Chemistry

[mr. synellinden]

To me, the most interesting part of Dan Mason's column linked on the front page is the pretty direct assertion that Josh McRoberts was a "cancer" in the locker room and the acknowledgment by Paulus of the effect it had on team chemistry. It seems to me this subject has been mostly danced around the past two years and it's becoming more clear what a negative influence he was on the team. Even with our shortcomings in the frontcourt, I'm not sure we'd be a better TEAM this year with McRoberts.

It's obvious how much of a difference there between this year's team and last year's team. It's so apparent how much these guys love playing with each other and have all bought into the TEAM. That's why so many posts read, "I love this team" or something of the sort because we see the enjoyment they have. Based on Mason's column and other rumblings during the past year, I don't think we'd have that if McRoberts had stayed.

[riverside6]

To be fair, Mason's point appeared to be totally based upon assumption. I'm not sure you can put a whole lot to what he said.

It's amazing how teams that win have better chemistry.

[mr. synellinden]

I think all you need to do is watch some of our late season games last year and see the way Josh carries himself, the expressions on his face and how his teammates react to him to see that it's not much of an assumption.

I also think the way Mason writes it, it's clear he doesn't have to assume anything.

I just noticed this same issue has been raised in the UT - UK thread - sorry for the duplication.

[CDu]

To be fair, Mason's point appeared to be totally based upon assumption. I'm not sure you can put a whole lot to what he said.

It's amazing how teams that win have better chemistry.

I couldn't agree more with your post. Chemistry tends to be a term retroactively applied to teams after they've been successful, or retroactively applied (in a negative sense) to teams that have been unsuccessful.

It's unclear to me whether this team has better chemistry because of "addition by subtraction" or whether they have better chemistry simply because they've been more successful. We can speculate, but honestly we just don't know. And to be completely honest, I don't know if the players could even give a certain answer. Maybe the chemistry would have been fine last year, but the team struggled and Josh got angry about losing.

Does chemistry lead to winning or the other way around? I tend to think it's the other way around - winning teams wind up being later labeled as having great chemistry. I know plenty of teams that have great chemistry and stunk. And there are plenty of teams who hated each other and won.

[ChrisP]

The night we lost to VCU and the season was finished, I posted here and said that I just had a sense that something was "off" with the teams' chemistry. I got some lukewarm agreement and a couple people tried to explain away the problems by pointing to injuries, etc. I certainly agree that we had some real, quantifiable issues last year - Paulus' foot, Dave M's knee, Gerald's asthma/lack of conditioning/whatever it was, etc. but I stand by my initial assessment that last years men's b-ball squad didn't seem to have that elusive "chemistry".

[Misunderestimated]

The night we lost to VCU and the season was finished, I posted here and said that I just had a sense that something was "off" with the teams' chemistry. I got some lukewarm agreement and a couple people tried to explain away the problems by pointing to injuries, etc. I certainly agree that we had some real, quantifiable issues last year - Paulus' foot, Dave M's knee, Gerald's asthma/lack of conditioning/whatever it was, etc. but I stand by my initial assessment that last years men's b-ball squad didn't seem to have that elusive "chemistry".

Agreed. Something was definitely off and was likely due to a number of probable issues.

Did anyone else think Dahntay Jones posed some of the same chemistry problems as McRoberts?

[_Gary]

Did anyone else think Dahntay Jones posed some of the same chemistry problems as McRoberts?

Absolutely not.

Gary

[allenmurray]

Agreed. Something was definitely off and was likely due to a number of probable issues.

Did anyone else think Dahntay Jones posed some of the same chemistry problems as McRoberts?

Perhaps, but he made up for it with his work ethic (FLAME ALERT! I do not mean this as a slam on Mcroberts - I like him very much. It is meant as a compliment to Jones, not as a criticism of McRoberts).

[wilson]

To be fair, Mason's point appeared to be totally based upon assumption. I'm not sure you can put a whole lot to what he said.

It's amazing how teams that win have better chemistry.

Mason's point is perhaps unsubstantiated, but it's not really possible to unequivocally demonstrate such a claim. On the other hand, he's far from the first person to suggest such a thing (including, as mentioned, growing hints from our own players).
Moreover, I think the recent stories posted here about McBob's attitude and comportment following his demotion to the NBDL are very telling. That situation, for whatever reason, is not to his liking, and he has responded by sulking, which has in turn drastically damaged his play and reputation. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say the same thing was afoot during the latter half of last season.

[Classof06]

To be fair, Mason's point appeared to be totally based upon assumption. I'm not sure you can put a whole lot to what he said.

It's amazing how teams that win have better chemistry.

I gotta disagree with you. I'm with Mr. Synellinden, I think it was pretty clear there was a rift between Josh and the rest of the players just by watching the game on TV. I personally loved how Mason put it out there because he acknowledged that Duke did the classy thing by never mentioning McRoberts' name when discussing the improved chemistry this year. When you combine that with McRoberts' apparent no-show at the NBDL showcase, it spells a trend. The kid didn't have a good attitude, period. And him being a captain didn't help Duke's cause last year.

Obviously winning games makes it easier to get along but this team seems to have 10x the chemistry it did last year. And pictures still say a thousand words:

[Jumbo]

To be fair, Mason's point appeared to be totally based upon assumption. I'm not sure you can put a whole lot to what he said.

It's amazing how teams that win have better chemistry.

In this case, it's not just an excuse. The absence of Josh McRoberts has made a major difference with this group. His attitude simply wasn't good -- there's no way to sugarcoat it.

[Turtleboy]

Moreover, I think the recent stories posted here about McBob's attitude and comportment following his demotion to the NBDL are very telling. Here's another point of view. http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1200630304117940.xml&coll=7

[bhd28]

I personally loved how Mason put it out there because he acknowledged that Duke did the classy thing by never mentioning McRoberts' name when discussing the improved chemistry this year.

Hey! You didn't have to go out of your way to say that people posting on this thread don't have as much class as the Duke program does. ;)

[CDu]

In this case, it's not just an excuse. The absence of Josh McRoberts has made a major difference with this group. His attitude simply wasn't good -- there's no way to sugarcoat it.

I find it hard to believe you can say this with such confidence. Couldn't it also be that the reason the team is so positive is because they're winning? Couldn't it also be that McRoberts' bad attitude was a result of the team struggling last year?

It's a chicken-or-the-egg type of question that, in my opinion, isn't so easily answered.

[dukeENG2003]

I agree, winning does a lot to help someones attitude. Look at Randy Moss this year. We'd be the best team in the country if we had McBob back, hands down. He was an excellent defender, excelled handling the ball on the break for a big man, was a good rebounder (still is) and was a great passer. People need to stop comparing him to Singler. Imagine if we had BOTH. Compare him to Lance Thomas, and the picture seems pretty clear (not a knock on Lance, he's a great player, but not as good as McRoberts).

[CDu]

I agree, winning does a lot to help someones attitude. Look at Randy Moss this year. We'd be the best team in the country if we had McBob back, hands down. He was an excellent defender, excelled handling the ball on the break for a big man, was a good rebounder (still is) and was a great passer. People need to stop comparing him to Singler. Imagine if we had BOTH. Compare him to Lance Thomas, and the picture seems pretty clear (not a knock on Lance, he's a great player, but not as good as McRoberts).

I completely agree.

[riverside6]

Well, I just don't know we can definitively point to McRoberts being the problem. In fact, one could just as easily point to Paulus being a problem last season since he wasn't captain again this year.

The fact is we don't know, but I also say the second part of my statement remains true.

To me, finding chemistry is lot like connecting the pieces of a puzzle, its hard to find the right piece, but you know when you have it. This years team certainly seems to be playing for each other and that is refreshing to see.

[Turtleboy]

Moreover, I think the recent stories posted here about McBob's attitude and comportment following his demotion to the NBDL are very telling. Here's another point of view. http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1200630304117940.xml&coll=7

[Wander]

And him being a captain didn't help Duke's cause last year.


This has to be one of the worst coaching moves K has made recently.

[MChambers]

I think last year's chemistry would have been better if Paulus and Henderson had been able to play at the levels they are playing at this year.

[wilson]

Here's another point of view. http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1200630304117940.xml&coll=7

Nice story...thanks for the link. Josh is certainly saying the right things at this point. But some damage is already done. The quotes in the previous stories were from scouts, who know what's going on and will not forget seeing Josh sulk the way he did immediately following his demotion. That means we'd better root for him to catch on a bit with Portland, because I suspect it'd be very difficult for him to jump to another team when his initial contract runs out, with a history of low performance and a sometimes bad attitude.

[CDu]

I think last year's chemistry would have been better if Paulus and Henderson had been able to play at the levels they are playing at this year.

Agreed. I don't think McRoberts' attitude was the reason that Henderson was out of shape (or struggling with asthma, whichever story is accurate), nor was it the reason that Paulus was injured (or struggling with confidence, or both, whichever is most accurate). I'd argue both of those things (along with adding a good scorer, an improved Nelson, and talents like Smith and King) are the big reasons the team is doing so much better and having such wonderful chemistry this year - not McRoberts' attitude.

[darthur]

Who posts here with the most inside access? watzone. What did he say after Josh went pro?

If I recall correctly, it was something to the effect of: Good riddance. He never really unpacked his bags.

Josh was a good player, and I wish him the best of luck in the pros, but a lot of people who know more than me have said he was at the center of a rift in last year's team.

[Turtleboy]

Nice story...thanks for the link. Josh is certainly saying the right things at this point. But some damage is already done. The quotes in the previous stories were from scouts, who know what's going on and will not forget seeing Josh sulk the way he did immediately following his demotion. That means we'd better root for him to catch on a bit with Portland, because I suspect it'd be very difficult for him to jump to another team when his initial contract runs out, with a history of low performance and a sometimes bad attitude.Here's a quote from his coach. One suspects he may know what's going on as well. Emphasis mine.
"Josh is extremely talented," said Bryan Gates, the coach of the Stampede. "Josh is just going to get better and better. He knows how to play. His teammates are going to like playing with him because he passes. His first action is he wants to make a pass to get somebody a layup."

[wilson]

Here's a quote from his coach. One suspects he may know what's going on as well. Emphasis mine.

I don't refute that at all, but my point is that, like it or not, perception is important, especially if/when Josh begins to look for a new contract with a new team. It's good that personnel within his current organization like/believe in him, but he had better continue to actively endeavor not to make any more enemies, or he'll regret it.

[Turtleboy]

I don't refute that at all, but my point is that, like it or not, perception is important, especially if/when Josh begins to look for a new contract with a new team. It's good that personnel within his current organization like/believe in him, but he had better continue to actively endeavor not to make any more enemies, or he'll regret it.Hey, your cite may be spot on. My only point is that we have little real evidence to make any judgment at all. For example, I have no idea whether he has made some enemies, lots of enemies, or no enemies at all, and nothing I have seen on this message board rises to the level of hard fact. It's all speculation until someone brings some proof.

[wilson]

Hey, your cite may be spot on. My only point is that we have little real evidence to make any judgment at all. For example, I have no idea whether he has made some enemies, lots of enemies, or no enemies at all, and nothing I have seen on this message board rises to the level of hard fact. It's all speculation until someone brings some proof.

Yours is an important point as well. The positive upshot of all of this, as I see it, is twofold: a) Here we are trying to figure out why this year's team is so much better than last year's. Whatever the answer, that's an awfully nice question to have. b) Judging from the latest of the latest comments re: Josh's post-demotion play, he seems to have (hopefully) turned a corner with regard to his outlook, and in turn, his on-court performance.

[weezie]

Absolutely not.

Gary

Gary is absolutely right. Dahntay was in no way like JMcR. Dahntay actually enjoyed playing for Duke and was proud of his teammates.

And I can't believe we're still picking the scab off Joshy's departure.

[NYC Duke Fan]

I read an article on the internet by Dan Mason , he of The Fan Zone, ( I have no idea who he is or if he is credible)

He lauds this year's team but says that there was a chemistry problem last year and indicates that the cause was Josh McRoberts.

Anyone know anything about this because I certainly have no idea what he is talking about ?

[Karl Beem]

I read an article on the internet by Dan Mason , he of The Fan Zone, ( I have no idea who he is or if he is credible)

He lauds this year's team but says that there was a chemistry problem last year and indicates that the cause was Josh McRoberts.

Anyone know anything about this because I certainly have no idea what he is talking about ?

Not a clue.:rolleyes:

[wilson]

And I can't believe we're still picking the scab off Joshy's departure.

Excellent analogy. As I said before, I know that curiosity goes a long way toward fueling conversation here, but we're searching (in vain) for the answer to a question that's awfully nice to have in the first place.

[CDu]

Excellent analogy. As I said before, I know that curiosity goes a long way toward fueling conversation here, but we're searching (in vain) for the answer to a question that's awfully nice to have in the first place.

Agreed. Regardless of the reason (which will never be known with any certainty), it's nice that this year's team looks better and has performed better than last year's team.

[Devilsfan]

Josh was the best player on a slightly above average ACC team. Hope he makes it back to the league and puts up some numbers. I don't know what's wrong when someone follows his lifelong passion.

[Misunderestimated]

Excellent analogy. As I said before, I know that curiosity goes a long way toward fueling conversation here, but we're searching (in vain) for the answer to a question that's awfully nice to have in the first place.

Good point. I suppose you dont get clean by rolling in the mud.