Addition by Subtraction: the McRoberts factor

[DukeCO2009]

With 11 guys who look to play significant minutes (once Dave comes back), where would Josh have fit on this team? Seems to me his only function would have been to steal minutes from guys like Singler and King, and I'm not sure they're both not more valuable assets than he was. Singler has touch, can do things other than dunk, crashes the boards, and is incredibly smooth with the ball. King is a nasty shooter who can also rebound and put the ball on the floor.

Josh's issue was that he was a 6/10 at a lot of things but a 10/10 at nothing--a jack of all (most) trades but master of none. There always seemed to be a disclaimer at the end of any statement made about him. He was a good ball-handler--for a big man. He could shoot OK--for someone who's 6'11". You get the idea. I also got the impression that he wasn't a great "locker room guy." Forgive the political analogy from a bitter North Carolinian, but he had John Edwards syndrome--just as Johnny Boy appeared to use his Senate seat as a mere springboard to bigger and better things, Josh looked like he cared about Duke only to the extent that he knew it was an avenue to the NBA.

The team lacked chemistry last year, and it clearly has found it this go-round. One would assume that 3 freshmen playing significant minutes would produce the exact opposite situation, so I have to attribute this--at least in part--to Josh's departure. K looked to him to be a leader, and he didn't step up. As a result, the rest of the team looked a bit lost at times. I really believe Duke's a better team this seasonn without Josh than it would've been with him. Thoughts?

[EarlJam]

With 11 guys who look to play significant minutes (once Dave comes back), where would Josh have fit on this team? Seems to me his only function would have been to steal minutes from guys like Singler and King, and I'm not sure they're both not more valuable assets than he was. Singler has touch, can do things other than dunk, crashes the boards, and is incredibly smooth with the ball. King is a nasty shooter who can also rebound and put the ball on the floor.

Josh's issue was that he was a 6/10 at a lot of things but a 10/10 at nothing--a jack of all (most) trades but master of none. There always seemed to be a disclaimer at the end of any statement made about him. He was a good ball-handler--for a big man. He could shoot OK--for someone who's 6'11". You get the idea. I also got the impression that he wasn't a great "locker room guy." Forgive the political analogy from a bitter North Carolinian, but he had John Edwards syndrome--just as Johnny Boy appeared to use his Senate seat as a mere springboard to bigger and better things, Josh looked like he cared about Duke only to the extent that he knew it was an avenue to the NBA.

The team lacked chemistry last year, and it clearly has found it this go-round. One would assume that 3 freshmen playing significant minutes would produce the exact opposite situation, so I have to attribute this--at least in part--to Josh's departure. K looked to him to be a leader, and he didn't step up. As a result, the rest of the team looked a bit lost at times. I really believe Duke's a better team this seasonn without Josh than it would've been with him. Thoughts?

My thought is that you are dead-on accurate with this assessment. I believe this year's team will have a much stronger personality and identitiy as a whole vs. being "The Josh McRoberts Show." Some players can pull that off, (see 1994 and "The Grant Hill Show"). But McRoberts just didn't possess the skill set to be MC.

Josh of all trades, McMaster of none indeed.

He's a good guy I'm sure, and his mom rocks. I wish him well but agree that this year's team will be much stronger.

-EarlJam

[MChambers]

My thought is that you are dead-on accurate with this assessment. I believe this year's team will have a much stronger personality and identitiy as a whole vs. being "The Josh McRoberts Show." Some players can pull that off, (see 1994 and "The Grant Hill Show"). But McRoberts just didn't possess the skill set to be MC.

Josh of all trades, McMaster of none indeed.

He's a good guy I'm sure, and his mom rocks. I wish him well but agree that this year's team will be much stronger.

-EarlJam

While I don't disagree with the points the two of you have made regarding some of his weaknesses, or at least a lack of strengths, I certainly think you need to slow down here before you jump to conclusions based on one exhibition. It's a little early to decide that this year's team has better chemistry. It certainly helps having two healthy point guards.
Moreover, while Josh did not have top notch skills on the offensive end of the floor, he was our best post defender. I thought his defense last year was excellent. As I recall, he was named to one of the all-ACC defensive teams (I can't remember he was first-team or second-team). We could use that this year.

[Jeffrey]

Josh's issue was that he was a 6/10 at a lot of things but a 10/10 at nothing--a jack of all (most) trades but master of none. There always seemed to be a disclaimer at the end of any statement made about him. He was a good ball-handler--for a big man. He could shoot OK--for someone who's 6'11". You get the idea.

Hi,

I think Josh had more talent, potential, and skills than you have stated. He may end up being a very good complimentary player in the NBA.



K looked to him to be a leader, and he didn't step up. As a result, the rest of the team looked a bit lost at times. I really believe Duke's a better team this seasonn without Josh than it would've been with him.

Here's where I could not agree with you more! Josh did not want to be the go-to-guy and he had to be on last year's team. Sorry, but that is a major part of being a team player. Coach assigns you a role and you refuse (through actions and/or words), then you need to move on for the good of all.

-Jeffrey

[EarlJam]

While I don't disagree with the points the two of you have made regarding some of his weaknesses, or at least a lack of strengths, I certainly think you need to slow down here before you jump to conclusions based on one exhibition. It's a little early to decide that this year's team has better chemistry. It certainly helps having two healthy point guards.
Moreover, while Josh did not have top notch skills on the offensive end of the floor, he was our best post defender. I thought his defense last year was excellent. As I recall, he was named to one of the all-ACC defensive teams (I can't remember he was first-team or second-team). We could use that this year.

Agreed to a degree, but I came to my conclusion about one minute after Josh announced he was going pro.

I liked Josh. I really did. He starred in numerous highlight reels but it seemed obvious to me last year that with each game, Duke fans and perhaps the players were continually looking to Josh to "step it up," "have the break out game." For better or worse, it was HIS team last year and for whatever reasons, it just didn't work for the 2006-2007 Blue Devils, relatively speaking.

-EarlJam

[Fish80]

This thread is a little too harsh. Sure, things didn't work out for Josh nor for the team last year as many of us hoped. And I'm sure Josh would agree with that. But what's the point of bashing him now? He gave tremendous effort, did what he could.

Next Play.

[johnb]

I have no idea of the personality issues behind the scenes, or whether he would have resented another year of college basketball, but I have to think that the team would be better off with an additional All ACC level guy in the paint.

Having said that, I don't really think about his presence on this year's team and am happy we have who we have.

[BD80]

Josh has great skills, and played great post D. He would have led the team in minutes played, and he and Kyle would have been a tremendous post duo, with Josh having no problem deferring to and feeding Kyle. Lance and Zoubek would have played a bit less (and Singler too). Josh would have thrived in the up-tempo offense. Nelson would still be the sole captain, and Josh would be happy just being one of the guys. We would have been a serious championship contender.

But Josh is gone, and best wishes to him. And to his mom; I'll miss her most of all.

This team will be fun as hell to watch, and will be a tough out in the tournament. It will take a bunch of good luck and a real hot streak, but we could be playing in April.

[jimsumner]

With all due respect, I'm not sure how one can come to the conclusion that a player who was second in the ACC in rebounding and blocked shots didn't do anything well.

There's no question that McRoberts would have started on this year's Duke team had he elected to return.

[EarlJam]

But Josh is gone, and best wishes to him. And to his mom; I'll miss her most of all.

Could someone please post an image of Josh's mom?

Thanks.

-EarlJam

[lavell12]

you guys are crazy if it is an addition by losing josh that means we have to play two unproven players at C and one who is uncoordinated and isn't very good. josh problem is he is built for a run-n-gun game like Duke has this year,
if we had Josh I think we would be a serious NCAA Championship contender.

[mapei]

With all due respect, I'm not sure how one can come to the conclusion that a player who was second in the ACC in rebounding and blocked shots didn't do anything well.

There's no question that McRoberts would have started on this year's Duke team had he elected to return.

Thank you. Taking over last year from a team led by two all-Americans (among 4 seniors in the rotation) with their jerseys in the rafters was no small task, and Singler couldn't have done it either. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses but Josh was our best player last year IMO.

[buzz]

Definitely don't agree that the team will be better without Josh. He was a huge loss. We don't even make the NCAAs last year without him - no question. Had he returned, we'd be a legit top 5 team, and matchups against us would have been a nightmare for most opponents. His absence will be felt against the bigs we face this year for certain. IF the team is better this year in other ways, it will be because of the experience that the other players have gained and the addition of three good/excellent players (and hopefully good health from here on).

I get a little frustrated seeing people attribute so much blame to Josh for team chemistry problems. At times the guy was all alone out on the court because everyone else disappeared. He also tended to wear his frustration on his face (like Hurley did as a sophomore), which I believe adds fuel to this otherwise speculative accusation. No one can legitimately say that he didn't work his butt off out there, and that should be enough for a true fan. Sure, the dude had some aspects of his game that needed work. So what? Cut the man a break.

[mepanchin]

I think a lot of people just think he was a bad influence on the court. I would love having him as a player around this year - a healthy summer to train, get back in shape, and show off that athleticism he showed as a freshman, but he was never, ever the guy to carry a team. I don't know about the chemistry issues behind the scenes or anything, but it seemed like he was upset most of the time. Screaming/crying into towels, yelling at teammates, kicking the basketball sometimes. That sort of attitude rubs off on a team.

[cspan37421]

So, is it the case that "Josh's mom has got it goin' on" ?

[hurleyfor3]

So, is it the case that "Josh's mom has got it goin' on" ?

We still have Mrs. Scheyer

[JasonEvans]

Hi,
Josh did not want to be the go-to-guy and he had to be on last year's team. Sorry, but that is a major part of being a team player. Coach assigns you a role and you refuse (through actions and/or words), then you need to move on for the good of all.

You are joking, right? Being "the go-to guy" is an attitude thing much more than something the coach asks of a player. Sure, a coach may design a play to go in a certain player's direction in a late-game situation, but, for the most part, taking that big shot is something that happens in the flow of the action and not something a coach can determine all that much.

What's more, if a player is not able to fulfill all the expectations a coach has for him, it is incumbent on the coach to figure out something else that works-- it is most assuredly not the responsibility of the player to "move on" because he could not do everything the coaches asked. That is beyond absurd.

I came really close to just deleting this entire thread before I decided to reply to this post. Let me instead echo the statements made by many that I think Duke would be a better team with Josh McRoberts back this season. Our faster style of play would suit his offensive game a LOT more and he would be that defensive presence in the middle that everyone seems to agree we may be lacking. Put him out there with our talented backcourts and Singler and you have probably the best ballhandling and passing team in the land.

--Jason "the leering at the mammas part of this thread is also in poor taste, IMO" Evans

[mapei]

I came really close to just deleting this entire thread before I decided to reply to this post.

Jason, I'm glad you didn't. I'm a strong Josh defender, but I think the board is better when criticism is given a wide range of tolerance. Just MHO.

[Fish80]

Jason, I'm glad you didn't. I'm a strong Josh defender, but I think the board is better when criticism is given a wide range of tolerance. Just MHO.

Agee that the board is better when criticism is given a wide range. I feel much better about this thread now that many have posted in support of Josh and his contributions. Still, it's a fine line between healthy debate and just cruel bashing of a Duke student athlete.

MHO is that some posters take out their frustrations over last season in a venting manner and inappropriately direct it at particular players. If you ever were a student athlete or had children who were student athletes you would have a much different perspective.

[Saratoga2]

Agee that the board is better when criticism is given a wide range. I feel much better about this thread now that many have posted in support of Josh and his contributions. Still, it's a fine line between healthy debate and just cruel bashing of a Duke student athlete.

MHO is that some posters take out their frustrations over last season in a venting manner and inappropriately direct it at particular players. If you ever were a student athlete or had children who were student athletes you would have a much different perspective.

Josh and every other student athlete have their strengths and weaknesses. Why criticize a guy that gave his all to the team and was arguably the most valuable player. I can see mentioning what a player could do to get better and perhaps encouraging that improvement but some of the criticism here was not really constructive.

[SilkyJ]

Josh improves us on paper and in games. but we dont win a title with him. he'd eat up shots we should be letting kyle and g have

[DukeCO2009]

IMO it's fine to request a tempering of criticism for guys currently on the team--they're just college kids, and a lot of people (read: sports media) forget that. Once a player's gone, though, he's fair game. I hope my initial post didn't come off as me bashing Josh just for the sake of bashing him, because that certainly wasn't my intention. I've always judged Duke players by their "give a damn" factor, and Josh's, by all accounts, wasn't too high. Without providing specifics--that's crossing the line--I can tell you that he occasionally went out 3-4 nights a week during the season, told friends he hated Duke, didn't get along too well with most of the team, and didn't care about school in the least. I think his holier-than-thou attitude had a negative effect on the rest of the team. Yeah, he had skills on the court, but I stand by my original statement that we're better off without him.

[mgtr]

I don't understand all this. I agree that we are a better team this year than last, and that is because a) our players are healthy, b) our freshmen are now sophomores, and c) we have three new very talented freshmen. But if McRoberts were added into that mix, we would be a world beater. I don't know any inside stories about attitude, etc. But this year, if he were here, Coach could just let him ride the pine for a while, which might have helped.
If there was one big we have had recently who could succeed in an uptempo game, it was McRoberts.

[mapei]

Those are some pretty forceful charges, DukeCO2009. What are your credentials?

[CDu]

I think he'd be a perfect match for Singler in the post. Pairing him with Singler and bringing Thomas as the 3rd big would put us in a much better situation.

With McRoberts, we have a good post defender and we have a VERY impressive front line. Without him, we have some questions in the post. I'd much rather have McRoberts playing rather than Zoubek, King, and an extra 5 minutes or so of Thomas.

I definitely disagree with the addition by subtraction theory. The team may wind up being better than last year's team, but that's more of a function of addition by addition and addition (good freshmen) and addition by development (returning players getting better). Having McRoberts would make us even more impressive.

That said, it doesn't really matter since McRoberts is no longer with the team. Hopefully, we do well in spite of not having our All-ACC big man returning.

[throatybeard]

So, is it the case that "Josh's mom has got it goin' on" ?

She's all I want and I've waited so long.

[DukeCO2009]

Those are some pretty forceful charges, DukeCO2009. What are your credentials?

I was in Josh's dorm freshman and sophomore year. I won't say anything else on this board. PM me if you want more info, but I can't reveal too much. I want to keep my sources private, althought I suppose to a certain extent I'm my own source.

[Kilby]

I also think Josh would have been better in a faster game. Josh was a good defender but on offense last year I never saw a player as tall and gifted play so small. He always seemed better when he was moving. When he caught the ball and was stationary (an event that occurred too often in last years no motion offense) he was very easy to defend because he did not show an explosive first step. By time he was in his move the defender was there to cut him off.

[Lulu]

Josh would have been incredible in this up-tempo style, I don't think anyone could argue that point. For those who say that he would have taken shots away from Singler, Henderson, or anyone else, I think you might be forgetting exactly how much Josh loved to pass, not that he also wouldn't have loved throwing some down on the run himself. That said, only knowing what I saw on-court, I just felt like his and Paulus' attitudes combined were just poison last year. Their reactions to any on-court frustrations, bad plays, calls, etc just seemed like a downward spiral for the team.

It is interesting that K says this is the offense they wanted to employ last year but had to curl after Paulus' injury. Using 20/20 hindsight, maybe it wasn't a terrible season, but how much worse could it have been playing a faster game? Might have kept the team happy, and certainly would have amounted to more experience for more guys. Anyway, that's more than I wanted to say, because when I first saw this thread I couldn't believe people were still even talking about Josh, and here I am replying.

[Jeffrey]

Coach assigns you a role and you refuse (through actions and/or words), then you need to move on for the good of all.


You are joking, right?

What's more, if a player is not able to fulfill all the expectations a coach has for him, it is incumbent on the coach to figure out something else that works-- it is most assuredly not the responsibility of the player to "move on" because he could not do everything the coaches asked. That is beyond absurd.

I came really close to just deleting this entire thread before I decided to reply to this post.

Hi Jason,

Of course, I was joking! It's OK for a player to refuse (through actions and/or words) a role the Coach assigns them. To strongly express otherwise would be "beyond absurd". I am sure you're right that Coach K was very disappointed when Josh declared.

-Jeffrey

[ice-9]

There's no question McRoberts would excel in this year's offense. His post defense, defensive rebounds, passing to guards streaking to the basket, alley hoops, offensive rebounds turned dunks...his skills would've been incredibly valuable this year. No question.

BUT...there's also a human element. McRoberts had his eyes set on the NBA; he was leaving pretty much no matter what after his sophomore season. We all knew that. Coach K knew that. What if, for whatever reason, he decided to stay? I think he would feel that he *should* be the man even if he does not have the mindset to be. Would he be satisfied with only 5-8 shots a game? Would he be happy knowing that his role is to be a cog in the offense, not the driving force? Would he be OK understanding that at the end of the game it would be Paulus/Henderson/Singler going for the game winning shot and not him?

Obviously we can only speculate, but my suspicion is that he won't be too happy being the #4 option when he feels he should be playing in the NBA.

[lavell12]

i think he would have been fine if he stayed b/c he seemed to have the opposite mind set to me, he wasn't aggressive enough and didn't take enough shots. His last two games against NC State and VCU he was great and actually got aggressive too bad only Paulus besides him showed up in those two games. Josh was great when we had JJ and Shelden b/c he is a great defear of the ball and great at playing with other talent (Oden and the old Ohio State PG on his AAU team). He didn't seem to like to be the go-to-guy but finally did it in the last two but was let down by the team.

[darthur]

Those are some pretty forceful charges, DukeCO2009. What are your credentials?

I'm pretty sure I remember watzone saying something pretty forceful after Josh declared for the draft, something to the effect of Josh never unpacking his bags. So it's not like these allegations should be a complete shock.

[3rd Dukie]

you guys are crazy if it is an addition by losing josh that means we have to play two unproven players at C and one who is uncoordinated and isn't very good. josh problem is he is built for a run-n-gun game like Duke has this year,
if we had Josh I think we would be a serious NCAA Championship contender.

I think this might be the best post of them all.
That is a very interesting thought.

Good call!

[Jeffrey]

I think this might be the best post of them all.

Hi,

I think this might be the best thread of them all. It does and excellent job of revealing the depth of posters information about the program. Some very serious Duke fans watch every second of every game on TV and read what others write to gain insight & views. Other very serious fans actually go to school at Duke and hear directly from players what is happening behind the scenes. And yet others hear directly from current & former people in the program. Dependent upon one's sources, their views/opinions can be (and in this case are) very different.

-Jeffrey

[Classof06]

I'm tempted to say this team would be better without McRoberts, and I thought that for much of the offseason. But I changed my mind. The reasons I think we'd be better with McRoberts are:

1) He's 6-10. I still don't think we're as "small" on our frontline as many experts think we are, but there's no denying that an athletic 6-10 player would help Duke out immensely. We're a consensus top-10 team with Josh; right now, people have us anywhere from 10 to 19 or 20.

2) Like someone said earlier, transition basketball suits McRoberts well. We were a halfcourt team last year and McRoberts' struggles were on full display; he didn't have one reliable back-to-the-basket move (which is inexcusable, IMO). Simply put, this is a player that is at his best in the open court, which is where Duke wants to spend most of its time this year.

3) With the style we're playing this year and the scorers we have (Demarcus, a healthy Paulus, a healthy Gerald, Scheyer, Nolan Smith, Taylor King, SINGLER), Josh wouldn't have to be "the man"; at least not every single night. I still say Duke struggled last year because they needed McRoberts to be the go-to guy and he was incapabale/uncomfortable/whatever you want to say with that role. This year, we have enough health and talent on this team where he wouldn't have to be that guy. Having someone like Singler would take a load of pressure off of him. I think Duke will be the kind of team that has 3-4 different leading scorers every 5 games; this would have been ideal for Josh.


All this being said, McRoberts was not exactly the best teammate and believe what you want to believe, chemistry was an issue on last year's team. I'll leave it at that. If you want more info, PM me.

[johnnydakota]

you guys are crazy if it is an addition by losing josh that means we have to play two unproven players at C and one who is uncoordinated and isn't very good. josh problem is he is built for a run-n-gun game like Duke has this year,
if we had Josh I think we would be a serious NCAA Championship contender.

Man, that is dead-on. With more depth, scoring options, and a combo guard who can defend and run, Josh would've been in his element. W/O him, Duke will be top 10 by year's end. With him, final four. As for him eating up shots, what a joke. Last year he was ridiculed for not shooting enough. He would much prefer the assist. This year, there are more options. I also noticed zero blocked shots as a team against NCCU. Duke will miss his interior D, as well. His so-called "attitude" was being unhappy with both he and his team not meeting HIS expectations. It would've been a positive this year.

[jimsumner]

"I also noticed zero blocked shots as a team against NCCU."

Zero blocked shots? Where did you get that? Duke had nine blocked shots against Central.

[johnnydakota]

"I also noticed zero blocked shots as a team against NCCU."

Zero blocked shots? Where did you get that? Duke had nine blocked shots against Central.

From the rivals Duke site. It listed 10 steals, but it reads zero blocks. Any opinion on McRoberts?

[devildeac]

From the rivals Duke site. It listed 10 steals, but it reads zero blocks. Any opinion on McRoberts?

Josh did not have any blocks/steals/points/boards or TO in the game vs NCCU last PM. But I hope his ankle is healed and he starts playing again for the Jail, err, Trail Blazers(could not resist-that's always the way my brother and father described them over the last several years)

[jimsumner]

Well, I've already expressed my opinion on Josh earlier in the thread. Mike Krzyzewski says he would love to have had McRoberts come back this season. Who am I to disagree? With his head on straight, he would have been a significant asset to this year's team.

[dukestheheat]

My $.02 on Josh:

He was a hot/cold player for Duke and I never could really figure out why that was! There were many stretches in games and even some whole games where Josh would just TOTALLY disappear. Then, he'd come up with a good game and get some tremendous blocks or rebounds or even power dunks.....but then he'd go dormant again and he did this consistently throughout his time at Duke. He seemed frustrated most of the time he was on the team. He didn't seem happy to be out there most of the time. His up and down demeanor and performance had to wear on K and his teammates and ultimately, on Josh.

I'm thankful that he gave us what he did, and some stuff put up here on this thread may indeed explain his totally inconsistent play; I'm not sure about the addition by subtraction points but one must agree that something was amiss with the guy.

I'd agree with Jim Sumner and others in this thread; with a level-headed, mature Josh we'd contend for national honors and again, I'm thankful for what he was able to give to Duke.

GO DUKE!

dth.