Rivers Vs Curry. Why Rivers needs to RELAX

[uh_no]

Rivers is the best guard in the country

There are quite a few athletes who would debate that point...and its quite a statement to make before the kid has even played a college game. I hope he turns out that way, but please don't make outlandish superlative statements based on hype alone. (ask king barnes how that worked out for him)

[airowe]

Rivers is the best guard in the country and Seth is right there. Id call it 1A and 1B.

I'd put Seth ahead of Rivers at this point. But I don't think either are best in the country.

[UNCleRod]

Rivers is the best guard in the country and Seth is right there. Id call it 1A and 1B.

somebody was up early this morning and had a big glass of koolaid and I think I know what color is was

[dukeballboy88]

ok then best guard in the acc?

[uh_no]

ok then best guard in the acc?

I don't think the issue is whether he is or isn't; just that there is no reasonable basis on which to base these conclusions.

I think there is a guy over at UNC who may have a thing or two to say about being the best in the conference.

Let the kid play a game or two against some top competition, either out in Maui or up in NYC before we start crowning him.

[Kfanarmy]

Agreed. McRoberts has become a nice scapegoat (for some folks) for the 2007 team. The reality was that there were a ton of reasons why the 2007 team didn't have a better year, and McRoberts' attitude was very low on the list of reasons....

I'm not so sure...I thought quite often that McRoberts wasn't putting everything into his performance on a lot of nights. Quite often he just seemed to be going through the motions, I'm guessing if I were on the team with him, I would have seriously questioned his commitment. Those things can snowball and cause a team to vastly underperform...and I think that team did.

[CDu]

I'm not so sure...I thought quite often that McRoberts wasn't putting everything into his performance on a lot of nights. Quite often he just seemed to be going through the motions, I'm guessing if I were on the team with him, I would have seriously questioned his commitment. Those things can snowball and cause a team to vastly underperform...and I think that team did.

I disagree. I don't think McRoberts gave less than full effort. I think people (erroneously) saw that because McRoberts couldn't score 18ppg on the blocks (something that has never been his game) and his surly demeanor and assumed that he wasn't giving full effort. In fact, I think he was doing everything he could, but was simply being asked to do something he wasn't equipped to do well. And even so, he still averaged about 8 rebounds and 2.5 blocks per game without much help.

I also think there were a lot of other issues (inadequate defense at some other key spots, a TON of inexperience, a lack of help inside, not enough competent/confident ballhandlers, not enough perimeter shooting, etc).

[airowe]

I disagree. I don't think McRoberts gave less than full effort. I think people (erroneously) saw that because McRoberts couldn't score 18ppg on the blocks (something that has never been his game) and his surly demeanor and assumed that he wasn't giving full effort.

Lots of effort with McRoberts. I think his attitude as his Duke career went on can fairly be criticized, but he gave a ton of effort, especially on defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOuzofoWwzA

[magjayran]

We often forget about how good McRoberts was. I'd gladly redshirt a Plumlee for a McRoberts this year.

[Wander]

McBob's attitude and his teammates' opinion of him had little if anything to do with Duke losing to LSU his freshman year and in my opinion was not the problem with the 2006-07 team. While I do think there's such a thing as bad team chemistry, I don't think the coaching staff would allow one cocky kid to cause that much damage at Duke.

Agreed. McRoberts has become a nice scapegoat (for some folks) for the 2007 team. The reality was that there were a ton of reasons why the 2007 team didn't have a better year, and McRoberts' attitude was very low on the list of reasons.

To be clear, I'm not a Duke fan who hates McRoberts, and like airowe, I'd draw a distinction between his on-court effort (which was good) and his attitude. Team chemistry wasn't good, and seeing as Duke lost nearly every close game it played in once the ACC season started, I don't think it's unreasonable to assert that bad chemistry was a factor. As a specific example, recall the Clemson home game - Duke was up by 3 with the ball with a few seconds left, and an awful miscommunication between McRoberts and Paulus caused the basketball to end up in probably the only spot in the entire arena that it shouldn't have been, and the Clemson player drained a three to tie the game (yes, I know we ended up winning this particular game anyway). If we agree that team chemistry can be a positive factor that helps wins games (like the 2010 Duke and Butler squads), I think we necessarily have to agree that poor team chemistry can hurt.

I agree that the Rivers thing seems overblown right now. I'm not worried about it. But I don't agree that with the theory that bad chemistry wouldn't hurt a Duke team.

[Duvall]

To be clear, I'm not a Duke fan who hates McRoberts, and like airowe, I'd draw a distinction between his on-court effort (which was good) and his attitude. Team chemistry wasn't good, and seeing as Duke lost nearly every close game it played in once the ACC season started, I don't think it's unreasonable to assert that bad chemistry was a factor. As a specific example, recall the Clemson home game - Duke was up by 3 with the ball with a few seconds left, and an awful miscommunication between McRoberts and Paulus caused the basketball to end up in probably the only spot in the entire arena that it shouldn't have been, and the Clemson player drained a three to tie the game (yes, I know we ended up winning this particular game anyway). If we agree that team chemistry can be a positive factor that helps wins games (like the 2010 Duke and Butler squads), I think we necessarily have to agree that poor team chemistry can hurt.

I think we also have to agree that it's difficult for outside observers to tell the difference between poor chemistry and a lack of experience. That 2007 teams was one of the youngest Duke teams in recent memory; the 2010 squad was one of the most experienced. That may well have been the difference right there.

[Kedsy]

To be clear, I'm not a Duke fan who hates McRoberts, and like airowe, I'd draw a distinction between his on-court effort (which was good) and his attitude. Team chemistry wasn't good, and seeing as Duke lost nearly every close game it played in once the ACC season started, I don't think it's unreasonable to assert that bad chemistry was a factor. As a specific example, recall the Clemson home game - Duke was up by 3 with the ball with a few seconds left, and an awful miscommunication between McRoberts and Paulus caused the basketball to end up in probably the only spot in the entire arena that it shouldn't have been, and the Clemson player drained a three to tie the game (yes, I know we ended up winning this particular game anyway). If we agree that team chemistry can be a positive factor that helps wins games (like the 2010 Duke and Butler squads), I think we necessarily have to agree that poor team chemistry can hurt.

Not sure why an on-court miscommunication would be an indicator of poor chemistry or bad attitude. Nor would I think close losses would show a lack of chemstry any more (or less) than blowout losses, or even close wins against inferior opponents. But I agree with Duvall that both miscommunication and close losses are marks of an inexperienced team -- and that team was the least experienced Duke team in Coach K's tenure.

[Wander]

Not sure why an on-court miscommunication would be an indicator of poor chemistry or bad attitude. Nor would I think close losses would show a lack of chemstry any more (or less) than blowout losses, or even close wins against inferior opponents. But I agree with Duvall that both miscommunication and close losses are marks of an inexperienced team -- and that team was the least experienced Duke team in Coach K's tenure.

Well, at some point, the chemistry has to manifest itself as something specific on the basketball court, and communication issues seem like a reasonable place to start. Again, contrast that to the way Scheyer, Singler, Smith, Thomas, and Zoubek played with each other. I agree it's hard to separate out chemistry from experience (doubly so for that example). In summary, I suppose I'd posit that both inexperience and attitude problems contributed to bad team chemistry in 2007.

[dcar1985]

Not sure why an on-court miscommunication would be an indicator of poor chemistry or bad attitude. Nor would I think close losses would show a lack of chemstry any more (or less) than blowout losses, or even close wins against inferior opponents. But I agree with Duvall that both miscommunication and close losses are marks of an inexperienced team -- and that team was the least experienced Duke team in Coach K's tenure.

That might not have been the issue in that example but on court communication is definitely affected by poor chemistry. If your not on the same page as your teammates how can you expect to perform up to potential as a team?

[Kedsy]

That might not have been the issue in that example but on court communication is definitely affected by poor chemistry. If your not on the same page as your teammates how can you expect to perform up to potential as a team?

In general, that's a valid point, but I think it depends on what you mean by "poor chemistry." If we agree that a lot of the players on that team didn't like McRoberts and that his attitude wasn't ideal, but we also agree he was a good player who always listened to his coaches and tried his hardest on the court, then it's more difficult to see how his attitude and players disliking him would lead to a turnover.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that particular team had a lot of issues that led to a down season by Duke standards. McBob's attitude may or may not have been one of the issues, but if it was, it wasn't very high on the list.

[Bojangles4Eva]

McRoberts gets a lot of undeserved blame for that '07 squad, when really we just were not an outstanding team. Plus, the great performances from McRoberts and Paulus their freshman seasons were not put in perspective with who they were surrounded by.

Think of what it must have been like for McRoberts to play on a team with senior all Americans JJ and Shelden his freshman year. He could play his game under that nice guaranteed 40+ point umbrella of our two senior captains (taking lots of defensive pressure off of him), and then be asked the very next year to be the team leader (Paulus and him were co-captains as sophomores weren't they?) on a team which may start 2-3freshman. It wasn't surprising to me at all that McRoberts did not build on his freshman year as some may have hoped. It also wasn't surprising that this lead to frustration on his part at times (The clip of him screaming into a towel and Collins getting in his face comes to mind) which made him become slightly demonized in the eyes of the media.

I think this impression of him made it very easy to say that we didn't do well that year because of McRoberts attitude, and how it effected team chemistry, etc, when in reality, we were just a VERY inexperienced team with no real leadership which lead to loss in confidence (particularly in Paulus) and eventually many lost games.

Now, when it comes to Austin...He's just a freshman, and K hasn't gotten 900 wins because he allows the immaturity of 18 year olds corrupt his teams. Austin, like so many Duke freshman before him, will need to mature over the next season, and there may not be a better coach to get boys to act like men than K.

[jimsumner]

RE: 2007 season.

That team had no recruited seniors and only one recruited junior, DeMarcus Nelson. Nelson was a pretty good player, a great teammate, a hard worker. But leadership didn't come naturally to him. So, there was a leadership vacuum that none of the sophomores was prepared to fill.

Nelson, btw, learned and was a decent leader in 2008. But 2007 would have benefitted from a savy senior or two.

[Kedsy]

It wasn't surprising to me at all that McRoberts did not build on his freshman year as some may have hoped.

I agree with most of your post, but I think McRoberts did build on his freshman year. Here's his stat progression, from his freshman to his sophomore year:

MinutesPG: 24.5 to 35.3
PointsPG: 8.7 to 13.0
ReboundsPG: 5.3 to 7.9
AssistsPG: 1.5 to 3.5
BlocksPG: 1.3 to 2.5

On a per minute basis, his advancements in points and rebounds were only modest, but the fact that he advanced at all while becoming the absolute focus of opposing defenses says something, and his per minute advancements in assists and blocks were outstanding. Overall, I think our perception of Josh's on-court performance is marred by the fact that he left for the NBA after his sophomore campaign.

[MChambers]

Do we need yet another thread in which we gnash teeth over McRoberts? Can we get this thread back on the subject of this year's team?

[dukeballboy88]

People say Austin isnt the best guard in the country??? Ok, so find me a guard right now in college that would go higher than Austin in the NBA draft if the draft was tomorrow???


http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2012/

I dont know who writes for Draftexpress but I think me and him agree on Austin. It would take a sub par season from Austin and 35 ppg 15 assist and 10 boards a game season from another guard to get him drafted higher than Austin.

Seth impressed the heck out of me the other night, I saw an offensive game I didnt know he had. It kind of reminded me of the way the Microwave used to come in and light it up with about 5 different ways to put it in the basket. Im very impressed with Seth but there is not an NBA scout in the country that would take another guard over Austin Rivers right now.