A player's take on McRoberts (among others)

[Dukerati]

Some interesting thoughts in this NYTimes article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/sports/24cnd-danley.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin

[crimsonandblue]

A good read. Felt like a guy trying to be Paul Shirley, but still interesting to hear from a guy in the trenches. That said, I don't completely buy what he's selling. McRoberts may not want the big shot, but maybe that's because, currently, he's smart enough to know he's not the best guy to take the shot. Same thing with Williams and Wright. You don't think there's first round value in guys who can't score outside of eight feet? Dalembert? Wallace?

[cato]

A good read. Felt like a guy trying to be Paul Shirley, but still interesting to hear from a guy in the trenches. That said, I don't completely buy what he's selling. McRoberts may not want the big shot, but maybe that's because, currently, he's smart enough to know he's not the best guy to take the shot. Same thing with Williams and Wright. You don't think there's first round value in guys who can't score outside of eight feet? Dalembert? Wallace?

Agreed. In one breath, he extolls the virtues of a role player. In the next he puts McRoberts in a list of people who won't make it in the NBA because . . . he plays like he wants to be a role player.

[phaedrus]

Since the supposed value of this article is based on the author having played against these players, I went back and found the box score for the Duke-Penn game last year. The author, Danley, was a junior, and McRoberts, obviously a freshman, was playing his 5th or 6th college game. Josh had 8 points on 3 of 6 shooting, 7 boards, 4 steals, 2 blocks, and 2 assists (typical McRoberts stat line). Danley (who played 29 minutes) had 3 points and 7 turnovers.

Now I'm not saying Danley's opinion isn't valid because McRoberts had a better game, even that early. That would be nothing short of ad hominem. But for a guy to rip Josh, suggest that he'll fail in the NBA, based on having matched up against him once (and getting thoroughly dominated by an 18 year old)? A bit disingenuous to me.

Here's the box:

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22726&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=219709

[DukieUGA]

If he came away with an impression from playing against somebody, then his point of view is more valid than any of ours. I don't think that his POV should be discredited or that he was saying guys wouldn't make it in the NBA. He was writing about FIRST-ROUND draft picks so his POV was that why would any team want to draft a role-player in the first round. Granted, he doesn't see things that scouts see etc and some players' games have changed since he played them. His take on McRoberts, i thought was spot on, Josh doesn't want to take the big and/or open jumper when he's got it, even as a So. Does that mean you ignore the rest of his skill-set? Most scouts would prob'ly say no, i mean you can work on shooting, look at Bruce Bowen. As crimson said, not taking the shot might also be the recognition that that is not the best play, which would indicate basketball IQ. So that aspect of Josh's game is a two-way street. He's not a good shooter, but he's smart enough to realize it. He's got other skills that scouts will be looking at too.

[bhd28]

If he came away with an impression from playing against somebody, then his point of view is more valid than any of ours. I don't think that his POV should be discredited or that he was saying guys wouldn't make it in the NBA. He was writing about FIRST-ROUND draft picks so his POV was that why would any team want to draft a role-player in the first round. Granted, he doesn't see things that scouts see etc and some players' games have changed since he played them. His take on McRoberts, i thought was spot on, Josh doesn't want to take the big and/or open jumper when he's got it, even as a So. Does that mean you ignore the rest of his skill-set? Most scouts would prob'ly say no, i mean you can work on shooting, look at Bruce Bowen. As crimson said, not taking the shot might also be the recognition that that is not the best play, which would indicate basketball IQ. So that aspect of Josh's game is a two-way street. He's not a good shooter, but he's smart enough to realize it. He's got other skills that scouts will be looking at too.

Scouts HAVE to notice those other parts of the game... or they won't be paid as scouts long. It is GMs and coaches who decide how much emphasis to place on specific skill sets vs. all around games.

Oh, and there are 30 first round pics a year, the vast majority of those guys will be role-players (if you are lucky). After the first 10-15 picks, teams feel very lucky if they get an all-star player. It happens fairly often (couple of times a year or so), but are usually considered 'steals.' It cracks me up to hear people on ESPN, etc... say Josh will be picked in the 20s, be a role-player, and be considered a bust. If he is drafted in the 20s and becomes a starter and contributer, that is what would be expected/hoped for. It is the guys like Kwame/Kandi-man/Joe Smith/even Gooden that are picked in the first few picks that end up as role-players that might be considered busts.

[cato]

He was writing about FIRST-ROUND draft picks so his POV was that why would any team want to draft a role-player in the first round.

Did you read the article? Josh was first on his list of "players [who] will either be out of the league in five years or be signed by the Knicks to franchise-debilitating contracts."

You make some nice points on the author's behalf, but there is no basis in the article for them.