Addition by Subtraction: the McRoberts factor

[DukeCO2009]

With 11 guys who look to play significant minutes (once Dave comes back), where would Josh have fit on this team? Seems to me his only function would have been to steal minutes from guys like Singler and King, and I'm not sure they're both not more valuable assets than he was. Singler has touch, can do things other than dunk, crashes the boards, and is incredibly smooth with the ball. King is a nasty shooter who can also rebound and put the ball on the floor.

Josh's issue was that he was a 6/10 at a lot of things but a 10/10 at nothing--a jack of all (most) trades but master of none. There always seemed to be a disclaimer at the end of any statement made about him. He was a good ball-handler--for a big man. He could shoot OK--for someone who's 6'11". You get the idea. I also got the impression that he wasn't a great "locker room guy." Forgive the political analogy from a bitter North Carolinian, but he had John Edwards syndrome--just as Johnny Boy appeared to use his Senate seat as a mere springboard to bigger and better things, Josh looked like he cared about Duke only to the extent that he knew it was an avenue to the NBA.

The team lacked chemistry last year, and it clearly has found it this go-round. One would assume that 3 freshmen playing significant minutes would produce the exact opposite situation, so I have to attribute this--at least in part--to Josh's departure. K looked to him to be a leader, and he didn't step up. As a result, the rest of the team looked a bit lost at times. I really believe Duke's a better team this seasonn without Josh than it would've been with him. Thoughts?

[EarlJam]

With 11 guys who look to play significant minutes (once Dave comes back), where would Josh have fit on this team? Seems to me his only function would have been to steal minutes from guys like Singler and King, and I'm not sure they're both not more valuable assets than he was. Singler has touch, can do things other than dunk, crashes the boards, and is incredibly smooth with the ball. King is a nasty shooter who can also rebound and put the ball on the floor.

Josh's issue was that he was a 6/10 at a lot of things but a 10/10 at nothing--a jack of all (most) trades but master of none. There always seemed to be a disclaimer at the end of any statement made about him. He was a good ball-handler--for a big man. He could shoot OK--for someone who's 6'11". You get the idea. I also got the impression that he wasn't a great "locker room guy." Forgive the political analogy from a bitter North Carolinian, but he had John Edwards syndrome--just as Johnny Boy appeared to use his Senate seat as a mere springboard to bigger and better things, Josh looked like he cared about Duke only to the extent that he knew it was an avenue to the NBA.

The team lacked chemistry last year, and it clearly has found it this go-round. One would assume that 3 freshmen playing significant minutes would produce the exact opposite situation, so I have to attribute this--at least in part--to Josh's departure. K looked to him to be a leader, and he didn't step up. As a result, the rest of the team looked a bit lost at times. I really believe Duke's a better team this seasonn without Josh than it would've been with him. Thoughts?

My thought is that you are dead-on accurate with this assessment. I believe this year's team will have a much stronger personality and identitiy as a whole vs. being "The Josh McRoberts Show." Some players can pull that off, (see 1994 and "The Grant Hill Show"). But McRoberts just didn't possess the skill set to be MC.

Josh of all trades, McMaster of none indeed.

He's a good guy I'm sure, and his mom rocks. I wish him well but agree that this year's team will be much stronger.

-EarlJam

[MChambers]

My thought is that you are dead-on accurate with this assessment. I believe this year's team will have a much stronger personality and identitiy as a whole vs. being "The Josh McRoberts Show." Some players can pull that off, (see 1994 and "The Grant Hill Show"). But McRoberts just didn't possess the skill set to be MC.

Josh of all trades, McMaster of none indeed.

He's a good guy I'm sure, and his mom rocks. I wish him well but agree that this year's team will be much stronger.

-EarlJam

While I don't disagree with the points the two of you have made regarding some of his weaknesses, or at least a lack of strengths, I certainly think you need to slow down here before you jump to conclusions based on one exhibition. It's a little early to decide that this year's team has better chemistry. It certainly helps having two healthy point guards.
Moreover, while Josh did not have top notch skills on the offensive end of the floor, he was our best post defender. I thought his defense last year was excellent. As I recall, he was named to one of the all-ACC defensive teams (I can't remember he was first-team or second-team). We could use that this year.

[Jeffrey]

Josh's issue was that he was a 6/10 at a lot of things but a 10/10 at nothing--a jack of all (most) trades but master of none. There always seemed to be a disclaimer at the end of any statement made about him. He was a good ball-handler--for a big man. He could shoot OK--for someone who's 6'11". You get the idea.

Hi,

I think Josh had more talent, potential, and skills than you have stated. He may end up being a very good complimentary player in the NBA.

K looked to him to be a leader, and he didn't step up. As a result, the rest of the team looked a bit lost at times. I really believe Duke's a better team this seasonn without Josh than it would've been with him.

Here's where I could not agree with you more! Josh did not want to be the go-to-guy and he had to be on last year's team. Sorry, but that is a major part of being a team player. Coach assigns you a role and you refuse (through actions and/or words), then you need to move on for the good of all.

-Jeffrey

[EarlJam]

While I don't disagree with the points the two of you have made regarding some of his weaknesses, or at least a lack of strengths, I certainly think you need to slow down here before you jump to conclusions based on one exhibition. It's a little early to decide that this year's team has better chemistry. It certainly helps having two healthy point guards.
Moreover, while Josh did not have top notch skills on the offensive end of the floor, he was our best post defender. I thought his defense last year was excellent. As I recall, he was named to one of the all-ACC defensive teams (I can't remember he was first-team or second-team). We could use that this year.

Agreed to a degree, but I came to my conclusion about one minute after Josh announced he was going pro.

I liked Josh. I really did. He starred in numerous highlight reels but it seemed obvious to me last year that with each game, Duke fans and perhaps the players were continually looking to Josh to "step it up," "have the break out game." For better or worse, it was HIS team last year and for whatever reasons, it just didn't work for the 2006-2007 Blue Devils, relatively speaking.

-EarlJam

[Fish80]

This thread is a little too harsh. Sure, things didn't work out for Josh nor for the team last year as many of us hoped. And I'm sure Josh would agree with that. But what's the point of bashing him now? He gave tremendous effort, did what he could.

Next Play.

[johnb]

I have no idea of the personality issues behind the scenes, or whether he would have resented another year of college basketball, but I have to think that the team would be better off with an additional All ACC level guy in the paint.

Having said that, I don't really think about his presence on this year's team and am happy we have who we have.

[BD80]

Josh has great skills, and played great post D. He would have led the team in minutes played, and he and Kyle would have been a tremendous post duo, with Josh having no problem deferring to and feeding Kyle. Lance and Zoubek would have played a bit less (and Singler too). Josh would have thrived in the up-tempo offense. Nelson would still be the sole captain, and Josh would be happy just being one of the guys. We would have been a serious championship contender.

But Josh is gone, and best wishes to him. And to his mom; I'll miss her most of all.

This team will be fun as hell to watch, and will be a tough out in the tournament. It will take a bunch of good luck and a real hot streak, but we could be playing in April.

[jimsumner]

With all due respect, I'm not sure how one can come to the conclusion that a player who was second in the ACC in rebounding and blocked shots didn't do anything well.

There's no question that McRoberts would have started on this year's Duke team had he elected to return.

[EarlJam]

But Josh is gone, and best wishes to him. And to his mom; I'll miss her most of all.

Could someone please post an image of Josh's mom?

Thanks.

-EarlJam

[lavell12]

you guys are crazy if it is an addition by losing josh that means we have to play two unproven players at C and one who is uncoordinated and isn't very good. josh problem is he is built for a run-n-gun game like Duke has this year,
if we had Josh I think we would be a serious NCAA Championship contender.

[mapei]

With all due respect, I'm not sure how one can come to the conclusion that a player who was second in the ACC in rebounding and blocked shots didn't do anything well.

There's no question that McRoberts would have started on this year's Duke team had he elected to return.

Thank you. Taking over last year from a team led by two all-Americans (among 4 seniors in the rotation) with their jerseys in the rafters was no small task, and Singler couldn't have done it either. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses but Josh was our best player last year IMO.

[buzz]

Definitely don't agree that the team will be better without Josh. He was a huge loss. We don't even make the NCAAs last year without him - no question. Had he returned, we'd be a legit top 5 team, and matchups against us would have been a nightmare for most opponents. His absence will be felt against the bigs we face this year for certain. IF the team is better this year in other ways, it will be because of the experience that the other players have gained and the addition of three good/excellent players (and hopefully good health from here on).

I get a little frustrated seeing people attribute so much blame to Josh for team chemistry problems. At times the guy was all alone out on the court because everyone else disappeared. He also tended to wear his frustration on his face (like Hurley did as a sophomore), which I believe adds fuel to this otherwise speculative accusation. No one can legitimately say that he didn't work his butt off out there, and that should be enough for a true fan. Sure, the dude had some aspects of his game that needed work. So what? Cut the man a break.

[mepanchin]

I think a lot of people just think he was a bad influence on the court. I would love having him as a player around this year - a healthy summer to train, get back in shape, and show off that athleticism he showed as a freshman, but he was never, ever the guy to carry a team. I don't know about the chemistry issues behind the scenes or anything, but it seemed like he was upset most of the time. Screaming/crying into towels, yelling at teammates, kicking the basketball sometimes. That sort of attitude rubs off on a team.

[cspan37421]

So, is it the case that "Josh's mom has got it goin' on" ?

[hurleyfor3]

So, is it the case that "Josh's mom has got it goin' on" ?

We still have Mrs. Scheyer

[JasonEvans]

Hi,
Josh did not want to be the go-to-guy and he had to be on last year's team. Sorry, but that is a major part of being a team player. Coach assigns you a role and you refuse (through actions and/or words), then you need to move on for the good of all.

You are joking, right? Being "the go-to guy" is an attitude thing much more than something the coach asks of a player. Sure, a coach may design a play to go in a certain player's direction in a late-game situation, but, for the most part, taking that big shot is something that happens in the flow of the action and not something a coach can determine all that much.

What's more, if a player is not able to fulfill all the expectations a coach has for him, it is incumbent on the coach to figure out something else that works-- it is most assuredly not the responsibility of the player to "move on" because he could not do everything the coaches asked. That is beyond absurd.

I came really close to just deleting this entire thread before I decided to reply to this post. Let me instead echo the statements made by many that I think Duke would be a better team with Josh McRoberts back this season. Our faster style of play would suit his offensive game a LOT more and he would be that defensive presence in the middle that everyone seems to agree we may be lacking. Put him out there with our talented backcourts and Singler and you have probably the best ballhandling and passing team in the land.

--Jason "the leering at the mammas part of this thread is also in poor taste, IMO" Evans

[mapei]

I came really close to just deleting this entire thread before I decided to reply to this post.

Jason, I'm glad you didn't. I'm a strong Josh defender, but I think the board is better when criticism is given a wide range of tolerance. Just MHO.

[Fish80]

Jason, I'm glad you didn't. I'm a strong Josh defender, but I think the board is better when criticism is given a wide range of tolerance. Just MHO.

Agee that the board is better when criticism is given a wide range. I feel much better about this thread now that many have posted in support of Josh and his contributions. Still, it's a fine line between healthy debate and just cruel bashing of a Duke student athlete.

MHO is that some posters take out their frustrations over last season in a venting manner and inappropriately direct it at particular players. If you ever were a student athlete or had children who were student athletes you would have a much different perspective.

[Saratoga2]

Agee that the board is better when criticism is given a wide range. I feel much better about this thread now that many have posted in support of Josh and his contributions. Still, it's a fine line between healthy debate and just cruel bashing of a Duke student athlete.

MHO is that some posters take out their frustrations over last season in a venting manner and inappropriately direct it at particular players. If you ever were a student athlete or had children who were student athletes you would have a much different perspective.

Josh and every other student athlete have their strengths and weaknesses. Why criticize a guy that gave his all to the team and was arguably the most valuable player. I can see mentioning what a player could do to get better and perhaps encouraging that improvement but some of the criticism here was not really constructive.