault, but your view of him is overly rosy, IMO.

And that one guard was not a PG. And it was when he was a freshman. My point was that he didn't have a playmaking PG that could take advantage of his open floor skills and athleticism. Redick was one of my all-time favorite players, but he was definitely not a guy who set up other guys to score.

McRoberts fluorished in high school on an AAU team with Mike Conley and Greg Oden. Conley was the type of PG who could take advantage of McRoberts' skills, and Oden was the type of post presence that freed McRoberts to slash (rather than post). The combination made McRoberts a top recruit. He got to Duke and had a comparable big man but not the PG, and he stepped into a team that looked to Redick as options 1, 2, and 3. And then as a sophomore, he had neither the PG nor the big man. Despite that, he played really well. He just was never the "take over a game" type of player, which is unfortunately what the 2007 team lacked.

[CDu]

Another aspect of Josh's career that made a big impression on me at the time was the comparison to Psycho T. Josh was considered a better big man prospect yet Psycho T immediately outshone him, especially considering the regular season finale loss at Cameron. The 15/501 battle of "Class of 2005" High School big men, was never even close. That must have gotten into his head a little.

Still, though, I do recall trying to play to Josh's strengths, setting him up outside, trying to maximize his passing, calling him "a point guard on stilts", etc.

Yeah, it was very unfortunate for McRoberts to be linked to Hansbrough. Hansbrough, ironically enough, was EXACTLY what we needed on the 2007 team. Put him in the middle of the paint alongside Thomas and McClure at PF (with Zoubek filling in as needed) and we'd have had a truly marvelous season. Hansbrough was the "bull in a China shop", go-to scorer in the paint that we needed, whereas McRoberts was not that guy. He was an open-court player with terrific passing skills and leaping ability; but he was not a natural post scorer.

[Wander]

And that one guard was not a PG. And it was when he was a freshman. My point was that he didn't have a playmaking PG that could take advantage of his open floor skills and athleticism. Redick was one of my all-time favorite players, but he was definitely not a guy who set up other guys to score.

McRoberts fluorished in high school on an AAU team with Mike Conley and Greg Oden. Conley was the type of PG who could take advantage of McRoberts' skills, and Oden was the type of post presence that freed McRoberts to slash (rather than post). The combination made McRoberts a top recruit. He got to Duke and had a comparable big man but not the PG, and he stepped into a team that looked to Redick as options 1, 2, and 3. And then as a sophomore, he had neither the PG nor the big man. Despite that, he played really well. He just was never the "take over a game" type of player, which is unfortunately what the 2007 team lacked.

Your main point, which I agree with, was that McRoberts wasn't well-suited to being the primary scorer. He wasn't the primary or even the secondary scorer on the 2006 team. And while he wasn't awful, he wasn't very good. But not only does he need to not be the primary scorer, but he also requires a Conley or Irving type of PG? Do you know what you call a player who has a game that is (a) really dependent on not being a top scoring option for his team and (b) really dependent on having a great point guard? You call him a role player. And that's what McRoberts is. He's a good role player.

There's a reason he dropped from a lottery pick to out of the first round entirely. If NBA scouts bought into your opinion that he was by far the best player on the 2007 team and that the lack of success of that team wasn't in any significant way due to McRoberts, he wouldn't have dropped out of the first round.

[BobbyFan]

It's always interesting to see how expectations - based on high school rankings and draft position - change perception of a player's performance. I'm glad that Josh is now seeing the other side of this. However, evaluating his play for what it is, the player he was at Duke is entirely in line with he has become in the NBA.

[CDu]

Your main point, which I agree with, was that McRoberts wasn't well-suited to being the primary scorer. He wasn't the primary or even the secondary scorer on the 2006 team. And while he wasn't awful, he wasn't very good. But not only does he need to not be the primary scorer, but he also requires a Conley or Irving type of PG? Do you know what you call a player who has a game that is (a) really dependent on not being a top scoring option for his team and (b) really dependent on having a great point guard? You call him a role player. And that's what McRoberts is. He's a good role player.

There's a reason he dropped from a lottery pick to out of the first round entirely. If NBA scouts bought into your opinion that he was by far the best player on the 2007 team and that the lack of success of that team wasn't in any significant way due to McRoberts, he wouldn't have dropped out of the first round.

With the exception of the last sentence. McRoberts was a very gifted role player.

I'm just presenting an argument that McRoberts is unfairly bashed. He was forced into a role that he wasn't suited for (go-to scorer). He was, ideally, a third option. When he was paired with Conley, Eric Gordon, Daequan Cook, and Greg Oden (one of the better AAU teams one could imagine), McRoberts put up amazing numbers. But, as you said, they were inflated by teams having to worry about two shooters (Cook and Gordon), a post scorer (Oden), and a great PG (Conley). His game fit so seemlessly with those guys: running the floor, blocking shots, handling the ball and passing well, finishing alley-oops. His deficiencies as a post player were just very much masked by playing with a nearly perfect team for him.

I'm not in any way suggesting that that he was some star that Duke screwed up. I am saying that he has been treated very unfairly by many Duke fans. The reality is that he was a great high school player, a very good (but not quite elite) college player, and a role player in the NBA. Had he played on a different college team (or this team in different years), he might have continued to have his limitations masked and gotten drafted in the lottery. But he just got caught in the wrong year.

But McRoberts was, unquestionably, the best player on that 2007 Duke team. And as you said, he was really a role player. Duke's lack of success that year was not because of him, it's because we didn't have anyone as good as (or better than) him. When your best player is a role player, that's a problem.

Had McRoberts waited until 2008? Then he'd have had Singler and Smith along with a more ready Scheyer and Henderson and a senior-year Nelson. And I'd bet his draft stock would have gone back up (not to the lottery, but into the mid/late-first round).

[Des Esseintes]

With the exception of the last sentence. McRoberts was a very gifted role player.

I'm just presenting an argument that McRoberts is unfairly bashed. He was forced into a role that he wasn't suited for (go-to scorer). He was, ideally, a third option. When he was paired with Conley, Eric Gordon, Daequan Cook, and Greg Oden (one of the better AAU teams one could imagine), McRoberts put up amazing numbers. But, as you said, they were inflated by teams having to worry about two shooters (Cook and Gordon), a post scorer (Oden), and a great PG (Conley). His game fit so seemlessly with those guys: running the floor, blocking shots, handling the ball and passing well, finishing alley-oops. His deficiencies as a post player were just very much masked by playing with a nearly perfect team for him.

I'm not in any way suggesting that that he was some star that Duke screwed up. I am saying that he has been treated very unfairly by many Duke fans. The reality is that he was a great high school player, a very good (but not quite elite) college player, and a role player in the NBA. Had he played on a different college team (or this team in different years), he might have continued to have his limitations masked and gotten drafted in the lottery. But he just got caught in the wrong year.

But McRoberts was, unquestionably, the best player on that 2007 Duke team. And as you said, he was really a role player. Duke's lack of success that year was not because of him, it's because we didn't have anyone as good as (or better than) him. When your best player is a role player, that's a problem.

Had McRoberts waited until 2008? Then he'd have had Singler and Smith along with a more ready Scheyer and Henderson and a senior-year Nelson. And I'd bet his draft stock would have gone back up (not to the lottery, but into the mid/late-first round).

Yeah, complete agreement. At the NBA level, is Joakim Noah a "role player"? On a top-level team, he's a third option. But what a guy to have. He anchors your defense, passes superlatively for a big man, handles the ball. Scores in clever ways, although under no circumstances should you ask him to shoot a jump shot. He is working as the first option on an overachieving Bulls team right now, and all credit to Noah for stretching himself as much as he has. It's not natural for him, and he has risen to the challenge like no other. He's a 100% legit MVP candidate. He won't and shouldn't win, but he belongs in the conversation.

McRoberts was very similar for Duke his sophomore year. He wasn't the bulldog Noah is, nor was he able to magically unlock new dimensions of himself as Noah has this season, but their strengths and limitations are/were in rough alignment. To call such guys role players is to show the limitation of the term as much as anything else.

[CDu]

Yeah, complete agreement. At the NBA level, is Joakim Noah a "role player"? On a top-level team, he's a third option. But what a guy to have. He anchors your defense, passes superlatively for a big man, handles the ball. Scores in clever ways, although under no circumstances should you ask him to shoot a jump shot. He is working as the first option on an overachieving Bulls team right now, and all credit to Noah for stretching himself as much as he has. It's not natural for him, and he has risen to the challenge like no other. He's a 100% legit MVP candidate. He won't and shouldn't win, but he belongs in the conversation.

McRoberts was very similar for Duke his sophomore year. He wasn't the bulldog Noah is, nor was he able to magically unlock new dimensions of himself as Noah has this season, but their strengths and limitations are/were in rough alignment. To call such guys role players is to show the limitation of the term as much as anything else.

Despite being both a huge Duke fan and a huge Bulls fan (and a HUGE Noah fan - he and I share a birthday!), I hadn't ever made that mental comparison. But it is quite apt. Obviously Noah is the (much) better "role player", but he's exactly the type of example of what McRoberts is.

McRoberts led the 2007 Duke team in rebounds and blocks and finished second in points and assists. He did everything for that team. Just like Noah (who is having an INCREDIBLE year this year this year carrying the Rose-less Bulls) does for the Bulls.

[miramar]

We certainly can't blame McBob for all of Duke's problems in 2007, but he was a major contributor. There is no question that Henderson, Scheyer, Thomas, and Zoubek weren't ready for prime time, and that 6-4 DeMarcus Nelson (who came in as the leading scorer in California HS history) was really a 6-1 guard who was playing out of position at small forward with more heart than shooting ability (don't get me wrong, he's still one of my favorite players). I also like Paulus, but he came in as the next Bobby Hurley and it simply didn't work out.

Unfortunately, McBob may have been able to slam dunk the night away when he was playing AAU ball, but at Duke he couldn't shoot and he had no post moves, so for all his athleticism he wasn't anywhere close to the best big man in his recruiting class. You can't blame Nelson, Paulus, and McBob for not being as talented as everyone expected, but you can certainly knock McBob for his attitude, particularly towards his teammates. It might be useful to refer back to one of John Feinstein's articles about the 2007 ACC Tournament, which won him no new friends in Durham at the time, but I thought was close to the mark:

"These days Duke is symbolized by Josh McRoberts, who simply couldn't defend State's Brandon Costner (career-high 30 points) and spent much of the evening pulling the ball out of the net and screaming at teammates as if it were their fault that he couldn't -- as Bob Knight once eloquently put it -- guard the floor."

There is another comment on several players, but I think the last sentence is key:

"Some think Krzyzewski has lost some focus because of the pressures he's facing as coach of the Olympic team. Others think recruiting mistakes have been made. Paulus, who was rated the best point guard in the country two years ago, isn't really a point guard. Lance Thomas, who was all the rage coming out of New Jersey last year, played 20 minutes Thursday and didn't score. McRoberts puts up nice numbers but appears to believe that playing college basketball is beneath him at times. He's about as ready for the NBA as he is for Broadway, but he may very well depart after the season. If you believe what people close to the Duke program are saying, few tears will be shed in the locker room if that occurs."

That's a pretty damning comment considering that McBob's departure left Duke with only one player above 6-8 (Zoubek, who still wasn't ready), but the team improved from 22-11 (8-8) to 28-6 (13-3). And speaking of Zoubek, I still remember the blue-white scrimmage at the beginning of the 2006-07 season. I had heard on campus that Zoubek couldn't stand McBob, and considering how the two guys were going after each other during a mere scrimmage, I had to conclude that the vox populi was correct.

At any rate, here is the link for Feinstein:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030902200.html

[Jim3k]

It is true that on the '07 team, McBob and Zoubs were the only bigs. Without Josh we were smaller than we should have been. But...there was some additional firepower which sat on the bench that didn't have the opportunity to develop. We had soph Jamal Boykin (6-7) who was felled by mononucleosis early in the season (and then left for Cal). Without McBob on the team, Boykin might have stayed, but he probably would not have been much help until the season's end, if that. We also had a 6-5 athlete in Marty Pocius. Despite Marty's defensive shortcomings, he would have played a lot more than he did. He could have played either forward spot. I suspect he would have developed into a better player had that opportunity come to him. He was a demon out there as it was.

And, that's not to mention: the then awkward freshman Zoubek who, given more PT, might have been able to contribute (but perhaps slowed by some injuries), the two freshmen slashers, Henderson and Thomas or soph Dave McClure, all of whom had nice careers later. No big man there, but plenty of speed.

It already had strong guard play led by junior swingman Nelson, supported by soph Paulus and supplemented well by freshman Scheyer.

Offensive firepower was definitely there, but the team's style would have been different and its interior defense relatively weak. Even so, I doubt that its overall success would have been any worse than the 22-11 it had with McBob.

[CDu]

Offensive firepower was definitely there, but the team's style would have been different and its interior defense relatively weak. Even so, I doubt that its overall success would have been any worse than the 22-11 it had with McBob.

I completely disagree. Without McRoberts, we have to play Zoubek, Thomas, and McClure at the PF/C spot. No scoring there. Limited rebounding there. And not very good defense there. Maybe some more time for a very not ready Boykin. So that's two spots on the floor where we're getting nothing offensively. Either that or we'd have to go REALLY small with Henderson or Nelson at PF.

On the perimeter, we had Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, and Henderson. Those guys were already averaging 117 mpg combined at the PG, SG, and SF spots. So I won't even worry about debating whether or not Pocius would have helped; he wouldn't have played any more than he did unless we decided to go even smaller than we'd already be (i.e., going with Henderson/Nelson at PF for extended minutes).

Without McRoberts, we'd either be an offensive train wreck and maybe an okay defense. Or we might be an okay offense but a train wreck on defense. I don't think that team makes the tournament without McRoberts. I think we probably add losses to Georgetown (with Hibbert and Green), Clemson twice (Booker and Mays), and BC if not more.

[Des Esseintes]

It is true that on the '07 team, McBob and Zoubs were the only bigs. Without Josh we were smaller than we should have been. But...there was some additional firepower which sat on the bench that didn't have the opportunity to develop. We had soph Jamal Boykin (6-7) who was felled by mononucleosis early in the season (and then left for Cal). Without McBob on the team, Boykin might have stayed, but he probably would not have been much help until the season's end, if that. We also had a 6-5 athlete in Marty Pocius. Despite Marty's defensive shortcomings, he would have played a lot more than he did. He could have played either forward spot. I suspect he would have developed into a better player had that opportunity come to him. He was a demon out there as it was.

And, that's not to mention: the then awkward freshman Zoubek who, given more PT, might have been able to contribute (but perhaps slowed by some injuries), the two freshmen slashers, Henderson and Thomas or soph Dave McClure, all of whom had nice careers later. No big man there, but plenty of speed.

It already had strong guard play led by junior swingman Nelson, supported by soph Paulus and supplemented well by freshman Scheyer.

Offensive firepower was definitely there, but the team's style would have been different and its interior defense relatively weak. Even so, I doubt that its overall success would have been any worse than the 22-11 it had with McBob.

This is crazy. Take away a guy who led or was second on the team in almost EVERY SINGLE MEANINGFUL STATISTICAL CATEGORY, and you expect the team to perform the same? The "offensive firepower" you refer to was the worst Duke team on that end since kenpom started publishing. Again, taking away the second-leading scorer would not have unleashed anything. We had nothing approaching strong guard play. Scheyer had his moments, but was a freshman. Paulus was not a point guard, and at that point wasn't much of a shooting guard either; his three-point shot would not become reliable until the following year; Nelson, as others have noted, didn't get to play full-time guard because he was our 4. As for Boykin, he became a good player his senior year at Cal. In his freshman season, coming off friggin' mono, he was not going to be a plus player for Duke, not for all the retroactive wishcasting in the world. I join the others in sharply doubting whether Duke would have made the tourney without McRoberts that year.

ETA: CDu beat me to it. What he said.

[Jim3k]

CDu and Dos--you guys have no faith in the coaching staff. The non-McBob team would have displayed an entirely different personality--much like a team that loses a key player to injury. The roles would have been different and your stats argument would not amount to much.

And, Boykin was a soph when the mono hit him. No one can know if he could have helped if he'd come back after the illness struck.

Here are the stats for the team as they occurred. Can you see how the loss of McBob would have changed the calculus? Frankly your arguments do not take into account the dynamics change which would have occurred and Des's tone ("crazy") is out of line. Disagree if you want, but K has played small lineups in the past and has done fairly well with them. NCAAT? Who knows? I made no speculation about that.

No...it would not have been a good team. But it would not have been much worse than the one he had. There was a lot of talent there, though young. You guys are too dismissive of those guys' motivation.

[CDu]

CDu and Dos--you guys have no faith in the coaching staff. The non-McBob team would have displayed an entirely different personality--much like a team that loses a key player to injury. The roles would have been different and your stats argument would not amount to much.

And, Boykin was a soph when the mono hit him. No one can know if he could have helped if he'd come back after the illness struck.

Here are the stats for the team as they occurred. Can you see how the loss of McBob would have changed the calculus? Frankly your arguments do not take into account the dynamics change which would have occurred and Des's tone ("crazy") is out of line. Disagree if you want, but K has played small lineups in the past and has done fairly well with them. NCAAT? Who knows? I made no speculation about that.

No...it would not have been a good team. But it would not have been much worse than the one he had. There was a lot of talent there, though young. You guys are too dismissive of those guys' motivation.

I have lots of faith in the coaching staff. But the "change in dynamics" would have been to replace our best offensive player and one of our best defensive players with less talented players.

Basically, you're suggesting one of two things:
- Replacing McRoberts with Boykin/Zoubek/McClure/Thomas
- Replacing McRoberts with Pocius and Zoubek

Neither of those sounds like a good dynamic change. Option 1 (big for big) would have been worse defensively and MUCH worse offensively. Option 2 would be be a little worse offensively (just very different) and MUCH worse defensively.

Coach K is a great coach. But I think you are vastly overestimating the quality/readiness of that 2007 roster.

[Des Esseintes]

I have lots of faith in the coaching staff. But the "change in dynamics" would have been to replace our best offensive player and one of our best defensive players with less talented players.

Basically, you're suggesting one of two things:
- Replacing McRoberts with Boykin/Zoubek/McClure/Thomas
- Replacing McRoberts with Pocius and Zoubek

Neither of those sounds like a good dynamic change. Option 1 (big for big) would have been worse defensively and MUCH worse offensively. Option 2 would be be a little worse offensively (just very different) and MUCH worse defensively.

Coach K is a great coach. But I think you are vastly overestimating the quality/readiness of that 2007 roster.

Or put it another way: what if Shavlik Randolph or Luol Deng or Shaun Livingston was on that team alongside McRoberts? The team would have been better, right? Perhaps drastically better. Because more good players means more potential. K would have gotten the team further had he had one of those weapons. So if the team would have improved with more talent, I think we can VERY safely assume the team would have suffered with less talent. Coach K is the coach in every scenario--McBob alone, sans McBob, McBob plus ringer. K's excellence is a given.

Conversely, if we say K would have gotten the same results without McRoberts, we are simultaneously suggesting K couldn't ADD any performance to the team with a player as multi-dimensional as McRoberts. Which... is silly.

[Class of '94]

Despite being both a huge Duke fan and a huge Bulls fan (and a HUGE Noah fan - he and I share a birthday!), I hadn't ever made that mental comparison. But it is quite apt. Obviously Noah is the (much) better "role player", but he's exactly the type of example of what McRoberts is.

McRoberts led the 2007 Duke team in rebounds and blocks and finished second in points and assists. He did everything for that team. Just like Noah (who is having an INCREDIBLE year this year this year carrying the Rose-less Bulls) does for the Bulls.

I think you and Des raise very good points. Would you agree that the deficiencies Josh had in HS has carried through college and into the NBA? If so, doesn't that say a lot about Josh as a player in terms of his work ethic and desire (or lack thereof) to improve upon his weaknesses. I mentioned Carlos before as an example of a player that has worked very hard to develop his game (both in college and in the NBA), but Noah is another great example of a player with a strong work ethic that developed his game and "stretched" himself. Why couldn't Josh do the same, especially after all of this time he's been in the NBA? I can't imagine the coaching staff at Duke didn't see the same deficiencies and try to work with him on improving them, which makes me wonder how badly did Josh really want to improve and work on improving his game. Did he simply think he was so good that he didn't need to work on his game and develop as a player? I don't know the answer to this but looking at his career, it does make me wonder if this was the case. Shooting and lost post moves can be developed imo if you work on it hard enough. Look at Mason, he wasn't a natural lost post player; but he worked on it and by his senior year was a legitimate low post threat. Granted, it took Mason 4 years to develop that; but Josh imo received more PT in his first 2 years than Mason had (which could've allowed him more opportunities to work on his deficiencies compared to Mason). I do by the way think he was the best player on the 2007 team and was instrumental in that team making it to the NCAAT. That being said, I am not sure if he has ever personal responsibility for the issues he had at Duke and the lack of development imo he's had in the NBA. I think more than anything that and the lack of a strong work ethic as desire to improve his game has stunted his development.

I promise that this is the last I'll say about Josh in regards to his work ethic and attitude. Again, I just wanted to get the perspectives from others on whether or not the "perceived" (at least on my part) lack of work ethic and desire to improve may have hurt his development most of all; and if he had that, he would've been a better player in 2007 and in the NBA.

[CDu]

I think you and Des raise very good points. Would you agree that the deficiencies Josh had in HS has carried through college and into the NBA? If so, doesn't that say a lot about Josh as a player in terms of his work ethic and desire (or lack thereof) to improve upon his weaknesses. I mentioned Carlos before as an example of a player that has worked very hard to develop his game (both in college and in the NBA), but Noah is another great example of a player with a strong work ethic that developed his game and "stretched" himself. Why couldn't Josh do the same, especially after all of this time he's been in the NBA? I can't imagine the coaching staff at Duke didn't see the same deficiencies and try to work with him on improving them, which makes me wonder how badly did Josh really want to improve and work on improving his game. Did he simply think he was so good that he didn't need to work on his game and develop as a player? I don't know the answer to this but looking at his career, it does make me wonder if this was the case. Shooting and lost post moves can be developed imo if you work on it hard enough. Look at Mason, he wasn't a natural lost post player; but he worked on it and by his senior year was a legitimate low post threat. Granted, it took Mason 4 years to develop that; but Josh imo received more PT in his first 2 years than Mason had (which could've allowed him more opportunities to work on his deficiencies compared to Mason). I do by the way think he was the best player on the 2007 team and was instrumental in that team making it to the NCAAT. That being said, I am not sure if he has ever personal responsibility for the issues he had at Duke and the lack of development imo he's had in the NBA. I think more than anything that and the lack of a strong work ethic as desire to improve his game has stunted his development.

I promise that this is the last I'll say about Josh in regards to his work ethic and attitude. Again, I just wanted to get the perspectives from others on whether or not the "perceived" (at least on my part) lack of work ethic and desire to improve may have hurt his development most of all; and if he had that, he would've been a better player in 2007 and in the NBA.

I would say that McRoberts has shown quite a LOT of improvement since going to the NBA. He was a fringe roster guy when he came into the league, but he's worked hard on his body and his game and is now a starter and very solid contributor (30 mpg, 8.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.3 apg, 36.1 3pt%). So, no, I don't think he has a lack of work ethic.

Remember: in high school, he didn't need to improve his weaknesses in order to succeed. He was talented enough (and surrounded by enough talent) that his weaknesses were hidden, probably even from him. He came to Duke and got to continue to play third/fourth fiddle on an elite team. It wasn't until his sophomore year that things got exposed. So why should he have been expected to be ready to address those things as a teenager?

Since he's come to the NBA, he's done nothing but gradually improve. That suggests that he has a solid work ethic.

[Des Esseintes]

I think you and Des raise very good points. Would you agree that the deficiencies Josh had in HS has carried through college and into the NBA? If so, doesn't that say a lot about Josh as a player in terms of his work ethic and desire (or lack thereof) to improve upon his weaknesses. I mentioned Carlos before as an example of a player that has worked very hard to develop his game (both in college and in the NBA), but Noah is another great example of a player with a strong work ethic that developed his game and "stretched" himself. Why couldn't Josh do the same, especially after all of this time he's been in the NBA? I can't imagine the coaching staff at Duke didn't see the same deficiencies and try to work with him on improving them, which makes me wonder how badly did Josh really want to improve and work on improving his game. Did he simply think he was so good that he didn't need to work on his game and develop as a player? I don't know the answer to this but looking at his career, it does make me wonder if this was the case. Shooting and lost post moves can be developed imo if you work on it hard enough. Look at Mason, he wasn't a natural lost post player; but he worked on it and by his senior year was a legitimate low post threat. Granted, it took Mason 4 years to develop that; but Josh imo received more PT in his first 2 years than Mason had (which could've allowed him more opportunities to work on his deficiencies compared to Mason). I do by the way think he was the best player on the 2007 team and was instrumental in that team making it to the NCAAT. That being said, I am not sure if he has ever personal responsibility for the issues he had at Duke and the lack of development imo he's had in the NBA. I think more than anything that and the lack of a strong work ethic as desire to improve his game has stunted his development.

I promise that this is the last I'll say about Josh in regards to his work ethic and attitude. Again, I just wanted to get the perspectives from others on whether or not the "perceived" (at least on my part) lack of work ethic and desire to improve may have hurt his development most of all; and if he had that, he would've been a better player in 2007 and in the NBA.

I agree with what CDu said, and would just add a couple of points. First, Boozer and McRoberts are in some ways bad comps. McRoberts was a second round pick because his sophomore season showed a great difficulty in doing the very most important basketball skill--scoring. He was a multi-dimensional player, but if you are a bad scorer, it is very, very hard to succeed as an NBA player. Which is another way of saying that Josh was not as talented as his high school ranking suggested. He was drafted as a second round talent because in many ways, that was an appropriate analysis of his ability. To have managed to carve out this long of an NBA career in spite of the extreme disinterest teams have in looking after second round picks is to his immense credit. Josh only comes off "lazy" if we think his high school ranking was accurate. Which I think almost no rational observer believes at this point. He was overrated by being on a dominant prep team that showcased all his strengths and hid all his weaknesses. He was still a great player at Duke, of course, and the 2007 team absolutely needed him. NBA greatness and college greatness are two very different things, which is why Shelden Williams's jersey is in the rafters while Shelden Williams's body is presently overseas.

Then there is Boozer, who was simply a victim of bad scouting. Boozer had a tremendous junior year, was probably Duke's most dependable player, and showed a host of important NBA skills. Why he fell as he did in the draft remains a huge mystery to me. But from jump with the Cavaliers he displayed himself as a serious talent. Almost from the beginning, Cavs people were talking about him as their long-term solution at power forward. Talk like that is not simply the product of Boozer working hard and developing. He actually was that good, and a bunch of people whiffed evaluating him. He has continued to work hard throughout his career, and I have nothing but admiration for the guy. I just don't think it's appropriate to say that because both he and McRoberts were drafted in the second round that Boozer's greater career indicts McRoberts's work ethic.

Carlos Boozer was a more gifted player than McRoberts, always. While his skillset was narrower than McRoberts (though not as much narrower as people making Carlos the Statue jokes these days would admit), he was immeasurably better at scoring, both in the post and with his Malone-esque jumper. They both worked hard and made great things of an initial bad draft position. I wish we had won a title Josh's freshman year or had more general success his sophomore year. I wish that for a lot of reasons, obviously, but for this discussion I wish it because I think those team shortcomings distort the legacy of a guy who, while not terribly cuddly as a Duke basketball icon, still did some great things in a Duke jersey and made himself into an NBA success story.

[Class of '94]

I would say that McRoberts has shown quite a LOT of improvement since going to the NBA. He was a fringe roster guy when he came into the league, but he's worked hard on his body and his game and is now a starter and very solid contributor (30 mpg, 8.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.3 apg, 36.1 3pt%). So, no, I don't think he has a lack of work ethic.

Remember: in high school, he didn't need to improve his weaknesses in order to succeed. He was talented enough (and surrounded by enough talent) that his weaknesses were hidden, probably even from him. He came to Duke and got to continue to play third/fourth fiddle on an elite team. It wasn't until his sophomore year that things got exposed. So why should he have been expected to be ready to address those things as a teenager?

Since he's come to the NBA, he's done nothing but gradually improve. That suggests that he has a solid work ethic.

Again, all good points. I guess for me it goes back to probably having unrealistic expectations of his talent and ability. I've always thought he had the potential and talent to have better numbers than the ones you've mentioned. To your point about being a teenager, the great talents at Duke (Dawkins, Ferry, Laettner, Hurley, G HIll, J Williams, Brand, Battier, etc.) had the maturity and understanding as teenagers that they needed to improve from one year to the next; and many of those players played on talented teams that allowed them to mask their weaknesses. Christian was a jerk; but he took responsibility to get better every season while at Duke. I still believe Josh had maturity/ego/attitude issues that held him back; but again, I'm glad to see that he's finding a niche in Charlotte; and wish him continued success.

[Class of '94]

I agree with what CDu said, and would just add a couple of points. First, Boozer and McRoberts are in some ways bad comps. McRoberts was a second round pick because his sophomore season showed a great difficulty in doing the very most important basketball skill--scoring. He was a multi-dimensional player, but if you are a bad scorer, it is very, very hard to succeed as an NBA player. Which is another way of saying that Josh was not as talented as his high school ranking suggested. He was drafted as a second round talent because in many ways, that was an appropriate analysis of his ability. To have managed to carve out this long of an NBA career in spite of the extreme disinterest teams have in looking after second round picks is to his immense credit. Josh only comes off "lazy" if we think his high school ranking was accurate. Which I think almost no rational observer believes at this point. He was overrated by being on a dominant prep team that showcased all his strengths and hid all his weaknesses. He was still a great player at Duke, of course, and the 2007 team absolutely needed him. NBA greatness and college greatness are two very different things, which is why Shelden Williams's jersey is in the rafters while Shelden Williams's body is presently overseas.

Then there is Boozer, who was simply a victim of bad scouting. Boozer had a tremendous junior year, was probably Duke's most dependable player, and showed a host of important NBA skills. Why he fell as he did in the draft remains a huge mystery to me. But from jump with the Cavaliers he displayed himself as a serious talent. Almost from the beginning, Cavs people were talking about him as their long-term solution at power forward. Talk like that is not simply the product of Boozer working hard and developing. He actually was that good, and a bunch of people whiffed evaluating him. He has continued to work hard throughout his career, and I have nothing but admiration for the guy. I just don't think it's appropriate to say that because both he and McRoberts were drafted in the second round that Boozer's greater career indicts McRoberts's work ethic.

Carlos Boozer was a more gifted player than McRoberts, always. While his skillset was narrower than McRoberts (though not as much narrower as people making Carlos the Statue jokes these days would admit), he was immeasurably better at scoring, both in the post and with his Malone-esque jumper. They both worked hard and made great things of an initial bad draft position. I wish we had won a title Josh's freshman year or had more general success his sophomore year. I wish that for a lot of reasons, obviously, but for this discussion I wish it because I think those team shortcomings distort the legacy of a guy who, while not terribly cuddly as a Duke basketball icon, still did some great things in a Duke jersey and made himself into an NBA success story.

Again, all good points as well. But do you think Josh tapped into all of his abilities and potential as a basketball player? I think if you're honest with yourself and willing to work on your weaknesses, one can improve on shooting and post moves. Maybe CDU is right and he didn't realize he had weaknesses. I'm not so sure I believe that because I know the staff at Duke would've saw those weaknesses an told him about them. Maybe Josh was never as good as his HS hype; but I do think if he had a better attitude and worked harder or been more motivated (I don't want to call him lazy because I think he played hard in games) to work on his weaknesses, I think he would've been closer to the player many people thought he was coming out of HS. IMO, Josh simply didn't think he needed to work on improving his game because he thought he didn't need to, which I think is a reflection of his attitude/ego more than anything else; and that may have been the a bigger difference as to why he was drafted in the second round as opposed to the first round.

[Des Esseintes]

Again, all good points as well. But do you think Josh tapped into all of his abilities and potential as a basketball player? I think if you're honest with yourself and willing to work on your weaknesses, one can improve on shooting and post moves. Maybe CDU is right and he didn't realize he had weaknesses. I'm not so sure I believe that because I know the staff at Duke would've saw those weaknesses an told him about them. Maybe Josh was never as good as his HS hype; but I do think if he had a better attitude and worked harder or been more motivated (I don't want to call him lazy because I think he played hard in games) to work on his weaknesses, I think he would've been closer to the player many people thought he was coming out of HS. IMO, Josh simply didn't think he needed to work on improving his game because he thought he didn't need to, which I think is a reflection of his attitude/ego more than anything else; and that may have been the a bigger difference as to why he was drafted in the second round as opposed to the first round.

Do I think "Josh tapped into all his abilities and potential as a basketball player?" Man, how would I know? How would you know? That's a difficult and usually unfair question to ask about a stranger. I've not met Josh. Even if I had, I've not watched him work out. Even if I had, I've not monitored how often he works out. Even if I had, I'd have no way of knowing if he addressed his shortcomings intelligently. Even if I had, I would have no way of knowing if he could have done any of those above things harder. Nor do I think, with a gun to your temple, you would be able to answer those questions with confidence. For my part, when we want to make a moral attack on a player--and make no mistake, accusing someone of laziness or "failing to reach his potential" is casting one of the harshest moral aspersions one can launch at an athlete--the burden of proof should be on the prosecution. What evidence do we have that Josh was lazy? We have:

1) He did not live up to his high school ranking.
2) He scowled.
3) There were "whispers" about him during his time on campus.

To me, this writ is not even close to persuasive. And I'd like to make a further point. We often overlook just how hard it is to make it in the NBA. The NBA is the most difficult professional sports league on Planet Earth. To become an NBA starter means doing something waaaay harder than all but the tiniest fraction of people ever accomplishes in a lifetime. Josh, from a bad draft position and after getting cut loose from at least one franchise, has turned himself into a viable (and unique!) starter on a playoff team. (Yeah, it's the Eastern Conference. Still.) I know maybe person in my life who I would consider has accomplished something on the level Josh has. I know I will be very excited if I am fortunate enough in this life to meet more such people. You just cannot accomplish such things without putting in sweat equity. You cannot. The quote-unquote evidence that he slacked at Duke is completely overwhelmed by the manifest journey he has had to undertake to become what he is today. So I'm very uncomfortable when somebody starts talking about a Duke player being lazy on basically no evidence.

And, to make a further-further point, I think you are letting your long-ago hopes for what Josh might be cloud what are reasonable expectations for players, even the most hyped. Here is the RSCI top ten from Josh's year:

1 Josh McRoberts
2 Monta Ellis
3 Martell Webster
4 Tyler Hansbrough
5 Louis Williams
6 Julian Wright
7 Richard Hendrix
8 Mario Chalmers
8 Tasmin Mitchell
10 Andrew Bynum

Where does Josh's NBA career rank in this crowd? Behind Ellis, certainly. Behind Chalmers, too. After that, I really don't know. I think you can argue McRoberts ahead of Webster, Hansbrough, and Williams, although you could make strong counterarguments for each. He's definitely better than Wright, Hendrix, and whatever a "Tasmin Mitchell" is. And as for Andrew Bynum? Obviously, Bynum was the more talented player, but his career may be over, he's been constantly injured, and, for anyone wondering what Did-he-work-as-hard-as-he-could-have? looks like, THAT GUY is your poster child. At worst, McRoberts is 6th on that list, somewhere between 3rd and 6th. I just don't see the underachievement. The NBA is hard. Almost nobody becomes a star.