PDA

View Full Version : What Defines Underachieving?



Steve68
03-09-2007, 04:06 PM
We lost five seniors (including the highest scoring player in Duke history and a two-time national defensive player of the year) from last year's team that lost 4 games. The 2005 team lost 6 games as did the 2004 team. The 2003 team lost 7 games. This year's team has lost 10 games and, at most, can lose eleven. Surely, no reasonable person should have expected a team whose regular rotation includes four freshman, four sophomores, and a junior to perform as well as those recent Duke teams which included seasoned upperclassmen as well as talented freshmen and sophomores. So, is one more loss underachieving? Two? Four? I don't understand the angst surrounding this team no matter how many high school All-Americans they have. Maybe some of those other teams overachieved (or is that blasphemy)? In addition, how many "go to" players have we ever had that were freshmen or sophomores when they filled that role? Maybe Grant Hill, maybe Christian Laettner, maybe Jason Williams, but even those are debatable. You can probably count the answers on one hand. Yes, we are Duke and we expect to win a lot, but do our hopeful estimates and high expectations translate to underachieving by the team? I am truly baffled by the negativism on the board this year.

The Gordog
03-09-2007, 04:21 PM
In addition, how many "go to" players have we ever had that were freshmen or sophomores when they filled that role? Maybe Grant Hill, maybe Christian Laettner, maybe Jason Williams, but even those are debatable. You can probably count the answers on one hand. Yes, we are Duke and we expect to win a lot, but do our hopeful estimates and high expectations translate to underachieving by the team? I am truly baffled by the negativism on the board this year.

The answer is 3. G-man, Dawkins, J-Will. All the others played in the long shadow of others and were NOT the go-to guy as Frosh.

Troublemaker
03-09-2007, 04:42 PM
I don't agree with the negativism but I'm not surprised by it. I think there are a couple of key factors contributing to it. One is we're spoiled by our past winning, obviously, but that's been talked about. Another is the idiotic way in which people count up McDonald's All-Americans and use that number to equate with roster talent. It just doesn't work that way.

But the third factor is the one I want to talk about it, and it's the fact that Duke fans have to put up with A LOT of crap every season. The hatred of Duke has just gotten ridiculous. To avoid experiencing it, you pretty much have to watch the games on mute, avoid reading news articles about team, and avoid reading internet message boards. Otherwise, in a down season like this one, the experience of following the team is a bad one, not a good one. It's just not enjoyable because all that hatred detracts from the overall experience and there aren't enough wins or entertaining basketball on the court this season to compensate for that. Our fanbase is therefore grumpy.

Someone really needs to start a website and/or movement to fight back against the hatred. You have a website like truthaboutduke.com drawing readers/haters to it every day and we have nothing to counter that? You have an idiot like Packer blatantly lying on ACC broadcasts about the Gaudet situation and no remedy for that exists? You have an undercover Duke-hater like Vitale purposefully creating and riling up other Duke-haters by pretending to nonsensically fawn over Duke, and nobody is going to track him down and punch him in the face? Duke fans = Democrats while Duke-haters = Republicans. We've become lazy and we've let the haters take control of the media and determine how our program is portrayed on TV, in the news, and on the internet. It's way past time to fight back because at some point, if it hasn't already, the hatred will affect recruiting. I mean, who wants to be hated on for 4 years? Do you think players and parents notice the way Gerald was flogged in the media over the past week? Do you think they want to experience that? The hatred is so overwhelming at this point that I don't even know if we can make a dent in it, but we should at least try.

jaimedun34
03-09-2007, 05:08 PM
The word underachieve is a pretty strong word. You would have to first determine whose expectations you define your season by. I personally wouldn't use the media's expectations because they are usually off base. I feel that ESPN, sports magazines, etc, can only identify top teams and bottom feeders. The 2007 Blue Devils don't fit either category.

I don't think this team underachieved. I don't think they overachieved. I think they fell where they should have been expected to be. We won some games I was sure we would lose (Indiana, GTown, Gonzaga) and lost some games I was sure we would win (UVA, MD, GT on the road, VT at home, and UNC at Cameron).

Personally, I had higher expectations at the beginning of the season. I thought we'd be in the top 4 in the ACC, but I underestimated MD, UVA and VT and I overestimated our team a bit. The only reason that I thought we would overachieve slightly is because we have IMO one of the best coaches to ever grace the sidelines.

77devil
03-09-2007, 05:27 PM
The answer is 3. G-man, Dawkins, J-Will. All the others played in the long shadow of others and were NOT the go-to guy as Frosh.

The G-man doesn't make the cut. Tate Armstrong was the go to guy until he broke his wrist then Sparnakle. Nevertheless your point is well taken. It is a very short list.

Indoor66
03-09-2007, 05:31 PM
I don't agree with the negativism but I'm not surprised by it. I think there are a couple of key factors contributing to it. One is we're spoiled by our past winning, obviously, but that's been talked about. Another is the idiotic way in which people count up McDonald's All-Americans and use that number to equate with roster talent. It just doesn't work that way.

But the third factor is the one I want to talk about it, and it's the fact that Duke fans have to put up with A LOT of crap every season. The hatred of Duke has just gotten ridiculous. To avoid experiencing it, you pretty much have to watch the games on mute, avoid reading news articles about team, and avoid reading internet message boards. Otherwise, in a down season like this one, the experience of following the team is a bad one, not a good one. It's just not enjoyable because all that hatred detracts from the overall experience and there aren't enough wins or entertaining basketball on the court this season to compensate for that. Our fanbase is therefore grumpy.

Someone really needs to start a website and/or movement to fight back against the hatred. You have a website like truthaboutduke.com drawing readers/haters to it every day and we have nothing to counter that? You have an idiot like Packer blatantly lying on ACC broadcasts about the Gaudet situation and no remedy for that exists? You have an undercover Duke-hater like Vitale purposefully creating and riling up other Duke-haters by pretending to nonsensically fawn over Duke, and nobody is going to track him down and punch him in the face? Duke fans = Democrats while Duke-haters = Republicans. We've become lazy and we've let the haters take control of the media and determine how our program is portrayed on TV, in the news, and on the internet. It's way past time to fight back because at some point, if it hasn't already, the hatred will affect recruiting. I mean, who wants to be hated on for 4 years? Do you think players and parents notice the way Gerald was flogged in the media over the past week? Do you think they want to experience that? The hatred is so overwhelming at this point that I don't even know if we can make a dent in it, but we should at least try.


Duke fans = Democrats while Duke-haters = Republicans

What does that mean?

Indoor66
03-09-2007, 05:33 PM
The G-man doesn't make the cut. Tate Armstrong was the go to guy until he broke his wrist then Sparnakle. Nevertheless your point is well taken. It is a very short list.


And the frosh success of J Dawkins and company was not 22 or so wins!

Troublemaker
03-09-2007, 05:36 PM
Duke fans = Democrats while Duke-haters = Republicans

What does that mean?

The perception, not necessarily correct, that the GOP is far savvier with public relations and rallying its voter base. I feel like Duke takes a beating in the media and Duke hatred increases ever year because there is no organized effort by the Duke community to curtail the hatred, much of which based on bad information about the program.

mapei
03-09-2007, 05:41 PM
Forget the weak and distracting analogy to politics in the media. Troublemaker has an excellent point, and one that I have been feeling inside but unable to articulate as well for a long time.

I also think that, rightly or wrongly, people's expectations for this team *were* higher. I remember when on the old board many of us posted predictions for the ACC season after the VT loss. Most were in the 10-6 to 13-3 range, with some people even predicting 14-2. It didn't happen, and we didn't really see a pattern of improvement during the course of the year, either. If you look just at our last dozen games or so, we've lost a bunch. It's perfectly understandable that people feel disappointed.

But the fatigue of Duke hatred is a real factor for some of us, too. Thanks to Troublemaker for flagging it.

throatybeard
03-09-2007, 05:51 PM
What Defines Underachieving?

Lots of people screeching on message boards all over the internet, perhaps.

mapei
03-09-2007, 05:56 PM
LOL. Guilty as charged.

jimsumner
03-09-2007, 06:32 PM
"The answer is 3. G-man, Dawkins, J-Will. All the others played in the long shadow of others and were NOT the go-to guy as Frosh."

I agree with the general tenor of the thread but I think we're underestimating Duke freshmen over the last thirty years or so.

First, I would disagree with the implication that a team can have only one go-to-guy. Was Gene Banks not a go-to guy when he averaged 17 ppg in 1978?
J-Will was Duke's third leading scorer as a frosh but won the Case Award. He was never THE go-to guy but he sure was A go-to guy. How about Elton Brand in '98 before he broke his wrist? Was J.J. not a go-to guy when he torched State for 30 in the '03 tournament finals? How about Luol Deng when he put Duke on his back and carried the Devils to the 2004 FF. Sometimes it takes awhile, e.g. Laettner v. Georgetown in '89.

I'll be surprised if Singler isn't a GTG next season as a frosh.

For the record the following people have averaged double figures in points as freshmen at Duke.

1976-Jim Spanarkel- 13.3
1977-Mike Gminski-15.3
1978-Gene Banks-17.1
1983-Johnny Dawkins-18.1
1983-Mark Alarie-13.0
1991-Grant Hill-11.2
1995-Trajan Langdon-11.3
1998-Elton Brand-13.4
1999-Corey Maggette-10.6
2000-Jason Williams-14.5
2000-Carlos Boozer-13.0
2003-J.J. Redick-15.0
2004-Luol Deng-15.1

So Scheyer is some pretty select company. Every single one of these guys played in the NBA, several at a very high level. But it can be done.

The other interesting thing about the list is some of the people who are NOT on the list. Three national POYs, for example, Danny Ferry, Christian Laettner, and Shane Battier. Like I said, sometimes it takes awhile.

Add Tate Armstrong, Vince Taylor, Kevin Strickland, Phil Henderson, Alaa Abdelnaby, Bobby Hurley, Thomas Hill, Cherokee Parks, Jeff Capel, Chris Collins, Chris Carrawell, Dan Ewing, and Shelden Williams to that list. None were big scorers as freshmen yet all became "go-to-scorers-" before they left Duke. So think about these guys before you're ready to dismiss the current youngsters as "overrated" and "underachieving."

hurleyfor3
03-09-2007, 07:47 PM
Duke fans = Democrats while Duke-haters = Republicans.

If we held an election, it might look something like this.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f19/frequentfreak/dukemap.gif

BluBones
03-09-2007, 08:23 PM
If we held an election, it might look something like this.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f19/frequentfreak/dukemap.gif

So, so strange to see Utah and Mississippi blue.

devildownunder
03-11-2007, 09:06 AM
We lost five seniors (including the highest scoring player in Duke history and a two-time national defensive player of the year) from last year's team that lost 4 games. The 2005 team lost 6 games as did the 2004 team. The 2003 team lost 7 games. This year's team has lost 10 games and, at most, can lose eleven. Surely, no reasonable person should have expected a team whose regular rotation includes four freshman, four sophomores, and a junior to perform as well as those recent Duke teams which included seasoned upperclassmen as well as talented freshmen and sophomores. So, is one more loss underachieving? Two? Four? I don't understand the angst surrounding this team no matter how many high school All-Americans they have. Maybe some of those other teams overachieved (or is that blasphemy)? In addition, how many "go to" players have we ever had that were freshmen or sophomores when they filled that role? Maybe Grant Hill, maybe Christian Laettner, maybe Jason Williams, but even those are debatable. You can probably count the answers on one hand. Yes, we are Duke and we expect to win a lot, but do our hopeful estimates and high expectations translate to underachieving by the team? I am truly baffled by the negativism on the board this year.


If a fan comes on the board and expresses frustration about the team's play, or even just says they aren't that good or the season has been a disappointment, I don't consider that negativism. You want the team to win. If they lose, you're disappointed. Just because somebody can't come on after every loss and state nothing but how proud they are of the effort doesn't make that person a bad fan.

Next year, the team should be better and there will be more people on with more celebratory posts. That's a good thing. In the meantime, the board should not have to be limited to declarations of undying support despite tough losses. Not that I have any problem with those.

devildownunder
03-11-2007, 09:08 AM
If we held an election, it might look something like this.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f19/frequentfreak/dukemap.gif

Really? the Blue DEVILS are big in Mormonland? Does Christensen have anything to do with this?

devildownunder
03-11-2007, 09:13 AM
I don't agree with the negativism but I'm not surprised by it. I think there are a couple of key factors contributing to it. One is we're spoiled by our past winning, obviously, but that's been talked about. Another is the idiotic way in which people count up McDonald's All-Americans and use that number to equate with roster talent. It just doesn't work that way.

But the third factor is the one I want to talk about it, and it's the fact that Duke fans have to put up with A LOT of crap every season. The hatred of Duke has just gotten ridiculous. To avoid experiencing it, you pretty much have to watch the games on mute, avoid reading news articles about team, and avoid reading internet message boards. Otherwise, in a down season like this one, the experience of following the team is a bad one, not a good one. It's just not enjoyable because all that hatred detracts from the overall experience and there aren't enough wins or entertaining basketball on the court this season to compensate for that. Our fanbase is therefore grumpy.

Someone really needs to start a website and/or movement to fight back against the hatred. You have a website like truthaboutduke.com drawing readers/haters to it every day and we have nothing to counter that? You have an idiot like Packer blatantly lying on ACC broadcasts about the Gaudet situation and no remedy for that exists? You have an undercover Duke-hater like Vitale purposefully creating and riling up other Duke-haters by pretending to nonsensically fawn over Duke, and nobody is going to track him down and punch him in the face? Duke fans = Democrats while Duke-haters = Republicans. We've become lazy and we've let the haters take control of the media and determine how our program is portrayed on TV, in the news, and on the internet. It's way past time to fight back because at some point, if it hasn't already, the hatred will affect recruiting. I mean, who wants to be hated on for 4 years? Do you think players and parents notice the way Gerald was flogged in the media over the past week? Do you think they want to experience that? The hatred is so overwhelming at this point that I don't even know if we can make a dent in it, but we should at least try.

good post TM. I am concerned about recruiting, too, and have been for a couple of years. We have entered the phase where top-notch players coming into college ball now have grown up knowing duke as a/the national power. That's been a good thing, so far. I hope that hasn't begun to turn on us. Nobody wants to be hated all the time.

devildownunder
03-11-2007, 09:16 AM
The perception, not necessarily correct, that the GOP is far savvier with public relations and rallying its voter base. I feel like Duke takes a beating in the media and Duke hatred increases ever year because there is no organized effort by the Duke community to curtail the hatred, much of which based on bad information about the program.

Sadly, I do not think that perception is incorrect at all.

CDu
03-11-2007, 09:47 AM
The answer is 3. G-man, Dawkins, J-Will. All the others played in the long shadow of others and were NOT the go-to guy as Frosh.

You could probably knock J-Will off the list, too. Remember how inconsistent he was with bad decisionmaking? He was actually the third-leading scorer as a freshman with 14 ppg (behind Carrawell and Battier), and not far ahead of Boozer (13 ppg).

I guess it's all semantics. J-Will was certainly one of the best freshman to come along. But even he wasn't infallible right out of the gate.

evrdukie
03-11-2007, 10:00 AM
I suggest, respectfully, that we leave the "Duke hatred" theme behind. It's not an entirely accurate picture to begin with and it doesn't have much bearing on anything in any case. Except as something for some of us Duke fans to rant about, I don't believe the rest of the sports world is spending a lot of time on it. As for being "negative," some us genuinely believe the team had a bad year, especially given the fact that the team is comprised partly of half a dozen McDonald's All Americans and was regularly beaten by teams comprised of players Duke wouldn't even have recruited. Given the standards of Duke basketball, disappointment about this season shouldn't be surprising to anybody. These discussions don't really benefit much from mindless rah rah enthusiasm for everything to do with the BB program.

Troublemaker
03-11-2007, 10:22 AM
I suggest, respectfully, that we leave the "Duke hatred" theme behind. It's not an entirely accurate picture to begin with and it doesn't have much bearing on anything in any case.

Why isn't it accurate? Nothing anybody says on any message board has much bearing on anything, so by that standard, you should stop posting.


Except as something for some of us Duke fans to rant about, I don't believe the rest of the sports world is spending a lot of time on it.

In the college basketball world, people do spend time hating Duke.


As for being "negative," some us genuinely believe the team had a bad year, especially given the fact that the team is comprised partly of half a dozen McDonald's All Americans and was regularly beaten by teams comprised of players Duke wouldn't even have recruited.

IMO, this is an amateurish way to look at things.


These discussions don't really benefit much from mindless rah rah enthusiasm for everything to do with the BB program.

This sentence makes no sense. I think you may have mis-used a word and might have to clarify.

evrdukie
03-11-2007, 10:29 AM
Sorry we don't see it the same way, Troublemaker. We'll probably just have to disagree.

hurleyfor3
03-11-2007, 02:25 PM
Really? the Blue DEVILS are big in Mormonland? Does Christensen have anything to do with this?

He, Boozer and Rick Majerus, who loves us. Most of the other states should be self-explanatory.