Chemistry

[mr. synellinden]

To me, the most interesting part of Dan Mason's column linked on the front page is the pretty direct assertion that Josh McRoberts was a "cancer" in the locker room and the acknowledgment by Paulus of the effect it had on team chemistry. It seems to me this subject has been mostly danced around the past two years and it's becoming more clear what a negative influence he was on the team. Even with our shortcomings in the frontcourt, I'm not sure we'd be a better TEAM this year with McRoberts.

It's obvious how much of a difference there between this year's team and last year's team. It's so apparent how much these guys love playing with each other and have all bought into the TEAM. That's why so many posts read, "I love this team" or something of the sort because we see the enjoyment they have. Based on Mason's column and other rumblings during the past year, I don't think we'd have that if McRoberts had stayed.

[riverside6]

To be fair, Mason's point appeared to be totally based upon assumption. I'm not sure you can put a whole lot to what he said.

It's amazing how teams that win have better chemistry.

[mr. synellinden]

I think all you need to do is watch some of our late season games last year and see the way Josh carries himself, the expressions on his face and how his teammates react to him to see that it's not much of an assumption.

I also think the way Mason writes it, it's clear he doesn't have to assume anything.

I just noticed this same issue has been raised in the UT - UK thread - sorry for the duplication.

[CDu]

To be fair, Mason's point appeared to be totally based upon assumption. I'm not sure you can put a whole lot to what he said.

It's amazing how teams that win have better chemistry.

I couldn't agree more with your post. Chemistry tends to be a term retroactively applied to teams after they've been successful, or retroactively applied (in a negative sense) to teams that have been unsuccessful.

It's unclear to me whether this team has better chemistry because of "addition by subtraction" or whether they have better chemistry simply because they've been more successful. We can speculate, but honestly we just don't know. And to be completely honest, I don't know if the players could even give a certain answer. Maybe the chemistry would have been fine last year, but the team struggled and Josh got angry about losing.

Does chemistry lead to winning or the other way around? I tend to think it's the other way around - winning teams wind up being later labeled as having great chemistry. I know plenty of teams that have great chemistry and stunk. And there are plenty of teams who hated each other and won.

[ChrisP]

The night we lost to VCU and the season was finished, I posted here and said that I just had a sense that something was "off" with the teams' chemistry. I got some lukewarm agreement and a couple people tried to explain away the problems by pointing to injuries, etc. I certainly agree that we had some real, quantifiable issues last year - Paulus' foot, Dave M's knee, Gerald's asthma/lack of conditioning/whatever it was, etc. but I stand by my initial assessment that last years men's b-ball squad didn't seem to have that elusive "chemistry".

[Misunderestimated]

The night we lost to VCU and the season was finished, I posted here and said that I just had a sense that something was "off" with the teams' chemistry. I got some lukewarm agreement and a couple people tried to explain away the problems by pointing to injuries, etc. I certainly agree that we had some real, quantifiable issues last year - Paulus' foot, Dave M's knee, Gerald's asthma/lack of conditioning/whatever it was, etc. but I stand by my initial assessment that last years men's b-ball squad didn't seem to have that elusive "chemistry".

Agreed. Something was definitely off and was likely due to a number of probable issues.

Did anyone else think Dahntay Jones posed some of the same chemistry problems as McRoberts?

[_Gary]

Did anyone else think Dahntay Jones posed some of the same chemistry problems as McRoberts?

Absolutely not.

Gary

[allenmurray]

Agreed. Something was definitely off and was likely due to a number of probable issues.

Did anyone else think Dahntay Jones posed some of the same chemistry problems as McRoberts?

Perhaps, but he made up for it with his work ethic (FLAME ALERT! I do not mean this as a slam on Mcroberts - I like him very much. It is meant as a compliment to Jones, not as a criticism of McRoberts).

[wilson]

To be fair, Mason's point appeared to be totally based upon assumption. I'm not sure you can put a whole lot to what he said.

It's amazing how teams that win have better chemistry.

Mason's point is perhaps unsubstantiated, but it's not really possible to unequivocally demonstrate such a claim. On the other hand, he's far from the first person to suggest such a thing (including, as mentioned, growing hints from our own players).
Moreover, I think the recent stories posted here about McBob's attitude and comportment following his demotion to the NBDL are very telling. That situation, for whatever reason, is not to his liking, and he has responded by sulking, which has in turn drastically damaged his play and reputation. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say the same thing was afoot during the latter half of last season.

[Classof06]

To be fair, Mason's point appeared to be totally based upon assumption. I'm not sure you can put a whole lot to what he said.

It's amazing how teams that win have better chemistry.

I gotta disagree with you. I'm with Mr. Synellinden, I think it was pretty clear there was a rift between Josh and the rest of the players just by watching the game on TV. I personally loved how Mason put it out there because he acknowledged that Duke did the classy thing by never mentioning McRoberts' name when discussing the improved chemistry this year. When you combine that with McRoberts' apparent no-show at the NBDL showcase, it spells a trend. The kid didn't have a good attitude, period. And him being a captain didn't help Duke's cause last year.

Obviously winning games makes it easier to get along but this team seems to have 10x the chemistry it did last year. And pictures still say a thousand words:

[Jumbo]

To be fair, Mason's point appeared to be totally based upon assumption. I'm not sure you can put a whole lot to what he said.

It's amazing how teams that win have better chemistry.

In this case, it's not just an excuse. The absence of Josh McRoberts has made a major difference with this group. His attitude simply wasn't good -- there's no way to sugarcoat it.

[Turtleboy]

Moreover, I think the recent stories posted here about McBob's attitude and comportment following his demotion to the NBDL are very telling.

Here's another point of view. http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/or...940.xml&coll=7

[bhd28]

I personally loved how Mason put it out there because he acknowledged that Duke did the classy thing by never mentioning McRoberts' name when discussing the improved chemistry this year.

Hey! You didn't have to go out of your way to say that people posting on this thread don't have as much class as the Duke program does.

[CDu]

In this case, it's not just an excuse. The absence of Josh McRoberts has made a major difference with this group. His attitude simply wasn't good -- there's no way to sugarcoat it.

I find it hard to believe you can say this with such confidence. Couldn't it also be that the reason the team is so positive is because they're winning? Couldn't it also be that McRoberts' bad attitude was a result of the team struggling last year?

It's a chicken-or-the-egg type of question that, in my opinion, isn't so easily answered.

[dukeENG2003]

I agree, winning does a lot to help someones attitude. Look at Randy Moss this year. We'd be the best team in the country if we had McBob back, hands down. He was an excellent defender, excelled handling the ball on the break for a big man, was a good rebounder (still is) and was a great passer. People need to stop comparing him to Singler. Imagine if we had BOTH. Compare him to Lance Thomas, and the picture seems pretty clear (not a knock on Lance, he's a great player, but not as good as McRoberts).

[CDu]

I agree, winning does a lot to help someones attitude. Look at Randy Moss this year. We'd be the best team in the country if we had McBob back, hands down. He was an excellent defender, excelled handling the ball on the break for a big man, was a good rebounder (still is) and was a great passer. People need to stop comparing him to Singler. Imagine if we had BOTH. Compare him to Lance Thomas, and the picture seems pretty clear (not a knock on Lance, he's a great player, but not as good as McRoberts).

I completely agree.

[riverside6]

Well, I just don't know we can definitively point to McRoberts being the problem. In fact, one could just as easily point to Paulus being a problem last season since he wasn't captain again this year.

The fact is we don't know, but I also say the second part of my statement remains true.

To me, finding chemistry is lot like connecting the pieces of a puzzle, its hard to find the right piece, but you know when you have it. This years team certainly seems to be playing for each other and that is refreshing to see.

[Turtleboy]

Moreover, I think the recent stories posted here about McBob's attitude and comportment following his demotion to the NBDL are very telling.

Here's another point of view. http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/or...940.xml&coll=7

[Wander]

And him being a captain didn't help Duke's cause last year.

This has to be one of the worst coaching moves K has made recently.

[MChambers]

I think last year's chemistry would have been better if Paulus and Henderson had been able to play at the levels they are playing at this year.