Coach K Can't Develop Players

[Skitzle]

So I was discussing the idea that Smith was slated to be our starting PG at the start of the season with a friend from UCLA. His statements were as follows:

"Benching a 3 year starter, that's impressive. Great for recruiting, proving its a true meritocracy. However, it speaks to Ks reputation for not developing players (Paulus). He is good at scheming to exploit talents he recruits but they don't usually improve under him."

I've heard wisps of this before, but it seems a little bit ridiculous to me. That said, I've only really followed Duke for 4-5 years, so I don't have enough history under my belt to argue against it.

I'm opening up the discussion to this board.

Here are the players that disprove the argument in my mind:
Ewing
Henderson
Shelden
Nolan

Platers that support the argument:
JJ (Came in a shooter, left a shooter)
Shavlik (Never fit into our system how we wanted still has a career in the NBA)
Boozer (Second Round pick, improved in the NBA)
Dockery (Never really got an better....)

Please pick this apart.

-Skitz

[jimsumner]

J.J. improved his overall game dramatically while at Duke.

Boozer didn't drop to the second round because of a perception that he hadn't developed at Duke but because he was thought to be too short to effectively play the 4 at the NBA level.

This whole "benching" a three-year-starter thing is a bit over the top, IMO. Instead of playing 28 mpg as a starter, Paulus is going to play 25 mpg as a sixth man.

[elvis14]

See Battier, Shane. He's your daddy!

[CameronBornAndBred]

You can develop skills more than athleticism, and I think compared to Nolan that's one of Greg's drawbacks. He is not the faster guard, and won't ever be. But if you asked Paulus and everyone who has watched him if he's a better guard and more skilled in his game than when he arrived, the answer is an obvious yes. What K is doing now speaks exactly against your friend's argument. He has identified each players strength and is capitalizing on it. Let Nolan guide the team, guard the quicker players, and let Greg score. It would be against K if he didn't give the right player the right position.

[davekay1971]

See also:
Henderson, Phil
Laettner, Christian
Hurley, Bobby
Hill, Thomas
Davis, Brian
Hill, Grant (okay, he came in a stud, but he left the best college player in the nation, period, no debate allowed and don't even bring up Glenn Robinson)
Lang, Tony

That was a (partial) 90-94 list of people Coach K developed very nicely. The idea that K doesn't develop talent at Duke is one of the more laughable Duke/K hater arguments out there.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

If your UCLA friend don't see the glaring differences in the player Just Jumpers (and my UNC buddies called him early on) was his freshman season and the NPOY all-around threat he became as a senior, I suspect s/he paid too much attention to message boards and not enough to watching actual games. Even announcers (who are generally clueless) routinely pointed out the ways that J.J. developed fakes, jab steps, rebounding position, team D principles, etc over the course of his career.

IMO K is a very good, if not great, coach in terms of player development with more than his share of success stories (Shane Battier comes immediately to mind). Duke has more, and more successful, players in the NBA than any other team in the nation. The staff must be doing something right.

That said, it has been my experience that such debates don't change anyone's mind. I'm sure others will weigh in, but I'd advise against debating with people whose minds are already made up, as hostile fans almost always are when it comes to Duke basketball.

[Indoor66]

... I'd advise against debating with people whose minds are already made up....

Ahhhh, you've been over to the PPB!

[Tim1515]

Ask anyone who watched the freshman season's of JJ and Williams whether or not they would end up being 1st round draft picks...in the lottery no less.

Hendo and Smith are great examples...both had "potential" as freshman but neither delivered...now both are starters and great things are expected.

Go back and watch tape on Paulus as a freshman...he's 100% better now...Smith is just a better athlete and playing extremely well.

See the problem is when a guy gets better at Duke...he would've anyway...when he doesn't develop at all people blame K.

A better example is to look at the kids who transferred out of Duke and how their careers turned out at other schools.

[gags1288]

I don't even know where to start here, but I guess I'll begin with the players you listed as supporting the argument.

JJ came in as a shooter and left as the all-time leading SCORER in ACC basketball history. He became a great scorer at Duke and improved his all around game by leaps and bounds in his 4 years at Duke.

Shav dealt with injuries his entire career at Duke, which prevented him from turning into the players many of us hoped and thought he could be at Duke. Even with that, he improved enough to stick in the NBA.

What does draft position have to do with player development? That seems to be deviating from the argument that he can't develop players and moving to the argument that he can't get players drafted high (which we know is far from true). Boozer was an AA at Duke and contributed to winning a NC. He averaged over 18 a game his junior year on 66.5% shooting. As Jim said, his fall in the draft had everything to do with him being perceived as a tweener and very little to do with his game or his development at Duke. He also had a very strong rookie season in Cleveland, averaging 10/7.5, which supports the notion that Duke prepared him well for the NBA despite his draft position.

And to look at the Paulus situation, you don't think that he's improved in his time at Duke? He's become a better shooter, a better defender (not saying that's a strength of his, but he's improved), and he does a much better job of taking care of the basketball then he did as a freshman. Just because Nolan Smith might be taking the starting job does not mean that Greg hasn't improved quite a bit, it just means that Nolan is very good. Greg will still be a very valuable player this season.

I'm of the belief that a lot of improvement as the collegiate level, especially with the top programs, comes down to: 1) How refined the player was when he got to school and thus how much room he had to improve and 2) Work ethic. I think at all of these schools, the kid's receive great coaching and the opportunity to improve is there if you're willing to put in the work. However, in some cases, a players physical limitations result in a kid only being able to improve so much. Greg, for example, wasn't going to become faster or a better on the ball defender whether he went to Duke, UCLA, Kansas, or UTEP.

A lot of coaches recruit quite well. Not one coach has a better group of NBA players right now then Coach K and not one active coach has had more success at the collegiate level then Coach K. I think that about says it all with regards to his coaching ability, his talent evaluation ability, and his ability to develop players.

[phaedrus]

Instead of playing 28 mpg as a starter, Paulus is going to play 25 mpg as a sixth man.

Still, I would generally hope for a player to gain a more prominent role as his career progresses. Even if Paulus sees only a minimal drop in minutes, an argument that he has improved steadily and become more and more important to the team since he was a freshman starting point guard (starting over a senior, ironically) is a tough one to make.

But as CB+B points out, it would have been hard for Greg to improve his main limitation, athleticism, no matter who the head coach was. He did become a much better shooter.

[Tim1515]

Still, I would generally hope for a player to gain a more prominent role as his career progresses. Even if Paulus sees only a minimal drop in minutes, an argument that he has improved steadily and become more and more important to the team since he was a freshman starting point guard (starting over a senior, ironically) is a tough one to make.

But as CB+B points out, it would have been hard for Greg to improve his main limitation, athleticism, no matter who the head coach was. He did become a much better shooter.

Scheyer didn't start last year after making the All-ACC team as a freshman...yet last year he was considered one of the top 6th men in the country.

It should be noted that your statement "He did become a much better shooter" doesn't come close to explaining where Greg was as a freshman shooting and where he is now...one of the most dangerous and accurate 3 point shooters in the country.

He is also a much better ball-handler...MUCH better.

If Nelson was still on this team Greg would very likely be the starting PG...Smith brings a defensive edge that is very much needed in the Duke style defense.

Also...if you go back and read about all the players who have developed at Duke in this thread you'll see why K not developing players couldn't be further from the truth.

[Kedsy]

JJ (Came in a shooter, left a shooter)

As others have said, JJ came in as a guy with a sweet jump shot and left as the NCAA National Player of the Year. That's just a teensy improvement, don't you think?


See Battier, Shane. He's your daddy!

People seem to forget that Shane came in as a consensus National High School Player of the Year. Then he left as the NCAA National Player of the Year. Improvement? I suspect your UCLA friend would say not. But anyone who watched Battier play his freshman year and then again his senior year would have no choice but to marvel at how improved he was.

While some Duke players don't appear to improve all that much during their careers (Ricky Price is one that springs to mind), I would argue that they're the exception that proves the rule. That rule being that Duke players improve immensely over the course of their time at Duke. You can see it in a hundred ways, just by watching how they carry themselves on the court and react to the game around them. Anyone who says different isn't paying attention.

Although having said all that, I suspect that this is true at most colleges, at least most that have even above-average coaches. That's why every year in the NCAA tourney some number of senior-laden mid-major teams beat younger, high-major teams with boatloads of McDonald's All-Americans.

[3rd Dukie]

See also:
Henderson, Phil
Laettner, Christian
Hurley, Bobby
Hill, Thomas
Davis, Brian
Hill, Grant (okay, he came in a stud, but he left the best college player in the nation, period, no debate allowed and don't even bring up Glenn Robinson)
Lang, Tony

That was a (partial) 90-94 list of people Coach K developed very nicely. The idea that K doesn't develop talent at Duke is one of the more laughable Duke/K hater arguments out there.

I agree with you.
I apologize for repeating this, but, Crawford was much more highly recruited than Christian.

[sagegrouse]

So I was discussing the idea that Smith was slated to be our starting PG at the start of the season with a friend from UCLA. His statements were as follows:

"Benching a 3 year starter, that's impressive. Great for recruiting, proving its a true meritocracy. However, it speaks to Ks reputation for not developing players (Paulus). He is good at scheming to exploit talents he recruits but they don't usually improve under him."

I've heard wisps of this before, but it seems a little bit ridiculous to me. That said, I've only really followed Duke for 4-5 years, so I don't have enough history under my belt to argue against it.




Your friend is nutso. Coach K is very reluctant to put a freshman on the floor, usually because they don't know the Duke schemes and their defense is lousy (reflecting on HS and AAU ball). Then, very often, these same players (Battier, Wojo, Shel and others) turn out to be national defensive POYs. So, what does he think, that Coach K overlooks the talent until it has been on the team for a couple of years?

Duke under K probably has more player development than almost any other team.

Usually when I hear these remarks, it is a case where highly touted HS players don't turn into college stars. E.g., Chris Burgess and to a lesser extent Shav and Josh. Or big men transfer like Michael Thompson and the kid from Britain who went to ASU. Of the people that transferred from Duke the onyl one who earned significant honors was Billy McCaffrey, and his decision to transfer was based only a fairly dumb desire to be THE point guard at a school.

sagegrouse

[Classof06]

While I can see an argument for Sean Dockery, this theory just doesn't hold much weight, in my opinion. Both JJ Redick and Shelden Williams most definitely improved during their four years at Duke, there's no doubt about that.

Shav's career at Duke was riddled with injuries so it's pretty hard to pin that on Krzyzewski, though I do agree that Randolph never really seemed in sync with the role Krzyzewski wanted him to fill; the same could probably be said about McRoberts.

As far as Boozer, NBA scouts don't really look for 6-7/6-8 power forwards and that's no fault of Krzyzewski's. Boozer was a very good college player and is now a very good pro. And from what I've read, Boozer is quite appreciative of having had the opportunity to play for Coach K.

[jimsumner]

"Your friend is nutso. Coach K is very reluctant to put a freshman on the floor"

Numerous freshmen have started from day one at Duke, from Dawkins and Alarie in '83 to Singler last year to Amaker, Hurley, Hill, Capel, Brand, JWilliams, and many others in between.

You're right about the defense. But it is only one variable.

[Billy Dat]

I think this issue can be viewed through a different prism...who has the final word on how good a kid is when they come in?

I have been thinking a lot about this with regards to K because he is often criticized for not doing more with "armies of McDonalds AAs".

First point to consider - how much does being recruited by Duke, a process that now begins younger and younger, result in a kid being considered for the McDonalds' AA honor? From stuff I've read, it sounds like it makes a big difference. It would follow that simply being a Duke recruit inflates a kid's potential.

Second - what is the benchmark against which we measure? Making the NBA, I guess. But, is it just making the NBA, or do you have to be an NBA rotation man? Starter? Team Star? All Star? Honestly, I think they expect that if a kid was a McDonald's All American, he should not only make the NBA but be at least a team star. That's insane. JJ Redick will (hopefully), be a rotation player this year. Only about 240 people in the world can say the same thing.

If the benchmark is a little lower, earning All America honors or All Conference honors, I think K's done great. As an earlier poster mentioned, I think there are other coaches who are maybe better. But, K is held to a higher standard - good for him for setting the bar so high. Everyone expects him to be the best at everything and when's he's not, like his team, he gets slammed.

I'll think a little about who I think is better (I think Calhoun is pretty good), but, again, I think he does better based on lower expectation for the kids he gets, which is a really arbitrary yardstick.

[Tim1515]

Keep in mind that I believe stats show Duke has a higher % of turning McDonald's AAs into NBA players then any other team in America.

This basically proves the fact that people focus more on the ones that don't make it at Duke then they do anywhere else.

[davekay1971]

I agree with you.
I apologize for repeating this, but, Crawford was much more highly recruited than Christian.

Crawford! My favorite 5 fouls ever to put on a uniform.

[dkbaseball]

Crawford was much more highly recruited than Christian.

That's not my recollection. Christian was the higher profile recruit, though some thought Palmer was just what the doctor ordered for Duke. I believe SI speculated that Palmer had a chance to start as a freshman, and I missed on him too (I seem to be prone to overrating strong, athletic bigs who can really run the floor).

That '88 class has exhibits A for both the case for and the case against K developing players. Palmer had some great tools to work with as far as becoming a classic 5, though I'm not sure how much want-to he had. The way Laettner and Davis came on, though, was really quite remarkable. I saw Christian in a high-school all-star game, and he struck me as a kind of soft big with pretty good skills, but nothing exceptional. When I saw him at the Blue-White at the beginning of his senior year, he carried himself like the college basketball royalty he had become. A simply stunning transformation. Davis was a spring signee afterthought who didn't show up on the recruiting gurus' radar, yet became a vital cog for two national champions. The confidence those two got from K, and probably from each other, was one of the more amazing things I've seen in sports.

[COYS]

Keep in mind that I believe stats show Duke has a higher % of turning McDonald's AAs into NBA players then any other team in America.

This basically proves the fact that people focus more on the ones that don't make it at Duke then they do anywhere else.

Absolutely. All this proves is that excellence is expected for everyone who puts on a Duke uniform. It doesn't prove anything about the coaching staff's ability to develop talent except that they're held to a higher standard than most other coaching staffs.

[dukebballcamper90-91]

And another thing I get ticked off about is ...... Wojo trying to teach big men. I asked who the heck does it for the tar holes....some 55 year old white dude who never has touched the nets. I get tired of hearing this as well. I think most anti K people don't see how he makes them much more than basketball players. They become MEN under K.

[Jeffrey]

Still, I would generally hope for a player to gain a more prominent role as his career progresses. Even if Paulus sees only a minimal drop in minutes, an argument that he has improved steadily and become more and more important to the team since he was a freshman starting point guard (starting over a senior, ironically) is a tough one to make.


Hi,

I don't see your logic. It's very possible (and I believe this is the case with Greg) for a player to progress/improve steadily throughout his college career and still not start his senior season due to a better player beating him out for the spot.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[COYS]

Hi,

I don't see your logic. It's very possible (and I believe this is the case with Greg) for a player to progress/improve steadily throughout his college career and still not start his senior season due to a better player beating him out for the spot.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Agreed. This logic makes no sense. Obviously you want players to improve every year. But let's say that Duke had someone like Greg Oden coming in this year. It doesn't matter who started last year and how good they are or how much they've improved, Oden will almost certainly start ahead of them. Just because Smith has the potential to be an elite defender and the spark-plug that can turn defense into instant offense for us doesn't mean Paulus hasn't progressed.

[jimsumner]

"I apologize for repeating this, but, Crawford was much more highly recruited than Christian"

Not even close to being true.

[dukestheheat]

Skitzle-

JJ Redick came to Duke a shooter, but he left Duke a MUCH more well-rounded player! LOOK at all the drives he got in the lane his senior year!! He couldn't do any of that his freshman year. Coaches and players have to work on development, and JJ had the skill package to get that done.

Some players come in to ANY college and they have a skill package to get them there, but maybe they aren't able to get over a hump because.....when you get right down to it.....that's all they have in the skill package 'tank'. In other words, the player maxed out of his ability to get significantly better. JJ had it but some other players didn't have it.

Just because we are Duke and the whole world watches everything we do, we are much more highly scrutinized than most other college programs out there. Many fans look at our team and think 'world class coach, 3 titles, and look at the guys who didn't develop'. Many of the 'fans' who analyze the game this way have never played basketball or organized sports, in general, and they're just running off at the mouth.

I hit this wall and could feel it when I got there. No coach could help me to run like a gazelle to keep up with the track guys. I could run, but not like a gazelle. I could shoot it well, but when it came time to create my own shot, I maxed out. I needed a pick to get that ball off; I didn't have the athletic ability to get two levels up over what I needed. That didn't make my coach a 'bad' coach by any means. I had a great share in what happened to ME on the court. He did, and I did, too.

dth.

[Lulu]

Can I just point out that this UCLA guy is an idiot, because I have NEVER heard someone say that Coach K doesn't develop guards. It's the big guys where this assertion is more often made.

Someone in this thread has made the statement that a higher percentage of Duke McDonald's All-Americans make it in the NBA. IS THIS ACTUALLY TRUE??? If so, the numbers should be forwarded to every sports reporter in the country... though granted, it's still likely fact won't change fiction.

On the same note, how are we defining "make it in the NBA"? Being drafting is one thing, being able to make a career of it is another, and I'd rather like to see stats for both. Whatever the case, we will ironically be hammered both for our McD's who never make the draft, as well as our players who are "over-drafted" after Duke's success.

[BlueintheFace]

Can I just point out that this UCLA guy is an idiot, because I have NEVER heard someone say that Coach K doesn't develop guards. It's the big guys where this assertion is more often made.

Someone in this thread has made the statement that a higher percentage of Duke McDonald's All-Americans make it in the NBA. IS THIS ACTUALLY TRUE??? If so, the numbers should be forwarded to every sports reporter in the country... though granted, it's still likely fact won't change fiction.

On the same note, how are we defining "make it in the NBA"? Being drafting is one thing, being able to make a career of it is another, and I'd rather like to see stats for both. Whatever the case, we will ironically be hammered both for our McD's who never make the draft, as well as our players who are "over-drafted" after Duke's success.

My opinion on the matter is this- WHO CARES? I am a Duke basketball fan, not a david stern fan. If somebody starts talking to me about how Duke doesn't put talent in the NBA, I respond-

I don't care about K developing players into NBA talents. I care about him developing them into Duke talents. He recruits kids to play at Duke, not to train for the NBA. K's job is to win college games, not make sure his best center plays for a lottery team.

And if they persist on the topic I simply name a team of NBA Duke Alum with 2 or 3 bench players and ask them to give me a better college Alum team. (Hint- only UCONNvicts and Carolina can come close statistically, which puts Duke, at the very least, as a top three school in "developing NBA talent.") Argument won- back to college ball

[Tim1515]

Can I just point out that this UCLA guy is an idiot, because I have NEVER heard someone say that Coach K doesn't develop guards. It's the big guys where this assertion is more often made.

Someone in this thread has made the statement that a higher percentage of Duke McDonald's All-Americans make it in the NBA. IS THIS ACTUALLY TRUE??? If so, the numbers should be forwarded to every sports reporter in the country... though granted, it's still likely fact won't change fiction.

On the same note, how are we defining "make it in the NBA"? Being drafting is one thing, being able to make a career of it is another, and I'd rather like to see stats for both. Whatever the case, we will ironically be hammered both for our McD's who never make the draft, as well as our players who are "over-drafted" after Duke's success.

This might be a year old but here are the numbers...

National

Drafted (either round): 305/600 = 50.8%

First round: 216/600 = 36.0%

Total playing on NBA team: 370/600 = 61.7%

Duke

Drafted: 20/32 = 62.5%

First round: 14/32 = 43.8%

Total playing on NBA team: 22/32 = 68.8%

[jipops]

Tell your friend to take serious note of Greg's jump shot from his freshman year to his junior year, then come back with that argument. Take a look at his decision making from his sophomore year to his junior year, then come back with that argument.

What's Greg's biggest weakness? quickness. No coach that has ever been in existence could do anything about this.

Greg has shown obvious improvement throughout his career at Duke. Physical limitations simply give him a disadvantage to what Nolan Smith may have to offer. Or maybe it's just that Nolan is really that good.

So another argument based on assumptions with no facts. Yawn...

[Lulu]

My opinion on the matter is this- WHO CARES? I am a Duke basketball fan, not a david stern fan. If somebody starts talking to me about how Duke doesn't put talent in the NBA, I respond-

...

When we are continually ripped on this year-after-year, to the point that you cannot even have an intelligent discussion without someone throwing this around, then I care and it'd be nice to know exactly how much of myth it is. It's probably a better argument than "name your alum team". And while this nonsense might not hurt recruiting, it certainly can't help.

There are many things I care far more about regarding the Duke team. Winning being just one example. But what's the point in trying to shut down a simple factual question on these boards, especially one that would help dispute the sputter of so many sports reporters out there.

[chrisheery]

every year is that each one is expected to be a stud. Clearly, the vast majority of players that stay at Duke for 4 years get better every year. Just because a guy started out as a top recruit does not mean he didn't have a long way to go to be ready for the NBA when he graduates.

Great recent examples of improvement:
Chris Carawell (who would have guessed when he was a freshman that he would someday be ACC player of the year)
Dunleavy
Sheldon Williams
JJ (this is too obvious to even argue)
Nate James
Jason Williams (watch his freshman year games, especially the first 3 games of the season)

While Paulus hasn't become a dynamic PG, there are some limitations for guys that just aren't super athletes. One way he has developed is as a leader. For someone who wants to be a coach, seems like a perfect quality for his coach to develop in him.

[SMO]

So I was discussing the idea that Smith was slated to be our starting PG at the start of the season with a friend from UCLA. His statements were as follows:

"Benching a 3 year starter, that's impressive. Great for recruiting, proving its a true meritocracy. However, it speaks to Ks reputation for not developing players (Paulus). He is good at scheming to exploit talents he recruits but they don't usually improve under him."

I've heard wisps of this before, but it seems a little bit ridiculous to me. That said, I've only really followed Duke for 4-5 years, so I don't have enough history under my belt to argue against it.

I'm opening up the discussion to this board.

Here are the players that disprove the argument in my mind:
Ewing
Henderson
Shelden
Nolan

Platers that support the argument:
JJ (Came in a shooter, left a shooter)
Shavlik (Never fit into our system how we wanted still has a career in the NBA)
Boozer (Second Round pick, improved in the NBA)
Dockery (Never really got an better....)

Please pick this apart.

-Skitz

So Nolan Smith might replace Paulus as starter. Wouldn't that suggest that Coach K has developed Nolan Smith? Your friend's argument is incredibly weak!

[MChambers]

That's not my recollection. Christian was the higher profile recruit, though some thought Palmer was just what the doctor ordered for Duke. I believe SI speculated that Palmer had a chance to start as a freshman, and I missed on him too (I seem to be prone to overrating strong, athletic bigs who can really run the floor).

That '88 class has exhibits A for both the case for and the case against K developing players. Palmer had some great tools to work with as far as becoming a classic 5, though I'm not sure how much want-to he had. The way Laettner and Davis came on, though, was really quite remarkable. I saw Christian in a high-school all-star game, and he struck me as a kind of soft big with pretty good skills, but nothing exceptional. When I saw him at the Blue-White at the beginning of his senior year, he carried himself like the college basketball royalty he had become. A simply stunning transformation. Davis was a spring signee afterthought who didn't show up on the recruiting gurus' radar, yet became a vital cog for two national champions. The confidence those two got from K, and probably from each other, was one of the more amazing things I've seen in sports.

DKBaseball, this is a great example. I remember seeing Brian Davis his freshman year, and all he could do was play defense. No offensive skills at all. And I thought Palmer was a better prospect than Laettner.

This is a silly game. Dean Smith had some great recruiting classes that didn't amount to much (like Kenny Smith, Joe Wolf, and Dave Popson, all fine college players that didn't do much more on the court after that).

I remember that in 1982 Michigan and Duke had the best recruiting classes. Duke had Alarie, Dawkins, Henderson, Bilas, Williams, and Jackman, I think. Michigan had Richard Relford, a stud forward from Florida, Robert Henderson, the Michigan high school player of the year, Butch Wade, the Mass player of the year, Paul Jokisch, a 6'8" forward from Michigan who ended up playing WR on the football team. Oh, and there was a little-known recruit from New York by way of Michigan named Roy Tarpley. The first four recruits were all big names, but Tarpley ended up being the best player, before personal demons ruined his career.

Folks, there's no way to tell who will be the best.

[BlueintheFace]

When we are continually ripped on this year-after-year, to the point that you cannot even have an intelligent discussion without someone throwing this around, then I care and it'd be nice to know exactly how much of myth it is. It's probably a better argument than "name your alum team". And while this nonsense might not hurt recruiting, it certainly can't help.

There are many things I care far more about regarding the Duke team. Winning being just one example. But what's the point in trying to shut down a simple factual question on these boards, especially one that would help dispute the sputter of so many sports reporters out there.

I'm not shutting down the question (Does K develop talent), I am actually saying that the factual question of whether or not he develops players into NBA talent has little real relevance to "Duke Basketball" the program (Hence- "who cares"). K's job is not to develop players in to NBA talent. His job is to develop them in to NCAA talent, and there is nobody who watches NCAA basketball that would argue that K does not do this (see- POY, DPOY, All-ACC awards).

[3rd Dukie]

That's not my recollection. Christian was the higher profile recruit, though some thought Palmer was just what the doctor ordered for Duke. I believe SI speculated that Palmer had a chance to start as a freshman, and I missed on him too (I seem to be prone to overrating strong, athletic bigs who can really run the floor).

That '88 class has exhibits A for both the case for and the case against K developing players. Palmer had some great tools to work with as far as becoming a classic 5, though I'm not sure how much want-to he had. The way Laettner and Davis came on, though, was really quite remarkable. I saw Christian in a high-school all-star game, and he struck me as a kind of soft big with pretty good skills, but nothing exceptional. When I saw him at the Blue-White at the beginning of his senior year, he carried himself like the college basketball royalty he had become. A simply stunning transformation. Davis was a spring signee afterthought who didn't show up on the recruiting gurus' radar, yet became a vital cog for two national champions. The confidence those two got from K, and probably from each other, was one of the more amazing things I've seen in sports.

DKBaseball - Well, let me first say that it is ONLY a recollection on my part as well. Doing this from memory at my advanced age is always risky, but what I DO recall is during that year's McD AA game, and various rants from Vitale as well, about how Palmer was a "can't miss blue chipper." Also, my recollection is that Christian played quite well in that game. I won't argue because as I said, it IS from memory only, with no stats to back up my position. If anyone has access to the rankings from any services of high school stars of that year, I would love to see them and be prepared to retract my statement. However, I am fairly certain about the sources I mentioned. I have certainly held that perception for quite a while. That don't make it fact, however.

[3rd Dukie]

"I apologize for repeating this, but, Crawford was much more highly recruited than Christian"

Not even close to being true.

Jim, As I said before, that is my recollection. Can you provide any evidence to support your assertion? I may well be wrong, but, if I am, and I'm not sure I am, I would like to know as much so I can quit thinking and saying it.

Thanks.

[bludvlman]

I would use Josh McRoberts as an example over anyone else. I think Shav really never showed much game at all while Josh had real bright spots but was never used properly or developed.

[Indoor66]

I would use Josh McRoberts as an example over anyone else. I think Shav really never showed much game at all while Josh had real bright spots but was never used properly or developed.

I think that McRoberts' problems were McRoberts not K or Duke. As for Shav, his injuries were the problem with his career.

[CLT Devil]

Benching a former starter in no way means that player has regessed. Often times a better player comes in, or more importantly, gives the team a better chance to win. It's hard to argue that Nate Dawg was not one of our better players in 2001, and was a bad man to boot. However, J-Dubs was most effective when he didnt have to bring the ball up the floor or guard the opposing team's PG, so Duhon got the nod. It's a testament to the team-first mentality K buys into they gys like Nate, Paulus and Scheyer are willing to take a non-starter role if it's best for the team. It has nothing to do with development, just players buying into a system that gives the TEAM the best chance to win.

[ACCBBallFan]

J.J. improved his overall game dramatically while at Duke.

Boozer didn't drop to the second round because of a perception that he hadn't developed at Duke but because he was thought to be too short to effectively play the 4 at the NBA level.

This whole "benching" a three-year-starter thing is a bit over the top, IMO. Instead of playing 28 mpg as a starter, Paulus is going to play 25 mpg as a sixth man.

x2.

Last year Jon Scheyer was 6th man, with Nelson/Henderson as competition.

This year without Demarcus but emergence of Nolan as a similarly strong defender, Greg takes but a few minutes hit in PT to assume 6th man role and ignites offense when he enters.

If G-Jon-Nolan-Greg all average 25 that leaves 20 for Elliott/Marty or more than 25 for G/Jon. Good problem to have.

It will be a lot harder for Greg/Z to shine paired with Lance-Elliott-Marty than it is for NolanMiles paired with Kyle-G-Jon. So they will just have to shine in games when given the same opportunity.

[gvtucker]

People just make of this argument what they want.

For years the argument against Coach K was that Duke players didn't succeed in the pros, and that was an obvious indicator that Coach K didn't prepare them well for an NBA career.

Now that Duke players are consistently succeeding in the pros, what we hear instead is that Coach K didn't take advantage of their talent, reasoning that if they did well in the NBA, the players were better than what their play at Duke indicated.

It's all rather comical.

BTW, my recollection was that Laettner and Palmer were pretty much equally thought of coming out of high school. You could probably find people that thought Palmer would be better, and you could find people that thought Laettner would be better. The main knock against Laettner was that his competition in high school was very weak, so there was more uncertainty about how good he would be.

[Kedsy]

If G-Jon-Nolan-Greg all average 25 that leaves 20 for Elliott/Marty or more than 25 for G/Jon. Good problem to have.

It will be a lot harder for Greg/Z to shine paired with Lance-Elliott-Marty than it is for NolanMiles paired with Kyle-G-Jon. So they will just have to shine in games when given the same opportunity.

How often do you think Greg/Z/Lance/Elliot/Marty will be on the floor together? I would guess almost never (except possibly when the game is a blowout).

Why do you think Pocius is ahead of McClure in the rotation? That doesn't seem likely to me. Or do you think we're going to use an 11-man rotation?

As far as minutes go, my guess is Henderson, Scheyer, and Singler will all get around 30 minutes, give or take, which leaves only 10 for the fifth guard (assuming 120 "backcourt minutes" and 80 "frontcourt minutes," as you appear to do, although I'm not sure it's going to happen that way), and I think that guard will be E-Mail.

[yancem]

I'm not shutting down the question (Does K develop talent), I am actually saying that the factual question of whether or not he develops players into NBA talent has little real relevance to "Duke Basketball" the program (Hence- "who cares"). K's job is not to develop players in to NBA talent. His job is to develop them in to NCAA talent, and there is nobody who watches NCAA basketball that would argue that K does not do this (see- POY, DPOY, All-ACC awards).

I find this argument self serving and short sighted. Is it the goal of of a college professor to have his/her students reach their highest potential for tests in his/her class or to prepare the students to reach the highest level of success once they reach the professional ranks? While winning basketball games is certainly one of any coaches job description, I would hope that preparing the players for life after college is a high priority. It is important for coaches to not only try to prepare their players to succeed at the next level but also to succeed at another vocation if they are ever injured or lack the talent or ability to make it at the next level.

College sports may be the end all/be all to us mortal fans, an escape from the real worlds issues, but for college athletes its an opportunity at a better life. And that applies for all athletes not just the ones that go pro. Sports not only afford many of them a free education but it also opens doors that aren't open to the rest of us. If a coach takes the approach that his only responsibility is to "develop them in to NCAA talent" then I think that he is doing a disservice to his/her players.

Additionally, if you think that players don't care about how a coach can prepare him for the nba, then you are naive. This is why the "K doesn't develop talent" or "Duke players don't make it in the nba" are so ridiculous. Recruits know that K develops his player both in terms of basketball and as people. Does anyone really think that if Jayson Williams had gone to UCLA, UConn, or Memphis that he would be as successful in any career path he chooses?

[yancem]

This is a silly game. Dean Smith had some great recruiting classes that didn't amount to much (like Kenny Smith, Joe Wolf, and Dave Popson, all fine college players that didn't do much more on the court after that).

Ummm, Kenny Smith was a starting point for Houston when they won 2 championships. Joe Wolf didn't have a stellar nba career but he stuck arount in the league for about a decade and Popson was in the leagure for 3 years. That doesn't sound like too bad of a recruiting class to me.

[BlueintheFace]

I find this argument self serving and short sighted. Is it the goal of of a college professor to have his/her students reach their highest potential for tests in his/her class or to prepare the students to reach the highest level of success once they reach the professional ranks?

It is the stated goal of a college professor to teach their students the material at issue.

It is the primary (not only) goal of a college basketball coach to win games. This is best done by improving players individually within the context of COLLEGIATE basketball and bringing them together to form a cohesive and effective team that then beat other teams.


While winning basketball games is certainly one of any coaches job description, I would hope that preparing the players for life after college is a high priority. It is important for coaches to not only try to prepare their players to succeed at the next level but also to succeed at another vocation if they are ever injured or lack the talent or ability to make it at the next level.

I agree with you, but fail to see the relevance here. I thought we were talking about why the question of whether K develops NBA talent is relevant to what kind of collegiate coach he is...


If a coach takes the approach that his only responsibility is to "develop them in to NCAA talent" then I think that he is doing a disservice to his/her players.

Developing a player in to a great basketball player is developing a player in to a great basketball player. When a collegiate coach has to decide how best to utilize a player and his talents, do you think he next asks himself, "well, what will be best for his growth in to a NBA talent? If you answered, Yes, you are incorrect. He asks himself, "how can this player best be used to make this team better?" That coach then hopes that the answer to the second question is the same as the answer to the first. He hopes that by maximizing the utility of the player for the team, he also expands the player's skill set and better prepares him for the NBA. Do you see, this "growth as an NBA prospect" is SECONDARY. It should not ever be used as a metric alone for measuring how good a college coach is.


Additionally, if you think that players don't care about how a coach can prepare him for the nba, then you are naive.

I never said this, nor do I think it. I think Duke recruits know that coach K will use them in whatever way helps the team succeed the most and also sees that when Duke wins, the best players on the team get to go in the lottery and make millions. I also think that they are made aware of a lot of other things, but recruiting pitches are hardly solid factual ground to stand on...

[concrete]

i think the program does a great job at developing guards and small forwards.

I don't think they do a good job at developing big men and others lay mention to it. It's not a myth its fairly true. Hopefuly adding Nate James helps that out even if he isnt' a legit big man. I just don't think Wojo or whoever has done that great of a job developing the big guys. from McRoberts to Zoubek. Lance Thomas. Casey Sanders. Boozer. Shelden. they all left basically the same way they came as far as skillset or moves. Shelden got more powerful and experience but what was his go to post move? Did he develop a left hand. Ability to put the ball on the floor. Mid-Range shot? Same as Boozer, he was fairly skilled coming to Duke. I didn't see that great of a progression in his 3 years here. I would say Boozer is probably a bad example, complete players you don't have to teach much or develop as much. But the rest of the guys weren't complete players and have shown any major improvement in their development. If Duke can develop a big man who isn't a star into a legit top 10 ACC player then I know we hit a good stride in developlment.

[ACCBBallFan]

How often do you think Greg/Z/Lance/Elliot/Marty will be on the floor together? I would guess almost never (except possibly when the game is a blowout).

Reply - Never would not be much of an overstatement with respect to games but I was referring to the up hill battle they have in practice playing with those mates when Nolan/Miles are paired with three All-ACC type guys.

Why do you think Pocius is ahead of McClure in the rotation? That doesn't seem likely to me. Or do you think we're going to use an 11-man rotation?

Reply - Pocius or Elliott would be battling for spot #8 among the perimeter guys. McClure would be battling with Lance for spot #9. Could reverse 8 and 9 if you want but point is one is a guard and the other is a forward.

As far as minutes go, my guess is Henderson, Scheyer, and Singler will all get around 30 minutes, give or take, which leaves only 10 for the fifth guard (assuming 120 "backcourt minutes" and 80 "frontcourt minutes," as you appear to do, although I'm not sure it's going to happen that way), and I think that guard will be E-Mail.

You are right. I was oversimplifying intentionally to never have G for example at 4 spot in small ball, or Dave at 3 spot in big lineup.

I guess it depends on point in time. If you are referring to half the ACC games and beyond, perhaps 30 average but including OOC and bottom half of ACC, hopefully it is nowhere near 30.

Though it is early, IMO Marty has looked better than Elliott so far which is to be expected with one having 4 years in the program versus one having 4 days of formal practice, but as with Nolan vis a vis Jon and Greg last year, obvious the potential is there.

Point was Duke is so deep and could not go too wrongly with any 3 of the 6, particularly in all OOC except Coaches vs Cancer final. So except in very competitive games no need to go with a 7-8 man rotation, or for anyone to average 30 or more MPG.

[Kedsy]

Point was Duke is so deep and could not go too wrongly with any 3 of the 6, particularly in all OOC except Coaches vs Cancer final. So except in very competitive games no need to go with a 7-8 man rotation, or for anyone to average 30 or more MPG.

We agree about that. But K always does play his top guys 30+ minutes so I'll be surprised if the so-called "big three" don't average around that.

Personally, I'll also be surprised if he shortens the rotation to fewer than 9 players even in the tough conference games and the tournament. People say he'll go down to 7 or 8, but there's just too much talent there, so I don't see it.

[Bob Green]

But K always does play his top guys 30+ minutes so I'll be surprised if the so-called "big three" don't average around that.

Okay, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you. Last season one player averaged 30+ minutes - DeMarcus Nelson at 30.9 mpg. As long as we stay healthy, this year's team will be deeper so I do not expect the "Big 3" to average 30+ mpg.

[stickdog]

Which other NCAA coaches have more than 14 players currently in the NBA?

[stickdog]

i think the program does a great job at developing guards and small forwards.

I don't think they do a good job at developing big men and others lay mention to it. It's not a myth its fairly true. Hopefuly adding Nate James helps that out even if he isnt' a legit big man. I just don't think Wojo or whoever has done that great of a job developing the big guys. from McRoberts to Zoubek. Lance Thomas. Casey Sanders. Boozer. Shelden. they all left basically the same way they came as far as skillset or moves. Shelden got more powerful and experience but what was his go to post move? Did he develop a left hand. Ability to put the ball on the floor. Mid-Range shot? Same as Boozer, he was fairly skilled coming to Duke. I didn't see that great of a progression in his 3 years here. I would say Boozer is probably a bad example, complete players you don't have to teach much or develop as much. But the rest of the guys weren't complete players and have shown any major improvement in their development. If Duke can develop a big man who isn't a star into a legit top 10 ACC player then I know we hit a good stride in developlment.

Which NCAA teams can claim more currently successful NBA alumni among its NCAA 4s and 5s than Brand, Boozer, Deng, Battier, Williams, Randolph and McRoberts? Each of these players primary played the 4 and/or 5 at Duke.

[MChambers]

Ummm, Kenny Smith was a starting point for Houston when they won 2 championships. Joe Wolf didn't have a stellar nba career but he stuck arount in the league for about a decade and Popson was in the leagure for 3 years. That doesn't sound like too bad of a recruiting class to me.
Maybe I overstated it slightly, but none came close to being all-stars, and they were each rated very highly coming out of high school. So one could argue, if one wanted to, that Dean didn't develop them. I'm making this point, however, simply to show that it's a silly argument.

[ArnieMc]

Does anyone really think that if Jayson Williams had gone to UCLA, UConn, or Memphis that he would be as successful in any career path he chooses?
He went to St John's, had about a 10-year NBA career, and shot a limo driver. What was your point?

[CathyCA]

It is the stated goal of a college professor to teach their students the material at issue.

It is the primary (not only) goal of a college basketball coach to win games. This is best done by improving players individually within the context of COLLEGIATE basketball and bringing them together to form a cohesive and effective team that then beat other teams.



I agree with you, but fail to see the relevance here. I thought we were talking about why the question of whether K develops NBA talent is relevant to what kind of collegiate coach he is...



Developing a player in to a great basketball player is developing a player in to a great basketball player. When a collegiate coach has to decide how best to utilize a player and his talents, do you think he next asks himself, "well, what will be best for his growth in to a NBA talent? If you answered, Yes, you are incorrect. He asks himself, "how can this player best be used to make this team better?" That coach then hopes that the answer to the second question is the same as the answer to the first. He hopes that by maximizing the utility of the player for the team, he also expands the player's skill set and better prepares him for the NBA. Do you see, this "growth as an NBA prospect" is SECONDARY. It should not ever be used as a metric alone for measuring how good a college coach is.



I never said this, nor do I think it. I think Duke recruits know that coach K will use them in whatever way helps the team succeed the most and also sees that when Duke wins, the best players on the team get to go in the lottery and make millions. I also think that they are made aware of a lot of other things, but recruiting pitches are hardly solid factual ground to stand on...

BlueintheFace, I like you. You understand that Coach K's primary goal is all about creating the best TEAM possible.

I think we should have a handy pocket reference for this topic, "Coach K Can't Develop Players" because it comes up every season. And maybe this falls under 1K because that's certainly what I'm stating in the following paragraph.

Skitzle, you ought to remind your friend that in March and April, it's not about developing individual players. It's about winning games. Coach K does that better than anyone.

[COYS]

i think the program does a great job at developing guards and small forwards.

I don't think they do a good job at developing big men and others lay mention to it. It's not a myth its fairly true. Hopefuly adding Nate James helps that out even if he isnt' a legit big man. I just don't think Wojo or whoever has done that great of a job developing the big guys. from McRoberts to Zoubek. Lance Thomas. Casey Sanders. Boozer. Shelden. they all left basically the same way they came as far as skillset or moves. Shelden got more powerful and experience but what was his go to post move? Did he develop a left hand. Ability to put the ball on the floor. Mid-Range shot? Same as Boozer, he was fairly skilled coming to Duke. I didn't see that great of a progression in his 3 years here. I would say Boozer is probably a bad example, complete players you don't have to teach much or develop as much. But the rest of the guys weren't complete players and have shown any major improvement in their development. If Duke can develop a big man who isn't a star into a legit top 10 ACC player then I know we hit a good stride in developlment.

I'm sorry, but this argument just makes no sense. You say that coach K either recruits players that are already awesome (Brand, Boozer) so he can't get any credit for their development since they already had the natural ability. Or you blame him for guys like Zoubek and Thomas failing to turn into lottery picks. So basically, in order for Coach K to successfully develop a big man, he would have to take an unheralded recruit and turn him into a lottery pick? I just don't understand why honing a talented player's skills to the point that they have extremely successful NBA careers is not considered a legitimate form of player development. Also, does every recruit have to become a star? What qualifies as development? Casey Sanders developed enough to help us through a large portion of the tourney while Boozer was sidelined. Maybe if he had played on a team that didn't have Carlos Boozer on it he could have put up bigger numbers over his career, but that doesn't mean he would have been any better as a player. Maybe Lance would score more points if he played on a team where he was the primary offensive threat, but the fact that his PPG averages are modest doesn't mean he's not developing. I just don't really follow your logic on this one.

[concrete]

all the big-men that you and I stated came in with bigs reps and proved them their freshmen year. The ones that didn't make it had horrible freshmen year and never got passed that. Show me one guy that didn't play good his first 2 years and developed into an all ACC selection under Coach K. Just give me one.

You can mix development in with experience all you want, but until Coach K proves he DEVELOPED a big man at Duke then the jury is still out. It's a very subjective topic because he can't lay a distinctive claim to a big man being developed at Duke.

[Kedsy]

all the big-men that you and I stated came in with bigs reps and proved them their freshmen year. The ones that didn't make it had horrible freshmen year and never got passed that. Show me one guy that didn't play good his first 2 years and developed into an all ACC selection under Coach K. Just give me one.

You can mix development in with experience all you want, but until Coach K proves he DEVELOPED a big man at Duke then the jury is still out. It's a very subjective topic because he can't lay a distinctive claim to a big man being developed at Duke.

Alaa Abdelnaby. Less than 5ppg his first two years; made 3rd team all-ACC his senior year.

Cherokee Parks. 13 min and 5ppg his freshman year; 2nd team all-ACC both his junior and senior year (19 ppg; 9.4 rpg).

Both of these guys also had pro careers.

How about that? Oh, wait, that was two guys and you only wanted one...

[Edouble]

all the big-men that you and I stated came in with bigs reps and proved them their freshmen year. The ones that didn't make it had horrible freshmen year and never got passed that. Show me one guy that didn't play good his first 2 years and developed into an all ACC selection under Coach K. Just give me one.

You can mix development in with experience all you want, but until Coach K proves he DEVELOPED a big man at Duke then the jury is still out. It's a very subjective topic because he can't lay a distinctive claim to a big man being developed at Duke.

If you're a player, you come in as a player from day one. Good talent develops further, but if you're not a player, you'll never become one, at least not an NBA level talent. Show me a big guy in any program that was horrible his first two years, but became an All-American level talent in any program. It just doesn't happen. Casey Sanders would not have become KG in any program.

[Jim3k]

If you're a player, you come in as a player from day one. Good talent develops further, but if you're not a player, you'll never become one, at least not an NBA level talent. Show me a big guy in any program that was horrible his first two years, but became an All-American level talent in any program. It just doesn't happen. Casey Sanders would not have become KG in any program.

Well, the guy that came to my mind isn't a Duke player and may not have become an AA. But he fits the bill rather well.

Tom Tolbert (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/tolbeto01.html) Tom played hardly at all at UC Irvine when he was a freshman and soph. (I think UCI was Div. II at the time.) And, he played a little at Cerritos Community College. But when he transferred to UofA he became a serious stud. And then off to a respectable 7 year NBA career.

Some people just develop a little more slowly than others. No big deal. But it's a bit silly to say that college coaching doesn't develop ordinary players into outstanding players. It happens pretty frequently. Obtaining AA status is not a good way to judge, since these players have no hype going for them and AA status requires at least some hype.

[elvis14]

If you're a player, you come in as a player from day one. Good talent develops further, but if you're not a player, you'll never become one, at least not an NBA level talent. Show me a big guy in any program that was horrible his first two years, but became an All-American level talent in any program. It just doesn't happen. Casey Sanders would not have become KG in any program.

First let me state that I think Coach K does a fine job developing players big and small. But there are times where a guy becomes player, if you ask for examples you'll get them. The one that comes to mind for me is Tom Gugliotta at NCSU. Some guys physically grow mature more in college than they did in HS or they get in shape or work really hard on their game.

[sagegrouse]

"Your friend is nutso. Coach K is very reluctant to put a freshman on the floor"

Numerous freshmen have started from day one at Duke, from Dawkins and Alarie in '83 to Singler last year to Amaker, Hurley, Hill, Capel, Brand, JWilliams, and many others in between.

You're right about the defense. But it is only one variable.

Jim, I know quite a few freshmen have played for K, although in the Dawkins, Brand and JWill class the cupboard was rather bare. But it seems to me that it is a special thing at Duke for a freshman to break the rotation and earn meaningful PT (15 mpg, e.g.).

sagegrouse

[jimsumner]

1982-
Dan Meagher

1983-
Johnny Dawkins
Mark Alarie
David Henderson
Jay Bilas

1984-
Tommy Amaker

1986-
Danny Ferry

1987-
Robert Brickey

1989-
Christian Laettner

1990-
Bobby Hurley

1991-
Grant Hill

1994-
Jeff Capel

1995-
Trajan Langdon
Ricky Price
Steve Wojo

1996-
Taymon Domzalski

1997-
Chris Carrawell

1998-
Elton Brand
Shane Battier
William Avery

1999-
Corey Maggette

2000-
Jason Williams
Carlos Boozer
Mike Dunleavy

2001-
Chris Duhon

2002-
Daniel Ewing

2003-
J.J. Redick
Shelden Williams

2004-
Luol Deng

2005-
Demarcus Nelson

2006-
Greg Paulus
Josh McRoberts

2007-
Jon Scheyer
Gerald Henderson

2008-
Kyle Singler


All averaged at least 15 mpg as freshmen.

Another dozen or so averaged between 10 and 15 mpg, including Nolan Smith last year and such notables as Billy King, Billy McCaffrey, Nate James, and Shavlik Randolph.


The reality is that if you're good enough, you're going to play, regardless of class.

[Jeffrey]

The reality is that if you're good enough, you're going to play, regardless of class.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for taking the time to create the listing. It's very telling and also nice to look back at.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[MChambers]

Quit pointing to things like facts and reality. This is an Internet bulletin board, after all! ;)

[Devilsfan]

Yeah, facts ruin most arguments. Remeber the once prominent northern newspaper that prints "only the news that's fit to print". lol.

[jimsumner]

Let me throw out another factoid. Excluding his first year at Duke, every Krzyzewski team at Duke has had at least one freshman play at least 10 mpg.

[shadowfax336]

and it looks like that list could be adding Miles Plumlee this year.

[mgtr]

Yeah, facts ruin most arguments. Remeber the once prominent northern newspaper that prints "only the news that's fit to print". lol.

I thought it was "All the news that fits, we print."

[yancem]

It is the stated goal of a college professor to teach their students the material at issue.

It might be the state goal of a college professor to teach their students that material at issue (which I assume by that you mean the curriculum) but if that's all they do then I would say they won't be very effective teachers. If all students needed to know (like, say for taking standardized tests) was facts, figures, ideologies, theories or laws of whatever subject, then they could simply read the textbooks and maybe have some question answer sessions. If the knowledge is going to be used outside of the classroom then critical thinking, problem solving and real life applications need to be added to the mix. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but I've had teachers/professors that taught to the test and teachers/professors that taught to life and the real world and I got much more out the classes by the latter.


I agree with you, but fail to see the relevance here. I thought we were talking about why the question of whether K develops NBA talent is relevant to what kind of collegiate coach he is...

I look at coaches in the same vain as teachers and to me the success of a teacher (or coach) is not only just how well their students succeed in their class/team but how they succeed later in life. If a coach's players don't succeed after they leave his/her team then that is at least in part a reflection of the instruction and lessons they received. For a college basketball coach, this measure is often about how successful his/her players are in the nba. Most teenagers go to college in order to prepare for a career. For the top teenage athletes, that means playing at the profession level. I don't think that this can be really discounted but I was also trying to point out that coaches should and do provide non sports related lessons as well.


Developing a player in to a great basketball player is developing a player in to a great basketball player. When a collegiate coach has to decide how best to utilize a player and his talents, do you think he next asks himself, "well, what will be best for his growth in to a NBA talent? If you answered, Yes, you are incorrect. He asks himself, "how can this player best be used to make this team better?" That coach then hopes that the answer to the second question is the same as the answer to the first. He hopes that by maximizing the utility of the player for the team, he also expands the player's skill set and better prepares him for the NBA. Do you see, this "growth as an NBA prospect" is SECONDARY. It should not ever be used as a metric alone for measuring how good a college coach is.

The "growth as an NBA prospect" may be SECONDARY, but wouldn't you say that the coach that finds ways of making the answers to your two questions the same more often would be the more successful coach? I also don't think that a coach should use a player in a manner that would be detrimental to the player's best interests for the sake of wining a game. Parents entrust their children's future to these coaches. It is a delicate balance between what is best for an individual player and what is best for the team but again I think the most successful coaches sync the two the most often. If they didn't then they would take a hit in the recruiting department.


I never said this, nor do I think it. I think Duke recruits know that coach K will use them in whatever way helps the team succeed the most and also sees that when Duke wins, the best players on the team get to go in the lottery and make millions. I also think that they are made aware of a lot of other things, but recruiting pitches are hardly solid factual ground to stand on...

Well actually, that's how I interpret this statement:


I'm not shutting down the question (Does K develop talent), I am actually saying that the factual question of whether or not he develops players into NBA talent has little real relevance to "Duke Basketball" the program (Hence- "who cares"). K's job is not to develop players in to NBA talent.

If Duke ddn't develop players into nba talent then recruiting would definitely suffer. Less talent would equal less success which is definitely relevant.

[yancem]

He went to St John's, had about a 10-year NBA career, and shot a limo driver. What was your point?

Wow, I really need to proof read my posts when it get late. At least I didn't call him Jay!

[BlueintheFace]

It might be the state goal of a college professor to teach their students that material at issue (which I assume by that you mean the curriculum) but if that's all they do then I would say they won't be very effective teachers. If all students needed to know (like, say for taking standardized tests) was facts, figures, ideologies, theories or laws of whatever subject, then they could simply read the textbooks and maybe have some question answer sessions. If the knowledge is going to be used outside of the classroom then critical thinking, problem solving and real life applications need to be added to the mix. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but I've had teachers/professors that taught to the test and teachers/professors that taught to life and the real world and I got much more out the classes by the latter.

ummm, that's nice... see my comment on "secondary goals." Also, making Duke players in to a great team generally doesn't seem to be akin to "teaching to the test." As I said before, a good basketball player is a good basketball player.


I look at coaches in the same vain as teachers and to me the success of a teacher (or coach) is not only just how well their students succeed in their class/team but how they succeed later in life. If a coach's players don't succeed after they leave his/her team then that is at least in part a reflection of the instruction and lessons they received. For a college basketball coach, this measure is often about how successful his/her players are in the nba. Most teenagers go to college in order to prepare for a career. For the top teenage athletes, that means playing at the profession level. I don't think that this can be really discounted but I was also trying to point out that coaches should and do provide non sports related lessons as well.

thats nice... again. I don't see a conflict in our opinions here. We both think coaches should make their players in to good people ready for the real world. Great and irrelevant to the topic at hand.


The "growth as an NBA prospect" may be SECONDARY, but wouldn't you say that the coach that finds ways of making the answers to your two questions the same more often would be the more successful coach?

No (see- Knight, Bobby)


Well actually, that's how I interpret this statement:

Fair enough. I admit that this statement does not gel. I misspoke. I know that players making it in the NBA is important for recruiting. Let me tweak my statement to reflect my intentions:

I am actually saying that the factual question of whether or not he develops players into NBA talent has little real relevance to whether or not he is a good college basketball coach. K's job is not to develop players in to NBA talent.

[Edouble]

First let me state that I think Coach K does a fine job developing players big and small. But there are times where a guy becomes player, if you ask for examples you'll get them. The one that comes to mind for me is Tom Gugliotta at NCSU. Some guys physically grow mature more in college than they did in HS or they get in shape or work really hard on their game.

I'd like another example. Gugs was injured his freshman year, and put up big numbers his sophomore year.

[Kedsy]

I'd like another example. Gugs was injured his freshman year, and put up big numbers his sophomore year.

Well, between his sophomore and senior year, Gugliotta's scoring average and assists average more than doubled and his rebound average was up 40%, so he's not a terrible example.

How about Aaron Gray (Pitt)? He scored 1.7 and 4.3 ppg his freshman and sophomore years and ended up first team all-Big East and third team All America, and is now playing for (I believe) the Chicago Bulls.

Joakim Noah was very lightly regarded and did absolutely nothing his freshman year before busting out his sophomore year.

And as I said earlier, Alaa Abdelnaby and Cherokee Parks contributed little their first two years and developed into all-ACC and NBA talents.

I'm sure there are plenty more, but I don't have time to look them up.

[jimsumner]

Parks was pretty darn good as a freshman. He just couldn't crack a veteran rotation that had won an NCAA title the season before. He averaged 12 and 7 as a soph.

Abdelnaby didn't have a clue as a freshman and was third-team center behind lightly-touted John Smith and Marty Nessley. He got better and better and is a perfect foil to the argument that K can't develop big men.

Parks, not so much.

IMO.

[Jeffrey]

Let me throw out another factoid. Excluding his first year at Duke, every Krzyzewski team at Duke has had at least one freshman play at least 10 mpg.

Hi Jim,

How does that compare with the other ACC teams during the same period?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[yancem]

ummm, that's nice... see my comment on "secondary goals." Also, making Duke players in to a great team generally doesn't seem to be akin to "teaching to the test." As I said before, a good basketball player is a good basketball player.

Where are your comments on "secondary goals" I seem to have missed them. I'm not sure that I agree that a good basketball player is necessarily a good basketball player. Basketball is played in different ways around the world. Just look at how nba players fared against less talented players and teams in international competitions earlier this decade. Many great college and international players do nothing in the nba and I would venture to guess that some nba players would find playing in some of the international leagues much more difficult than they think.


No (see- Knight, Bobby)

The largest portion of Bobby Knight's success as a head coach (including at least 2 of his NC's) came before the nba became the powerhouse that it has been for the past 2 decades. He was not nearly as successful in the 90's and 00's. Part of the lesser success stems from moving to Texas Tech but since his last title in '87 I believe that he only made one more final 4. I'm not saying that Bobby Knight isn't a great coach. I just think that between his ego and his temper fewer good players wanted to play for him. The fact that his players rarely translated to the nba couldn't have helped.



Fair enough. I admit that this statement does not gel. I misspoke. I know that players making it in the NBA is important for recruiting. Let me tweak my statement to reflect my intentions:

I am actually saying that the factual question of whether or not he develops players into NBA talent has little real relevance to whether or not he is a good college basketball coach. K's job is not to develop players in to NBA talent.

I won't disagree with your tweaked statement. What defines a good college coach generally comes down to winning games and more importantly championships. I just think that as a college coach, you have a duty to your players that extends beyond simply winning games. As I said, I see coaches as teachers and developing players, preparing them for their chosen career, is extremely important. I think that the thing that separates our arguments is, you seem to think that a coaches priority lies in the university and program first whereas I feel that as a member of an institution of higher learning, the coaches main priority is to the student. Therefore, I think that preparing the players for when they no longer wear the college uniform is very important. To me it's not so much we have more pros than you. It's if you come play for us we will give you the best preparation possible so that you succeed once you leave.

[concrete]

Alaa Abdelnaby. Less than 5ppg his first two years; made 3rd team all-ACC his senior year.

Cherokee Parks. 13 min and 5ppg his freshman year; 2nd team all-ACC both his junior and senior year (19 ppg; 9.4 rpg).

Both of these guys also had pro careers.

How about that? Oh, wait, that was two guys and you only wanted one...


Wasn't those due to minutes. Also, I was hoping for something more recent. My initial arguement base was that it's due to the lack of a big man coaching the big men :) I don't know who the big man Coach was back then but now I don't think the big men are developing/progressing like they should be.

[Kedsy]

Wasn't those due to minutes.

Parks may have been due to a lack of minutes and, as someone else pointed out, he was a pretty good player his sophomore year. But Abdelnaby looked sort of clueless his first couple years. He looked a lot less likely to ultimately contribute than Zoubek does.

But if you want to look more recently, there's really nothing to see, one way or the other. Since Wojo's been a coach here, we've had Brand, Boozer, and Shelden Williams, all of whom you say don't count because they were good when they got here. Then we had McRoberts, who was pretty good but who left after two years before we could see if he'd truly develop (and if he had, I assume you'd discount him as well because he was good when he got here, too). So, really, in recent years we've never had a situation where we needed a "project" to develop into a star.

[concrete]

Parks may have been due to a lack of minutes and, as someone else pointed out, he was a pretty good player his sophomore year. But Abdelnaby looked sort of clueless his first couple years. He looked a lot less likely to ultimately contribute than Zoubek does.

But if you want to look more recently, there's really nothing to see, one way or the other. Since Wojo's been a coach here, we've had Brand, Boozer, and Shelden Williams, all of whom you say don't count because they were good when they got here. Then we had McRoberts, who was pretty good but who left after two years before we could see if he'd truly develop (and if he had, I assume you'd discount him as well because he was good when he got here, too). So, really, in recent years we've never had a situation where we needed a "project" to develop into a star.

i don't think we should be basing development on "need". When I look at Maryland those guys come in unheralded and pretty average and they develop there bigs into being fairly serviceable. I dunno I think there's some basic development that I don't see in our bigs over their career @ Duke in recent memory. Just my opinion...hopefully with Nate James in the fold we could see a big with some genuine post moves?

[jimsumner]

Since 1998, Duke's primary starting centers have been Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Shelden Williams, and Josh McRoberts, with some Roshown McLeod and Shavlik Randolph thrown in for good measure. All made the NBA and two are stars. Hard to make a case there for non-development. IMO.


Last year? Too early to close the book.

Chris Burgess, Michael Thompson, and Eric Boateng all transferred. The first two transferred and neither showed dramatic improvement at their new schools. The jury is still out on Boateng but he didn't exactly dominate at ASU last year.

The one relatively recent example that supports that view is Casey Sanders. I think he was never a legit top-20 prospect and he did improve in his four years at Duke but not as much as we had hoped.

How many of Maryland's centers in the last decade had sterling NBA careers? Obinna Ekezie? Lonny Baxter? Ikene Ebekwe? Bambale Osby? Travis Garrison was a prep super-star. Any Travis Garrison NBA sightings recently?

Big men tend to be roll-the-dice-prospects. The Dean Smith/Bill Guthridge tandem are justifiably known for their big men development. But they also recruited prep A-As like Pete Budko, Chris Brust, Geoff Crompton, John Brownlee, Serge Zwikker, and Matt Wenstrom, none of whom became much more than competent players at UNC.

It seems to me that Duke's record in developing big men is pretty solid.

[MChambers]

Since 1998, Duke's primary starting centers have been Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Shelden Williams, and Josh McRoberts, with some Roshown McLeod and Shavlik Randolph thrown in for good measure. All made the NBA and two are stars. Hard to make a case there for non-development. IMO.


Last year? Too early to close the book.

Chris Burgess, Michael Thompson, and Eric Boateng all transferred. The first two transferred and neither showed dramatic improvement at their new schools. The jury is still out on Boateng but he didn't exactly dominate at ASU last year.

The one relatively recent example that supports that view is Casey Sanders. I think he was never a legit top-20 prospect and he did improve in his four years at Duke but not as much as we had hoped.

How many of Maryland's centers in the last decade had sterling NBA careers? Obinna Ekezie? Lonny Baxter? Ikene Ebekwe? Bambale Osby? Travis Garrison was a prep super-star. Any Travis Garrison NBA sightings recently?

Big men tend to be roll-the-dice-prospects. The Dean Smith/Bill Guthridge tandem are justifiably known for their big men development. But they also recruited prep A-As like Pete Budko, Chris Brust, Geoff Crompton, John Brownlee, Serge Zwikker, and Matt Wenstrom, none of whom became much more than competent players at UNC.

It seems to me that Duke's record in developing big men is pretty solid.

Jim, I'm not saying you're naive, but why do you think that the facts will sway anyone?

Seriously, this is a great summary, folks.

[mgtr]

^Agreed. Not a whole lot more to be said on the subject.

[concrete]

Since 1998, Duke's primary starting centers have been Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Shelden Williams, and Josh McRoberts, with some Roshown McLeod and Shavlik Randolph thrown in for good measure. All made the NBA and two are stars. Hard to make a case there for non-development. IMO.


Last year? Too early to close the book.

Chris Burgess, Michael Thompson, and Eric Boateng all transferred. The first two transferred and neither showed dramatic improvement at their new schools. The jury is still out on Boateng but he didn't exactly dominate at ASU last year.

The one relatively recent example that supports that view is Casey Sanders. I think he was never a legit top-20 prospect and he did improve in his four years at Duke but not as much as we had hoped.

How many of Maryland's centers in the last decade had sterling NBA careers? Obinna Ekezie? Lonny Baxter? Ikene Ebekwe? Bambale Osby? Travis Garrison was a prep super-star. Any Travis Garrison NBA sightings recently?

Big men tend to be roll-the-dice-prospects. The Dean Smith/Bill Guthridge tandem are justifiably known for their big men development. But they also recruited prep A-As like Pete Budko, Chris Brust, Geoff Crompton, John Brownlee, Serge Zwikker, and Matt Wenstrom, none of whom became much more than competent players at UNC.

It seems to me that Duke's record in developing big men is pretty solid.

Without looking through biased glasses you can't seriously say that the players you named for Duke , who were highly touted recruits developed at Duke when they were dominant as soon as they stepped in the door. What did Josh McRoberts develop at Duke that he didn't possess coming into the door. I saw the same player albeit some strength and experience from senior year highschool to sophmore year Duke.

A good example of development is Dahntay Jones, who developed into a perimeter threat by his senior year. I don't see the same progress from Big Men at Duke...you can pulls names from other colleges/universities all you want but those are strawmen arguements. Not to the point of Coach K's staff lack of big men development at Duke in the past decade.

[Jim3k]

Without looking through biased glasses you can't seriously say that the players you named for Duke , who were highly touted recruits developed at Duke when they were dominant as soon as they stepped in the door. What did Josh McRoberts develop at Duke that he didn't possess coming into the door. I saw the same player albeit some strength and experience from senior year highschool to sophmore year Duke.

A good example of development is Dahntay Jones, who developed into a perimeter threat by his senior year. I don't see the same progress from Big Men at Duke...you can pulls names from other colleges/universities all you want but those are strawmen arguements. Not to the point of Coach K's staff lack of big men development at Duke in the past decade.

Time to ignore him, Jim. He's got concrete in his ears. ;)

[yancem]

Without looking through biased glasses you can't seriously say that the players you named for Duke , who were highly touted recruits developed at Duke when they were dominant as soon as they stepped in the door. What did Josh McRoberts develop at Duke that he didn't possess coming into the door. I saw the same player albeit some strength and experience from senior year highschool to sophmore year Duke.

A good example of development is Dahntay Jones, who developed into a perimeter threat by his senior year. I don't see the same progress from Big Men at Duke...you can pulls names from other colleges/universities all you want but those are strawmen arguements. Not to the point of Coach K's staff lack of big men development at Duke in the past decade.

I'm sorry, did you watch Shelden Williams play as a freshman? I'm not saying that he wasn't any good but he was far from a a finished product. He improved dramatically over his career at Duke and I'm not just talking about his numbers. Randolph had a more developed offensive game when they were freshman. Williams was lost offensively unless he got the ball when he was within 5 feet of the hoop. By his senior year, he developed a 12-15 foot jumper and was able to not only back down defensive players without turning the ball over he was able to make effective short drives to the basket. He possessed neither skill his freshman year. Let's not forget that he was a fouling machine his first couple of years.

[BlueintheFace]

concrete, no offense, but if we use your exact line of reasoning, then we can conclude that no NCAA team develops big men if those big men are highly touted recruits. This would especially apply to UNC, UCLA, Georgetown, and the like.

It is just a bad argument against K developing big players. If you want to come up with a somewhat convincing argument you will need one that is "Duke-specific."