Will We See Changes

[devilsadvocate85]

Oh... I didn't mean Josh wouldn't think about the $$ he could make next year, or that it wouldn't be a decision based on $$. I posted for people who say he isn't ready to be an impact guy next year. I think Josh knows he probably wouldn't be an impact guy next year. If he goes it will be partly about getting paid ASAP and partly because he thinks he could develop as quickly or more quickly in the NBA while getting paid as he could at Duke. Could he? Who knows. That is up to Josh and how hard he is willing to work.

He will be an impact guy in the NBA. (my bad on the earlier post) The guy can score, rebound, defend, pass, etc. Just because he doesn't take over games offensively, why are people so critical? He is the most unique and potentially best all-around player in the conference if not the country. How many teams have 6-10 guys who could play point guard in a pinch?

[devilsadvocate85]

my problem with pt this year is that with marty, zoubek and lt, i feel like when they go in, they are told that if they make just the slightest mistake, then they are going to get pulled. however, starters, such as nelson and paulus, basically have a carte blanche to make almost unlimited mistakes and they won't get sent to the bench. how many times this year have paulus and nelson made just completely horrible decisions and k keeps them in there? the only time i can remember one of them actually getting benched was the va tech game when paulus basically was unplayable (and k still had him in during the overtime!).

Coach K doesn't yank players for "slight" mistakes....he's using Pocius and Zoubek for specific roles. Those roles have to do with matchups and rest for other players. Who would you rather have on the floor at a key time, McRoberts a little tired or Zoubek?

If you watch other teams, players get yanked for all kinds of mistakes, very quickly. (Gary Williams and Jim Calhoun come to mind) Coach K will yank a guy for a stupid play, for not hustling, for not playing defense, but I don't know that I've ever seen an instance where a guy got yanked just for making a "mistake". He may take guys out if the matchups or combinations aren't working, but not just for making a mistake.

[Jumbo]

He will be an impact guy in the NBA. (my bad on the earlier post) The guy can score, rebound, defend, pass, etc. Just because he doesn't take over games offensively, why are people so critical? He is the most unique and potentially best all-around player in the conference if not the country. How many teams have 6-10 guys who could play point guard in a pinch?

DA, with all due respect, you're overstating your case here. Josh has a number of excellent skills -- athleticism, ball-handling, court-vision, rebounding and shot-blocking. But he also has a glaring weakness -- his inability to score. Josh is not a good jump shooter right now. His post moves need a lot of work. And he does not have a good touch, even close to the basket -- he struggles to finish plays.
Josh has the potential to improve all these weaknesses. It's just going to take a lot of hard work.
Finally, a pet peeve that drives me crazy with announcers. No one can be the "most unique" anything. Unique means one-of-a-kind -- you can't more more "one-of-a-kind" than anyone else. Unique is not a word that can be used with degrees.

[FewFAC]

1. Your grasp of the cost of a private school education is a bit off. Duke costs $42,000 per year next year. If that goes up 5% per year going forward that comes to $181,025.30.

2. Either way it's a sunk cost once you give the kid his scholly and should not figure in your decision about whether or not to play him.

I realized I transposed numbers from another project I was working on, but it was late and I didn't feel like correcting the math error.

Plus, it almost sounds like you are advocating playing everyone who is on scholarship. Well, if we have 12 or 13 scholarship players (as could be the case next year), that's just not possible. Someone's going to have to sit. And that won't mean that said player will not have been worth the investment. It will just mean that at that time, some other players are better.

Well, this certainly isn't peewee soccer, but I have an extremely difficult time believing, especially having seen them play, that the guys who play 30+ minutes are 20+ minutes better than those who do not. And if they are, there is no quantitative way to judge so, meaning the judgment is somewhat subjective, and thus subject to arbitrary input from feeling with little to no basis in fact.

I mentioned elsewhere that "handing over the keys" to any player by definition implies that PT is not earned, at least by some players, so any attempt to conclude that there is not an arbitrary standard, or different standards for different players, collapses any attempt to appear evenhanded and consistent. Besides, if the staff can alter the entire game philosophy to cover one player's defensive liabilities, how is it that they cannot do the same for any other player? Laziness? Ineptitude? Stubbornness?

While K has certainly earned the right to run the program however he sees fit, the inconsistencies between what he says and how he performs justify my inability to continue to support his decisions.

[devilsadvocate85]

DA, with all due respect, you're overstating your case here. Josh has a number of excellent skills -- athleticism, ball-handling, court-vision, rebounding and shot-blocking. But he also has a glaring weakness -- his inability to score. Josh is not a good jump shooter right now. His post moves need a lot of work. And he does not have a good touch, even close to the basket -- he struggles to finish plays.
Josh has the potential to improve all these weaknesses. It's just going to take a lot of hard work.
Finally, a pet peeve that drives me crazy with announcers. No one can be the "most unique" anything. Unique means one-of-a-kind -- you can't more more "one-of-a-kind" than anyone else. Unique is not a word that can be used with degrees.

He has the broadest range of abilities and skills - better?

Since when did 12.6 points per game become a glaring weakness? Have we heard Coach K say that for Duke to improve McRoberts has to score more? Have we heard Coach K say that Josh needs to shoot more? I don't believe the coaching staff asks him to put up 18-20 per game. It might be good for Duke, it might not. I'll go with the expertise on the coaching staff to determine that. I agree that he has struggled around the basket. He's an above average shooter for a 6-10 guy and looks to me like he continues to work on his all-around game. Not every big guy is a "back-to-the-basket" scorer. Why do so many people feel that he has to fit some perceived mold of a "big guy"?

[Jumbo]

He has the broadest range of abilities and skills - better?

Since when did 12.6 points per game become a glaring weakness?

It's not. His shooting/scoring ability is. Many of his points come off the offensive glass, alley-oops, etc. He's not a guy who you're going to give the ball and say "get us a basket." You had listed his ability to score among his other strong qualities. I don't believe it's on par with his other skills.

Have we heard Coach K say that for Duke to improve McRoberts has to score more? Have we heard Coach K say that Josh needs to shoot more? I don't believe the coaching staff asks him to put up 18-20 per game. It might be good for Duke, it might not. I'll go with the expertise on the coaching staff to determine that.

I don't believe he has to score 18-20 ppg either for Duke to play well. No one is arguing that point. This is a straw man.

I agree that he has struggled around the basket. He's an above average shooter for a 6-10 guy and looks to me like he continues to work on his all-around game. Not every big guy is a "back-to-the-basket" scorer. Why do so many people feel that he has to fit some perceived mold of a "big guy"?

I don't believe Josh has to fit some preceived mold of a "big guy." He's a face-up player at the next level who should be able to post up smaller players. There's two problems with that: 1) He's not close to an above average shooter for a 6'10" guy. Not even close. 6'10" guys in the NBA routinely hit three-pointers (Rashard Lewis, anyone?). Josh struggles to hit threes from the closer college line. Teams are playing off Josh, daring him to shoot from the outside. He doesn't have a smooth stroke, and this is an area that needs work. Personally, watching him shoot those right-handed jump hooks, I almost wish he shot his jumper with his right hand. He just doesn't look natural shooting the ball.
And he doesn't have to be a conventional big man, but to be as good as he'd like to be, he needs to be improve his moves and touch around the basket. He has the quickness and athleticism to be a very special player; if he wants it badly enough, he'll work on the areas that still need improvement.

[Troublemaker]

Besides, if the staff can alter the entire game philosophy to cover one player's defensive liabilities, how is it that they cannot do the same for any other player? Laziness? Ineptitude? Stubbornness?

Which player is this? How is the entire game philosophy being altered?

[devilsadvocate85]

It's not. His shooting/scoring ability is. Many of his points come off the offensive glass, alley-oops, etc. He's not a guy who you're going to give the ball and say "get us a basket." You had listed his ability to score among his other strong qualities. I don't believe it's on par with his other skills.



I don't believe he has to score 18-20 ppg either for Duke to play well. No one is arguing that point. This is a straw man.



I don't believe Josh has to fit some preceived mold of a "big guy." He's a face-up player at the next level who should be able to post up smaller players. There's two problems with that: 1) He's not close to an above average shooter for a 6'10" guy. Not even close. 6'10" guys in the NBA routinely hit three-pointers (Rashard Lewis, anyone?). Josh struggles to hit threes from the closer college line. Teams are playing off Josh, daring him to shoot from the outside. He doesn't have a smooth stroke, and this is an area that needs work. Personally, watching him shoot those right-handed jump hooks, I almost wish he shot his jumper with his right hand. He just doesn't look natural shooting the ball.
And he doesn't have to be a conventional big man, but to be as good as he'd like to be, he needs to be improve his moves and touch around the basket. He has the quickness and athleticism to be a very special player; if he wants it badly enough, he'll work on the areas that still need improvement.

Less than half of the big guys in the NBA can shoot at all. That's how I feel that Josh is a better than average shooter for a 6-10 guy. There are some exceptional shooters at that size and a lot of terrible shooters.

[Troublemaker]

Jumbo, thanks for your outstanding thoughts and time in this thread.

I have simple, quick question for you. Why would you be shocked if Josh returned for his junior year? Is it because of your knowledge of how close he came to leaving last year? Was there some declaration of "one more year" from Josh when he came back? I ask because, from the level of a fan without inside sources, (i.e. as an outside observer looking in), I can't see why it'd be shocking if he returned. I know there are reasons to leave (money), but I feel like there are compelling reasons to stay as well. I have to believe he's disappointed in how this year has turned out for him. As a competitor, I would think he might want to leave his mark or become a great player on this level before moving on. I know that didn't stop Maggette, but usually when a player has jumped early from Duke, he's performed at a very high level before doing so. And at least Corey played in the Final Four. I would think Josh might want to make a run for a championship before leaving. I just don't understand why you feel so strongly that he's gone.

[Jumbo]

Well, this certainly isn't peewee soccer, but I have an extremely difficult time believing, especially having seen them play, that the guys who play 30+ minutes are 20+ minutes better than those who do not. And if they are, there is no quantitative way to judge so, meaning the judgment is somewhat subjective, and thus subject to arbitrary input from feeling with little to no basis in fact.

Two question, then. 1) If you have 13 scholarship players, should all 13 play in every game? And, if so, how much. 2) Forget Duke for a second. You can't tell if guys who play big minutes are way better than guys who barely play? Of course there are quantitative ways to judge so -- new stats are popping up all the time. But it also doesn't take any stats for someone to be able to see that LeBron James is 20-plus minutes better than Damon Jones.

I mentioned elsewhere that "handing over the keys" to any player by definition implies that PT is not earned...

I don't understand what you're talking about with this "handing the keys over" thing. What's this in reference to?

Besides, if the staff can alter the entire game philosophy to cover one player's defensive liabilities, how is it that they cannot do the same for any other player? Laziness? Ineptitude? Stubbornness?

This is a straw man. Which players' defensive liabilities have resulted in the staff altering the entire game philosophy? And what player has not been given that benefit, assuming there's an answer to the first part? Plus, maybe, some players are actually just better than others.

While K has certainly earned the right to run the program however he sees fit, the inconsistencies between what he says and how he performs justify my inability to continue to support his decisions.

Some specific examples would be nice here. It's hard to even tell what you want, at this point.

[Jumbo]

Less than half of the big guys in the NBA can shoot at all. That's how I feel that Josh is a better than average shooter for a 6-10 guy. There are some exceptional shooters at that size and a lot of terrible shooters.

Want to go through the list of starting NBA power forwards and determine whether each of them can shoot at all? It might be fun, actually. Let me know if you're up for it, and if so, away we go!

[Jumbo]

Jumbo, thanks for your outstanding thoughts and time in this thread.

I have simple, quick question for you. Why would you be shocked if Josh returned for his junior year? Is it because of your knowledge of how close he came to leaving last year? Was there some declaration of "one more year" from Josh when he came back? I ask because, from the level of a fan without inside sources, (i.e. as an outside observer looking in), I can't see why it'd be shocking if he returned. I know there are reasons to leave (money), but I feel like there are compelling reasons to stay as well. I have to believe he's disappointed in how this year has turned out for him. As a competitor, I would think he might want to leave his mark or become a great player on this level before moving on. I know that didn't stop Maggette, but usually when a player has jumped early from Duke, he's performed at a very high level before doing so. And at least Corey played in the Final Four. I would think Josh might want to make a run for a championship before leaving. I just don't understand why you feel so strongly that he's gone.

Everything I've heard has left me with this mindset. I apologize for not being able to be more specific.

[Troublemaker]

That's fine, Jumbo. I respect that you're unable to divulge that information.

If it turns out that Josh does leave, though, hooboy, I hope that folks are willing to be patient again with the team. While Duke will almost certainly be a better team next year regardless, we're not going to be a top 5 team or a strong contender for a championship in 2008. Even a guy like Aaron Gray (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player...playerId=15476 ) took three years to become a good player, so I wouldn't expect Z to develop at a faster rate. And if Z isn't going to be a consistent force in the post next year, then Duke will be too small to be a true contender. We'll be better than this year, more entertaining for sure, but 2009 really becomes the target date then, for a strong championship run. I'm okay with that. I hope others are.

And yes, Patrick Patterson could change things, but it's unlikely that he'll be here as well.

[FewFAC]

The law of diminishing returns strikes again. You can lead the horse to the water, but you can't make him drink. If you don't see what I am talking about, then you're not paying attention. Given the lack of a demonstrable positive return on my time and effort, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

[phaedrus]

Want to go through the list of starting NBA power forwards and determine whether each of them can shoot at all? It might be fun, actually. Let me know if you're up for it, and if so, away we go!

when you do this, you can leave off power forwards like tim duncan and randolph (or boozer and brand) since they actually have back-to-the-basket games. how does his shooting compare to jump-shooting power forwards (i.e. bosh, garnett, marion, that tall guy from dallas is a decent shooter too)? hell, i'd love to see josh knock down that 15 footer with the consistency of udonis haslem.

[Bob Green]

And yes, Patrick Patterson could change things, but it's unlikely that he'll be here as well.

Troublemaker,

Why do you say it's unlikely PP will be at Duke? My understanding is that Duke, Florida, & Kentucky are all still in the mix. Yes, PP had a great weekend at Florida, but he didn't commit. The jury is still out. Do you know different? I agree with you that we will be small with Josh in the NBA and PP at Florida or Kentucky.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[Jumbo]

The law of diminishing returns strikes again. You can lead the horse to the water, but you can't make him drink. If you don't see what I am talking about, then you're not paying attention. Given the lack of a demonstrable positive return on my time and effort, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

You have yet to provide a single, salient example in this thread. This is starting to anger me slightly, so I'm going to take a deep breath, relax, and let this go. But you aren't backing up what you are saying, and in some cases, not making much sense at all. If the reader isn't understanding you clearly, chances are you aren't articulating your point very well. Or you don't have much of a point at all.

[Jumbo]

Troublemaker,

Why do you say it's unlikely PP will be at Duke? My understanding is that Duke, Florida, & Kentucky are all still in the mix. Yes, PP had a great weekend at Florida, but he didn't commit. The jury is still out. Do you know different? I agree with you that we will be small with Josh in the NBA and PP at Florida or Kentucky.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

Funny, last I heard UVA was making a major run at PP.

[Bob Green]

Funny, last I heard UVA was making a major run at PP.

This is actually why I like to follow recruiting. It's a big unknown right up until the kid declares. And, the experts are wrong as many times as they're right.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[Troublemaker]

Troublemaker,

Why do you say it's unlikely PP will be at Duke? My understanding is that Duke, Florida, & Kentucky are all still in the mix. Yes, PP had a great weekend at Florida, but he didn't commit. The jury is still out. Do you know different? I agree with you that we will be small with Josh in the NBA and PP at Florida or Kentucky.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

Bob, my statement was just in regards to the pure numbers game. As Jumbo mentioned, UVA is in it as well, so I give us a 1 in 4 shot without having any other knowledge. From what I've been able to gather from folks that DO have inside info, Duke isn't at the top of the list and never has been.