Josh McRoberts profile

[crdaul]

Today's Charlotte Observer has an article about how important Josh is to the Bobcats. An aside quotes Josh saying Duke was not a good fit for him and that he "probably stayed too long"....anybody have insight into his negative experience?

[Mike Corey]

Here's the link (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/17/4848965/josh-mcroberts-connects-all-the.html).

Not every player is right for Duke or for Coach K's system.

Let's just leave it at that.

Glad he's doing well in the NBA. Still think that he's one of the most all-around talented players to come through Durham. Had high hopes for him, and only some were reached.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Josh may or may not have been the best fit for Duke, but he absolutely should have left after his first year. There were rumblings about him being a top 5 pick. At the very least, Josh was a guaranteed lottery pick. He had it all: size, athleticism, known for his shot, rebounding... he was destined for the NBA.

However, he ended up staying at Duke and didn't improve like scouts thought he would. He ended up in the second round, which I can imagine the anger and frustration that Josh experienced due to falling so hard and not getting a guaranteed contract.

IMO, Josh is the perfect reason why players should leave early in considered a top 10 pick. You just cannot risk it.

I have a lot of Duke friends who despise Josh for the way he carried himself at Duke and for the way that he never even scratched the surface of his potential. I actually really like Josh, both at Duke and the NBA. IMO, without Josh, we wouldn't be in the tournament in 2007.

[GGLC]

There are Duke players I love and feel a strong connection with, Duke players I remember with fondness, and (by far the smallest group) Duke players who for whatever reason leave me cold when I look back at their time here.

Josh McRoberts is in one of those categories.

[lotusland]

Josh may or may not have been the best fit for Duke, but he absolutely should have left after his first year. There were rumblings about him being a top 5 pick. At the very least, Josh was a guaranteed lottery pick. He had it all: size, athleticism, known for his shot, rebounding... he was destined for the NBA.

However, he ended up staying at Duke and didn't improve like scouts thought he would. He ended up in the second round, which I can imagine the anger and frustration that Josh experienced due to falling so hard and not getting a guaranteed contract.

IMO, Josh is the perfect reason why players should leave early in considered a top 10 pick. You just cannot risk it.

I have a lot of Duke friends who despise Josh for the way he carried himself at Duke and for the way that he never even scratched the surface of his potential. I actually really like Josh, both at Duke and the NBA. IMO, without Josh, we wouldn't be in the tournament in 2007.

I didn't follow recruiting well enough to know his reputation coming in but he did not demonstrate a good shot at Duke and often refused to shoot when left open from 15-ft. If he could have forced defenders to guard hi outside he would have been and offensive force. The same was true for Shav though to a lesser degree.

[oakvillebluedevil]

Josh was never my favorite, but I'm a big Austin Rivers fan. I struggle to reconcile the difference sometimes. I think the difference is that on that '07 team, we really lacked a go-to scorer. Given where Josh was rated as a recruit, I feel like everyone expected him to pick up the offensive production that we lost from JJ and Shelden.

Josh is a really, really good player but scoring isn't his strong suit.

I feel like that misalignment of expectations led to a lot of frustration (perhaps unfairly) among the fanbase (myself definitely included). That was obviously exacerbated by the relatively tough season.

Austin, on the other hand, was exactly who I thought he would be offensively.

[sagegrouse]

Josh was never my favorite, but I'm a big Austin Rivers fan. I struggle to reconcile the difference sometimes. I think the difference is that on that '07 team, we really lacked a go-to scorer. Given where Josh was rated as a recruit, I feel like everyone expected him to pick up the offensive production that we lost from JJ and Shelden.

Josh is a really, really good player but scoring isn't his strong suit.

I feel like that misalignment of expectations led to a lot of frustration (perhaps unfairly) among the fanbase (myself definitely included). That was obviously exacerbated by the relatively tough season.

Austin, on the other hand, was exactly who I thought he would be offensively.

It didn't work out really well for either Josh or Duke. That's not to say it is anyone's fault. Because Josh would be far richer if he had left after his first year, his thoughts of Duke are not totally positive. I mean, basketball is a business.

I root for McBob in the NBA. -- Sage

[Edouble]

I have a lot of Duke friends who despise Josh for the way he carried himself at Duke and for the way that he never even scratched the surface of his potential. I actually really like Josh, both at Duke and the NBA. IMO, without Josh, we wouldn't be in the tournament in 2007.

The way that Josh carried himself during his sophomore year really reflected how I felt about the team. It seemed like Josh thought he was one of the few players on the team with any fight or talent. I tended to agree. Yes, without Josh that year, we might have had a losing record. I am glad for Josh's time in Durham.


There are Duke players I love and feel a strong connection with, Duke players I remember with fondness, and (by far the smallest group) Duke players who for whatever reason leave me cold when I look back at their time here.

Josh McRoberts is in one of those categories.

That's how I feel about Greg Paulus. The look on his face at times during his (and Josh's) sophomore year was one of despair and disbelief. To me, Paulus, from a talent standpoint, was a poor fit for Duke and the reason that season was a downer. Josh kept us treading water, at least.

[CDu]

The way that Josh carried himself during his sophomore year really reflected how I felt about the team. It seemed like Josh thought he was one of the few players on the team with any fight or talent. I tended to agree. Yes, without Josh that year, we might have had a losing record. I am glad for Josh's time in Durham.



That's how I feel about Greg Paulus. The look on his face at times during his (and Josh's) sophomore year was one of despair and disbelief. To me, Paulus, from a talent standpoint, was a poor fit for Duke and the reason that season was a downer. Josh kept us treading water, at least.

I agree. McRoberts gets bashed here by a lot of folks despite being the only player keeping that team afloat. I think folks saw his competitive demeanor and the lack of team success and attributed it all to him as a person/player. But that is an incorrect assessment, in my opinion. The reality is that that 2007 team was just a train wreck in terms of talent and experience. Scheyer, Henderson, Thomas, and Zoubek were not ready for prime time (three of them weren't even close to ready). McClure was a role player at best. Nelson was a gamer, but he never could quite figure out his niche at the college level. And Paulus was a liability. There was no veteran leadership, no interior depth (at least not quality depth), and no point guard.

The problem for McRoberts was that he was asked to do something that wasn't his strength: be the primary post scorer and completely carry the load inside on both ends. Had he gotten to play with, say, Jahlil Okafor and Tyus Jones (or Mason Plumlee and Kyrie Irving)? He'd have been an otherwordly performer. Heck, had he been able to team up with Singler the next year, I think they'd have done some real damage together.

But instead, he got the freshman year versions of Thomas and Zoubek (and McClure) and he got Greg Paulus. Paulus wasn't able to play PG at the major college level. So without any help inside and without a capable PG outside the burden was on McRoberts to do absolutely everything for that team. He did a decent of of it, but it wasn't enough.

I don't blame McRoberts for think that he made a mistake in sticking around for a second year. In reality, that appears to be true. He cost himself a lot of money in doing so. Heck, he probably cost himself money by not going pro straight out of high school, too.

I don't think it was necessarily a case of a bad fit between McRoberts and Duke. I just think it was bad timing that he didn't come in with a better PG and C around him. Had Paulus turned out to be as good as advertised and had Boateng actually developed into the C that folks hoped, maybe McRoberts (and Duke) would have had a better 2007 season and folks wouldn't bury him so.

[COYS]

I agree. McRoberts gets bashed here by a lot of folks despite being the only player keeping that team afloat. I think folks saw his competitive demeanor and the lack of team success and attributed it all to him as a person/player. But that is an incorrect assessment, in my opinion. The reality is that that 2007 team was just a train wreck in terms of talent and experience. Scheyer, Henderson, Thomas, and Zoubek were not ready for prime time (three of them weren't even close to ready). McClure was a role player at best. Nelson was a gamer, but he never could quite figure out his niche at the college level. And Paulus was a liability. There was no veteran leadership, no interior depth (at least not quality depth), and no point guard.

The problem for McRoberts was that he was asked to do something that wasn't his strength: be the primary post scorer and completely carry the load inside on both ends. Had he gotten to play with, say, Jahlil Okafor and Tyus Jones (or Mason Plumlee and Kyrie Irving)? He'd have been an otherwordly performer. Heck, had he been able to team up with Singler the next year, I think they'd have done some real damage together.

But instead, he got the freshman year versions of Thomas and Zoubek (and McClure) and he got Greg Paulus. Paulus wasn't able to play PG at the major college level. So without any help inside and without a capable PG outside the burden was on McRoberts to do absolutely everything for that team. He did a decent of of it, but it wasn't enough.

I don't blame McRoberts for think that he made a mistake in sticking around for a second year. In reality, that appears to be true. He cost himself a lot of money in doing so. Heck, he probably cost himself money by not going pro straight out of high school, too.

I don't think it was necessarily a case of a bad fit between McRoberts and Duke. I just think it was bad timing that he didn't come in with a better PG and C around him. Had Paulus turned out to be as good as advertised and had Boateng actually developed into the C that folks hoped, maybe McRoberts (and Duke) would have had a better 2007 season and folks wouldn't bury him so.

You might think I'm crazy for saying this, but I honestly believe that the 2007 team was not as much of a train wreck as people think. The team was very good on the defensive end while being one of the worst offensive teams K has ever had. That being said, a bad K offense meant the number 51 offense according to KenPom. That's bad for Duke but not horrible by any stretch. Combined with a top 10 defense, the team was ranked number 12 in the country post tournament.

The bad record for the team was mostly due to losing a BUNCH of close games. Obviously, at the end of the day you have to win games, but some of those losses amount to bad luck. Also, as much as we have wanted our defense to be better this past year, the public and fans alike tend to rate teams with good offenses and bad defenses higher than teams with the opposite. The 2007 team played low scoring, grind it out type games that were not as much fun to watch as the usual Duke team. They also managed to lose more close games than the average Duke team. But I actually don't think the season qualifies as a train wreck. The team was competitive even if it had little chemistry.

To relate this back to Josh, he bears the brunt of the disappointment of a fan base that had basically been watching true title contending teams from '98-'06. That period was preceded by the stretch from '86-'94. Talk about tough acts to follow. Whatever faults Josh had, they were magnified by a combination of bad luck and stratospheric expectations. That's not easy for anyone to handle, much less a 19-20 y/o kid. Im sorry Josh didn't enjoy his time at Duke, but I think his sophomore season wasn't nearly as bad as most think.

[flyingdutchdevil]

You might think I'm crazy for saying this, but I honestly believe that the 2007 team was not as much of a train wreck as people think. The team was very good on the defensive end while being one of the worst offensive teams K has ever had. That being said, a bad K offense meant the number 51 offense according to KenPom. That's bad for Duke but not horrible by any stretch. Combined with a top 10 defense, the team was ranked number 12 in the country post tournament.

The bad record for the team was mostly due to losing a BUNCH of close games. Obviously, at the end of the day you have to win games, but some of those losses amount to bad luck. Also, as much as we have wanted our defense to be better this past year, the public and fans alike tend to rate teams with good offenses and bad defenses higher than teams with the opposite. The 2007 team played low scoring, grind it out type games that were not as much fun to watch as the usual Duke team. They also managed to lose more close games than the average Duke team. But I actually don't think the season qualifies as a train wreck. The team was competitive even if it had little chemistry.

To relate this back to Josh, he bears the brunt of the disappointment of a fan base that had basically been watching true title contending teams from '98-'06. That period was preceded by the stretch from '86-'94. Talk about tough acts to follow. Whatever faults Josh had, they were magnified by a combination of bad luck and stratospheric expectations. That's not easy for anyone to handle, much less a 19-20 y/o kid. Im sorry Josh didn't enjoy his time at Duke, but I think his sophomore season wasn't nearly as bad as most think.

I think you're on to something. That Duke era from '98-'06 was just nasty.

We fans expected Josh to simply carry the team and lead us to a S16 with a very nice 32-5 record. In hindsight, with that team, it just wasn't realistic in the slightest. Without Josh, I'm convinced we wouldn't have even made the tournament. Josh was our only real height (remember that we started 6'2" Nelson at the 4. And trust me when I say he's 6'2". I am at least 1 inch taller than D-Marc and I'm 6'3"). We would have had to start freshman Zoubs or LT, and we all know how unready both those players were.

I'm happy this thread came up. Josh is a fantastic player and I'm happy that he is finally doing well.

[bluedevilallie]

I also am in the camp that McRoberts should have left after his first year. I have heard from several people around the program that he was lazy and thought that coming in for a year to win a National Championship alongside Redick and Williams would be easy--and then he'd jump to the NBA. The window is small sometimes to take advantage of your position. What I heard was perhaps not correct but watching him that year it was obvious that he wanted ot be any place but at Duke. That's sad.

I also think that it takes two for any relationship to work. Not to fault the coaches--perhaps it wasn't a good fit for him. The coaches could have done all the right things, and it still wouldn't have worked--as is what happened that year. He is enjoying success now--and that was his ultimate goal.

[rsvman]

..... I mean, basketball is a business....

..-- Sage

No. Basketball is a GAME.


NBA basketball is a business. Made out of a game.

[CDu]

You might think I'm crazy for saying this, but I honestly believe that the 2007 team was not as much of a train wreck as people think. The team was very good on the defensive end while being one of the worst offensive teams K has ever had. That being said, a bad K offense meant the number 51 offense according to KenPom. That's bad for Duke but not horrible by any stretch. Combined with a top 10 defense, the team was ranked number 12 in the country post tournament.

The bad record for the team was mostly due to losing a BUNCH of close games. Obviously, at the end of the day you have to win games, but some of those losses amount to bad luck. Also, as much as we have wanted our defense to be better this past year, the public and fans alike tend to rate teams with good offenses and bad defenses higher than teams with the opposite. The 2007 team played low scoring, grind it out type games that were not as much fun to watch as the usual Duke team. They also managed to lose more close games than the average Duke team. But I actually don't think the season qualifies as a train wreck. The team was competitive even if it had little chemistry.

To relate this back to Josh, he bears the brunt of the disappointment of a fan base that had basically been watching true title contending teams from '98-'06. That period was preceded by the stretch from '86-'94. Talk about tough acts to follow. Whatever faults Josh had, they were magnified by a combination of bad luck and stratospheric expectations. That's not easy for anyone to handle, much less a 19-20 y/o kid. Im sorry Josh didn't enjoy his time at Duke, but I think his sophomore season wasn't nearly as bad as most think.

I definitely don't think you're crazy. And by "train wreck" I meant "train wreck outside of McRoberts." With McRoberts, they were a solid team, but one that (due to poor FT shooting, lack of PG play, and lack of a go-to scorer) was susceptible to close losses. With McRoberts, the starting lineup looked like:

C: McRoberts (31 starts), Zoubek (2)
PF: Thomas (18), McClure (11), McRoberts (1), Nelson (3)
SF: Nelson (23), Henderson (10)
SG: Scheyer (32), Nelson (1)
PG: Paulus (29), Nelson (4)

Take McRoberts out of that mix, and it's a train wreck. No quality play inside (Zoubek and Thomas were far from ready and McClure was overmatched). No consistent scoring punch on the perimeter (Scheyer was at times good but a work in progress; Henderson was a year or two away as well). No PG play to make up for these holes. Just a bad mix, especially given the team's lack of experience (no seniors, just the one junior and a redshirt sophomore).

[Billy Dat]

I also am in the camp that McRoberts should have left after his first year. I have heard from several people around the program that he was lazy and thought that coming in for a year to win a National Championship alongside Redick and Williams would be easy--and then he'd jump to the NBA. The window is small sometimes to take advantage of your position. What I heard was perhaps not correct but watching him that year it was obvious that he wanted ot be any place but at Duke. That's sad.

I also think that it takes two for any relationship to work. Not to fault the coaches--perhaps it wasn't a good fit for him. The coaches could have done all the right things, and it still wouldn't have worked--as is what happened that year. He is enjoying success now--and that was his ultimate goal.

Based on quotes issued by Redick and Shelden in recent years, there was no relationship between the two of them while they were at Duke. As such, I am guessing team chemistry wasn't great in 2005/6, and I remember Josh being a JJ guy, and this Chronicle piece confirms that:
http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2005/11/10/freshman-duo-have-similar-paths-different-styles

So heading into the 2006/7 season, we had an inexperienced team and not a lot of holdover chemistry.

I also remember Josh crying into his towel as the Heels were handing it to us in Cameron (with lots of time left in the game, mind you) and Wojo heading over and very aggressively chucking him under the chin and getting in his face. That moment told me that Josh was a different kind of kid that maybe wasn't well suited to the military style of K. He seems more of a free spirit in the Cherokee Parks mold. I am not sure what the Chief's memories of Duke are -he has participated in the K Academy so he must have a pretty strong attraction, but maybe being 10-15 years Josh senior and a product of a different era had him more prepared for the strict style of K? I know I am now in full conjecture mode, but it just felt like Josh wasn't a K-style kid, that he didn't pass some K test of strength and mettle. But, he's made himself into a really solid pro so hats off to him.

[Class of '94]

I also am in the camp that McRoberts should have left after his first year. I have heard from several people around the program that he was lazy and thought that coming in for a year to win a National Championship alongside Redick and Williams would be easy--and then he'd jump to the NBA. The window is small sometimes to take advantage of your position. What I heard was perhaps not correct but watching him that year it was obvious that he wanted ot be any place but at Duke. That's sad.

I also think that it takes two for any relationship to work. Not to fault the coaches--perhaps it wasn't a good fit for him. The coaches could have done all the right things, and it still wouldn't have worked--as is what happened that year. He is enjoying success now--and that was his ultimate goal.

I heard negative things about McRoberts during his time at Duke concerning his attitude/maturity that I'm not going to get into ; but I will say that I absolutely think he's was one of the most talented and gifted players to ever come to Duke. I just wonder if he ever had the right mindset about college in terms of truly being a student athlete and taking positive advantages of the opportunities afforded to him as a Duke student athlete. He reminds me a lot of Austin in that I think Austin imo always wanted to be an NBA player; and if he could have, he would've went straight into the NBA out of HS. If the option was available to Josh (I can't remember if he could've left right all of HS for the NBA at that time), he should've went straight to the NBA because imo I don't think he was truly interested in taking advantage of the Duke experience in a quality way. I'm sure both sides made mistakes; but I'd like to think it was Josh's decision and not K's for him to stay a second year. Also, I don't recall seeing much an improvement (as expected or anticipated) in his game from his freshman to sophomore years which I absolutely hurt his stock. Maybe he could've been a lottery pick had he left after his freshman year; but imo his impact in the league would've been the same or possibly less than what is now (after leaving prior to his junior season). I still think he's just scratched the surface of this talent and hasn't fully tapped into yet; and he's been in the league for almost a decade.

I wish Josh all the best in the NBA; but you have to look at his career and honestly assess it; and the reality is that he has been a journeyman player for all that talent he has. I think he could've worked harder to develop his game. Look at a player like Boozer, he was drafted in the second round as well; but he worked his tail off and earned big contracts when he became a free agent twice. IMO, Josh didn't display the same improvement that Boozer showed and subsequently received lesser contract deals over the course of his career. Part of me wonders if Josh would still be in the league if he had left after his freshman year and been a lottery pick because I'm not sure if his motivation and incentive to improve would've been as high had he received a first round guaranteed contract (and I feel that he should've had more of a chip on his shoulder to work harder and prove himself since he was drafted in the second round; but had first round talent).

With the talent he has, I personally feel that had Josh developed a better work ethic and attitude towards his coaching and making himself better, he would be one of the top NBA players at his position because you can't teach 6'10'' with the passing and dribbling skills of a guard. As much as I love Gerald Henderson, I would argue that Josh is a more skilled and talented player; but i would also argue that Gerald has made a bigger impact in the NBA in terms of stats and contributions to his team than Josh has (and Josh has been in the league longer).

[Wander]

Had he gotten to play with, say, Jahlil Okafor and Tyus Jones (or Mason Plumlee and Kyrie Irving)? He'd have been an otherwordly performer. Heck, had he been able to team up with Singler the next year, I think they'd have done some real damage together.


Well, he DID get to play with one guy who had one of the best seasons for a guard in the history of college basketball and another guy who had several post-player-related records for Duke, and he was hardly "otherworldly." I agree the 2007 season wasn't all his fault, but your view of him is overly rosy, IMO.

[GGLC]

I heard negative things about McRoberts during his time at Duke concerning his attitude/maturity that I'm not going to get into ; but I will say that I absolutely think he's was one of the most talented and gifted players to ever come to Duke. I just wonder if he ever had the right mindset about college in terms of truly being a student athlete and taking positive advantages of the opportunities afforded to him as a Duke student athlete. He reminds me a lot of Austin in that I think Austin imo always wanted to be an NBA player; and if he could have, he would've went straight into the NBA out of HS. If the option was available to Josh (I can't remember if he could've left right all of HS for the NBA at that time), he should've went straight to the NBA because imo I don't think he was truly interested in taking advantage of the Duke experience in a quality way. I'm sure both sides made mistakes; but I'd like to think it was Josh's decision and not K's for him to stay a second year. Also, I don't recall seeing much an improvement (as expected or anticipated) in his game from his freshman to sophomore years which I absolutely hurt his stock. Maybe he could've been a lottery pick had he left after his freshman year; but imo his impact in the league would've been the same or possibly less than what is now (after leaving prior to his junior season). I still think he's just scratched the surface of this talent and hasn't fully tapped into yet; and he's been in the league for almost a decade.

I wish Josh all the best in the NBA; but you have to look at his career and honestly assess it; and the reality is that he has been a journeyman player for all that talent he has. I think he could've worked harder to develop his game. Look at a player like Boozer, he was drafted in the second round as well; but he worked his tail off and earned big contracts when he became a free agent twice. IMO, Josh didn't display the same improvement that Boozer showed and subsequently received lesser contract deals over the course of his career. Part of me wonders if Josh would still be in the league if he had left after his freshman year and been a lottery pick because I'm not sure if his motivation and incentive to improve would've been as high had he received a first round guaranteed contract (and I feel that he should've had more of a chip on his shoulder to work harder and prove himself since he was drafted in the second round; but had first round talent).

With the talent he has, I personally feel that had Josh developed a better work ethic and attitude towards his coaching and making himself better, he would be one of the top NBA players at his position because you can't teach 6'10'' with the passing and dribbling skills of a guard. As much as I love Gerald Henderson, I would argue that Josh is a more skilled and talented player; but i would also argue that Gerald has made a bigger impact in the NBA in terms of stats and contributions to his team than Josh has (and Josh has been in the league longer).

Can't spork you, so just wanted to say that this was a great post.

Carlos is absolutely the poster child for someone who's been able to carve out a long and profitable NBA career for himself based on unwavering hard work and discipline; I really admire him for that.

[Billy Dat]

Another aspect of Josh's career that made a big impression on me at the time was the comparison to Psycho T. Josh was considered a better big man prospect yet Psycho T immediately outshone him, especially considering the regular season finale loss at Cameron. The 15/501 battle of "Class of 2005" High School big men, was never even close. That must have gotten into his head a little.

Still, though, I do recall trying to play to Josh's strengths, setting him up outside, trying to maximize his passing, calling him "a point guard on stilts", etc.

[freshmanjs]

No. Basketball is a GAME.


NBA basketball is a business. Made out of a game.

i think it's incredibly naive to think that basketball is only a business in the NBA. It's a business all the way down to AAU. College basketball is big business too.

[CDu]

Well, he DID get to play with one guy who had one of the best seasons for a guard in the history of college basketball and another guy who had several post-player-related records for Duke, and he was hardly "otherworldly." I agree the 2007 season wasn't all his fault, but your view of him is overly rosy, IMO.

And that one guard was not a PG. And it was when he was a freshman. My point was that he didn't have a playmaking PG that could take advantage of his open floor skills and athleticism. Redick was one of my all-time favorite players, but he was definitely not a guy who set up other guys to score.

McRoberts fluorished in high school on an AAU team with Mike Conley and Greg Oden. Conley was the type of PG who could take advantage of McRoberts' skills, and Oden was the type of post presence that freed McRoberts to slash (rather than post). The combination made McRoberts a top recruit. He got to Duke and had a comparable big man but not the PG, and he stepped into a team that looked to Redick as options 1, 2, and 3. And then as a sophomore, he had neither the PG nor the big man. Despite that, he played really well. He just was never the "take over a game" type of player, which is unfortunately what the 2007 team lacked.

[CDu]

Another aspect of Josh's career that made a big impression on me at the time was the comparison to Psycho T. Josh was considered a better big man prospect yet Psycho T immediately outshone him, especially considering the regular season finale loss at Cameron. The 15/501 battle of "Class of 2005" High School big men, was never even close. That must have gotten into his head a little.

Still, though, I do recall trying to play to Josh's strengths, setting him up outside, trying to maximize his passing, calling him "a point guard on stilts", etc.

Yeah, it was very unfortunate for McRoberts to be linked to Hansbrough. Hansbrough, ironically enough, was EXACTLY what we needed on the 2007 team. Put him in the middle of the paint alongside Thomas and McClure at PF (with Zoubek filling in as needed) and we'd have had a truly marvelous season. Hansbrough was the "bull in a China shop", go-to scorer in the paint that we needed, whereas McRoberts was not that guy. He was an open-court player with terrific passing skills and leaping ability; but he was not a natural post scorer.

[Wander]

And that one guard was not a PG. And it was when he was a freshman. My point was that he didn't have a playmaking PG that could take advantage of his open floor skills and athleticism. Redick was one of my all-time favorite players, but he was definitely not a guy who set up other guys to score.

McRoberts fluorished in high school on an AAU team with Mike Conley and Greg Oden. Conley was the type of PG who could take advantage of McRoberts' skills, and Oden was the type of post presence that freed McRoberts to slash (rather than post). The combination made McRoberts a top recruit. He got to Duke and had a comparable big man but not the PG, and he stepped into a team that looked to Redick as options 1, 2, and 3. And then as a sophomore, he had neither the PG nor the big man. Despite that, he played really well. He just was never the "take over a game" type of player, which is unfortunately what the 2007 team lacked.

Your main point, which I agree with, was that McRoberts wasn't well-suited to being the primary scorer. He wasn't the primary or even the secondary scorer on the 2006 team. And while he wasn't awful, he wasn't very good. But not only does he need to not be the primary scorer, but he also requires a Conley or Irving type of PG? Do you know what you call a player who has a game that is (a) really dependent on not being a top scoring option for his team and (b) really dependent on having a great point guard? You call him a role player. And that's what McRoberts is. He's a good role player.

There's a reason he dropped from a lottery pick to out of the first round entirely. If NBA scouts bought into your opinion that he was by far the best player on the 2007 team and that the lack of success of that team wasn't in any significant way due to McRoberts, he wouldn't have dropped out of the first round.

[BobbyFan]

It's always interesting to see how expectations - based on high school rankings and draft position - change perception of a player's performance. I'm glad that Josh is now seeing the other side of this. However, evaluating his play for what it is, the player he was at Duke is entirely in line with he has become in the NBA.

[CDu]

Your main point, which I agree with, was that McRoberts wasn't well-suited to being the primary scorer. He wasn't the primary or even the secondary scorer on the 2006 team. And while he wasn't awful, he wasn't very good. But not only does he need to not be the primary scorer, but he also requires a Conley or Irving type of PG? Do you know what you call a player who has a game that is (a) really dependent on not being a top scoring option for his team and (b) really dependent on having a great point guard? You call him a role player. And that's what McRoberts is. He's a good role player.

There's a reason he dropped from a lottery pick to out of the first round entirely. If NBA scouts bought into your opinion that he was by far the best player on the 2007 team and that the lack of success of that team wasn't in any significant way due to McRoberts, he wouldn't have dropped out of the first round.

With the exception of the last sentence. McRoberts was a very gifted role player.

I'm just presenting an argument that McRoberts is unfairly bashed. He was forced into a role that he wasn't suited for (go-to scorer). He was, ideally, a third option. When he was paired with Conley, Eric Gordon, Daequan Cook, and Greg Oden (one of the better AAU teams one could imagine), McRoberts put up amazing numbers. But, as you said, they were inflated by teams having to worry about two shooters (Cook and Gordon), a post scorer (Oden), and a great PG (Conley). His game fit so seemlessly with those guys: running the floor, blocking shots, handling the ball and passing well, finishing alley-oops. His deficiencies as a post player were just very much masked by playing with a nearly perfect team for him.

I'm not in any way suggesting that that he was some star that Duke screwed up. I am saying that he has been treated very unfairly by many Duke fans. The reality is that he was a great high school player, a very good (but not quite elite) college player, and a role player in the NBA. Had he played on a different college team (or this team in different years), he might have continued to have his limitations masked and gotten drafted in the lottery. But he just got caught in the wrong year.

But McRoberts was, unquestionably, the best player on that 2007 Duke team. And as you said, he was really a role player. Duke's lack of success that year was not because of him, it's because we didn't have anyone as good as (or better than) him. When your best player is a role player, that's a problem.

Had McRoberts waited until 2008? Then he'd have had Singler and Smith along with a more ready Scheyer and Henderson and a senior-year Nelson. And I'd bet his draft stock would have gone back up (not to the lottery, but into the mid/late-first round).

[Des Esseintes]

With the exception of the last sentence. McRoberts was a very gifted role player.

I'm just presenting an argument that McRoberts is unfairly bashed. He was forced into a role that he wasn't suited for (go-to scorer). He was, ideally, a third option. When he was paired with Conley, Eric Gordon, Daequan Cook, and Greg Oden (one of the better AAU teams one could imagine), McRoberts put up amazing numbers. But, as you said, they were inflated by teams having to worry about two shooters (Cook and Gordon), a post scorer (Oden), and a great PG (Conley). His game fit so seemlessly with those guys: running the floor, blocking shots, handling the ball and passing well, finishing alley-oops. His deficiencies as a post player were just very much masked by playing with a nearly perfect team for him.

I'm not in any way suggesting that that he was some star that Duke screwed up. I am saying that he has been treated very unfairly by many Duke fans. The reality is that he was a great high school player, a very good (but not quite elite) college player, and a role player in the NBA. Had he played on a different college team (or this team in different years), he might have continued to have his limitations masked and gotten drafted in the lottery. But he just got caught in the wrong year.

But McRoberts was, unquestionably, the best player on that 2007 Duke team. And as you said, he was really a role player. Duke's lack of success that year was not because of him, it's because we didn't have anyone as good as (or better than) him. When your best player is a role player, that's a problem.

Had McRoberts waited until 2008? Then he'd have had Singler and Smith along with a more ready Scheyer and Henderson and a senior-year Nelson. And I'd bet his draft stock would have gone back up (not to the lottery, but into the mid/late-first round).
Yeah, complete agreement. At the NBA level, is Joakim Noah a "role player"? On a top-level team, he's a third option. But what a guy to have. He anchors your defense, passes superlatively for a big man, handles the ball. Scores in clever ways, although under no circumstances should you ask him to shoot a jump shot. He is working as the first option on an overachieving Bulls team right now, and all credit to Noah for stretching himself as much as he has. It's not natural for him, and he has risen to the challenge like no other. He's a 100% legit MVP candidate. He won't and shouldn't win, but he belongs in the conversation.

McRoberts was very similar for Duke his sophomore year. He wasn't the bulldog Noah is, nor was he able to magically unlock new dimensions of himself as Noah has this season, but their strengths and limitations are/were in rough alignment. To call such guys role players is to show the limitation of the term as much as anything else.

[CDu]

Yeah, complete agreement. At the NBA level, is Joakim Noah a "role player"? On a top-level team, he's a third option. But what a guy to have. He anchors your defense, passes superlatively for a big man, handles the ball. Scores in clever ways, although under no circumstances should you ask him to shoot a jump shot. He is working as the first option on an overachieving Bulls team right now, and all credit to Noah for stretching himself as much as he has. It's not natural for him, and he has risen to the challenge like no other. He's a 100% legit MVP candidate. He won't and shouldn't win, but he belongs in the conversation.

McRoberts was very similar for Duke his sophomore year. He wasn't the bulldog Noah is, nor was he able to magically unlock new dimensions of himself as Noah has this season, but their strengths and limitations are/were in rough alignment. To call such guys role players is to show the limitation of the term as much as anything else.

Despite being both a huge Duke fan and a huge Bulls fan (and a HUGE Noah fan - he and I share a birthday!), I hadn't ever made that mental comparison. But it is quite apt. Obviously Noah is the (much) better "role player", but he's exactly the type of example of what McRoberts is.

McRoberts led the 2007 Duke team in rebounds and blocks and finished second in points and assists. He did everything for that team. Just like Noah (who is having an INCREDIBLE year this year this year carrying the Rose-less Bulls) does for the Bulls.

[miramar]

We certainly can't blame McBob for all of Duke's problems in 2007, but he was a major contributor. There is no question that Henderson, Scheyer, Thomas, and Zoubek weren't ready for prime time, and that 6-4 DeMarcus Nelson (who came in as the leading scorer in California HS history) was really a 6-1 guard who was playing out of position at small forward with more heart than shooting ability (don't get me wrong, he's still one of my favorite players). I also like Paulus, but he came in as the next Bobby Hurley and it simply didn't work out.

Unfortunately, McBob may have been able to slam dunk the night away when he was playing AAU ball, but at Duke he couldn't shoot and he had no post moves, so for all his athleticism he wasn't anywhere close to the best big man in his recruiting class. You can't blame Nelson, Paulus, and McBob for not being as talented as everyone expected, but you can certainly knock McBob for his attitude, particularly towards his teammates. It might be useful to refer back to one of John Feinstein's articles about the 2007 ACC Tournament, which won him no new friends in Durham at the time, but I thought was close to the mark:

"These days Duke is symbolized by Josh McRoberts, who simply couldn't defend State's Brandon Costner (career-high 30 points) and spent much of the evening pulling the ball out of the net and screaming at teammates as if it were their fault that he couldn't -- as Bob Knight once eloquently put it -- guard the floor."

There is another comment on several players, but I think the last sentence is key:

"Some think Krzyzewski has lost some focus because of the pressures he's facing as coach of the Olympic team. Others think recruiting mistakes have been made. Paulus, who was rated the best point guard in the country two years ago, isn't really a point guard. Lance Thomas, who was all the rage coming out of New Jersey last year, played 20 minutes Thursday and didn't score. McRoberts puts up nice numbers but appears to believe that playing college basketball is beneath him at times. He's about as ready for the NBA as he is for Broadway, but he may very well depart after the season. If you believe what people close to the Duke program are saying, few tears will be shed in the locker room if that occurs."

That's a pretty damning comment considering that McBob's departure left Duke with only one player above 6-8 (Zoubek, who still wasn't ready), but the team improved from 22-11 (8-8) to 28-6 (13-3). And speaking of Zoubek, I still remember the blue-white scrimmage at the beginning of the 2006-07 season. I had heard on campus that Zoubek couldn't stand McBob, and considering how the two guys were going after each other during a mere scrimmage, I had to conclude that the vox populi was correct.

At any rate, here is the link for Feinstein:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902200.html

[Jim3k]

It is true that on the '07 team, McBob and Zoubs were the only bigs. Without Josh we were smaller than we should have been. But...there was some additional firepower which sat on the bench that didn't have the opportunity to develop. We had soph Jamal Boykin (6-7) who was felled by mononucleosis early in the season (and then left for Cal). Without McBob on the team, Boykin might have stayed, but he probably would not have been much help until the season's end, if that. We also had a 6-5 athlete in Marty Pocius. Despite Marty's defensive shortcomings, he would have played a lot more than he did. He could have played either forward spot. I suspect he would have developed into a better player had that opportunity come to him. He was a demon out there as it was.

And, that's not to mention: the then awkward freshman Zoubek who, given more PT, might have been able to contribute (but perhaps slowed by some injuries), the two freshmen slashers, Henderson and Thomas or soph Dave McClure, all of whom had nice careers later. No big man there, but plenty of speed.

It already had strong guard play led by junior swingman Nelson, supported by soph Paulus and supplemented well by freshman Scheyer.

Offensive firepower was definitely there, but the team's style would have been different and its interior defense relatively weak. Even so, I doubt that its overall success would have been any worse than the 22-11 it had with McBob.

[CDu]

Offensive firepower was definitely there, but the team's style would have been different and its interior defense relatively weak. Even so, I doubt that its overall success would have been any worse than the 22-11 it had with McBob.

I completely disagree. Without McRoberts, we have to play Zoubek, Thomas, and McClure at the PF/C spot. No scoring there. Limited rebounding there. And not very good defense there. Maybe some more time for a very not ready Boykin. So that's two spots on the floor where we're getting nothing offensively. Either that or we'd have to go REALLY small with Henderson or Nelson at PF.

On the perimeter, we had Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, and Henderson. Those guys were already averaging 117 mpg combined at the PG, SG, and SF spots. So I won't even worry about debating whether or not Pocius would have helped; he wouldn't have played any more than he did unless we decided to go even smaller than we'd already be (i.e., going with Henderson/Nelson at PF for extended minutes).

Without McRoberts, we'd either be an offensive train wreck and maybe an okay defense. Or we might be an okay offense but a train wreck on defense. I don't think that team makes the tournament without McRoberts. I think we probably add losses to Georgetown (with Hibbert and Green), Clemson twice (Booker and Mays), and BC if not more.

[Des Esseintes]

It is true that on the '07 team, McBob and Zoubs were the only bigs. Without Josh we were smaller than we should have been. But...there was some additional firepower which sat on the bench that didn't have the opportunity to develop. We had soph Jamal Boykin (6-7) who was felled by mononucleosis early in the season (and then left for Cal). Without McBob on the team, Boykin might have stayed, but he probably would not have been much help until the season's end, if that. We also had a 6-5 athlete in Marty Pocius. Despite Marty's defensive shortcomings, he would have played a lot more than he did. He could have played either forward spot. I suspect he would have developed into a better player had that opportunity come to him. He was a demon out there as it was.

And, that's not to mention: the then awkward freshman Zoubek who, given more PT, might have been able to contribute (but perhaps slowed by some injuries), the two freshmen slashers, Henderson and Thomas or soph Dave McClure, all of whom had nice careers later. No big man there, but plenty of speed.

It already had strong guard play led by junior swingman Nelson, supported by soph Paulus and supplemented well by freshman Scheyer.

Offensive firepower was definitely there, but the team's style would have been different and its interior defense relatively weak. Even so, I doubt that its overall success would have been any worse than the 22-11 it had with McBob.
This is crazy. Take away a guy who led or was second on the team in almost EVERY SINGLE MEANINGFUL STATISTICAL CATEGORY, and you expect the team to perform the same? The "offensive firepower" you refer to was the worst Duke team on that end since kenpom started publishing. Again, taking away the second-leading scorer would not have unleashed anything. We had nothing approaching strong guard play. Scheyer had his moments, but was a freshman. Paulus was not a point guard, and at that point wasn't much of a shooting guard either; his three-point shot would not become reliable until the following year; Nelson, as others have noted, didn't get to play full-time guard because he was our 4. As for Boykin, he became a good player his senior year at Cal. In his freshman season, coming off friggin' mono, he was not going to be a plus player for Duke, not for all the retroactive wishcasting in the world. I join the others in sharply doubting whether Duke would have made the tourney without McRoberts that year.

ETA: CDu beat me to it. What he said.

[Jim3k]

CDu and Dos--you guys have no faith in the coaching staff. The non-McBob team would have displayed an entirely different personality--much like a team that loses a key player to injury. The roles would have been different and your stats argument would not amount to much.

And, Boykin was a soph when the mono hit him. No one can know if he could have helped if he'd come back after the illness struck.

Here are the stats for the team as they occurred (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/season-stats.php?season=2006-07). Can you see how the loss of McBob would have changed the calculus? Frankly your arguments do not take into account the dynamics change which would have occurred and Des's tone ("crazy") is out of line. Disagree if you want, but K has played small lineups in the past and has done fairly well with them. NCAAT? Who knows? I made no speculation about that.

No...it would not have been a good team. But it would not have been much worse than the one he had. There was a lot of talent there, though young. You guys are too dismissive of those guys' motivation.

[CDu]

CDu and Dos--you guys have no faith in the coaching staff. The non-McBob team would have displayed an entirely different personality--much like a team that loses a key player to injury. The roles would have been different and your stats argument would not amount to much.

And, Boykin was a soph when the mono hit him. No one can know if he could have helped if he'd come back after the illness struck.

Here are the stats for the team as they occurred (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/season-stats.php?season=2006-07). Can you see how the loss of McBob would have changed the calculus? Frankly your arguments do not take into account the dynamics change which would have occurred and Des's tone ("crazy") is out of line. Disagree if you want, but K has played small lineups in the past and has done fairly well with them. NCAAT? Who knows? I made no speculation about that.

No...it would not have been a good team. But it would not have been much worse than the one he had. There was a lot of talent there, though young. You guys are too dismissive of those guys' motivation.

I have lots of faith in the coaching staff. But the "change in dynamics" would have been to replace our best offensive player and one of our best defensive players with less talented players.

Basically, you're suggesting one of two things:
- Replacing McRoberts with Boykin/Zoubek/McClure/Thomas
- Replacing McRoberts with Pocius and Zoubek

Neither of those sounds like a good dynamic change. Option 1 (big for big) would have been worse defensively and MUCH worse offensively. Option 2 would be be a little worse offensively (just very different) and MUCH worse defensively.

Coach K is a great coach. But I think you are vastly overestimating the quality/readiness of that 2007 roster.

[Des Esseintes]

I have lots of faith in the coaching staff. But the "change in dynamics" would have been to replace our best offensive player and one of our best defensive players with less talented players.

Basically, you're suggesting one of two things:
- Replacing McRoberts with Boykin/Zoubek/McClure/Thomas
- Replacing McRoberts with Pocius and Zoubek

Neither of those sounds like a good dynamic change. Option 1 (big for big) would have been worse defensively and MUCH worse offensively. Option 2 would be be a little worse offensively (just very different) and MUCH worse defensively.

Coach K is a great coach. But I think you are vastly overestimating the quality/readiness of that 2007 roster.

Or put it another way: what if Shavlik Randolph or Luol Deng or Shaun Livingston was on that team alongside McRoberts? The team would have been better, right? Perhaps drastically better. Because more good players means more potential. K would have gotten the team further had he had one of those weapons. So if the team would have improved with more talent, I think we can VERY safely assume the team would have suffered with less talent. Coach K is the coach in every scenario--McBob alone, sans McBob, McBob plus ringer. K's excellence is a given.

Conversely, if we say K would have gotten the same results without McRoberts, we are simultaneously suggesting K couldn't ADD any performance to the team with a player as multi-dimensional as McRoberts. Which... is silly.

[Class of '94]

Despite being both a huge Duke fan and a huge Bulls fan (and a HUGE Noah fan - he and I share a birthday!), I hadn't ever made that mental comparison. But it is quite apt. Obviously Noah is the (much) better "role player", but he's exactly the type of example of what McRoberts is.

McRoberts led the 2007 Duke team in rebounds and blocks and finished second in points and assists. He did everything for that team. Just like Noah (who is having an INCREDIBLE year this year this year carrying the Rose-less Bulls) does for the Bulls.

I think you and Des raise very good points. Would you agree that the deficiencies Josh had in HS has carried through college and into the NBA? If so, doesn't that say a lot about Josh as a player in terms of his work ethic and desire (or lack thereof) to improve upon his weaknesses. I mentioned Carlos before as an example of a player that has worked very hard to develop his game (both in college and in the NBA), but Noah is another great example of a player with a strong work ethic that developed his game and "stretched" himself. Why couldn't Josh do the same, especially after all of this time he's been in the NBA? I can't imagine the coaching staff at Duke didn't see the same deficiencies and try to work with him on improving them, which makes me wonder how badly did Josh really want to improve and work on improving his game. Did he simply think he was so good that he didn't need to work on his game and develop as a player? I don't know the answer to this but looking at his career, it does make me wonder if this was the case. Shooting and lost post moves can be developed imo if you work on it hard enough. Look at Mason, he wasn't a natural lost post player; but he worked on it and by his senior year was a legitimate low post threat. Granted, it took Mason 4 years to develop that; but Josh imo received more PT in his first 2 years than Mason had (which could've allowed him more opportunities to work on his deficiencies compared to Mason). I do by the way think he was the best player on the 2007 team and was instrumental in that team making it to the NCAAT. That being said, I am not sure if he has ever personal responsibility for the issues he had at Duke and the lack of development imo he's had in the NBA. I think more than anything that and the lack of a strong work ethic as desire to improve his game has stunted his development.

I promise that this is the last I'll say about Josh in regards to his work ethic and attitude. Again, I just wanted to get the perspectives from others on whether or not the "perceived" (at least on my part) lack of work ethic and desire to improve may have hurt his development most of all; and if he had that, he would've been a better player in 2007 and in the NBA.

[CDu]

I think you and Des raise very good points. Would you agree that the deficiencies Josh had in HS has carried through college and into the NBA? If so, doesn't that say a lot about Josh as a player in terms of his work ethic and desire (or lack thereof) to improve upon his weaknesses. I mentioned Carlos before as an example of a player that has worked very hard to develop his game (both in college and in the NBA), but Noah is another great example of a player with a strong work ethic that developed his game and "stretched" himself. Why couldn't Josh do the same, especially after all of this time he's been in the NBA? I can't imagine the coaching staff at Duke didn't see the same deficiencies and try to work with him on improving them, which makes me wonder how badly did Josh really want to improve and work on improving his game. Did he simply think he was so good that he didn't need to work on his game and develop as a player? I don't know the answer to this but looking at his career, it does make me wonder if this was the case. Shooting and lost post moves can be developed imo if you work on it hard enough. Look at Mason, he wasn't a natural lost post player; but he worked on it and by his senior year was a legitimate low post threat. Granted, it took Mason 4 years to develop that; but Josh imo received more PT in his first 2 years than Mason had (which could've allowed him more opportunities to work on his deficiencies compared to Mason). I do by the way think he was the best player on the 2007 team and was instrumental in that team making it to the NCAAT. That being said, I am not sure if he has ever personal responsibility for the issues he had at Duke and the lack of development imo he's had in the NBA. I think more than anything that and the lack of a strong work ethic as desire to improve his game has stunted his development.

I promise that this is the last I'll say about Josh in regards to his work ethic and attitude. Again, I just wanted to get the perspectives from others on whether or not the "perceived" (at least on my part) lack of work ethic and desire to improve may have hurt his development most of all; and if he had that, he would've been a better player in 2007 and in the NBA.

I would say that McRoberts has shown quite a LOT of improvement since going to the NBA. He was a fringe roster guy when he came into the league, but he's worked hard on his body and his game and is now a starter and very solid contributor (30 mpg, 8.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.3 apg, 36.1 3pt%). So, no, I don't think he has a lack of work ethic.

Remember: in high school, he didn't need to improve his weaknesses in order to succeed. He was talented enough (and surrounded by enough talent) that his weaknesses were hidden, probably even from him. He came to Duke and got to continue to play third/fourth fiddle on an elite team. It wasn't until his sophomore year that things got exposed. So why should he have been expected to be ready to address those things as a teenager?

Since he's come to the NBA, he's done nothing but gradually improve. That suggests that he has a solid work ethic.

[Des Esseintes]

I think you and Des raise very good points. Would you agree that the deficiencies Josh had in HS has carried through college and into the NBA? If so, doesn't that say a lot about Josh as a player in terms of his work ethic and desire (or lack thereof) to improve upon his weaknesses. I mentioned Carlos before as an example of a player that has worked very hard to develop his game (both in college and in the NBA), but Noah is another great example of a player with a strong work ethic that developed his game and "stretched" himself. Why couldn't Josh do the same, especially after all of this time he's been in the NBA? I can't imagine the coaching staff at Duke didn't see the same deficiencies and try to work with him on improving them, which makes me wonder how badly did Josh really want to improve and work on improving his game. Did he simply think he was so good that he didn't need to work on his game and develop as a player? I don't know the answer to this but looking at his career, it does make me wonder if this was the case. Shooting and lost post moves can be developed imo if you work on it hard enough. Look at Mason, he wasn't a natural lost post player; but he worked on it and by his senior year was a legitimate low post threat. Granted, it took Mason 4 years to develop that; but Josh imo received more PT in his first 2 years than Mason had (which could've allowed him more opportunities to work on his deficiencies compared to Mason). I do by the way think he was the best player on the 2007 team and was instrumental in that team making it to the NCAAT. That being said, I am not sure if he has ever personal responsibility for the issues he had at Duke and the lack of development imo he's had in the NBA. I think more than anything that and the lack of a strong work ethic as desire to improve his game has stunted his development.

I promise that this is the last I'll say about Josh in regards to his work ethic and attitude. Again, I just wanted to get the perspectives from others on whether or not the "perceived" (at least on my part) lack of work ethic and desire to improve may have hurt his development most of all; and if he had that, he would've been a better player in 2007 and in the NBA.

I agree with what CDu said, and would just add a couple of points. First, Boozer and McRoberts are in some ways bad comps. McRoberts was a second round pick because his sophomore season showed a great difficulty in doing the very most important basketball skill--scoring. He was a multi-dimensional player, but if you are a bad scorer, it is very, very hard to succeed as an NBA player. Which is another way of saying that Josh was not as talented as his high school ranking suggested. He was drafted as a second round talent because in many ways, that was an appropriate analysis of his ability. To have managed to carve out this long of an NBA career in spite of the extreme disinterest teams have in looking after second round picks is to his immense credit. Josh only comes off "lazy" if we think his high school ranking was accurate. Which I think almost no rational observer believes at this point. He was overrated by being on a dominant prep team that showcased all his strengths and hid all his weaknesses. He was still a great player at Duke, of course, and the 2007 team absolutely needed him. NBA greatness and college greatness are two very different things, which is why Shelden Williams's jersey is in the rafters while Shelden Williams's body is presently overseas.

Then there is Boozer, who was simply a victim of bad scouting. Boozer had a tremendous junior year, was probably Duke's most dependable player, and showed a host of important NBA skills. Why he fell as he did in the draft remains a huge mystery to me. But from jump with the Cavaliers he displayed himself as a serious talent. Almost from the beginning, Cavs people were talking about him as their long-term solution at power forward. Talk like that is not simply the product of Boozer working hard and developing. He actually was that good, and a bunch of people whiffed evaluating him. He has continued to work hard throughout his career, and I have nothing but admiration for the guy. I just don't think it's appropriate to say that because both he and McRoberts were drafted in the second round that Boozer's greater career indicts McRoberts's work ethic.

Carlos Boozer was a more gifted player than McRoberts, always. While his skillset was narrower than McRoberts (though not as much narrower as people making Carlos the Statue jokes these days would admit), he was immeasurably better at scoring, both in the post and with his Malone-esque jumper. They both worked hard and made great things of an initial bad draft position. I wish we had won a title Josh's freshman year or had more general success his sophomore year. I wish that for a lot of reasons, obviously, but for this discussion I wish it because I think those team shortcomings distort the legacy of a guy who, while not terribly cuddly as a Duke basketball icon, still did some great things in a Duke jersey and made himself into an NBA success story.

[Class of '94]

I would say that McRoberts has shown quite a LOT of improvement since going to the NBA. He was a fringe roster guy when he came into the league, but he's worked hard on his body and his game and is now a starter and very solid contributor (30 mpg, 8.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.3 apg, 36.1 3pt%). So, no, I don't think he has a lack of work ethic.

Remember: in high school, he didn't need to improve his weaknesses in order to succeed. He was talented enough (and surrounded by enough talent) that his weaknesses were hidden, probably even from him. He came to Duke and got to continue to play third/fourth fiddle on an elite team. It wasn't until his sophomore year that things got exposed. So why should he have been expected to be ready to address those things as a teenager?

Since he's come to the NBA, he's done nothing but gradually improve. That suggests that he has a solid work ethic.

Again, all good points. I guess for me it goes back to probably having unrealistic expectations of his talent and ability. I've always thought he had the potential and talent to have better numbers than the ones you've mentioned. To your point about being a teenager, the great talents at Duke (Dawkins, Ferry, Laettner, Hurley, G HIll, J Williams, Brand, Battier, etc.) had the maturity and understanding as teenagers that they needed to improve from one year to the next; and many of those players played on talented teams that allowed them to mask their weaknesses. Christian was a jerk; but he took responsibility to get better every season while at Duke. I still believe Josh had maturity/ego/attitude issues that held him back; but again, I'm glad to see that he's finding a niche in Charlotte; and wish him continued success.

[Class of '94]

I agree with what CDu said, and would just add a couple of points. First, Boozer and McRoberts are in some ways bad comps. McRoberts was a second round pick because his sophomore season showed a great difficulty in doing the very most important basketball skill--scoring. He was a multi-dimensional player, but if you are a bad scorer, it is very, very hard to succeed as an NBA player. Which is another way of saying that Josh was not as talented as his high school ranking suggested. He was drafted as a second round talent because in many ways, that was an appropriate analysis of his ability. To have managed to carve out this long of an NBA career in spite of the extreme disinterest teams have in looking after second round picks is to his immense credit. Josh only comes off "lazy" if we think his high school ranking was accurate. Which I think almost no rational observer believes at this point. He was overrated by being on a dominant prep team that showcased all his strengths and hid all his weaknesses. He was still a great player at Duke, of course, and the 2007 team absolutely needed him. NBA greatness and college greatness are two very different things, which is why Shelden Williams's jersey is in the rafters while Shelden Williams's body is presently overseas.

Then there is Boozer, who was simply a victim of bad scouting. Boozer had a tremendous junior year, was probably Duke's most dependable player, and showed a host of important NBA skills. Why he fell as he did in the draft remains a huge mystery to me. But from jump with the Cavaliers he displayed himself as a serious talent. Almost from the beginning, Cavs people were talking about him as their long-term solution at power forward. Talk like that is not simply the product of Boozer working hard and developing. He actually was that good, and a bunch of people whiffed evaluating him. He has continued to work hard throughout his career, and I have nothing but admiration for the guy. I just don't think it's appropriate to say that because both he and McRoberts were drafted in the second round that Boozer's greater career indicts McRoberts's work ethic.

Carlos Boozer was a more gifted player than McRoberts, always. While his skillset was narrower than McRoberts (though not as much narrower as people making Carlos the Statue jokes these days would admit), he was immeasurably better at scoring, both in the post and with his Malone-esque jumper. They both worked hard and made great things of an initial bad draft position. I wish we had won a title Josh's freshman year or had more general success his sophomore year. I wish that for a lot of reasons, obviously, but for this discussion I wish it because I think those team shortcomings distort the legacy of a guy who, while not terribly cuddly as a Duke basketball icon, still did some great things in a Duke jersey and made himself into an NBA success story.

Again, all good points as well. But do you think Josh tapped into all of his abilities and potential as a basketball player? I think if you're honest with yourself and willing to work on your weaknesses, one can improve on shooting and post moves. Maybe CDU is right and he didn't realize he had weaknesses. I'm not so sure I believe that because I know the staff at Duke would've saw those weaknesses an told him about them. Maybe Josh was never as good as his HS hype; but I do think if he had a better attitude and worked harder or been more motivated (I don't want to call him lazy because I think he played hard in games) to work on his weaknesses, I think he would've been closer to the player many people thought he was coming out of HS. IMO, Josh simply didn't think he needed to work on improving his game because he thought he didn't need to, which I think is a reflection of his attitude/ego more than anything else; and that may have been the a bigger difference as to why he was drafted in the second round as opposed to the first round.

[Des Esseintes]

Again, all good points as well. But do you think Josh tapped into all of his abilities and potential as a basketball player? I think if you're honest with yourself and willing to work on your weaknesses, one can improve on shooting and post moves. Maybe CDU is right and he didn't realize he had weaknesses. I'm not so sure I believe that because I know the staff at Duke would've saw those weaknesses an told him about them. Maybe Josh was never as good as his HS hype; but I do think if he had a better attitude and worked harder or been more motivated (I don't want to call him lazy because I think he played hard in games) to work on his weaknesses, I think he would've been closer to the player many people thought he was coming out of HS. IMO, Josh simply didn't think he needed to work on improving his game because he thought he didn't need to, which I think is a reflection of his attitude/ego more than anything else; and that may have been the a bigger difference as to why he was drafted in the second round as opposed to the first round.
Do I think "Josh tapped into all his abilities and potential as a basketball player?" Man, how would I know? How would you know? That's a difficult and usually unfair question to ask about a stranger. I've not met Josh. Even if I had, I've not watched him work out. Even if I had, I've not monitored how often he works out. Even if I had, I'd have no way of knowing if he addressed his shortcomings intelligently. Even if I had, I would have no way of knowing if he could have done any of those above things harder. Nor do I think, with a gun to your temple, you would be able to answer those questions with confidence. For my part, when we want to make a moral attack on a player--and make no mistake, accusing someone of laziness or "failing to reach his potential" is casting one of the harshest moral aspersions one can launch at an athlete--the burden of proof should be on the prosecution. What evidence do we have that Josh was lazy? We have:

1) He did not live up to his high school ranking.
2) He scowled.
3) There were "whispers" about him during his time on campus.

To me, this writ is not even close to persuasive. And I'd like to make a further point. We often overlook just how hard it is to make it in the NBA. The NBA is the most difficult professional sports league on Planet Earth. To become an NBA starter means doing something waaaay harder than all but the tiniest fraction of people ever accomplishes in a lifetime. Josh, from a bad draft position and after getting cut loose from at least one franchise, has turned himself into a viable (and unique!) starter on a playoff team. (Yeah, it's the Eastern Conference. Still.) I know maybe person in my life who I would consider has accomplished something on the level Josh has. I know I will be very excited if I am fortunate enough in this life to meet more such people. You just cannot accomplish such things without putting in sweat equity. You cannot. The quote-unquote evidence that he slacked at Duke is completely overwhelmed by the manifest journey he has had to undertake to become what he is today. So I'm very uncomfortable when somebody starts talking about a Duke player being lazy on basically no evidence.

And, to make a further-further point, I think you are letting your long-ago hopes for what Josh might be cloud what are reasonable expectations for players, even the most hyped. Here is the RSCI top ten from Josh's year:

1 Josh McRoberts
2 Monta Ellis
3 Martell Webster
4 Tyler Hansbrough
5 Louis Williams
6 Julian Wright
7 Richard Hendrix
8 Mario Chalmers
8 Tasmin Mitchell
10 Andrew Bynum

Where does Josh's NBA career rank in this crowd? Behind Ellis, certainly. Behind Chalmers, too. After that, I really don't know. I think you can argue McRoberts ahead of Webster, Hansbrough, and Williams, although you could make strong counterarguments for each. He's definitely better than Wright, Hendrix, and whatever a "Tasmin Mitchell" is. And as for Andrew Bynum? Obviously, Bynum was the more talented player, but his career may be over, he's been constantly injured, and, for anyone wondering what Did-he-work-as-hard-as-he-could-have? looks like, THAT GUY is your poster child. At worst, McRoberts is 6th on that list, somewhere between 3rd and 6th. I just don't see the underachievement. The NBA is hard. Almost nobody becomes a star.

[Jim3k]

Or put it another way: what if Shavlik Randolph or Luol Deng or Shaun Livingston was on that team alongside McRoberts? The team would have been better, right? Perhaps drastically better. Because more good players means more potential. K would have gotten the team further had he had one of those weapons. So if the team would have improved with more talent, I think we can VERY safely assume the team would have suffered with less talent. Coach K is the coach in every scenario--McBob alone, sans McBob, McBob plus ringer. K's excellence is a given.


This, I submit, is a complete non sequitur and tends to prove my point. Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; or you can sometimes see addition by subtraction. It depends on the circumstances. You guys are wed to the stats of that year and the previous year. They simply don’t count because the offense would be designed substantially differently. Without McRoberts, K would have been forced away from his traditional star system; he would have adapted to his talent.



I have lots of faith in the coaching staff. But the "change in dynamics" would have been to replace our best offensive player and one of our best defensive players with less talented players.

Basically, you're suggesting one of two things:
- Replacing McRoberts with Boykin/Zoubek/McClure/Thomas
- Replacing McRoberts with Pocius and Zoubek



No, I am not. It is true that those are some of the so-called ‘replacement’ choices. But the concept of replacement is part of the new dynamic. The offense would have been reinvented, so McBob would not have been ‘replaced.’ His absence would have resulted in an entirely different rotation and offensive starting point. I envision a raft of slashers, all of whom were right there. I don’t even know if Zoubek would have been part of it. (Boykin would not have been available.) So I am really talking about the interchangeability of Nelson, McClure, Thomas, Pocius, Scheyer and Henderson, with a few minutes to Paulus. That’s actually a pretty formidable cadre of swingmen, all of whom (except Paulus) had excellent speed. You also would have seen better ball movement than going through McBob provided. Certainly in that sense, he was one-dimensional, even if he possessed other skills. I think we all agree that McRoberts was a black hole when it came to passing. That alone should tell you why the statistics you guys rely on are not a good metric for that hypothetical team.

But under the no-McBob lineup the offense would not have gone through one single player. Would someone have stepped up to stardom? Or to a leading role? Maybe Henderson would have become a shorter Grant Hill. Maybe Pocius would have begun to score. Maybe Nelson would have jumped out. We don’t know. But the offense using McBob as the focus never allowed those guys to blossom. Some of them would have if McRoberts had earlier moved on.

And, you had inside and outside scoring available. You also had some decent on-ball defense with Nelson, Henderson and Scheyer. What it missed would be, as I said earlier, a defensive post presence.

Without taking this too much further, I think we do agree that this team would not have fared any better than it did with McBob. So we are really arguing about whether it would have been mediocre good or mediocre average. As it is, the team actually played 66% ball. All I am saying is that the 66% was doable by the alternative lineup. And if I would have missed it by a loss or two, it would still fit in the middle-of-the-road range.

No matter how you cut it, the ’07 team was only a little better than average with or without McRoberts.

[Des Esseintes]

This, I submit, is a complete non sequitur and tends to prove my point. Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; or you can sometimes see addition by subtraction. It depends on the circumstances. You guys are wed to the stats of that year and the previous year. They simply don’t count because the offense would be designed substantially differently. Without McRoberts, K would have been forced away from his traditional star system; he would have adapted to his talent.
I don't know if I'm wed to stats. That is not my impression of me, but none of us possesses a perfect mirror for the self. Still, your post makes me think there are perhaps worse things to be married to than stats, such as peyote and Thunderbird fortified wine.


No, I am not. It is true that those are some of the so-called ‘replacement’ choices. But the concept of replacement is part of the new dynamic. The offense would have been reinvented, so McBob would not have been ‘replaced.’ His absence would have resulted in an entirely different rotation and offensive starting point. I envision a raft of slashers, all of whom were right there. I don’t even know if Zoubek would have been part of it. (Boykin would not have been available.) So I am really talking about the interchangeability of Nelson, McClure, Thomas, Pocius, Scheyer and Henderson, with a few minutes to Paulus. That’s actually a pretty formidable cadre of swingmen, all of whom (except Paulus) had excellent speed. You also would have seen better ball movement than going through McBob provided. Certainly in that sense, he was one-dimensional, even if he possessed other skills. I think we all agree that McRoberts was a black hole when it came to passing. That alone should tell you why the statistics you guys rely on are not a good metric for that hypothetical team.
It's well-known that three things are necessary for a "raft of slashers." First, you need sheaths, so the slashers do not accidentally puncture the raft with their giant knives. Second, you need a point guard. Duke did not have a point guard that season. Third, you need shooters. None of the guys you list could shoot very well that season. With no one to handle the rock, create openings, deliver upon those openings, or generate space with the threat of shooting, the slashers would be nigh-useless. Moreover, the slasher himself must be able to put the ball on the court to attack the rim. Dave McClure couldn't do that, nor could Thomas. They were not slashers. Not in basketball, anyway. Dave has played overseas a lot in recent years, and some of those countries don't have extradition treaties with the USA. So maybe he's done more slashing than I think.

Also, basically no one will agree with you that McRoberts was a black hole with the basketball. He was the best passer on the team. It's one of his primary NBA skills. For Chrissake, one of the criticisms of Josh was that he looked to pass instead of trying to take over games! If I had to guess, your aphasiac memory loss is probably a result of the Thunderbird. Peyote has been found to be pretty innocuous (http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/featpeyote/) in that regard.


But under the no-McBob lineup the offense would not have gone through one single player. Would someone have stepped up to stardom? Or to a leading role? Maybe Henderson would have become a shorter Grant Hill. Maybe Pocius would have begun to score. Maybe Nelson would have jumped out. We don’t know. But the offense using McBob as the focus never allowed those guys to blossom. Some of them would have if McRoberts had earlier moved on.
How do we know this? Through the power of peyote. Anything can happen with peyote as your guide. Matter of fact, I'm having a raft slasher vision right now.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lekxSn2RpnM

And, you had inside and outside scoring available. You also had some decent on-ball defense with Nelson, Henderson and Scheyer. What it missed would be, as I said earlier, a defensive post presence.

Without taking this too much further, I think we do agree that this team would not have fared any better than it did with McBob. So we are really arguing about whether it would have been mediocre good or mediocre average. As it is, the team actually played 66% ball. All I am saying is that the 66% was doable by the alternative lineup. And if I would have missed it by a loss or two, it would still fit in the middle-of-the-road range.

No matter how you cut it, the ’07 team was only a little better than average with or without McRoberts.

I think that's wise. Don't want to take things too far. The river only runs one way (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlUcUfHkdYk), after all.

[Jim3k]

I think that's wise. Don't want to take things too far. The river only runs one way (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlUcUfHkdYk), after all.

While I admire your peyote-driven effort to lighten matters and your whimsical invocation of the unspeakable matters seen in "Deliverance," all I can offer in return is Leslie Winkle's sardonic, "Oh, o-ouch." (at 2:27) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvHhqdAH1xo)

:eek: Or, was it: "Call the fire department! I've been so-o scorched."

[Double DD]

I think we all agree that McRoberts was a black hole when it came to passing. That alone should tell you why the statistics you guys rely on are not a good metric for that hypothetical team.


I'm actually wondering if you're thinking of a different player in your mind. McRoberts was 3rd in the nation in assists for forwards and centers that year. That was also the most assists by any forward or center in the ACC in the last 15 years.

[vick]

I'm actually wondering if you're thinking of a different player in your mind. McRoberts was 3rd in the nation in assists for forwards and centers that year. That was also the most assists by any forward or center in the ACC in the last 15 years.

In fact, I think McRoberts had the highest assist rate for any Duke forward or center not named Danny Ferry since those statistics can be calculated (post-1987).

[Class of '94]

Do I think "Josh tapped into all his abilities and potential as a basketball player?" Man, how would I know? How would you know? That's a difficult and usually unfair question to ask about a stranger. I've not met Josh. Even if I had, I've not watched him work out. Even if I had, I've not monitored how often he works out. Even if I had, I'd have no way of knowing if he addressed his shortcomings intelligently. Even if I had, I would have no way of knowing if he could have done any of those above things harder. Nor do I think, with a gun to your temple, you would be able to answer those questions with confidence. For my part, when we want to make a moral attack on a player--and make no mistake, accusing someone of laziness or "failing to reach his potential" is casting one of the harshest moral aspersions one can launch at an athlete--the burden of proof should be on the prosecution. What evidence do we have that Josh was lazy? We have:

1) He did not live up to his high school ranking.
2) He scowled.
3) There were "whispers" about him during his time on campus.

To me, this writ is not even close to persuasive. And I'd like to make a further point. We often overlook just how hard it is to make it in the NBA. The NBA is the most difficult professional sports league on Planet Earth. To become an NBA starter means doing something waaaay harder than all but the tiniest fraction of people ever accomplishes in a lifetime. Josh, from a bad draft position and after getting cut loose from at least one franchise, has turned himself into a viable (and unique!) starter on a playoff team. (Yeah, it's the Eastern Conference. Still.) I know maybe person in my life who I would consider has accomplished something on the level Josh has. I know I will be very excited if I am fortunate enough in this life to meet more such people. You just cannot accomplish such things without putting in sweat equity. You cannot. The quote-unquote evidence that he slacked at Duke is completely overwhelmed by the manifest journey he has had to undertake to become what he is today. So I'm very uncomfortable when somebody starts talking about a Duke player being lazy on basically no evidence.


I respect all of your points; but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand your concern about calling a Duke player (or any player for that matter) lazy. For me, I don't think it's necessarily an issue of laziness as much as it is/was an attitude issue. I'm not sure Josh felt he had to work on his areas of weaknesses. As far as evidence, all you have to do is look at the areas of weakness he had in HS and at Duke, and see that he still has those same weaknesses in the NBA (after being in the league for almost 10 years); and imo those areas haven't significantly improved. As CDu pointed out, maybe he didn't even realize he needed to work on those areas of weakness, or think it was important to. As you've pointed out, I don't know why he hasn't improved in those areas; but I believe that had he improved on those areas of weakness more, he would've had a bigger impact in the NBA and at Duke; and I don't think any of his weakness are ones that could not be improved upon. Personally, I think Josh felt like he didn't need to work on those areas. It's not being lazy; it's just having a different perspective on things. That said, I have no first hand proof of any of this; it's all just my opinion; and having good discussions with you about subjects like these (and freely expressing our opinions and differences) is what makes DBR a great place to come to.

[CDu]

I respect all of your points; but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand your concern about calling a Duke player (or any player for that matter) lazy. For me, I don't think it's necessarily an issue of laziness as much as it is/was an attitude issue. I'm not sure Josh felt he had to work on his areas of weaknesses. As far as evidence, all you have to do is look at the areas of weakness he had in HS and at Duke, and see that he still has those same weaknesses in the NBA (after being in the league for almost 10 years); and imo those areas haven't significantly improved. As CDu pointed out, maybe he didn't even realize he needed to work on those areas of weakness, or think it was important to. As you've pointed out, I don't know why he hasn't improved in those areas; but I believe that had he improved on those areas of weakness more, he would've had a bigger impact in the NBA and at Duke; and I don't think any of his weakness are ones that could not be improved upon. Personally, I think Josh felt like he didn't need to work on those areas. It's not being lazy; it's just having a different perspective on things. That said, I have no first hand proof of any of this; it's all just my opinion; and having good discussions with you about subjects like these (and freely expressing our opinions and differences) is what makes DBR a great place to come to.

See, the bolded part makes me think you haven't been paying attention to him since he went to the NBA (at least not over the past few years). What were his limitations in high school/college? Shooting ability and scoring ability. Well, in the NBA he's now a ~35% shooter from 3pt range. So I'd say he has worked hard to improve his shooting range, because in college he was AWFUL as a perimeter shooter. He has not become an elite scorer in the NBA, but maybe that was never in the cards for him as a player. Not everyone can score 15+ ppg in the NBA, after all. If you want to say his limitations were post defense, well he has improved in that regard enough to become a starter on a playoff team after being a fringe NBA player when he entered the league.

I think McRoberts was just misevaluated (by everyone) coming out of high school. As such he faced unrealistic expectations that he was not equipped to meet. But nothing about his NBA career suggests to me that he doesn't have the work ethic to improve as a player. He's pretty clearly improved as a player over the course of his NBA career.

[Jim3k]

I'm actually wondering if you're thinking of a different player in your mind. McRoberts was 3rd in the nation in assists for forwards and centers that year. That was also the most assists by any forward or center in the ACC in the last 15 years.


I think you're right. I mixed Josh up with this forward-center who only averaged 1.5 assists per game in 2005-2006. (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/season-stats.php?season=2005-06)

Josh McRoberts 36 31 24.5 .605 .385 .664 5.3 1.5 1.3 1.1 8.7


Thanks for allowing me to clear that up. ;) (Player's name is in white font.)

Sorry for the confusion.

[CDu]

I think you're right. I mixed Josh up with this forward-center who only averaged 1.5 assists per game in 2005-2006. (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/season-stats.php?season=2005-06)

Josh McRoberts 36 31 24.5 .605 .385 .664 5.3 1.5 1.3 1.1 8.7


Thanks for allowing me to clear that up. ;) (Player's name is in white font.)

Sorry for the confusion.

Really? You are going to cite McRoberts' freshman assist numbers (when he was the third or fourth option on a team where Redick got all the touches) to suggest he is a black hole? That is ridiculous. That he was able to average 1.5 assists per game that year (4th on the team and better than that noted black hole Shelden Williams) despite getting few touches is actually fairly impressive.

[Jim3k]

Really? You are going to cite McRoberts' freshman assist numbers (when he was the third or fourth option on a team where Redick got all the touches) to suggest he is a black hole? That is ridiculous. That he was able to average 1.5 assists per game that year (4th on the team and better than that noted black hole Shelden Williams) despite getting few touches is actually fairly impressive.

Why not? He started 31 games (playing in 36) and averaged 24+ minutes per game. And, as the third or fourth option he should have had more assists, since one of his roles was to feed the higher options. In fact, I think this is one part of his game that he improved during his second year and on into the pros.

My use of 'Black Hole' should be regarded as a bit of hyperbole in describing him while in college, but so can your assessment of his overall value to the team. He was a developing player who did fairly well at Duke. He was not a star here, but he has grown into a serviceable pro with a fine career. He wore the Blue honorably for two years, but let's not re-write history to suggest he had anything other than a very good, but short, college career.

[CDu]

Why not? He started 31 games (playing in 36) and averaged 24+ minutes per game. And, as the third or fourth option he should have had more assists, since one of his roles was to feed the higher options. In fact, I think this is one part of his game that he improved during his second year and on into the pros.

My use of 'Black Hole' should be regarded as a bit of hyperbole in describing him while in college, but so can your assessment of his overall value to the team. He was a developing player who did fairly well at Duke. He was not a star here, but he has grown into a serviceable pro with a fine career. He wore the Blue honorably for two years, but let's not re-write history to suggest he had anything other than a very good, but short, college career.

I don't think you understand how assists work. You actually have to have the ball to get an assist. If you are the third or fourth option, you aren't likely to get the ball enough to get a bunch of assists. I also don't think you understand positional norms with regard to assists. Big men don't get as many assists as guards/wings. When you combine the fact that McRoberts was a big man AND was the 3rd/4th option, his 1.5 assists per game are fairly impressive. Honestly, passing is the absolute last aspect of his game that should be criticized.

And I don't think it is hyperbole to say that a guy who was the leading or #2 player in every major category for the team was the best player and carried the team. That is just reality. I also never argued that he had anything more than a very good, but short, college career. In fact, that is EXACTLY how I would describe his career. So I am not sure I get the point of your last sentence.

[Jim3k]

I don't think you understand how assists work. You actually have to have the ball to get an assist. If you are the third or fourth option, you aren't likely to get the ball enough to get a bunch of assists. I also don't think you understand positional norms with regard to assists. Big men don't get as many assists as guards/wings. When you combine the fact that McRoberts was a big man AND was the 3rd/4th option, his 1.5 assists per game are fairly impressive. Honestly, passing is the absolute last aspect of his game that should be criticized.

Now you are just being insulting. I've been watching Duke and college basketball since 1960. I was there when Heyman and Brown had their little contretemps. I know how assists work and how offenses run.


And I don't think it is hyperbole to say that a guy who was the leading or #2 player in every major category for the team was the best player and carried the team. That is just reality. I also never argued that he had anything more than a very good, but short, college career. In fact, that is EXACTLY how I would describe his career. So I am not sure I get the point of your last sentence.

Well...somebody's got to be the stats leader. And when, on the '07 team McRob became the go-to guy, he'd naturally get the most opportunities. But was he the best 'player'? Depends, doesn't it? Certainly Henderson and Nelson were better athletes. Even Paulus was slightly better as an assists guy. Marky, Greg and Jon were all better overall shooters, since McRoberts had no 3-point shot and most of his points came from close in. Heck, he should have shot 60% instead of the 50% he did, since many of his misses were due to his flat shot. So I think labeling him as the best player on that team can be seen as an overstatement, if not hyperbole. Feel free to disagree, as I know you will.

Finally, in this thread at least, I note that you recite stats and such, but only those which support your POV. That's called selective fact-citing and is generally regarded as unscientific if not worse. When someone cites a stat you don't like, even if it is part of your own overall stat, you denigrate it as well as the person making the cite. Kind of short sighted and mean-spirited, don't you think?

If your performance in this thread is how you generally operate, I believe you need to reassess how you argue and how you treat others. None of here is dumb. We may disagree, but when you say something is 'ridiculous,' 'crazy' and the like, when they are clearly not, you are going beyond the limits of the neighborhood bar into arrogance.

[vick]

Finally, in this thread at least, I note that you recite stats and such, but only those which support your POV. That's called selective fact-citing and is generally regarded as unscientific if not worse. When someone cites a stat you don't like, even if it is part of your own overall stat, you denigrate it as well as the person making the cite. Kind of short sighted and mean-spirited, don't you think?

If your performance in this thread is how you generally operate, I believe you need to reassess how you argue and how you treat others. None of here is dumb. We may disagree, but when you say something is 'ridiculous,' 'crazy' and the like, when they are clearly not, you are going beyond the limits of the neighborhood bar into arrogance.

You are misrepresenting your own position here. You called McRoberts a "black hole" in the context of a team that had "Nelson, McClure, Thomas, Pocius, Scheyer and Henderson," i.e., the 2006-07 team, but when posters pointed out that the stats certainly disagree with this assertion, you doubled back to his 2005-06 assist stats (which also were not particularly bad for his position and role in the offense). CDu's not being selective here; the evidence simply rejects the position that McRoberts was a "black hole" in any meaningful sense.

[Edouble]

Well...somebody's got to be the stats leader. And when, on the '07 team McRob became the go-to guy, he'd naturally get the most opportunities. But was he the best 'player'? Depends, doesn't it? Certainly Henderson and Nelson were better athletes. Even Paulus was slightly better as an assists guy. Marky, Greg and Jon were all better overall shooters, since McRoberts had no 3-point shot and most of his points came from close in. Heck, he should have shot 60% instead of the 50% he did, since many of his misses were due to his flat shot. So I think labeling him as the best player on that team can be seen as an overstatement, if not hyperbole. Feel free to disagree, as I know you will.

McRoberts could dribble and pass better than Paulus. Henderson was more athletic, but couldn't even stay on the court due to asthma. McRoberts was certainly as athletic as DeMarcus.

[Double DD]

I think you're right. I mixed Josh up with this forward-center who only averaged 1.5 assists per game in 2005-2006. (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/season-stats.php?season=2005-06)

Josh McRoberts 36 31 24.5 .605 .385 .664 5.3 1.5 1.3 1.1 8.7


Thanks for allowing me to clear that up. ;) (Player's name is in white font.)

Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks. It was silly of me to assume that you would be talking about the 06-07 season just because you mentioned players like Scheyer and Henderson who weren't on the team in 05-06 and the rest of your post being about the 06-07 season and replacing McRoberts.

[ice-9]

I remember the 06-07 season well as I was back in the US for grad school. In college, McRoberts' strengths were passing, running, dunks, alley oops and defence. He was a good dribbler for a big man but he's no Kyrie.

McRoberts was the ultimate role player on offence -- an exceedingly good one. And I don't say that to denigrate McRoberts; you need great role players to have a great team, just like you need great scorers. However, he was was ill-suited to be that first option scorer that Coach K asked him to be. I remember that team running a lot of iso for McRoberts in the high post. I don't know why we kept running that play, because he didn't convert much. I'm guessing Coach K didn't think we had better alternatives...but that season felt like one giant square peg in a round hole.

McRoberts was a beast on defence. I don't know what the geek stats were for that season, but I remember we were quite good on D and McRoberts was the biggest reason for it. He was an anchor in the post. He dominated on D. Sadly, as fans we tend to overlook or undervalue that aspect of the game.

I've been part of high performing and low performing teams. When things don't go well, there's a lot of finger pointing. Small things get blown up to become big things. Did McRoberts have an attitude or laziness problem in the 05-06 season? Were there whispers that people would be happy to see him leave for the NBA after that year?

No, I agree with the assessment that the 06-07 team simply wasn't very good. McRoberts got stuck in a situation where he couldn't showcase his strengths; instead his weaknesses (scoring as the first option) were put on display game after game. And yet, Coach K determined that was the team's best strategy. How happy would you have been to be McRoberts? And yet, I don't know whether the team could have been any better. We just didn't have it that year.

[CDu]

Now you are just being insulting. I've been watching Duke and college basketball since 1960. I was there when Heyman and Brown had their little contretemps. I know how assists work and how offenses run.

I'm sincerely sorry for being insulting in my previous post. However, you called McRoberts a black hole, and then used his 1.5 assists per game as a freshman PF when he rarely got the ball as a 3rd/4th option as evidence supporting this statement. That's just wrong. I suggest that you take a look at other teams in the ACC and find some other PFs who, as the 3rd/4th option, averaged 1.5 apg in 24.5 mpg. I suspect you'll find the list to be VERY short. It will get even shorter (perhaps nonexistent) when you limit it to freshmen.

There's a reason that nobody is agreeing with your "black hole" argument in this thread. It's because we understood that McRoberts was far from a black hole on offense.


Well...somebody's got to be the stats leader. And when, on the '07 team McRob became the go-to guy, he'd naturally get the most opportunities. But was he the best 'player'? Depends, doesn't it? Certainly Henderson and Nelson were better athletes. Even Paulus was slightly better as an assists guy. Marky, Greg and Jon were all better overall shooters, since McRoberts had no 3-point shot and most of his points came from close in. Heck, he should have shot 60% instead of the 50% he did, since many of his misses were due to his flat shot. So I think labeling him as the best player on that team can be seen as an overstatement, if not hyperbole. Feel free to disagree, as I know you will.

I will disagree, thank you. You've suggested that, in any one characteristic, McRoberts was not the best. And in most of those cases, you are correct. But when you look at the big picture and see that McRoberts is among the top guys in most categories, he comes out as the best player. There is a reason nobody else is agreeing with you that McRoberts wasn't the best player on that team that year. (the "that year" is key; Scheyer and Henderson would eventually develop into better players a few years later, but they were not there in the 2007 season).

And about your "assist guy" sentence: as the de-facto PG, Paulus had the ball in his hands a lot more than McRoberts (or anyone else on the team). That Paulus got a few more assists doesn't mean he was the "better" assist guy. Quantity of opportunity is a big part of assist counts. Paulus was not the better assist guy; he just got more assists as a result of more opportunity. Note that Paulus' A/TO ratio (1.23) was not as good as McRoberts' (1.43). When your C has a better A/TO ratio and nearly as many assists as your PG, I think it's tenuous (at best) to say that the PG was the better assist guy. McRoberts was a better ballhandler and a better passer than Paulus.


Finally, in this thread at least, I note that you recite stats and such, but only those which support your POV. That's called selective fact-citing and is generally regarded as unscientific if not worse. When someone cites a stat you don't like, even if it is part of your own overall stat, you denigrate it as well as the person making the cite. Kind of short sighted and mean-spirited, don't you think?

I didn't denigrate your statistic. I just pointed out that your use of the statistic was misplaced/shortsighted. I'm about as stats-oriented as they come, so when stats are used I want them to be used correctly. And in this particular argument, you were misusing a stat to support a faulty argument.

[miramar]

MCRoberts was the ultimate role player on offense -- an exceedingly good one. And I don't say that to denigrate McRoberts; you need great role players to have a great team, just like you need great scorers. However, he was was ill-suited to be that first option scorer that Coach K asked him to be. I remember that team running a lot of iso for McRoberts in the high post. I don't know why we kept running that play, because he didn't convert much. I'm guessing Coach K didn't think we had better alternatives...but that season felt like one giant square peg in a round hole.

The good news is that McBob that would have been much more effective if, for example, DeMarcus and Paulus had been the kind of scorers they seemed to be in HS. But the bad news is that he was projected to be the best big big man in his college class, so he wasn't supposed to be complementary player. McBob's attitude separates him from the other two players, but that just wasn't a very good team all around.

Happy Easter to everyone.

[jimsumner]

RE: 2007.

This team had lots of talented players. McRoberts, DeMarcus Nelson, Gerald Henderson and Lance Thomas all played in the NBA, while Jon Scheyer and Greg Paulus made All-ACC at least once. They beat Final Four-bound Georgetown early in the season.

But the team was seriously deficient in experience and leadership. There were no recruited seniors and only one recruited junior, DeMarcus Nelson. Nelson was an introvert, almost painfully at times and simply wasn't cut out for a leadership role; he was better in 2008, fwiw.

That left sophomores and freshmen. Not a good recipe. Paulus wanted to be alpha dog, McRoberts wanted to be alpha dog and the team never coalesced. By the end of the season, Duke couldn't beat anyone.

K deserves some blame for this. Four years earlier, he only recruited Luol Deng, Kris Humphries and Ndudi Ebi. That's it. None of these guys was going to be around for their senior year in 2007. In fact, the trio combined for two college seasons. Scholarships were tight after a six-player 2003 class. But maybe K should have recruited a talented, four-year guy. Or asked someone like Lee Melchionni to redshirt in 2006 and come back as a fifth-year senior in 2007.

But hindsight is 20/20 and none of this happened.

[Class of '94]

Do I think "Josh tapped into all his abilities and potential as a basketball player?" Man, how would I know? How would you know? That's a difficult and usually unfair question to ask about a stranger. I've not met Josh. Even if I had, I've not watched him work out. Even if I had, I've not monitored how often he works out. Even if I had, I'd have no way of knowing if he addressed his shortcomings intelligently. Even if I had, I would have no way of knowing if he could have done any of those above things harder. Nor do I think, with a gun to your temple, you would be able to answer those questions with confidence. For my part, when we want to make a moral attack on a player--and make no mistake, accusing someone of laziness or "failing to reach his potential" is casting one of the harshest moral aspersions one can launch at an athlete--the burden of proof should be on the prosecution. What evidence do we have that Josh was lazy? We have:

1) He did not live up to his high school ranking.
2) He scowled.
3) There were "whispers" about him during his time on campus.

To me, this writ is not even close to persuasive. And I'd like to make a further point. We often overlook just how hard it is to make it in the NBA. The NBA is the most difficult professional sports league on Planet Earth. To become an NBA starter means doing something waaaay harder than all but the tiniest fraction of people ever accomplishes in a lifetime. Josh, from a bad draft position and after getting cut loose from at least one franchise, has turned himself into a viable (and unique!) starter on a playoff team. (Yeah, it's the Eastern Conference. Still.) I know maybe person in my life who I would consider has accomplished something on the level Josh has. I know I will be very excited if I am fortunate enough in this life to meet more such people. You just cannot accomplish such things without putting in sweat equity. You cannot. The quote-unquote evidence that he slacked at Duke is completely overwhelmed by the manifest journey he has had to undertake to become what he is today. So I'm very uncomfortable when somebody starts talking about a Duke player being lazy on basically no evidence.

And, to make a further-further point, I think you are letting your long-ago hopes for what Josh might be cloud what are reasonable expectations for players, even the most hyped. Here is the RSCI top ten from Josh's year:

1 Josh McRoberts
2 Monta Ellis
3 Martell Webster
4 Tyler Hansbrough
5 Louis Williams
6 Julian Wright
7 Richard Hendrix
8 Mario Chalmers
8 Tasmin Mitchell
10 Andrew Bynum

Where does Josh's NBA career rank in this crowd? Behind Ellis, certainly. Behind Chalmers, too. After that, I really don't know. I think you can argue McRoberts ahead of Webster, Hansbrough, and Williams, although you could make strong counterarguments for each. He's definitely better than Wright, Hendrix, and whatever a "Tasmin Mitchell" is. And as for Andrew Bynum? Obviously, Bynum was the more talented player, but his career may be over, he's been constantly injured, and, for anyone wondering what Did-he-work-as-hard-as-he-could-have? looks like, THAT GUY is your poster child. At worst, McRoberts is 6th on that list, somewhere between 3rd and 6th. I just don't see the underachievement. The NBA is hard. Almost nobody becomes a star.
No....I have watched him over his NBA career; and I give him credit for being a starter for a 7th seeded-Eastern conference, which as a conference is inferior to the Western Conference. And I concede to your points that he has made some improvement in the NBA (although 35% shooting from the 3 isn't that great; and it took him this long to get to this point?). But again, maybe my thoughts about his potential is/was unrealistic; because I still can't help but feel (and this is something that we may have to agree to disagree on) that Josh had so much potential based off what he showed his freshman year at Duke. I know....i know that playing on a team with Shelden and JJ can mask a lot of his weaknesses; but I still feel he had the potential and growth to do more. And again, if Josh has negative views of Duke because he was asked to be the first scoring option on the team, I think it shows that he's just a different kind of player from a mindset perspective. I think there would be a lot of players that covet that kind of opportunity and do whatever they needed to do to position themselves to take advantage of it. Mason certainly did. I believe mistakes were made by both K and Josh; but I wonder how much of that responsibility does Josh take for how his career at Duke went. Of course, we'll never know; but again, I'm glad he's found a niche with a team and wish him the best.

[freshmanjs]

Boom (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/20/5634400/josh-mcroberts-slams-down-on-birdman-heat)

[Des Esseintes]

No....I have watched him over his NBA career; and I give him credit for being a starter for a 7th seeded-Eastern conference, which as a conference is inferior to the Western Conference. And I concede to your points that he has made some improvement in the NBA (although 35% shooting from the 3 isn't that great; and it took him this long to get to this point?). But again, maybe my thoughts about his potential is/was unrealistic; because I still can't help but feel (and this is something that we may have to agree to disagree on) that Josh had so much potential based off what he showed his freshman year at Duke. I know....i know that playing on a team with Shelden and JJ can mask a lot of his weaknesses; but I still feel he had the potential and growth to do more. And again, if Josh has negative views of Duke because he was asked to be the first scoring option on the team, I think it shows that he's just a different kind of player from a mindset perspective. I think there would be a lot of players that covet that kind of opportunity and do whatever they needed to do to position themselves to take advantage of it. Mason certainly did. I believe mistakes were made by both K and Josh; but I wonder how much of that responsibility does Josh take for how his career at Duke went. Of course, we'll never know; but again, I'm glad he's found a niche with a team and wish him the best.

I think if you look at the statistics (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/josh-mcroberts-1.html), you see great growth from Josh's freshman to sophomore years. First off--and I really think this cannot be overstated--Josh's minutes went from 24.5 mpg his freshman year to 35.3 mpg his sophomore year. That may not seem anomalous because many guards and wings ring up high minutes totals such as that on a regular basis, but it is extremely uncommon at Duke for a big man. How uncommon? Well, think of JJ and Shelden's junior year, when we had an ultra-thin rotation, and those two guys more or less carried us to a one-seed. It will always be for me the gold standard for Duke upperclassman heroism, the performance those guys put on. That season, Shelden played 33.6 mpg. The following year, with a somewhat deeper rotation, he played 33.3 mpg. This is Shelden Williams, guy with his jersey in the rafters, and Duke leaned on him less than it did on McRoberts as a sophomore. For another comp, in an almost NPOY season last year, Mason Plumlee played 34.7 mpg. This was as a senior and an old senior at that. These seasons are outliers. The vast majority of other Duke big man seasons come nowhere near this minutes load. So before we look at anything else from McRoberts that year, we have to understand that the team leaned on him to an extraordinary, basically unprecedented degree. Keep in mind, too, that he switched positions. Without Shelden in the middle, Josh moved from power forward to center, with a whole new set of responsibilities and assignments.

During that sophomore year, Josh was the principle reason Duke's defense held strong. It wasn't as great as it was Shelden's senior year; it was better. In 2006, with the NDPOY of in the middle, Duke's adjusted defensive efficiency was #18. In 2007, with Josh taking over, it was #7. That's just a massive accomplishment--for K and for McRoberts. How can you not see tremendous player growth in a result such as that? How could that have happened without Josh unlocking major new parts of his game? I really don't understand people's criticisms of Josh's post defense. He doubled his blocks per game from his freshman year and was highly fluid showing and recovering. He was such an excellent defender at the college level, and no one cares to remember it, focusing entirely on his shortcomings as shotmaker.

He also continued to improve as a passer, going from 2.4 apg as a freshman (as CDu says, a solid number considering context) to almost 4 his sophomore campaign. When was the last Duke center to put up 4 apg? Bear in mind, too, that that stat was accomplished with one of the slowest-tempoed Duke teams in memory, #202 by kenpom's numbers. He did up his scoring, albeit at the cost of efficiency. Josh was much less efficient his sophomore year. But I would encourage anyone who wants to hang him on that fact to remember 1) how many threats he'd had around him as a freshman, and 2) how few threats he had around him the subsequent campaign. He was the primary focus of opposing defenses, and scoring was not the thing he did best. It was going to suffer, and it did. You say you remember all this tantalizing talent from his freshman campaign, but was that talent in the form of scoring potential? Because he mainly only scored off running in transition, putback dunks, and the rare wide-wide-open jumpshot. The talent he flashed to me as a freshman was a great court vision, maneuverability, and excellent use of wingspan, all of which he delivered upon further, both at Duke and in the NBA.

Lastly, I think you're engaging in a lot of supposition about Josh's motives and character. He told an interviewer that he was a poor fit at Duke and wasn't happy. He didn't say why. You are choosing to put the most negative, take-the-least-personal-responsibility spin on those comments. More likely to me, Josh McRoberts feels three things: 1) his personality did not mesh well, perhaps with some of his teammates and/or the coaching staff, 2) he lost out on a LOT of money by not going pro out of high school or freshman year, and 3) he's been held responsible for the failures of a team when he was by far its best player, not its worst. All of these seem like legitimate reasons to have regrets. That doesn't mean Duke or K did something wrong. It just means that sometimes events add up in an unfortunate way.

But I do want to look at #1 again, briefly. As Jim Sumner mentions above, both Josh and Paulus wanted to be alpha dogs that season. Let's think about that for a sec. Because Greg Paulus seems to come in for not a scintilla of the grief McRoberts does. People mention that Greg was not a good point guard and that he was overrated coming out of high school, but they never make aspersions on his character in the way they do McRoberts. And this seems to me a strange double standard, because there is at least as much evidence of Paulus being a difficult teammate as there is McRoberts. Starting with the idea that Paulus, who was not a high major-quality point guard and was a year away from being a high-major quality 2, thought he should be alpha dog on that Duke team. Crazy! There are other discordant notes too, viz. Paulus's poor response to being benched his senior year. For one reason or another, his quality of play fell through the floor in the wake of that demotion. I say these things not to bury Greg, because I don't actually know anything about the guy, but to show that if we want to create narratives, there are candidates other than McRoberts who are at least as likely as having been the problem. People say Josh failed to develop, but Josh developed a lot. If anyone can be accused of holding back that 2007 time by their failure to develop, it is Paulus. But I never hear people say he's lazy. Both were very highly rated recruits, but only one ever gets accused of wasting his talents. Why? I do wonder if it's on court demeanor that causes people to run with one story over the other. Greg always runs around looking intense and "gamer-y". I think that excuses him from much of the criticism Josh received.

[vick]

I think if you look at the statistics (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/josh-mcroberts-1.html), you see great growth from Josh's freshman to sophomore years. First off--and I really think this cannot be overstated--Josh's minutes went from 24.5 mpg his freshman year to 35.3 mpg his sophomore year. That may not seem anomalous because many guards and wings ring up high minutes totals such as that on a regular basis, but it is extremely uncommon at Duke for a big man. How uncommon? Well, think of JJ and Shelden's junior year, when we had an ultra-thin rotation, and those two guys more or less carried us to a one-seed. It will always be for me the gold standard for Duke upperclassman heroism, the performance those guys put on. That season, Shelden played 33.6 mpg. The following year, with a somewhat deeper rotation, he played 33.3 mpg. This is Shelden Williams, guy with his jersey in the rafters, and Duke leaned on him less than it did on McRoberts as a sophomore. For another comp, in an almost NPOY season last year, Mason Plumlee played 34.7 mpg. This was as a senior and an old senior at that. These seasons are outliers. The vast majority of other Duke big man seasons come nowhere near this minutes load. So before we look at anything else from McRoberts that year, we have to understand that the team leaned on him to an extraordinary, basically unprecedented degree. Keep in mind, too, that he switched positions. Without Shelden in the middle, Josh moved from power forward to center, with a whole new set of responsibilities and assignments.

During that sophomore year, Josh was the principle reason Duke's defense held strong. It wasn't as great as it was Shelden's senior year; it was better. In 2006, with the NDPOY of in the middle, Duke's adjusted defensive efficiency was #18. In 2007, with Josh taking over, it was #7. That's just a massive accomplishment--for K and for McRoberts. How can you not see tremendous player growth in a result such as that? How could that have happened without Josh unlocking major new parts of his game? I really don't understand people's criticisms of Josh's post defense. He doubled his blocks per game from his freshman year and was highly fluid showing and recovering. He was such an excellent defender at the college level, and no one cares to remember it, focusing entirely on his shortcomings as shotmaker.

He also continued to improve as a passer, going from 2.4 apg as a freshman (as CDu says, a solid number considering context) to almost 4 his sophomore campaign. When was the last Duke center to put up 4 apg? Bear in mind, too, that that stat was accomplished with one of the slowest-tempoed Duke teams in memory, #202 by kenpom's numbers. He did up his scoring, albeit at the cost of efficiency. Josh was much less efficient his sophomore year. But I would encourage anyone who wants to hang him on that fact to remember 1) how many threats he'd had around him as a freshman, and 2) how few threats he had around him the subsequent campaign. He was the primary focus of opposing defenses, and scoring was not the thing he did best. It was going to suffer, and it did. You say you remember all this tantalizing talent from his freshman campaign, but was that talent in the form of scoring potential? Because he mainly only scored off running in transition, putback dunks, and the rare wide-wide-open jumpshot. The talent he flashed to me as a freshman was a great court vision, maneuverability, and excellent use of wingspan, all of which he delivered upon further, both at Duke and in the NBA.

Lastly, I think you're engaging in a lot of supposition about Josh's motives and character. He told an interviewer that he was a poor fit at Duke and wasn't happy. He didn't say why. You are choosing to put the most negative, take-the-least-personal-responsibility spin on those comments. More likely to me, Josh McRoberts feels three things: 1) his personality did not mesh well, perhaps with some of his teammates and/or the coaching staff, 2) he lost out on a LOT of money by not going pro out of high school or freshman year, and 3) he's been held responsible for the failures of a team when he was by far its best player, not its worst. All of these seem like legitimate reasons to have regrets. That doesn't mean Duke or K did something wrong. It just means that sometimes events add up in an unfortunate way.

But I do want to look at #1 again, briefly. As Jim Sumner mentions above, both Josh and Paulus wanted to be alpha dogs that season. Let's think about that for a sec. Because Greg Paulus seems to come in for not a scintilla of the grief McRoberts does. People mention that Greg was not a good point guard and that he was overrated coming out of high school, but they never make aspersions on his character in the way they do McRoberts. And this seems to me a strange double standard, because there is at least as much evidence of Paulus being a difficult teammate as there is McRoberts. Starting with the idea that Paulus, who was not a high major-quality point guard and was a year away from being a high-major quality 2, thought he should be alpha dog on that Duke team. Crazy! There are other discordant notes too, viz. Paulus's poor response to being benched his senior year. For one reason or another, his quality of play fell through the floor in the wake of that demotion. I say these things not to bury Greg, because I don't actually know anything about the guy, but to show that if we want to create narratives, there are candidates other than McRoberts who are at least as likely as having been the problem. People say Josh failed to develop, but Josh developed a lot. If anyone can be accused of holding back that 2007 time by their failure to develop, it is Paulus. But I never hear people say he's lazy. Both were very highly rated recruits, but only one ever gets accused of wasting his talents. Why? I do wonder if it's on court demeanor that causes people to run with one story over the other. Greg always runs around looking intense and "gamer-y". I think that excuses him from much of the criticism Josh received.

Great post. It really does seem common for people to unreasonably credit people who run around and look like they're putting in a lot of effort without regard to whether actual positive basketball play is coming from it (see MP3 minutes debates for great examples).

[ice-9]

The good news is that McBob that would have been much more effective if, for example, DeMarcus and Paulus had been the kind of scorers they seemed to be in HS. But the bad news is that he was projected to be the best big big man in his college class, so he wasn't supposed to be complementary player. McBob's attitude separates him from the other two players, but that just wasn't a very good team all around.

Happy Easter to everyone.

Reality jarred perception, sure. I was always nervous to read a prospect has "all around" skills because what is good enough for high school is often not good enough in college, and what is good enough in college is often not good enough in the NBA. For example, McRoberts was thought to have a good handle. But that's for high school. And he may have been a big man with post offence...but that's for high school?

[Class of '94]

I think if you look at the statistics (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/josh-mcroberts-1.html), you see great growth from Josh's freshman to sophomore years. First off--and I really think this cannot be overstated--Josh's minutes went from 24.5 mpg his freshman year to 35.3 mpg his sophomore year. That may not seem anomalous because many guards and wings ring up high minutes totals such as that on a regular basis, but it is extremely uncommon at Duke for a big man. How uncommon? Well, think of JJ and Shelden's junior year, when we had an ultra-thin rotation, and those two guys more or less carried us to a one-seed. It will always be for me the gold standard for Duke upperclassman heroism, the performance those guys put on. That season, Shelden played 33.6 mpg. The following year, with a somewhat deeper rotation, he played 33.3 mpg. This is Shelden Williams, guy with his jersey in the rafters, and Duke leaned on him less than it did on McRoberts as a sophomore. For another comp, in an almost NPOY season last year, Mason Plumlee played 34.7 mpg. This was as a senior and an old senior at that. These seasons are outliers. The vast majority of other Duke big man seasons come nowhere near this minutes load. So before we look at anything else from McRoberts that year, we have to understand that the team leaned on him to an extraordinary, basically unprecedented degree. Keep in mind, too, that he switched positions. Without Shelden in the middle, Josh moved from power forward to center, with a whole new set of responsibilities and assignments.

During that sophomore year, Josh was the principle reason Duke's defense held strong. It wasn't as great as it was Shelden's senior year; it was better. In 2006, with the NDPOY of in the middle, Duke's adjusted defensive efficiency was #18. In 2007, with Josh taking over, it was #7. That's just a massive accomplishment--for K and for McRoberts. How can you not see tremendous player growth in a result such as that? How could that have happened without Josh unlocking major new parts of his game? I really don't understand people's criticisms of Josh's post defense. He doubled his blocks per game from his freshman year and was highly fluid showing and recovering. He was such an excellent defender at the college level, and no one cares to remember it, focusing entirely on his shortcomings as shotmaker.

He also continued to improve as a passer, going from 2.4 apg as a freshman (as CDu says, a solid number considering context) to almost 4 his sophomore campaign. When was the last Duke center to put up 4 apg? Bear in mind, too, that that stat was accomplished with one of the slowest-tempoed Duke teams in memory, #202 by kenpom's numbers. He did up his scoring, albeit at the cost of efficiency. Josh was much less efficient his sophomore year. But I would encourage anyone who wants to hang him on that fact to remember 1) how many threats he'd had around him as a freshman, and 2) how few threats he had around him the subsequent campaign. He was the primary focus of opposing defenses, and scoring was not the thing he did best. It was going to suffer, and it did. You say you remember all this tantalizing talent from his freshman campaign, but was that talent in the form of scoring potential? Because he mainly only scored off running in transition, putback dunks, and the rare wide-wide-open jumpshot. The talent he flashed to me as a freshman was a great court vision, maneuverability, and excellent use of wingspan, all of which he delivered upon further, both at Duke and in the NBA.

Lastly, I think you're engaging in a lot of supposition about Josh's motives and character. He told an interviewer that he was a poor fit at Duke and wasn't happy. He didn't say why. You are choosing to put the most negative, take-the-least-personal-responsibility spin on those comments. More likely to me, Josh McRoberts feels three things: 1) his personality did not mesh well, perhaps with some of his teammates and/or the coaching staff, 2) he lost out on a LOT of money by not going pro out of high school or freshman year, and 3) he's been held responsible for the failures of a team when he was by far its best player, not its worst. All of these seem like legitimate reasons to have regrets. That doesn't mean Duke or K did something wrong. It just means that sometimes events add up in an unfortunate way.

But I do want to look at #1 again, briefly. As Jim Sumner mentions above, both Josh and Paulus wanted to be alpha dogs that season. Let's think about that for a sec. Because Greg Paulus seems to come in for not a scintilla of the grief McRoberts does. People mention that Greg was not a good point guard and that he was overrated coming out of high school, but they never make aspersions on his character in the way they do McRoberts. And this seems to me a strange double standard, because there is at least as much evidence of Paulus being a difficult teammate as there is McRoberts. Starting with the idea that Paulus, who was not a high major-quality point guard and was a year away from being a high-major quality 2, thought he should be alpha dog on that Duke team. Crazy! There are other discordant notes too, viz. Paulus's poor response to being benched his senior year. For one reason or another, his quality of play fell through the floor in the wake of that demotion. I say these things not to bury Greg, because I don't actually know anything about the guy, but to show that if we want to create narratives, there are candidates other than McRoberts who are at least as likely as having been the problem. People say Josh failed to develop, but Josh developed a lot. If anyone can be accused of holding back that 2007 time by their failure to develop, it is Paulus. But I never hear people say he's lazy. Both were very highly rated recruits, but only one ever gets accused of wasting his talents. Why? I do wonder if it's on court demeanor that causes people to run with one story over the other. Greg always runs around looking intense and "gamer-y". I think that excuses him from much of the criticism Josh received.

No, I actually thought Josh choosing not to go into any details and just wanted to leave it at that in terms of Duke not being a good fit was a sign of maturity on Josh's part; and I respected him for that. I just watched all of the Bobcats-Heat game; and I came away still thinking how talented a player Josh is. Maybe it did help he was playing with a very good post player in Al Jefferson and good pg in Kemba Walker; but I felt like he should have better stats than what he has over the course of his NBA career. I never thought Josh was a lazy or selfish player at Duke or anywhere else; but I do wonder if he was a "stubborn" player in that he resisted embracing the things he needed to develop more.

I agree with you that saying Duke wasn't a good fit for him doesn't make him a bad person or look bad on the coaching staff. I'm not focusing on the 2007 team. Stuff happens; and I don't know if he had gone to the NBA after his freshman year would've changed his outlook on Duke or remained the same. I'm not trying to dog Josh for what he did or didn't do at Duke. I do wish his experience at Duke had been better for him; and I hate for anyone to leave Duke with bad feelings about his or her experience there; but it does not mean I hate that individual. For me, I will always wonder if Josh could've developed into more sooner had he chosen to and embraced it. I know I'm speculating with that last comment; but when I use the "eye test", I again see a player that was capable of doing more with the talent God blessed him with. I know it's hard to score and play in the NBA; and I have no "proof" to support my argument (which I know is weak in a discussion like this); but I really believe Josh is a talented player that can make a bigger impact on the game than what he has done up to now..

[sagegrouse]

No, I actually thought Josh choosing not to go into any details and just wanted to leave it at that in terms of Duke not being a good fit was a sign of maturity on Josh's part; and I respected him for that. I just watched all of the Bobcats-Heat game; and I came away still thinking how talented a player Josh is. Maybe it did help he was playing with a very good post player in Al Jefferson and good pg in Kemba Walker; but I felt like he should have better stats than what he has over the course of his NBA career. I never thought Josh was a lazy or selfish player at Duke or anywhere else; but I do wonder if he was a "stubborn" player in that he resisted embracing the things he needed to develop more.

I agree with you that saying Duke wasn't a good fit for him doesn't make him a bad person or look bad on the coaching staff. I'm not focusing on the 2007 team. Stuff happens; and I don't know if he had gone to the NBA after his freshman year would've changed his outlook on Duke or remained the same. I'm not trying to dog Josh for what he did or didn't do at Duke. I do wish his experience at Duke had been better for him; and I hate for anyone to leave Duke with bad feelings about his or her experience there; but it does not mean I hate that individual. For me, I will always wonder if Josh could've developed into more sooner had he chosen to and embraced it. I know I'm speculating with that last comment; but when I use the "eye test", I again see a player that was capable of doing more with the talent God blessed him with. I know it's hard to score and play in the NBA; and I have no "proof" to support my argument (which I know is weak in a discussion like this); but I really believe Josh is a talented player that can make a bigger impact on the game than what he has done up to now..

After his freshman season Josh was projected as a lottery pick IIRC (and there's always a first time). When he entered the NBA draft after his sophomore season, he was a second round pick and struggled to even get in the league. He earned $400K his first year and appeared in only eight games for the Trailblazers. He earned ~$800-900K the next three years before he finally got a good multi-year deal, starting at $3.0 million, with the Lakers.

Quite frankly, he took a bath by staying a second year at Duke, or, at least, he believes he did. And as the top guy in his HS class, he had a real comedown. Why should he have joyous and rapturous feeling about his time as a Blue Devil?

We should continue to support Josh, and expect that time will heal any wounds.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Boom (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/20/5634400/josh-mcroberts-slams-down-on-birdman-heat)

Was going to pop in here and post this.

McBob's time at Duke was certainly tumultuous, as evidenced by the very wide disparity of opinions on this board about his tenure. Regardless, I am happy to see him doing well in The League.

[Class of '94]

After his freshman season Josh was projected as a lottery pick IIRC (and there's always a first time). When he entered the NBA draft after his sophomore season, he was a second round pick and struggled to even get in the league. He earned $400K his first year and appeared in only eight games for the Trailblazers. He earned ~$800-900K the next three years before he finally got a good multi-year deal, starting at $3.0 million, with the Lakers.

Quite frankly, he took a bath by staying a second year at Duke, or, at least, he believes he did. And as the top guy in his HS class, he had a real comedown. Why should he have joyous and rapturous feeling about his time as a Blue Devil?

We should continue to support Josh, and expect that time will heal any wounds.

I completely agree with you and Des on this topic in that I get why he could hold bad feelings about Duke; and I do support Josh in regards to him being successful in the NBA. At the same time, part of time healing all wounds is taking personal responsibility and accountability for the mistakes that Josh made during his time at Duke. Do i get why Josh could be salty at Duke? Of course! But I don't believe it was all on Duke (or a majority of the blame falls on Duke) for why he was drafted in the second round after his 2nd year instead of being a lottery or first round pick; or for that matter it was on Duke that it took Josh 4 years to get good contract. At some point, I hope he has the growth and maturity to recognize his own mistakes that he made (outside of possibly choosing Duke to go to play college ball). Maybe he already has or is on his way to it. I thought it was a good sign of growth and maturity to go in to any specifics in regards to his feelings about Duke not being a good fit. That can be hard for anyone to do considering his situation. I sincerely hope that the two sides will eventually reconcile their differences; and we see Josh back on campus to get his degree as well as be more a part of the program.

[greybeard]

I thought Des Esseintes' post astonishing. Perhaps the best I've seen.

I have a few guesses on why the less than favorable look back. I agree with Des Esseintes that McRoberts was responsible for that defense. Duke pressure outside with ferocity, shot passing lanes and funneled everything towards the middle. McRoberts' job was to double hard, and if the ball got out to another opponent, to recover and guard the big. He did that seamlessly and blocked or alt3ered an enormous number of those shots. He also went up in crowds and brought down it seemed like all the tough ones. He guarded the rim, altered or blocked shots if he could not get to the double team quick enough. He was Bill Russell without the help. Duke has smart and in Nelson and McClure great and athletic and tenacious defenders, but that defense depended on an amazing display of talent and an exhausting expenditure of energy on him. I don't think he liked it one bit, particularly when guys broke through to penetrate, or a slow down of his man when McRob had gone to double was late or absent and McRob's man scored.

I repeatedly acknowledged and praised McRobert's play on defense and the defensive boards and held hia responsibilities as responsible for holding back his offensive performance. There were times, especially late in games, when I saw he staying out of meaningful participation, at distance from key spots high on the key or off the side of the lane, because I thought K wanted him (a) to be back on defense and set for an offensive attack, and (b) wanted him as fresh (that's an unrealistic term) as possible once he got there. I think his jump shot suffered.

I hated that K insisted that McRoberts' inside game consisted of set and hold position, that failed to maximize his grace, timing, agility, vision and hands for catches on the move which would have logically been at advantage. jhat. Not only did that type inside game play away from McRoberts' strengths as a ballplayer but it made demands on a back that only that summer had been operated on. McRoberts displayed some beautiful moves but, for some reason, insisted on lefty finishes, who knows why (perhaps because of that back).

Duke did not run, except off exterior steals, because it was sending everyone to the board. Here again, a major part of what Roberts did so well both as a finisher and set up man was gone. I also think that playing as the man described by a teammate in that article, who loved to make the pass that lead to the pass that resulted in an easy basket, or saw how cutting through without the ball would free a side for space for a teammate to get to the rim for an easy score.

In short, K deployed him in ways that McRoberts did not enjoy playing and was less effective at Ks game than he would have been at his. Had McRoberts gone after his freshman year he would have had a chance to rest and rehab that back without the demands of playing a leading roll. He would have learned a lot of the pro game while watching, playing loose pick up, and feeling and sensing what the pro game was, especially in the sensible minutes he would have gotten. With a guaranteed contract there would not have been the pressure to put up numbers which was not his game, and to let that back and his new body develop as he slowly found his way into the game. Coming back to Duke for a second year was from McRobert's perspective a mistake. he did not get to display and grown and show off His game, around which a young man of his talents must have expected the game would be organized. it wasn't. He was asked to cover on defense for an undersized defense, work as hard as he could on that end especially at the end of close games, and do the dirty work to the exclusion of showing the world the best of him and getting to play the game that lights his passion.

You'd think you'd made a mistake too.

[tele]

I thought Des Esseintes' post astonishing. Perhaps the best I've seen.

I have a few guesses on why the less than favorable look back.

In short, K deployed him in ways that McRoberts did not enjoy playing and was less effective at

You'd think you'd made a mistake too.

Interesting discussion considering recent events with one and dones. If a coach is famous for recruiting and developing point guards, perhaps, and I'm just sayin maybe, subsequent recruiting imbalances wind up with the team shortcomings being placed on the teams other players, especially post players who are very dependent on their point guards for offensive success. (Unless you can thrive on offensive rebounds alone, like a zoubek for instance). Asking your 2 guards to take up playing point, like Demarcus and Rasheed have done, while also asking your 2 guards like Sheed and Dre to also play against opposing forwards in three guard sets that allow for sharing the point duties, illustrate this kind of imbalance. It would be hard for a big not to be frustrated with this because there is little you can do to improve this situation except for playing farther and farthere away from the basket on offense and setting endless screens. But that doesn't solve things it just sacrifices the optimum utility of the big down low by the basket.

Next years incoming class would seem to address that sort of imbalance, but only if they can step in and play right away. And that can present challenges no matter how good the incoming player, as it did for Mcbob and Paulus.

[cspan37421]

The sentiments in this thread are some of the more unexpected expressions I've seen in some time on this board, though maybe I should not be surprised, given that Josh is a starter on a playoff team. I do not have the time nor inclination to use the forum's search functions (which I have yet to find very useful) to learn what the sentiments on Josh were when he left early, but I cannot help but feel there's some positive revisionism going on here. Maybe not the same posters (and therefore it's selection bias, not revisionism) but it seemed to me that the feelings about him are significantly more positive now (that he is a starter on an NBA playoff team) than they were when we were busy suffering early NCAA exits. At that time, I don't recall any weeping or gnashing of teeth over his departure. I thought he was considered by some to be aloof, and perhaps a bit too fond of, shall we say, certain types of extracurricular social activities that can be found on nearly all college campuses. I have no first-hand knowledge of this, but I thought I read it here. (Don't know where else I'd get it ... only place I look for Duke stuff). Perhaps I dreamed it; if so, I am mistaken.

That said, I recall his performance against VCU, and I remember thinking to myself, "Where have you been hiding THAT?" I think it was known he was leaving at that point, and I can see him saying, "what the heck, I'm on my way out the door, I might as well take charge and show them what I've got." Perhaps he played outside the game plan in doing so; I don't know. I rather doubt it though, if he had, he wouldn't have played 40 min. [BTW, if we hit the same 75% on our FTs as VCU we win the game, btw].

But I do find it remarkable not only that he is looked back on so fondly now, as opposed to what my recollection of the sentiment then, but also, this questioning of how Coach K used him or others. Mike Krzyzewski has 4 more national championships and 900+ wins; I defer to him on how best to use his talent, particularly when taking a long view. Not that he never has made a mistake, but I would bet that in the moment, none of us could do better. Sure, in retrospect, some things don't work out, but if such was able to be known in advance, he'd have known it and avoided it.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy he is doing well - perhaps even happier if he is now happy himself and one who enjoys playing with his teammates. I'm glad he got to that point. I didn't see it coming, but am glad for him that he got there, and I do hope that any strained relationships between him and his college teammates and coaches are or will be mended. Regardless of whether he's a starter on an NBA playoff team.

[Edouble]

The sentiments in this thread are some of the more unexpected expressions I've seen in some time on this board, though maybe I should not be surprised, given that Josh is a starter on a playoff team. I do not have the time nor inclination to use the forum's search functions (which I have yet to find very useful) to learn what the sentiments on Josh were when he left early, but I cannot help but feel there's some positive revisionism going on here. Maybe not the same posters (and therefore it's selection bias, not revisionism) but it seemed to me that the feelings about him are significantly more positive now (that he is a starter on an NBA playoff team) than they were when we were busy suffering early NCAA exits. At that time, I don't recall any weeping or gnashing of teeth over his departure. I thought he was considered by some to be aloof, and perhaps a bit too fond of, shall we say, certain types of extracurricular social activities that can be found on nearly all college campuses. I have no first-hand knowledge of this, but I thought I read it here. (Don't know where else I'd get it ... only place I look for Duke stuff). Perhaps I dreamed it; if so, I am mistaken.

Talk about revisionist... there was only one!

I was always bullish on Josh, and as I stated very early on in this thread, I really related to his visible on the court frustration. He was the player that I identified with on that year's team.

Greg Paulus is my least favorite Blue Devil ever, hands down. There was so much Paulus worship around here back in the day that I pretty much stayed silent.

[Des Esseintes]

The sentiments in this thread are some of the more unexpected expressions I've seen in some time on this board, though maybe I should not be surprised, given that Josh is a starter on a playoff team. I do not have the time nor inclination to use the forum's search functions (which I have yet to find very useful) to learn what the sentiments on Josh were when he left early, but I cannot help but feel there's some positive revisionism going on here. Maybe not the same posters (and therefore it's selection bias, not revisionism) but it seemed to me that the feelings about him are significantly more positive now (that he is a starter on an NBA playoff team) than they were when we were busy suffering early NCAA exits. At that time, I don't recall any weeping or gnashing of teeth over his departure. I thought he was considered by some to be aloof, and perhaps a bit too fond of, shall we say, certain types of extracurricular social activities that can be found on nearly all college campuses. I have no first-hand knowledge of this, but I thought I read it here. (Don't know where else I'd get it ... only place I look for Duke stuff). Perhaps I dreamed it; if so, I am mistaken.

That said, I recall his performance against VCU, and I remember thinking to myself, "Where have you been hiding THAT?" I think it was known he was leaving at that point, and I can see him saying, "what the heck, I'm on my way out the door, I might as well take charge and show them what I've got." Perhaps he played outside the game plan in doing so; I don't know. I rather doubt it though, if he had, he wouldn't have played 40 min. [BTW, if we hit the same 75% on our FTs as VCU we win the game, btw].

But I do find it remarkable not only that he is looked back on so fondly now, as opposed to what my recollection of the sentiment then, but also, this questioning of how Coach K used him or others. Mike Krzyzewski has 4 more national championships and 900+ wins; I defer to him on how best to use his talent, particularly when taking a long view. Not that he never has made a mistake, but I would bet that in the moment, none of us could do better. Sure, in retrospect, some things don't work out, but if such was able to be known in advance, he'd have known it and avoided it.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy he is doing well - perhaps even happier if he is now happy himself and one who enjoys playing with his teammates. I'm glad he got to that point. I didn't see it coming, but am glad for him that he got there, and I do hope that any strained relationships between him and his college teammates and coaches are or will be mended. Regardless of whether he's a starter on an NBA playoff team.
I think we can all agree that the feelings an internet message board expresses right after a first round tournament loss are definitely the most accurate assessments of the talent and general personal worthiness of the players comprising that team and at no later point should those conclusions be reexamined or verified.

[cspan37421]

I think we can all agree that the feelings an internet message board expresses right after a first round tournament loss are definitely the most accurate assessments of the talent and general personal worthiness of the players comprising that team and at no later point should those conclusions be reexamined or verified.

No need for the sarcasm. I actually agree with your point above, it's worth revisiting, and after re-reading the entire thread, we're doing just that.

[CDu]

The sentiments in this thread are some of the more unexpected expressions I've seen in some time on this board, though maybe I should not be surprised, given that Josh is a starter on a playoff team. I do not have the time nor inclination to use the forum's search functions (which I have yet to find very useful) to learn what the sentiments on Josh were when he left early, but I cannot help but feel there's some positive revisionism going on here. Maybe not the same posters (and therefore it's selection bias, not revisionism) but it seemed to me that the feelings about him are significantly more positive now (that he is a starter on an NBA playoff team) than they were when we were busy suffering early NCAA exits. At that time, I don't recall any weeping or gnashing of teeth over his departure. I thought he was considered by some to be aloof, and perhaps a bit too fond of, shall we say, certain types of extracurricular social activities that can be found on nearly all college campuses. I have no first-hand knowledge of this, but I thought I read it here. (Don't know where else I'd get it ... only place I look for Duke stuff). Perhaps I dreamed it; if so, I am mistaken.

That said, I recall his performance against VCU, and I remember thinking to myself, "Where have you been hiding THAT?" I think it was known he was leaving at that point, and I can see him saying, "what the heck, I'm on my way out the door, I might as well take charge and show them what I've got." Perhaps he played outside the game plan in doing so; I don't know. I rather doubt it though, if he had, he wouldn't have played 40 min. [BTW, if we hit the same 75% on our FTs as VCU we win the game, btw].

But I do find it remarkable not only that he is looked back on so fondly now, as opposed to what my recollection of the sentiment then, but also, this questioning of how Coach K used him or others. Mike Krzyzewski has 4 more national championships and 900+ wins; I defer to him on how best to use his talent, particularly when taking a long view. Not that he never has made a mistake, but I would bet that in the moment, none of us could do better. Sure, in retrospect, some things don't work out, but if such was able to be known in advance, he'd have known it and avoided it.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy he is doing well - perhaps even happier if he is now happy himself and one who enjoys playing with his teammates. I'm glad he got to that point. I didn't see it coming, but am glad for him that he got there, and I do hope that any strained relationships between him and his college teammates and coaches are or will be mended. Regardless of whether he's a starter on an NBA playoff team.

I think you're falling prey to a bit of selective memory. That 2007 team was a very polarizing team. I'd venture that 99% of DBR posters (and probably Duke fans in general) were divided into two camps: those who laid most of the blame on McRoberts (and cheered Paulus) and those who laid most of the blame on Paulus (and cheered McRoberts). There was a large contingent of folks who were anti-McRoberts that year for sure. But there were also plenty of folks who supported him.

If you ask Paulus fans, many will tell you that Paulus has been unfairly vilified on these boards while McRoberts is unfairly praised. If you ask McRoberts fans, you'll probably hear the exact opposite from most of them. The reality is that those two guys both generated a very wide range of opinions on this board. That was true in April 2007 and it is still true today.

[greybeard]

Team player? Assists? Couldn't contribute without a good point guard. Did anybody read the link that started this thread.

Jameer Nelson, point for Orlando who played with Josh, "Everybody in the NBA loves playing with Josh." Why, he knows the beautiful game and plays it selflessly. Nelson continues, "He's smart . . . he understands the game."

The Bobcats owner, that would be the guy who owns the franchise, McRoberts is the franchise. Hey, why not use the dude's own words: "The success of this team is McRoberts--how well he connects the dots."

One of my favorites, Darvin Ham, an assistant when Josh was with the Lakers, "It's not just that he tries to make his teammates better. He makes the environment better."

When did this all start, in the Pros? McRoberts says it started when he was 5: “From the time I started playing basketball at 5 years old, I’ve always enjoyed making the play that ties people together. Whether it’s a pass or talking on the floor, something to make things easier. In AAU, I think people saw I wouldn’t shoot it every time. Throw a couple of passes and you end up with a dunk. That’s pretty fun.”

Well, that's just McRoberts talking on himself; what's that mean.

His childhood teammate, now fellow pro, Mike Conley kinda sorta backs McRoberts up here sports fans:

"you don't get noticed in basketball for seeing the play before it happens--for making the pass that leads to the pass for the backdoor or to make a hard cut to the rim to draw two defenders so that someone has an open three. Those are selfless acts and that's how he's been all his life."

Whatever happened at Duke happened. "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft inturred with their bones."

All I can say is that I am not laying anything negative that happened during his tenure at Duke on McRoberts. None. The evidence that it should be just isn't there. He did everything that K asked of him, on a recently repaired back that was "all better," he was asked to carry the heavy work on his back, the defense, the stopper, the shot blocker, the rebounder in a crowd, the shield-and-hold center, he carried Duke to respectability that it had zero chance of attaining without an outstanding performance by him.

As for some sort of rivalry for leadership between McRoberts and Paulus. Paulus began the season with a hairline fracture of his fifth metatarsal, it was a disease that went around on Duke teams for a number of years, that ruined his career at Duke. He played through it, but not well, not close to well. It served no one. Brave guy. I always thought talented. But, not on one foot, which is all he had to play on from his sophomore year on. If there was distemper between the two of them, well, let's lay it where it belongs, on the foot.

[Matches]

The only issue I ever had with McBob at Duke was that his body language on the court was poor. Then again, he was... what... 20 years old? We don't all have great control of our emotions at that age. There were rumblings at the time that he wasn't exactly popular in the locker room but I've no way of evaluating that.

I remember that 2007 season as being hugely frustrating. Early in the season K seemed willing to build the team around McBob as a jack-of-all-trades type - I remember him handling the ball on the perimeter a lot and being given free reign to freelance on offense. The responsibility seemed a bit much for him, though, and that got dialed back as the season progressed. For whatever reason, he just wasn't a great fit at Duke, and it's not surprising to me that he has less-than-rosy memories of his time here.

He has developed into a *really* good complementary NBA player though. He does a lot of things well and doesn't need to take many shots to impact a game.

[sagegrouse]

The only issue I ever had with McBob at Duke was that his body language on the court was poor. Then again, he was... what... 20 years old? We don't all have great control of our emotions at that age. There were rumblings at the time that he wasn't exactly popular in the locker room but I've no way of evaluating that.

.

The only issue I had with McBob at Duke (or Shav, for that matter) is that he left early and became a second round draft pick. This isn't... going for the money. This is going for nothing.

[COYS]

The only issue I had with McBob at Duke (or Shav, for that matter) is that he left early and became a second round draft pick. This isn't... going for the money. This is going for nothing.

Duke fans often talk about "what could've been" when discussing early entries like Deng leaving before 2005 or Shaun Livingston failing ever to set foot on campus. We also have the injury "what could've been" with Ryan Kelly, Seth Curry, Kyrie Irving . . . heck let's go back to Brand in '98. However, we rarely think about what could've been for the 2007-2008 team had McRoberts returned. Chemistry concerns aside, the 2007-2008 season was already a very good season for Duke. A lineup featuring a junior McRoberts at C, freshman Kyle at PF, Senior DeMarcus at SF, and a guard rotation of sophomores Gerald and Jon, junior Greg, and a freshman Nolan would have been pretty dang good. Everyone remembers how that team went out to WVU. However, that team really climbed high in the KenPom rankings and absolutely demolished some good teams along the way despite starting Kyle and Lance at C/PF for most of the season. When Lance was off the court before Zoubek returned from injury, Gerald and DeMarcus split time guarding opposing PF's. I think a player like Josh could've turned that team into a true championship contender. Instead he ended up a second round pick. Perhaps that was best for both parties at that point, but I still can't help but think Josh would've made a big difference in the way that season turned out.

[CDu]

Duke fans often talk about "what could've been" when discussing early entries like Deng leaving before 2005 or Shaun Livingston failing ever to set foot on campus. We also have the injury "what could've been" with Ryan Kelly, Seth Curry, Kyrie Irving . . . heck let's go back to Brand in '98. However, we rarely think about what could've been for the 2007-2008 team had McRoberts returned. Chemistry concerns aside, the 2007-2008 season was already a very good season for Duke. A lineup featuring a junior McRoberts at C, freshman Kyle at PF, Senior DeMarcus at SF, and a guard rotation of sophomores Gerald and Jon, junior Greg, and a freshman Nolan would have been pretty dang good. Everyone remembers how that team went out to WVU. However, that team really climbed high in the KenPom rankings and absolutely demolished some good teams along the way despite starting Kyle and Lance at C/PF for most of the season. When Lance was off the court before Zoubek returned from injury, Gerald and DeMarcus split time guarding opposing PF's. I think a player like Josh could've turned that team into a true championship contender. Instead he ended up a second round pick. Perhaps that was best for both parties at that point, but I still can't help but think Josh would've made a big difference in the way that season turned out.

Totally agree that a frontcourt of McRoberts paired with Singler could have done real damage in 2007-2008. Just unfortunate that things didn't work out that way. Lots of "what might have beens" over the years.

[Matches]

The only issue I had with McBob at Duke (or Shav, for that matter) is that he left early and became a second round draft pick. This isn't... going for the money. This is going for nothing.

I don't think Josh expected to be a second-round pick when he announced his departure.

Shav's decision was a big headscratcher at the time but... without getting into rumor-mongering, we never know the whole story behind some of these decisions. There are kids who leave for reasons other than their draft position, and sometimes it's not entirely their decision.

I wouldn't begrudge either Josh or Shav for feeling they weren't developing optimally at Duke, though (particularly Josh given his huge drop in draft position between '06 and '07), and were better-served by beginning their professional careers.

[ice-9]

I think you're falling prey to a bit of selective memory. That 2007 team was a very polarizing team. I'd venture that 99% of DBR posters (and probably Duke fans in general) were divided into two camps: those who laid most of the blame on McRoberts (and cheered Paulus) and those who laid most of the blame on Paulus (and cheered McRoberts). There was a large contingent of folks who were anti-McRoberts that year for sure. But there were also plenty of folks who supported him.

If you ask Paulus fans, many will tell you that Paulus has been unfairly vilified on these boards while McRoberts is unfairly praised. If you ask McRoberts fans, you'll probably hear the exact opposite from most of them. The reality is that those two guys both generated a very wide range of opinions on this board. That was true in April 2007 and it is still true today.

I guess I'm in the negligible camp who thought both played their hearts out.

McRoberts I've written about on this thread already -- a skilled big man who just unfortunately because of the team makeup wasn't able to display his strengths.

Paulus I wrote about way back then -- someone who may not have been the dominant PG who can penetrate and defend, but still justified his time on the court with superior long range shooting. Or was that only when he was a senior? Man I'm getting old.

In any case, whatever limitations they may have had, both are Duke players and I will always hold them in positive regard.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I guess I'm in the negligible camp who thought both played their hearts out.

McRoberts I've written about on this thread already -- a skilled big man who just unfortunately because of the team makeup wasn't able to display his strengths.

Paulus I wrote about way back then -- someone who may not have been the dominant PG who can penetrate and defend, but still justified his time on the court with superior long range shooting. Or was that only when he was a senior? Man I'm getting old.

In any case, whatever limitations they may have had, both are Duke players and I will always hold them in positive regard.

Can you name me a Duke player who you think didn't play their heart out?

[ice-9]

Can you name me a Duke player who you think didn't play their heart out?

Anybody who transferred to another school for the purpose of getting more playing time? Basically, giving up on the program.

[CDu]

Anybody who transferred to another school for the purpose of getting more playing time? Basically, giving up on the program.

Why would that necessarily constitute "not playing your heart out?" What if you played your heart out but knew you couldn't beat out the guy in front of you, and thus wanted to go somewhere where you could actually play? Just because a kid transferred for more playing time doesn't mean he wasn't giving it his all at Duke. Sitting the bench is not for everyone.

[ice-9]

Why would that necessarily constitute "not playing your heart out?" What if you played your heart out but knew you couldn't beat out the guy in front of you, and thus wanted to go somewhere where you could actually play? Just because a kid transferred for more playing time doesn't mean he wasn't giving it his all at Duke. Sitting the bench is not for everyone.

Reasonable minds can disagree. But to me, giving it all means finishing what you started.

[CDu]

Reasonable minds can disagree. But to me, giving it all means finishing what you started.

And to me, giving it your all means giving it your all. And if giving it your all isn't good enough to get you playing time, I have no problem with a player choosing to go somewhere else. For many kids, this is the last time they'll get the chance to play in front of hundreds/thousands of fans in organized basketball. I think it's unfair for someone to think less of a less-talented kid just because he would prefer to spend those last few years actually playing rather than being a glorified fan with really good seats.

[ice-9]

And to me, giving it your all means giving it your all. And if giving it your all isn't good enough to get you playing time, I have no problem with a player choosing to go somewhere else. For many kids, this is the last time they'll get the chance to play in front of hundreds/thousands of fans in organized basketball. I think it's unfair for someone to think less of a less-talented kid just because he would prefer to spend those last few years actually playing rather than being a glorified fan with really good seats.

A transfer puts himself above the team. A four year player who didn't play much but stuck it out put the team above himself.

If you want to consider the former as giving it all, that's fine.

But to me, it's the latter guys that really gave it their all. Guys like Josh and Todd.

Did Silent G give it his all? No, in my opinion he did not.

[CDu]

A transfer puts himself above the team. A four year player who didn't play much but stuck it out put the team above himself.

If you want to consider the former as giving it all, that's fine.

But to me, it's the latter guys that really gave it their all. Guys like Josh and Todd.

Did Silent G give it his all? No, in my opinion he did not.

I think "giving it your all" and "being completely unselfish" are two entirely different things. One can thing of himself/herself first and still have given it his/her all. Conversely, one can think of the team first and not have given it his/her all.

[Olympic Fan]

The only issue I had with McBob at Duke (or Shav, for that matter) is that he left early and became a second round draft pick. This isn't... going for the money. This is going for nothing.

Well, Josh was a second-round draft pick and made just $427,163 as a rookie in 2008. Shav was undrafted and made just $398,762 as a rookie undrafted free agent in 2006.

In his career, Josh has earned $11.6 million in salary so far -- with an additional $2.77 million guaranteed for next year.

Shav has earned "just" $3.65 million in NBA salaries -- with $1.23 million guaranteed for next year.

They might or might not have left for the money, but you can't argue that they haven't done fairly well financially.

As for guys who leave early, my take is that you give it all while you are here -- in season belongs to the team. If you don't like how you are being used, suck it up, play hard. After the season, I think the kids should think about themselves and their careers -- and if they want to leave ... good luck.

Obviously, not all of them make good decisions, but I don't resent any kid who puts himself first in the offseason ... during the season, it's a different story.

[ice-9]

I think "giving it your all" and "being completely unselfish" are two entirely different things. One can thing of himself/herself first and still have given it his/her all. Conversely, one can think of the team first and not have given it his/her all.

Whenever the discussion turns to arguing semantics, it's time to bow out. Reasonable minds can agree to disagree whether transfers are considered part of the good guys, and whether four year players deserve to automatically be considered as one by virtue of sticking it out.

[CDu]

Well, Josh was a second-round draft pick and made just $427,163 as a rookie in 2008. Shav was undrafted and made just $398,762 as a rookie undrafted free agent in 2006.

In his career, Josh has earned $11.6 million in salary so far -- with an additional $2.77 million guaranteed for next year.

Shav has earned "just" $3.65 million in NBA salaries -- with $1.23 million guaranteed for next year.

They might or might not have left for the money, but you can't argue that they haven't done fairly well financially.

As for guys who leave early, my take is that you give it all while you are here -- in season belongs to the team. If you don't like how you are being used, suck it up, play hard. After the season, I think the kids should think about themselves and their careers -- and if they want to leave ... good luck.

Obviously, not all of them make good decisions, but I don't resent any kid who puts himself first in the offseason ... during the season, it's a different story.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

[cspan37421]

I'd venture that 99% of DBR posters (and probably Duke fans in general) were divided into two camps: those who laid most of the blame on McRoberts (and cheered Paulus) and those who laid most of the blame on Paulus (and cheered McRoberts).


Thanks - I feel like I've really made it - I'm part of the exclusive 1%!

[cspan37421]

As for guys who leave early, my take is that you give it all while you are here -- in season belongs to the team. If you don't like how you are being used, suck it up, play hard. After the season, I think the kids should think about themselves and their careers -- and if they want to leave ... good luck.

Obviously, not all of them make good decisions, but I don't resent any kid who puts himself first in the offseason ... during the season, it's a different story.

Very well put! Sage advice. Wish I could spork you but alas, I can't.

[greybeard]

Parker explained his leaving in part based upon the reality that a player has only so many bounces in his legs, only so much wear and tear he can take. McRoberts had had a back surgery at 20; getting his pro career started was smart for that reason alone.

I was a Paulus fan and frequently spoke for him, but always because I saw him hampered by that foot. With that foot, he really could not compete on the high level everyone expected of him. Most people who were not fans of Paulus failed to acknowledge that he was playing lame, and that there was no viable option to take his place.

McRoberts I thought did a spectacular job on the defensive end. I think it took an awful lot out of him, and I also think that McRoberts' defense was K's number 1 priority. There was no number 2. Without his all out on defense, Duke was toast.

I believe that there were questions about McRoberts because of his back. Otherwise, he would have been a high first round pick. Who knows how long he figured a way to play with adjustment. How long has it taken Tiger to develop a swing that is more upright and that won't break his left leg in two parts and tear the heck out of his knee. He gets caught in between the old Tiger and new when he needs one of those miraculous shots; bomb goes the dynamite--poor shots and a shot back.

McRoberts. Who knows how long he has now that he is getting minutes. I think that he played a terrible cost physically, emotionally (I think he was scared but probably suppressed it; how could he not have been), and psychologically--who is looking out for me, should I be doing this, seem to me that everyone would ask themselves, again, if not consciously, it's weight.

Back surgery when he was 20 years old. The surgery made it "all better," was convention here. It still is for many. Ask K how fun it is to have a back that requires surgery. Age or no, actually the younger you are the more daunting it must be, especially if you are a projected superstar. The surgery, by the way, came way after the draft, in case anyone is prepared to make the argument that it not hamper his draft status because he was a projected high first-round pick had he declared at declaring time after his freshman season.

McRoberts is an adroit and creative athlete. He had the trauma of a back surgery. How many college stars going pro do you recall having been picked in the first round after that? Did it impact his offensive game his second year. Perhaps. But I think it was because of the incredible load and responsibility put on him at the other end. He meet that challenge with everything he had and performed like a champion. Why the relatively low pay, why the moving from team to team even though he was not producing the way everyone knew that he could? Maybe it was because his numbers belied his contribution, and no one was going to put big money out for a guy with a big physical question mark. No one until Charlotte that is. They got more than their money's worth.

McRoberts was ready, and there was a coach who had endorsements from people whom he respected that said he would make Clifford's team sing. Pretty nice tune. How long. Not as long as McRoberts and Clifford would like, is my guess, sadly, but that's just the way it goes.

[Furniture]

I wonder where he got this elbow thing from?

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24537522/video-josh-mcroberts-elbows-lebron-james-in-the-throat

[Mabdul Doobakus]

A hard elbow to the neck isn't just a dirty foul, it's pretty dangerous. NBA needs to take a long, hard look at that one*.

*-As a Heat fan, I may be a little biased. But still. I don't know how you could look at that and not at least consider it a flagrant.

[COYS]

A hard elbow to the neck isn't just a dirty foul, it's pretty dangerous. NBA needs to take a long, hard look at that one*.

*-As a Heat fan, I may be a little biased. But still. I don't know how you could look at that and not at least consider it a flagrant.

I tend to agree, even though I'm an unbiased observer and therefore am hoping for an interesting series (which would require the Bobcats to win at least one). To be honest, Josh's foul seems really weird. It was a hard foul, yes, but it also looked like he was planning to do something totally different (maybe go for the block?), then changed his mind and tried to put his arms up since the 260lb Lebron was barreling at him. Then he seemed like tried to spin out of the way but still had some forward momentum. Honestly, it was a really weird play. It neither seemed like a legitimate play on the ball nor did it seem like a calculated shot at Lebron.

[cspan37421]

I wonder where he got this elbow thing from?

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24537522/video-josh-mcroberts-elbows-lebron-james-in-the-throat

No *cough*GeraldHenderson*cough* idea.

Actually it looks like he actually got him with his forearm, very close to the elbow, but not at the actual bend of the elbow. Whether he meant to have Lebron's throat run into him in that spot or not.

[wsb3]

A hard elbow to the neck isn't just a dirty foul, it's pretty dangerous. NBA needs to take a long, hard look at that one*.

*-As a Heat fan, I may be a little biased. But still. I don't know how you could look at that and not at least consider it a flagrant.

Not a big NBA fan at all. Watch bits & pieces of the playoffs & I did see that foul. I can't believe there was no review.

[miramar]

Not a big NBA fan at all. Watch bits & pieces of the playoffs & I did see that foul. I can't believe there was no review.

The forearm shiver has gotten a lot of air play, so the league will have to review it today. I expect to see Josh in street clothes for the next game. I don't dislike the guy, but I have always wondered about his judgment.

I certainly don't begrudge him leaving early since that is his right, but the reason he was taken in the second round is that he simply wasn't ready for prime time, something that a lot of people other than him saw at the time. That's why he ended up in the D-league:


2007-08:

Appeared in eight games for the Trail Blazers as a rookie, averaging 1.5 points and 1.3 rebounds in 3.5 minutes… Scored first career NBA points on Dec. 30 vs. Philadelphia... Played in 15 games with the Idaho Stampede of the NBA Development League, averaging 7.7 points, 6.4 rebounds and 2.5 assists in 26.8 minutes… Also played in four D-League playoff games with the Stampede, averaging 6.3 points and 5.0 rebounds, helping the team to the 2008 D-League Championship.


IIRC, a coach had to work with him to break down his shot and teach him to shoot all over again, so that's clearly something he didn't have (or didn't learn or wasn't taught) while he was at Duke.

[weezie]

I think this thread has lasted longer than McBob did at Duke.

[FerryFor50]

I tend to agree, even though I'm an unbiased observer and therefore am hoping for an interesting series (which would require the Bobcats to win at least one). To be honest, Josh's foul seems really weird. It was a hard foul, yes, but it also looked like he was planning to do something totally different (maybe go for the block?), then changed his mind and tried to put his arms up since the 260lb Lebron was barreling at him. Then he seemed like tried to spin out of the way but still had some forward momentum. Honestly, it was a really weird play. It neither seemed like a legitimate play on the ball nor did it seem like a calculated shot at Lebron.

I think this is exactly right. He started to jump to challenge the shot, then realized how painful that might end up for him. Changed his mind, but it was too late. Put the arm out almost as if to brace himself.

However, flagrants do not take intent into account. He definitely should have had a flagrant 1 at least.

The league lets too many players take shots at Lebron.