Featherston on Coach K, Team USA and perceptions about recruiting

[watzone]

Al has a very detailed article which focuses on basketball recruiting and Coach K accepting the Team USA job. Al dives into history in an effort to find answers.

http://bluedevilnation.net/2009/08/featherston-on-coach-k-team-usa-and-recruiting/

[Memphis Devil]

Great article, thanks for the link!

[COYS]

Very thorough and thoughtful. There will always be skepticism over K's involvement with the national team, but I think that this article does a great job putting things into perspective. Next year's class with MP2, Kelly, and now Dawkins (most likely), plus Curry who will join the class next year is the first post-Olympic class (well, I guess Mason committed before the gold, but it was still leading up to Beijing). This class has the potential to accomplish some great things. Even for the people who think the Olympics have definitely hurt Duke, i feel like you have to wait and see what the HS classes of '09 and '10 accomplish before you can completely write off the Olympics as a net loss for Duke. Also, we never know how our recruiting misses will play out. Who knows? Curry and Boynton may have been mutually exclusive and Curry may very well turn out to be the better player. We just don't know yet.

Then, of course, there's the important part about K feeling rejuvenated because of the Olympics. As anyone who has worked the same job for a long period of time knows, sometimes it's best to focus on nothing but the job for a long period of time . . . and then other times its very important engage in other activities that help to sharpen your mind and give you more perspective on your job.

[Turtleboy]

A couple of corrections :

Tayshaun Prince did not hang his medal around K's neck.

Brian Zoubek is a center, not a guard.

[eightyearoldsdude]

When events are clustered, they accrue meaning they don't necessarily deserve. Remember the spate of shark attacks a few years ago? They acquired a whole new interpretation(s) (at least in the media).

K lost out on a few high-profile recruits in a row. It happens, (Of course, one recruit's decision can impact another's, but that works in both directions.) But when it happens in a cluster, people demand explanation, when in fact we should never expect events subject to chance to be evenly distributed in time.

In any case, I don't see any evidence that the Olympics has done anything but help K and Duke. It's a bogus story. If there is any causal story here, I think it has a little to do with recruiting strategy and a little to do with branding. But it's not about the Olympics.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

I am (or was) admittedly one of the skeptics in Coach K being invloved with the national team again, and I have to again, admit, this article helped me realize that it is not a big deal. I don't know recruiting schedules and when and if it would contradict one another. I just looked at the faults of our Duke squad from 07-09 and told myself that K needs to focus his energy on this team if he really cares, but in reality, our stock as a program is going up and I don't see it plummeting. I wish Coach K and the national team well as I was one of the few (probably) that was actually up at 3am watching them play Spain in the Gold Medal game. That was a fun team to watch and I liked seeing Coach K having fun with those guys. I have faith that his decisions are based not only on his own self gain, but Duke's as well.

[whereinthehellami]

Al has a very detailed article which focuses on basketball recruiting and Coach K accepting the Team USA job. Al dives into history in an effort to find answers.

http://bluedevilnation.net/2009/08/featherston-on-coach-k-team-usa-and-recruiting/

That is one seriously long article. :) I think the net effect on Duke, of Coach K coaching the Olympic team is pretty minimal as the positives and negatives kind of out weigh each other. But I think it is a positive for Coach K and that is important.

[SoCalDukeFan]

We won the Gold Medal not the Golf Medal.

I think it is great that Coach K got rejuvenated and I also do not think he is coaching the Olympics again for personal glory.

However it is a time commitment and a mental focus commitment. Does anyone think that Roy Williams or Bill Self or Ben Howland are at the beach looking at the waves when K is involved with the Olympics? Maybe they can not be with their team or contacting recruits but they can be looking at film, planning for the season, etc. etc. etc. Certainly we had issues that were not related to the Olympics, but we will never know if we would have recovered better had the Olympics not been there.

While I can fully understand the rejuvenation that came from the 2008 Olympic experience and that was something very good for Duke, coaching the 2012 team is much harder for me to understand.

SoCal

[DukeDevilDeb]

A couple of corrections :

Tayshaun Prince did not hang his medal around K's neck.

Brian Zoubek is a center, not a guard.

Why didn't Tayshaun Prince hang his medal around K's neck?

[MChambers]

Why didn't Tayshaun Prince hang his medal around K's neck?

Like any other Kentucky person, he's still mad about The Shot?

[watzone]

Like any other Kentucky person, he's still mad about The Shot?

Is there a link to this supposed dis?

[airowe]

Is there a link to this supposed dis?

http://www.faniq.com/blog/Tayshaun-Prince-Wont-Let-Mike-Krzyzewski-Wear-His-Olympic-Gold-Medal-Blog-11372

[Turtleboy]

Is there a link to this supposed dis?Supposed?

Yeah, there's a link, but it's premium information.

[watzone]

Supposed?

Yeah, there's a link, but it's premium information.

Unlike yourself, another poster provided a link. Thanks for your input.

[Turtleboy]

Unlike yourself, another poster provided a link.Making my providing one unnecessary, don't you think?

At any rate, I thought it was common knowledge. It was all over the place when it happened.


Thanks for your input.You're welcome. And thanks for your assumption that my information was "supposed." It's always nice to know what the default assumption is.

[-jk]

Please play nicely, folks.

-jk

[UrinalCake]

The article was a great read and addressed a lot of what has been discussed around these boards. Just to play devil's advocate a little... Mr. Featherston focuses a lot on the time tables and suggests that because Coach K was not involved in National Team-related activities during certain key recruiting periods, his committment therefore did not affect his recruiting. I think this logic is a little bit flawed. First of all, I would have to assume that running the National Team takes up time even during the periods while he's not traveling to those events. And secondly, there may be a perception from the standpoint of the recruits (whether true or not) that Coach K's National Team committment indicates a lack of commitment to the Duke team.

Overall the jury is still out in my mind as to whether Duke would have performed better over the last three years had Coach K not been involved with the National Team. It's possible that they would have done worse. That's just something we'll never really know... the fact is that he is involved and so we should accept that and appreciate what we have.

[Bob Green]

... the fact is that he is involved and so we should accept that and appreciate what we have.

Thank you!!! I definitely appreciate what we have. Coach K is fantastic and we are lucky to have him. The next three or four months are going to be exciting.

[ice-9]

One of the key messages in Al's article is how much talent drives success. I mean we all say "duh" but really, the difference between a Final Four and a Sweet Sixteen is how your recruits pan out. McRoberts vs. Hansbrough says it all.

Al's point is that for a few years, our recruits haven't panned out. It's somewhat reversing today, and many point to the class of 2010 as completing that reversal...

...but if you take a step back, I don't think it's obvious that we have the elite talent that can mean the difference between a Final Four and a Sweet Sixteen: All-American caliber talent that can carry a team through adversity and bad match-ups.

Henderson is a lottery talent, but he is not that player.

Singler may be that player, but the past two seasons show he is not dominant enough to do it alone.

Nolan may have that level of talent, but he's certainly unproven. NBAdraft.net projects him as a #45 pick in the 2011 draft.

Scheyer is very good and a key guy, but I don't think he's a dominant force or ever will be. NBAdraft.net doesn't even expect him to make it into the NBA.

Looking at our (confirmed) incoming recruits...does anyone fit the bill?

Mason maybe our best bet.

It's probably not Kelly unless his defense ratchets up though he can be very good.

Seth Curry, like his older brother? Possible, but he came off the bench in the international tournament he played in this summer as a role player.

Dre Dawk? Not if scouting reports of less-than-stellar defense and handling are true.

Surely not Hairston or Thornton?

Bottom line, I'm not sure I see that player yet. I think this is why we were so hyped up about John Wall, because he could be that type of talent. Or Barnes. Irving has a chance, though less so than those two.

But we didn't get Wall and we haven't gotten Barnes or Irving yet.

So, unless stars emerge from our existing group of players or from our incoming recruits, we may continue to be stuck in the second weekend of the NCAA tournament.

We may be reversing a trend...but I don't think we're back to our dominant days of 1998 - 2002...yet.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

One of the key messages in Al's article is how much talent drives success. I mean we all say "duh" but really, the difference between a Final Four and a Sweet Sixteen is how your recruits pan out. McRoberts vs. Hansbrough says it all.

Al's point is that for a few years, our recruits haven't panned out. It's somewhat reversing today, and many point to the class of 2010 as completing that reversal...

[SNIP]

...but if you take a step back, I don't think it's obvious that we have the elite talent that can mean the difference between a Final Four and a Sweet Sixteen: All-American caliber talent that can carry a team through adversity and bad match-ups.

FWIW Kelly (12) is ranked several spots higher than Plumlee (18), and I think a lot of folks (including myself at times) are undervaluing Ryan based on poor showings in the limited all-star game settings we've seen him in.

That said, I tend to agree with your point that we've had trouble putting really elite talent on the court. I'm on record as saying that I think recruiting is a major part of that, but I think player development also deserves a look. Since the 2005 "albatross" class we've brought in these (per scout) top 20, 5-star talents:

2006: Hendo (15), Thomas (18), Scheyer (20)
2007: Singler (6)
2008: Email (16)

G was named to one 3rd team All-American list (NABC) but otherwise none of them have been even close to national honors. Less than half (2/5) came in ready to contribute and it's looking like 2 (Lance and Email) will never be a major player for Duke. Add in McBob and Greg and we simply haven't been very good stewards of elite talent for a while. And that's before getting in to the generally forgettable performance of our 4-star guys (Marty, Z, Smith, Plumlee, Czyz).

Failing to secure anything like a PG has been part of that (BKing/Kyrie/Ray/Whoever, come on down) as has our youth. But whatever fault we attribute to bringing guys in has to be combined with some glaring issues regarding player development (and unfortunately retention). There is no single factor that captures the last 4 seasons, but I agree that finding, developing, and retaining talent is a very big part of the puzzle.

[SilkyJ]

FWIW Kelly (12) is ranked several spots higher than Plumlee (18), and I think a lot of folks (including myself at times) are undervaluing Ryan based on poor showings in the limited all-star game settings we've seen him in.


Depends which source. ESPN has it flipped, with MP2 at 10 and Kelly at 17, though I will concede that ESPN is newer to the game.

I think the consensus is that Kelly has a great stroke and a good handle for a guy 6'9, but Plumlee is way more athletic and is a better all around basketball player.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Depends which source. ESPN has it flipped, with MP2 at 10 and Kelly at 17, though I will concede that ESPN is newer to the game.

I think the consensus is that Kelly has a great stroke and a good handle for a guy 6'9, but Plumlee is way more athletic and is a better all around basketball player.

Fair enough. I tend to trust Scout more than other services (certainly Rivals (http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/viewrank.asp)which has Kelly 20 and Plumlee 55!) but it's enough of a crap shoot that things are pretty wide open.

Anyway, I expect that Plumlee will be the more dynamic player, but I think there's a real chance that Kelly will be more valuable when it's all said and done. I definitely think that Ryan will be here longer, however you evaluate that.

Honestly I'm not expecting either to blow up as a frosh and I'd guess fans will enjoy Plumlee's explosiveness more. But as with G and Kyle (who I think was unquestionably our best player last season), I think the less "athletic/highlight-reel" guy is being very undervalued. Time will tell, I suppose.

[Kedsy]

That said, I tend to agree with your point that we've had trouble putting really elite talent on the court. I'm on record as saying that I think recruiting is a major part of that, but I think player development also deserves a look. Since the 2005 "albatross" class we've brought in these (per scout) top 20, 5-star talents:

2006: Hendo (15), Thomas (18), Scheyer (20)
2007: Singler (6)
2008: Email (16)

G was named to one 3rd team All-American list (NABC) but otherwise none of them have been even close to national honors. Less than half (2/5) came in ready to contribute and it's looking like 2 (Lance and Email) will never be a major player for Duke. Add in McBob and Greg and we simply haven't been very good stewards of elite talent for a while.

First of all, the fact that Elliot Williams will "never be a major player for Duke" has absolutely nothing to do with player development. I'm not sure how anyone could suggest otherwise.

More pertinent, I don't understand your logic. If, for example, Jon Scheyer was 20th best in his high school class (and if you believe in the rankings) then in his junior year there should be 19 players better than him, plus any of the top 20 seniors still around (although it could be a few more or less depending on the relative strength of the classes), plus the really elite kids from the two classes below him, minus the number of top 20 kids from his class who left early. And this is not even taking into account major overachievers, at least a few of which happen every year. So based on the numbers why would you expect national honors?

Having said all that, I don't know why "national honors" would be the measuring stick for having a successful collegiate career. Plenty of great players never made an AA team.

Finally, of the seven players you say were five star recruits (and my recollection was Thomas was a four star recruit, but I could be wrong), only Thomas and Paulus could be characterized as underachievers, yet both of them became starters for top 10 teams, so it's not like they were awful. I would argue that at least six of the seven players made pretty decent contributions during their freshman year and thus by definition they must have come to Duke "ready to contribute."

Every year, at least two top 10 teams don't make the Final Eight, and at least six top 10 teams don't make the Final Four. With the possible exception of 2007, Duke has been a consistent top 10 team, and you don't do that without both recruiting good talent and successfully developing that talent.

Which I guess is just a long-winded way of saying I disagree with you.

[COYS]

FWIW Kelly (12) is ranked several spots higher than Plumlee (18), and I think a lot of folks (including myself at times) are undervaluing Ryan based on poor showings in the limited all-star game settings we've seen him in.

That said, I tend to agree with your point that we've had trouble putting really elite talent on the court. I'm on record as saying that I think recruiting is a major part of that, but I think player development also deserves a look. Since the 2005 "albatross" class we've brought in these (per scout) top 20, 5-star talents:

2006: Hendo (15), Thomas (18), Scheyer (20)
2007: Singler (6)
2008: Email (16)

I think its clear that Singler is a truly elite player, regardless of whether he's garnered national honors, yet. On a less balance scoring team, he would easily be scoring 18+ ppg. We may see him reach that this year.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

First of all, the fact that Elliot Williams will "never be a major player for Duke" has absolutely nothing to do with player development. I'm not sure how anyone could suggest otherwise.

For whatever reason we've had real trouble putting elite talent on the court. Some of that is recruiting, some is development, and some is bad luck. Email is probably an example of the latter, but he is another piece of the puzzle in terms of 5 star guys who, even if our recruiting looks good, didn't give us the sort on-court benefits you might expect.


More pertinent, I don't understand your logic. If, for example, Jon Scheyer was 20th best in his high school class (and if you believe in the rankings) then in his junior year there should be 19 players better than him, plus any of the top 20 seniors still around (although it could be a few more or less depending on the relative strength of the classes), plus the really elite kids from the two classes below him, minus the number of top 20 kids from his class who left early. And this is not even taking into account major overachievers, at least a few of which happen every year. So based on the numbers why would you expect national honors?

With three All-American teams a minimum of 15 guys each season will make a team (usually more since different publications/groups generally pick at least some different guys). Assuming that at least the 3-4 most NBA-ready guys jump to the league after each season, a top 20 player should be expected to make an All-American team (or jump the the NBA) some time in their four years, otherwise they haven't lived up to their ranking. Now, I totally agree that rankings are deeply flawed and kids over/under achieve all the time. But with a large sample size you'd think that a reasonable percentage of them would live up to their ranking. We've had a lot of underachievement and no overachievers. Again, I'm not arguing why, just making the observation.


Having said all that, I don't know why "national honors" would be the measuring stick for having a successful collegiate career. Plenty of great players never made an AA team.

What measuring stick would you prefer for the sort of elite, game-changing talent that jyuwono was discussing? Essentially I'm arguing that we have not been able to suit up really elite talent in the Brand/JWill/J.J. mold. (All with national honors by their Soph seasons, FWIW). Whether that's recruiting, development, bad luck or a UNC hoodoo curse I can't say.


Finally, of the seven players you say were five star recruits (and my recollection was Thomas was a four star recruit, but I could be wrong), only Thomas and Paulus could be characterized as underachievers, yet both of them became starters for top 10 teams, so it's not like they were awful. I would argue that at least six of the seven players made pretty decent contributions during their freshman year and thus by definition they must have come to Duke "ready to contribute."

Lance was actually ranked very highly (http://duke.scout.com/a.z?s=167&p=8&c=1&nid=1113084) and, based on his late decision is one of the more celebrated recruits we've had recently. His HS profile (strengths are "rebounding" and "gets to the free throw line") does read like a very different guy than we've seen.


Every year, at least two top 10 teams don't make the Final Eight, and at least six top 10 teams don't make the Final Four. With the possible exception of 2007, Duke has been a consistent top 10 team, and you don't do that without both recruiting good talent and successfully developing that talent.

And since 2004 we've failed to make it past the Sweet 16, we've failed to beat a team seeded above us or to beat a top 4 seed. We were VERY lucky to make the Sweet 16 this year and the second round last year and we proceeded to get blown out both years. For a program coming off a run like 1999-2004, you don't fall off like that without taking a step back in both recruiting and development, IMO.

And trust me, when it comes to "long-winded" I can bloviate with the best of them. :)

[Kedsy]

With three All-American teams a minimum of 15 guys each season will make a team (usually more since different publications/groups generally pick at least some different guys). Assuming that at least the 3-4 most NBA-ready guys jump to the league after each season, a top 20 player should be expected to make an All-American team (or jump the the NBA) some time in their four years, otherwise they haven't lived up to their ranking. Now, I totally agree that rankings are deeply flawed and kids over/under achieve all the time. But with a large sample size you'd think that a reasonable percentage of them would live up to their ranking. We've had a lot of underachievement and no overachievers. Again, I'm not arguing why, just making the observation.

Well, I would argue your math is wrong because you're not counting the elite underclass talent (e.g., Durant, Oden, Rose, etc.). But even if your math was correct, none of the players you named have played four years yet, so we don't know whether your observation is accurate. Also, I wouldn't count five guys as a large sample size (or even seven).


What measuring stick would you prefer for the sort of elite, game-changing talent that jyuwono was discussing? Essentially I'm arguing that we have not been able to suit up really elite talent in the Brand/JWill/J.J. mold. (All with national honors by their Soph seasons, FWIW). Whether that's recruiting, development, bad luck or a UNC hoodoo curse I can't say.

How many players make an AA team in their first two years? Very few; it's just not a reasonable measuring stick. Shane Battier, for example, didn't come close but I'd say he was a decent recruit who turned out OK in the end, wouldn't you?

I'd also argue that having nine straight years with such a player (Brand/JWill/JJ) was a stroke of luck rather than the norm, and you could compare any program in the country to that streak and say they fall short (even UNC).


For a program coming off a run like 1999-2004, you don't fall off like that without taking a step back in both recruiting and development, IMO.

If NCAA tourney success is your barometer, we didn't do so hot in 2002-03, either. One could argue 2004 was disconnected (part of a 2002-2009 period where we made "only" one Final Four in eight years), which would leave your "run" to 1999-2001 (including a disappointing 2000 finish), which isn't really a run at all but which could be considered one class (Shane Battier's) having two good years (yes, I understand the JWill/Boozer/Dunleavy class was a great one, but with all that talent those players only made one Final Four, and who knows if they would have without the senior Battier). Frankly, if you want to talk about a run, I think 1986-1994 would be more like it, except we didn't really have the earth-shattering talent in those years so it wouldn't appear to support your argument (I could be wrong but I think Grant Hill was the only player during that period that made AA by the end of his sophomore year). My point here being the "fall off" isn't as much as you've made it out to be.

[ice-9]

I don't think anyone's saying you have to be star in your first two years, really more to just BE a star any time at Duke.

Even though our 2002 team fell short, we were definitely a championship contender that year. Contrast that to last year, where it never felt like we had a chance to win the tournament. (Didn't we all secretly feel lucky just to be past Texas??)

I don't think Boozer, Brand and JWill were exceptions. Or, maybe, Coach K's recruiting was the exception to everyone prior to the 1-and-done rule change because he had a LOT of really good players in the 80s and 90s, with that one exception that Al pointed out. Grant Hill, Laettner, Dawkins, -- there were a lot of Duke greats.

We just haven't had one for a while.

Singler is very good, but he wasn't good enough to carry Duke into the Elite Eight, even when he had a lottery pick like Henderson to play alongside him and a solid supporting cast in Scheyer, Nolan, Email, etc.

He's not there yet.

But I'm hoping very strongly he will be this year.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Well, I would argue your math is wrong because you're not counting the elite underclass talent (e.g., Durant, Oden, Rose, etc.). But even if your math was correct, none of the players you named have played four years yet, so we don't know whether your observation is accurate. Also, I wouldn't count five guys as a large sample size (or even seven).

Agreed that we haven't seen how several players' careers will end out and guys like Kyle and Jon may make the jump in the next year or so. My point is that we haven't seen those results for those guys yet and we have seen a lot of underachievement (McBob, Greg, Lance). I think the fact that we haven't had instant (or even 2-year) impact guys like Brand, JWill, J.J. is part of why we are a good but not elite team that has flamed out in the NCAAs since 2004. I think Kyle is in a very good position to be that kind of player this season, but we've made it a lot harder by forcing him to play way out of position every year.


How many players make an AA team in their first two years? Very few; it's just not a reasonable measuring stick. Shane Battier, for example, didn't come close but I'd say he was a decent recruit who turned out OK in the end, wouldn't you?

Only the very elite player do, and those are the kind of guys we haven't had. If Kyle (or whoever) grows into a Battier-type player I will be ecstatic. So far they haven't been and if they do I expect our results will look a lot better. So far we haven't had young guys blow up OR seen upperclassmen grow into elite players.


I'd also argue that having nine straight years with such a player (Brand/JWill/JJ) was a stroke of luck rather than the norm, and you could compare any program in the country to that streak and say they fall short (even UNC).

See, that's an argument I think has a lot of weight. It may be that K was more lucky than good in our big runs (I certainly know a lot of UNC fans that make that argument). My own sense is that an almost decade long run is more than luck, it speaks to a staff that is totally devoted to making Duke everything it can be. Don't forget we had bad luck with busts (Burgess, Sanders, Shav) and such then as well. I can't say why we were able to overcome it then and not now, but I'm arguing that elite talent that could carry a team was a big part of the puzzle.


If NCAA tourney success is your barometer, we didn't do so hot in 2002-03, either. One could argue 2004 was disconnected (part of a 2002-2009 period where we made "only" one Final Four in eight years), which would leave your "run" to 1999-2001 (including a disappointing 2000 finish), which isn't really a run at all but which could be considered one class (Shane Battier's) having two good years (yes, I understand the JWill/Boozer/Dunleavy class was a great one, but with all that talent those players only made one Final Four, and who knows if they would have without the senior Battier). Frankly, if you want to talk about a run, I think 1986-1994 would be more like it, except we didn't really have the earth-shattering talent in those years so it wouldn't appear to support your argument (I could be wrong but I think Grant Hill was the only player during that period that made AA by the end of his sophomore year). My point here being the "fall off" isn't as much as you've made it out to be.

I'd argue that our 2002-03 tournament performance was as good or better than we've had since 2004. We crushed our second round opponent, made the Sweet 16 and played a close game but a cold shooting night and an elite talent (Collison and Hinrich) just wore us out. Compare that with this season where we squeaked by Texas and got absolutely humiliated in the Sweet 16.

More importantly, that was our "down" year. It was two years removed from a title and rebuilding with a large freshman class just after we lost JWill, Boozer, and (unexpectedly) Dunleavy. The next season we were back in the Final Four. This year was our high point of the last 4. Our valley then is our peak now. If we make the Final Four next season I think you can argue that we're back from the doldrums, but I suspect such a run would coincide with the return of elite players. It may be a young guy who comes ready to play, it may be an older guy who finds another level (and I want to be clear that I very much think Kyle can be that guy). But results flow from what you do with talent, not just recruiting rankings.

[DukieInBrasil]

"And that's before getting in to the generally forgettable performance of our 4-star guys (Marty, Z, Smith, Plumlee, Czyz)."

Bit early to call Plumlee and Czyz forgettable hunh? It may well happen that neither does much, but as Fr. playing behind a rather deep and veteran squad, did we expect them to blow the roof off?
Z has not been a monster C, but he has been a serviceable role-player and injured something during or prior to every season. Does that make him forgettable?
Nolan Smith has also been better than forgettable so far, playing a 20+ game stretch of very solid ball last year before slumping late. Also, as a So., it´s a bit early to be saying he´s forgettable.
I´ll give you the comment on Pocius though, however, you´d never know that from the postings about him on this board.
You could look at the other side of the coin for all of the above (except Pocius b/c he´s gone) and say that each of those guys has given at least a tantalizing glimpse of good things to come.
I´ll bet that both Singler and Smith gather at least one national credential before they leave, and between the two they´ve potentially got 4 playing years left.
I guess what i´m saying is that you could look at these players a bit more positively.

[devilirium]

Turtle= John Watson disciple