Gerald Henderson legacy

[houstondukie]

My brother (Texas fan) and I disagree on how good of a player Gerald Henderson was. IMO, had Henderson come back for his senior year, he would of been a first-team AA and would of been in the discussion, but ultimately a longshot for jersey retirement.

My brother thinks Henderson was an average Duke player, in the same class as Daniel Ewing for example.

What does everyone else think?

[_Gary]

I loved Daniel as much as the next guy, but I have to agree with you. Gerald is a notch above Ewing for sure. I'd say jersey retirement would have been a serious long shot had Henderson returned for his senior year, but regardless of that he's a great, great player and much more than just an "average" Duke guy.

[Edouble]

I would say Ewing is a notch above Gerald. G had one really good year, his junior year, whereas I feel that Ewing had several good years. I feel like we had to really wait around for G, while Ewing was a player from the get go. Anyone who is able to get minutes as a freshman on a team with Jason Williams and Duhon is pretty talented.

[Mike Corey]

Ewing's highest non-tournament accolade was being named to the All-ACC 3rd Team his senior year; Henderson was on the 1st team his junior year.

However,

Ewing averaged 6.5 ppg as a freshman, 12.0 ppg in his sophomore year, 12.6 ppg his junior year, and 15.3 ppg in his senior year.

Henderson averaged 6.8 ppg as a freshman, 12.7 ppg as a sophomore, and 16.5 as a junior (leading the team).

Ewing did not start any games as a freshman, and started 15 as a sophomore, then started them all as a junior and senior.

Henderson started 10 games as a freshman, and all but one game of each game as a sophomore and junior.

Ewing is 7th all-time at Duke in 3-pointers made; 12th all-time in steals; and 18th in assists.

[Lord Ash]

I have to admit, I am in the camp of "Gerald was good but certainly not great." Yes, he was athletic (ahhhh that word!) and had some spectacular plays, but I never really felt he was a take-over type of guy who was a serious stand out. I would put him and Daniel Ewing roughly around the same level, career wise, in their time at Duke although I think Gerald had a higher ceiling and more "highlights," and had he stayed for his senior year I think he would have been a step above Daniel.

[Mike Corey]

but I never really felt he was a take-over type of guy.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But he did get us through this game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIqdhtrDyi4). :)

[Lord Ash]

*laugh* Yes, in the end he did come through on that one... still, Gerald never really reached that "next level" for me, personally, as far as how I view his career at Duke.

[phaedrus]

My brother (Texas fan) and I disagree on how good of a player Gerald Henderson was. IMO, had Henderson come back for his senior year, he would of been a first-team AA and would of been in the discussion, but ultimately a longshot for jersey retirement.

My brother thinks Henderson was an average Duke player, in the same class as Daniel Ewing for example.

What does everyone else think?

I think you're both close to being right.

Henderson's 3-year career accomplishments may be a notch above Ewing's, and Henderson as a junior was probably a better all-around player than Ewing at his best. But Henderson also played for substantially weaker Duke teams in a slightly less competitive NCAA, and that probably makes his career look better in comparison to Ewing's than it really was. Put Henderson on teams with Duhon, Redick, Deng, and Shelden, and he would have been merely an "average Duke player" (though I think Ewing could better be characterized as very good but not near rafters-hanging - Dahntay, Demarcus, and Langdon come to mind) as well.

Of course, all bets are off if Henderson had come back this year. He may have improved substantially and been a NPOY candidate, or he may have had a very good senior year much like his junior year. There's no way of knowing how much he would have improved, but the former scenario was certainly a possibility.

In other words, his senior year could have moved him categorically beyond Ewing in the Duke pantheon, but as it stands, their careers were of similar stature.

[jimsumner]

Gerald Henderson was a much better basketball player than Dan Ewing.

IMO.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Gerald Henderson was a much better basketball player than Dan Ewing.

IMO.

Agreed. And I feel G was more important to their respective teams. Without G last year, there is no way that we would come second in that tough ACC. Remember, G carried us through so many of those games.

[ncexnyc]

I liked Ewing's game, but always felt he was much better suited to the 6th man role.

Comparing their careers, I have to give Daniel the slight edge simply for the fact he completed 4 yrs and his teams had much better post season sucess.

G was pretty much a none factor his 1st year due to his "Sports Asthma." In his 2nd year we saw some improvement and then he teased us with his play in the NCAA tourney, giving us a glimpse of how good he could be. In his 3rd and final year he got off to that slow start, which had many of us wondering and scratching our heads until he finally got it going and became the stud we had all hoped for.

So on pure talent G was the better player, but Ewing had the better career.

And I wonder, at 6-0 how many of us have actually thought about G?:D

[jimsumner]

"Comparing their careers, I have to give Daniel the slight edge simply for the fact he completed 4 yrs and his teams had much better post season sucess."

Greg Koubek played four years. Mike Dunleavy played three years. Dunleavy was still better.

As for post-season success, Ewing played with Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy, Dahntay Jones, Chris Duhon, J.J. Redick, Shelden Williams, and Luol Deng. The only players of comparable ability who overlapped with Henderson were Singler and maybe Demarcus Nelson.

Henderson was a better freshman that Ewing.
Henderson was a better sophomore than Ewing.
Henderson was a better junior than Ewing.
Henderson was better as a junior than Ewing was a senior.

Ewing was third-team All-ACC in 2005.
Henderson was first-team All-ACC, made numerous A-A teams, and received votes for ACC POY.

Ewing was a second-round NBA pick and was out of the league after two years.
Henderson was a lottery pick. Barring significant injury, I guarantee you he'll be in the NBA longer than two years.

There really isn't much of a comparison, here. Now, Dahntay Jones might be a closer analog, although I'd still go with Henderson. But it would be close. Henderson v. Ewing really isn't that close.

IMO.

[Azdukefan]

Agreed. And I feel G was more important to their respective teams. Without G last year, there is no way that we would come second in that tough ACC. Remember, G carried us through so many of those games.

I am not sure I agree. If we didnt have G last year, you might have seen Nolan come into his own a year earlier. I am not sold on G being a Duke great. He had one "good" year but outside of that, he didnt live up to the billing. I have gone on record as saying that had he have come back, he might be in the running for NPOY but he also could have blown out a knee and never played at the next level. Daniel Ewing along with John Scheyer might go down as two of the most underrated Dukies in history.

[phaedrus]

The discrepancy in NBA draft position, as usual, had more to do with untapped potential than collegiate accomplishment. Of course, G's junior year was better than any season Ewing had, but wouldn't senior Ewing have taken on more responsibility without the superior talent of the '04 and '05 teams? And surely even junior Henderson wouldn't have been considered for First Team All-ACC if he'd been on the deep '04 team or deferred to JJ on the '05 team.

Their accomplishments can only be considered in the context of their own careers, but I'm not sure it's a fair comparison when Henderson was given so much more responsibility because of the respective surrounding casts.

Considering the sheer abilities of both players, I would argue that Ewing was a more complete and fundamentally skilled basketball player, but that Henderson's physical toolset made him a better and more valuable player. But I'm not sure the gap is that large, and I might even take Ewing over Henderson if I had to put one of them on the '04 roster - his outside shooting and combo guard skills outweighing the need for G's penetration and midrange games.

[77devil]

What legacy? I can't think of anything that Gerald did at Duke that warrants such a description. Enjoyed watching G for three years. Last year he showed promise of such a depiction. Maybe if he stayed for his senior year. 5 years from now G is an afterthought.

[Azdukefan]

What legacy? I can't think of anything that Gerald did at Duke that warrants such a description. Enjoyed watching G for three years. Last year he showed promise of such a depiction. Maybe if he stayed for his senior year. 5 years from now G is an afterthought.

One word.............Wow! I would venture to say that G would rather be playing for an elite NCAA team than riding the pine in the NBA. While I dont read minds, I know the value of winning and playing time for skilled players (neither of which he is getting/receiving in the NBA). I think you hit the nail on the head (glad I didn't have to say it).

[Edouble]

The discrepancy in NBA draft position, as usual, had more to do with untapped potential than collegiate accomplishment. Of course, G's junior year was better than any season Ewing had, but wouldn't senior Ewing have taken on more responsibility without the superior talent of the '04 and '05 teams? And surely even junior Henderson wouldn't have been considered for First Team All-ACC if he'd been on the deep '04 team or deferred to JJ on the '05 team.

Their accomplishments can only be considered in the context of their own careers, but I'm not sure it's a fair comparison when Henderson was given so much more responsibility because of the respective surrounding casts.

Considering the sheer abilities of both players, I would argue that Ewing was a more complete and fundamentally skilled basketball player, but that Henderson's physical toolset made him a better and more valuable player. But I'm not sure the gap is that large, and I might even take Ewing over Henderson if I had to put one of them on the '04 roster - his outside shooting and combo guard skills outweighing the need for G's penetration and midrange games.

I agree with this 100%. I was about to write something exactly like this, but I went to get a snack and came back.

In regards to Jim's comments, I remember Ewing as being a much better freshman than Hendo as a freshman. I was blown away that he got any PT at all behind Duhon and JDub. Henderson was hesitant and looked lost a lot as a freshman (to me).

[FireOgilvie]

What legacy? I can't think of anything that Gerald did at Duke that warrants such a description. Enjoyed watching G for three years. Last year he showed promise of such a depiction. Maybe if he stayed for his senior year. 5 years from now G is an afterthought.

So Gerald leaves because he's an NBA lottery pick and you and others throw him under the bus. Classy.

He was a First Team All-ACC player and helped win us an ACC Championship. He also saved us from losing to Belmont, and led the team in scoring last year. That's a "legacy."

[jimsumner]

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

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

Look, Ewing had a nice career as a complementary player. And I really admire how he embraced the PG position as a senior, after Dockery didn't pan out. He was a significant asset on some very good Duke teams.

But he was nowhere close to Gerald Henderson as a college player.

And people need to get over the idea that Gerald Henderson somehow "owed" it to Duke to come back for his senior year. Henderson was Duke's best player last year by a wide margin and one of the best players in the nation. His decision to bypass his senior year to become an NBA lottery pick was a rational decision and the idea that he would rather be playing in college than sitting and learning in the NBA is more a function of Duke fandom than anything else.

Would anyone on this board argue that Wayne Ellington should have come back to play on an elite college team rather than sit on an NBA bench?

[Azdukefan]

Would anyone on this board argue that Wayne Ellington should have come back to play on an elite college team rather than sit on an NBA bench?

I would argue that but am glad he decided to leave. No one is throwing G under the bus, we were glad to have him for three years (would have rather have had him for four) but ultimately I feel the "legacy" that Daniel Ewing left was greater than that of Hendo.

[Lord Ash]

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

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

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

[slower]

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

Seconded.

[phaedrus]

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

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



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

[jimsumner]

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

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

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

So, it's not just my opinion.

All-American voters agreed.

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

[ncexnyc]

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

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

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

So, it's not just my opinion.

All-American voters agreed.

And ask any ACC coach last year who they game-planned for and they'll all tell you that they started with Henderson.
WOW, so since the writers say it's so, that makes it the gospel truth. ESPN highlight reel plays are nice, but I think if we took a poll on this board, the majority of folks would say that last year our season turned around when Jon took over the PG role. I think that makes him just as important as G, if not more so.

[Wander]

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

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

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

[Acymetric]

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

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

[ncexnyc]

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

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

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

[Wander]

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

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

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

[Cockabeau]

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

[_Gary]

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

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

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


Gary

[ncexnyc]

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

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

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

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

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

[Hermy-own]

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

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

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

Gary


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

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

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

[Acymetric]

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

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

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


Gary

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

[DevilHorns]

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

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

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

[Cockabeau]

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

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

[Duvall]

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

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

It was probably the millions of dollars.

[SeattleIrish]

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

s.i.

[VaDukie]

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

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

[dukemsu]

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

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

dukemsu

[Spam Filter]

As I said in the another thread, ultimately everything comes down to what a team does in the post season.

Many of the Duke players in the past 4-5 years, starting with Nelson, are going to be lost in the shuffle in terms of legacy, because ultimately people remember those teams for their losses rather than their wins.

I guarantee you, if for whatever unfortunate reason Duke gets knocked out of the NCAA early this year, we'll be having this same debate next year about Scheyer's legacy or Singler's legacy.

[Oriole Way]

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

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

dukemsu

The reason that Duke never went to Daniel for a bucket when they needed it was because they never had to, as he was never asked to be anything more than the 3rd or 4th option offensively. His first year, he had Jason Williams, Mike Dunleavy, and Carlos Boozer ahead of him. His next three years, he had the likes of J.J. Redick, Shelden Williams, Dahntay Jones, Chris Duhon, and Luol Deng sharing the court with him. As such, your statement doesn't accurately apply to comparing Ewing and Henderson as go-to guys. Ewing wasn't, and never needed to be, and Henderson was.


It ended badly, and left, but G was a better player than Dan in every area with the possible exception of ballhandling.
dukemsu

Disagree pretty strongly here.

Daniel Ewing was a significantly better career 3-point shooter, Ewing shooting 39.2% career to Henderson's 32.9%. That's a pretty drastic difference in 3-pt efficiency, especially when you consider that Ewing took a whopping 145 more 3-pt attempts (70% more attempts) than Henderson over a 3-year span. Ewing was a much better long-range shooter than Henderson in college, and it wasn't even close.

Ewing was a better free throw shooter than Henderson as well, shooting 74.6% career to Henderson's 70.6%. When comparing their careers, I think it's important to look at their respective sophomore year numbers at the line. In their second years, Ewing and Henderson both made almost exactly the same amount of free throws, 101 for Ewing and 102 for Henderson. However, Henderson made several more attempts. Ewing shot 82.1% from the line, while Henderson shot 66.9% from the line. Ewing significantly helped his team from the line, while Henderson hurt his team from the line, if you buy into the thinking that a team ideally needs to shoot 70%+ from the line.

Defensively, Ewing was much more successful in accumulating steals than Henderson. Ewing averaged 1.4 steals per game over his career compared to 1.0 steal per game for Henderson, which is a significant advantage in Ewing's favor. From their freshman to junior years, Ewing stole the ball almost 25% more than Henderson, as Ewing had 126 steals to Henderson's 101 steals.

Henderson had a far superior rebounding rate and shot-blocking rate than Ewing, and defensively, those areas best-reflected the differences in their skill sets, size, and positions.

As you mentioned yourself, Ewing was a better ball-handler than Henderson. Henderson possessed a career assist-to-turnover ratio of less than 1:1, as he wound up with 181 assists to 192 turnovers for his career. Ewing had 161 assists and 160 turnovers over 3 years. However, as a senior, when he was asked to handle the point more than he ever had prior, he produced a season of 132 assists to 98 turnovers, showing some decent passing skills and efficiency that I feel Henderson will never display in his professional career, nor ever did in his college career. Ewing is and was more of a pure guard than Henderson, who is a hybrid small forward and is an inch taller than Ewing and played about 20-30 pounds heavier.

The differences in height, weight, and position also help account for Henderson's overall higher career FG%, 45.8% for Henderson to 43.2% for Ewing, which are both fairly average percentages for college forwards and guards, respectively. Considering Henderson took more shot opportunities closer to the basket, and Ewing took a bulk of his shots during his senior year beyond the arc, and at higher volume, their career field goal percentage is essentially a wash (in my opinion) for comparative purposes.

The reason I wanted to refute this post was to get to my overall points, one of which is that Ewing was very underrated over his career. Another one of my points is that I believe Ewing and Henderson were actually fairly similar in terms of their legacies and their overall success while at Duke. To be honest, I'm quite surprised that Jim Sumner so emphatically believes that Henderson was the far better player. While I think Henderson was far more talented than Ewing, I actually consider Ewing to have been a better college player in many regards. I certainly think he had a more successful career, aside from individual accolades. I have always been impressed by Ewing's perfomance and numbers in a supporting role, even compared to Henderson's performance and numbers as a star.

It is obviously important to understand and evaluate the most important context in their respective playing careers: the quality of the teams they played on. Ewing played on some offensive powerhouse Duke teams. He played with 3 different players who had their jerseys retired, two of the best juniors of the Coach K era in Mike Dunleavy, Jr., and Carlos Boozer, and one of the best freshmen of the Coach K era in Luol Deng. The teams Ewing played one were vastly more talented than the teams Henderson played on.

Ewing was never more than a 3rd scoring option, even as a senior. As a freshman, he was the 6th or 7th option. Henderson was a 3rd or 4th option as a freshman, 2nd/3rd option as a sophomore, and the frequent primary option as a junior. I believe Henderson was needed as a scorer more than Ewing partly because Henderson was more talented than Ewing, but more so because Henderson's teams were far less talented than any of the teams Ewing played on. As such, comparing individual accolades and honors are less relevant and applicable when evaluating the two players side by side.

There's something to be said for Henderson putting up the numbers he did as the primary option during his junior year. One one hand, someone could argue that he could put up big numbers because he had more shot opportunities and freedom to shoot (taking 100 more shots than Ewing in their junior seasons). On another hand, someone else could say that Henderson didn't have as much help as Ewing did, and that Henderson was always the focal point of opposing team's defenses, so that the numbers he put up were therefore indeed more impressive. There are merits to all those arguments.

Henderson had the ability to take over a game, and he did just that last season more than he didn't. Henderson's junior campaign was certainly more impressive as a whole than Ewing's, but Henderson had a lackluster post-season (shooting about 32% combined in the ACC and NCAA tournaments) which ended in the Sweet Sixteen with perhaps the worst performance of his entire career, while Ewing (shooting 42%) helped his team to a Final Four.

Obviously, it's always difficult to say one player is better than another when they played on different teams. Heck, sometimes it's just plain hard to compare any two given players. But I really believe that, at worst, Ewing's career and legacy are closer to Henderson's than some posters here think.