Coach K Can't Develop Players

[Skitzle]

So I was discussing the idea that Smith was slated to be our starting PG at the start of the season with a friend from UCLA. His statements were as follows:

"Benching a 3 year starter, that's impressive. Great for recruiting, proving its a true meritocracy. However, it speaks to Ks reputation for not developing players (Paulus). He is good at scheming to exploit talents he recruits but they don't usually improve under him."

I've heard wisps of this before, but it seems a little bit ridiculous to me. That said, I've only really followed Duke for 4-5 years, so I don't have enough history under my belt to argue against it.

I'm opening up the discussion to this board.

Here are the players that disprove the argument in my mind:
Ewing
Henderson
Shelden
Nolan

Platers that support the argument:
JJ (Came in a shooter, left a shooter)
Shavlik (Never fit into our system how we wanted still has a career in the NBA)
Boozer (Second Round pick, improved in the NBA)
Dockery (Never really got an better...)

Please pick this apart.

-Skitz

[jimsumner]

J.J. improved his overall game dramatically while at Duke.

Boozer didn't drop to the second round because of a perception that he hadn't developed at Duke but because he was thought to be too short to effectively play the 4 at the NBA level.

This whole "benching" a three-year-starter thing is a bit over the top, IMO. Instead of playing 28 mpg as a starter, Paulus is going to play 25 mpg as a sixth man.

[elvis14]

See Battier, Shane. He's your daddy!

[CameronBornAndBred]

You can develop skills more than athleticism, and I think compared to Nolan that's one of Greg's drawbacks. He is not the faster guard, and won't ever be. But if you asked Paulus and everyone who has watched him if he's a better guard and more skilled in his game than when he arrived, the answer is an obvious yes. What K is doing now speaks exactly against your friend's argument. He has identified each players strength and is capitalizing on it. Let Nolan guide the team, guard the quicker players, and let Greg score. It would be against K if he didn't give the right player the right position.

[davekay1971]

See also:
Henderson, Phil
Laettner, Christian
Hurley, Bobby
Hill, Thomas
Davis, Brian
Hill, Grant (okay, he came in a stud, but he left the best college player in the nation, period, no debate allowed and don't even bring up Glenn Robinson)
Lang, Tony

That was a (partial) 90-94 list of people Coach K developed very nicely. The idea that K doesn't develop talent at Duke is one of the more laughable Duke/K hater arguments out there.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

If your UCLA friend don't see the glaring differences in the player Just Jumpers (and my UNC buddies called him early on) was his freshman season and the NPOY all-around threat he became as a senior, I suspect s/he paid too much attention to message boards and not enough to watching actual games. Even announcers (who are generally clueless) routinely pointed out the ways that J.J. developed fakes, jab steps, rebounding position, team D principles, etc over the course of his career.

IMO K is a very good, if not great, coach in terms of player development with more than his share of success stories (Shane Battier comes immediately to mind). Duke has more, and more successful, players in the NBA than any other team in the nation. The staff must be doing something right.

That said, it has been my experience that such debates don't change anyone's mind. I'm sure others will weigh in, but I'd advise against debating with people whose minds are already made up, as hostile fans almost always are when it comes to Duke basketball.

[Indoor66]

... I'd advise against debating with people whose minds are already made up...

Ahhhh, you've been over to the PPB!

[Tim1515]

Ask anyone who watched the freshman season's of JJ and Williams whether or not they would end up being 1st round draft picks...in the lottery no less.

Hendo and Smith are great examples...both had "potential" as freshman but neither delivered...now both are starters and great things are expected.

Go back and watch tape on Paulus as a freshman...he's 100% better now...Smith is just a better athlete and playing extremely well.

See the problem is when a guy gets better at Duke...he would've anyway...when he doesn't develop at all people blame K.

A better example is to look at the kids who transferred out of Duke and how their careers turned out at other schools.

[gags1288]

I don't even know where to start here, but I guess I'll begin with the players you listed as supporting the argument.

JJ came in as a shooter and left as the all-time leading SCORER in ACC basketball history. He became a great scorer at Duke and improved his all around game by leaps and bounds in his 4 years at Duke.

Shav dealt with injuries his entire career at Duke, which prevented him from turning into the players many of us hoped and thought he could be at Duke. Even with that, he improved enough to stick in the NBA.

What does draft position have to do with player development? That seems to be deviating from the argument that he can't develop players and moving to the argument that he can't get players drafted high (which we know is far from true). Boozer was an AA at Duke and contributed to winning a NC. He averaged over 18 a game his junior year on 66.5% shooting. As Jim said, his fall in the draft had everything to do with him being perceived as a tweener and very little to do with his game or his development at Duke. He also had a very strong rookie season in Cleveland, averaging 10/7.5, which supports the notion that Duke prepared him well for the NBA despite his draft position.

And to look at the Paulus situation, you don't think that he's improved in his time at Duke? He's become a better shooter, a better defender (not saying that's a strength of his, but he's improved), and he does a much better job of taking care of the basketball then he did as a freshman. Just because Nolan Smith might be taking the starting job does not mean that Greg hasn't improved quite a bit, it just means that Nolan is very good. Greg will still be a very valuable player this season.

I'm of the belief that a lot of improvement as the collegiate level, especially with the top programs, comes down to: 1) How refined the player was when he got to school and thus how much room he had to improve and 2) Work ethic. I think at all of these schools, the kid's receive great coaching and the opportunity to improve is there if you're willing to put in the work. However, in some cases, a players physical limitations result in a kid only being able to improve so much. Greg, for example, wasn't going to become faster or a better on the ball defender whether he went to Duke, UCLA, Kansas, or UTEP.

A lot of coaches recruit quite well. Not one coach has a better group of NBA players right now then Coach K and not one active coach has had more success at the collegiate level then Coach K. I think that about says it all with regards to his coaching ability, his talent evaluation ability, and his ability to develop players.

[phaedrus]

Instead of playing 28 mpg as a starter, Paulus is going to play 25 mpg as a sixth man.

Still, I would generally hope for a player to gain a more prominent role as his career progresses. Even if Paulus sees only a minimal drop in minutes, an argument that he has improved steadily and become more and more important to the team since he was a freshman starting point guard (starting over a senior, ironically) is a tough one to make.

But as CB+B points out, it would have been hard for Greg to improve his main limitation, athleticism, no matter who the head coach was. He did become a much better shooter.

[Tim1515]

Still, I would generally hope for a player to gain a more prominent role as his career progresses. Even if Paulus sees only a minimal drop in minutes, an argument that he has improved steadily and become more and more important to the team since he was a freshman starting point guard (starting over a senior, ironically) is a tough one to make.

But as CB+B points out, it would have been hard for Greg to improve his main limitation, athleticism, no matter who the head coach was. He did become a much better shooter.

Scheyer didn't start last year after making the All-ACC team as a freshman...yet last year he was considered one of the top 6th men in the country.

It should be noted that your statement "He did become a much better shooter" doesn't come close to explaining where Greg was as a freshman shooting and where he is now...one of the most dangerous and accurate 3 point shooters in the country.

He is also a much better ball-handler...MUCH better.

If Nelson was still on this team Greg would very likely be the starting PG...Smith brings a defensive edge that is very much needed in the Duke style defense.

Also...if you go back and read about all the players who have developed at Duke in this thread you'll see why K not developing players couldn't be further from the truth.

[Kedsy]

JJ (Came in a shooter, left a shooter)

As others have said, JJ came in as a guy with a sweet jump shot and left as the NCAA National Player of the Year. That's just a teensy improvement, don't you think?

See Battier, Shane. He's your daddy!

People seem to forget that Shane came in as a consensus National High School Player of the Year. Then he left as the NCAA National Player of the Year. Improvement? I suspect your UCLA friend would say not. But anyone who watched Battier play his freshman year and then again his senior year would have no choice but to marvel at how improved he was.

While some Duke players don't appear to improve all that much during their careers (Ricky Price is one that springs to mind), I would argue that they're the exception that proves the rule. That rule being that Duke players improve immensely over the course of their time at Duke. You can see it in a hundred ways, just by watching how they carry themselves on the court and react to the game around them. Anyone who says different isn't paying attention.

Although having said all that, I suspect that this is true at most colleges, at least most that have even above-average coaches. That's why every year in the NCAA tourney some number of senior-laden mid-major teams beat younger, high-major teams with boatloads of McDonald's All-Americans.

[3rd Dukie]

See also:
Henderson, Phil
Laettner, Christian
Hurley, Bobby
Hill, Thomas
Davis, Brian
Hill, Grant (okay, he came in a stud, but he left the best college player in the nation, period, no debate allowed and don't even bring up Glenn Robinson)
Lang, Tony

That was a (partial) 90-94 list of people Coach K developed very nicely. The idea that K doesn't develop talent at Duke is one of the more laughable Duke/K hater arguments out there.

I agree with you.
I apologize for repeating this, but, Crawford was much more highly recruited than Christian.

[sagegrouse]

So I was discussing the idea that Smith was slated to be our starting PG at the start of the season with a friend from UCLA. His statements were as follows:

"Benching a 3 year starter, that's impressive. Great for recruiting, proving its a true meritocracy. However, it speaks to Ks reputation for not developing players (Paulus). He is good at scheming to exploit talents he recruits but they don't usually improve under him."

I've heard wisps of this before, but it seems a little bit ridiculous to me. That said, I've only really followed Duke for 4-5 years, so I don't have enough history under my belt to argue against it.

Your friend is nutso. Coach K is very reluctant to put a freshman on the floor, usually because they don't know the Duke schemes and their defense is lousy (reflecting on HS and AAU ball). Then, very often, these same players (Battier, Wojo, Shel and others) turn out to be national defensive POYs. So, what does he think, that Coach K overlooks the talent until it has been on the team for a couple of years?

Duke under K probably has more player development than almost any other team.

Usually when I hear these remarks, it is a case where highly touted HS players don't turn into college stars. E.g., Chris Burgess and to a lesser extent Shav and Josh. Or big men transfer like Michael Thompson and the kid from Britain who went to ASU. Of the people that transferred from Duke the onyl one who earned significant honors was Billy McCaffrey, and his decision to transfer was based only a fairly dumb desire to be THE point guard at a school.

sagegrouse

[Classof06]

While I can see an argument for Sean Dockery, this theory just doesn't hold much weight, in my opinion. Both JJ Redick and Shelden Williams most definitely improved during their four years at Duke, there's no doubt about that.

Shav's career at Duke was riddled with injuries so it's pretty hard to pin that on Krzyzewski, though I do agree that Randolph never really seemed in sync with the role Krzyzewski wanted him to fill; the same could probably be said about McRoberts.

As far as Boozer, NBA scouts don't really look for 6-7/6-8 power forwards and that's no fault of Krzyzewski's. Boozer was a very good college player and is now a very good pro. And from what I've read, Boozer is quite appreciative of having had the opportunity to play for Coach K.

[jimsumner]

"Your friend is nutso. Coach K is very reluctant to put a freshman on the floor"

Numerous freshmen have started from day one at Duke, from Dawkins and Alarie in '83 to Singler last year to Amaker, Hurley, Hill, Capel, Brand, JWilliams, and many others in between.

You're right about the defense. But it is only one variable.

[Billy Dat]

I think this issue can be viewed through a different prism...who has the final word on how good a kid is when they come in?

I have been thinking a lot about this with regards to K because he is often criticized for not doing more with "armies of McDonalds AAs".

First point to consider - how much does being recruited by Duke, a process that now begins younger and younger, result in a kid being considered for the McDonalds' AA honor? From stuff I've read, it sounds like it makes a big difference. It would follow that simply being a Duke recruit inflates a kid's potential.

Second - what is the benchmark against which we measure? Making the NBA, I guess. But, is it just making the NBA, or do you have to be an NBA rotation man? Starter? Team Star? All Star? Honestly, I think they expect that if a kid was a McDonald's All American, he should not only make the NBA but be at least a team star. That's insane. JJ Redick will (hopefully), be a rotation player this year. Only about 240 people in the world can say the same thing.

If the benchmark is a little lower, earning All America honors or All Conference honors, I think K's done great. As an earlier poster mentioned, I think there are other coaches who are maybe better. But, K is held to a higher standard - good for him for setting the bar so high. Everyone expects him to be the best at everything and when's he's not, like his team, he gets slammed.

I'll think a little about who I think is better (I think Calhoun is pretty good), but, again, I think he does better based on lower expectation for the kids he gets, which is a really arbitrary yardstick.

[Tim1515]

Keep in mind that I believe stats show Duke has a higher % of turning McDonald's AAs into NBA players then any other team in America.

This basically proves the fact that people focus more on the ones that don't make it at Duke then they do anywhere else.

[davekay1971]

I agree with you.
I apologize for repeating this, but, Crawford was much more highly recruited than Christian.

Crawford! My favorite 5 fouls ever to put on a uniform.

[dkbaseball]

Crawford was much more highly recruited than Christian.

That's not my recollection. Christian was the higher profile recruit, though some thought Palmer was just what the doctor ordered for Duke. I believe SI speculated that Palmer had a chance to start as a freshman, and I missed on him too (I seem to be prone to overrating strong, athletic bigs who can really run the floor).

That '88 class has exhibits A for both the case for and the case against K developing players. Palmer had some great tools to work with as far as becoming a classic 5, though I'm not sure how much want-to he had. The way Laettner and Davis came on, though, was really quite remarkable. I saw Christian in a high-school all-star game, and he struck me as a kind of soft big with pretty good skills, but nothing exceptional. When I saw him at the Blue-White at the beginning of his senior year, he carried himself like the college basketball royalty he had become. A simply stunning transformation. Davis was a spring signee afterthought who didn't show up on the recruiting gurus' radar, yet became a vital cog for two national champions. The confidence those two got from K, and probably from each other, was one of the more amazing things I've seen in sports.