The Elephant in the Room: Lets talk about Jon Scheyer

[trinity79]

I thought this thread was about "The Elephant in the Room: Let's talk about Jon Scheyer" I'm officially declaring it hijacked like a truck full of cigarettes in New Jersey.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Surely someone above did NOT say, "Coach K ust have declined because In later years he never equaled seven FFs in nine years."

Ha! Hot 🔥 take!

[Southgate0809]

Good stuff to hear from Scheyer here. We've dissected little quotes from him here and there where he says that he wants guys to stay longer. Wasn't much we could take from it because of course he wants guys to stay longe, so that doesn't really tell us anything.

This seems like it has more meat to it though and it seems like player retention (and recruiting players that are willing to be retained) is a big focus of his.

https://theathletic.com/4239196/2023...ll-recruiting/

[DukieTiger]

Good stuff to hear from Scheyer here. We've dissected little quotes from him here and there where he says that he wants guys to stay longer. Wasn't much we could take from it because of course he wants guys to stay longe, so that doesn't really tell us anything.

This seems like it has more meat to it though and it seems like player retention (and recruiting players that are willing to be retained) is a big focus of his.

https://theathletic.com/4239196/2023...ll-recruiting/

Was just coming to link to the same story. Good stuff in here.

Someone pass this on to Shane Ryan!

[DavidBenAkiva]

Very interesting podcast segment from the Field of 68 crew, including Rob Dauster, (former Clemson guy) Terrence Oglesby, and John Fanta. There's some compare/contrast going on with UNC and Hubert Davis in this but overall a lot of praise for Duke and their head coach, Jon Scheyer. They had another segment on UNC for those interested in that one.

[robed deity]

Very interesting podcast segment from the Field of 68 crew, including Rob Dauster, (former Clemson guy) Terrence Oglesby, and John Fanta. There's some compare/contrast going on with UNC and Hubert Davis in this but overall a lot of praise for Duke and their head coach, Jon Scheyer. They had another segment on UNC for those interested in that one.

I enjoyed this, but I think I prefer this team flying under the radar. I don't want any media trumpeting that they are dangerous!

[CameronBornAndBred]

Very interesting podcast segment from the Field of 68 crew, including Rob Dauster, (former Clemson guy) Terrence Oglesby, and John Fanta. There's some compare/contrast going on with UNC and Hubert Davis in this but overall a lot of praise for Duke and their head coach, Jon Scheyer. They had another segment on UNC for those interested in that one.

Apparently Jon wasn't even in it for the ACC COY, so good luck with that.

(That being said, I'm perfectly OK with Scheyer not being in either mix. I'm just happy he has us on track at the right time of the year.)

[dukelifer]

I enjoyed this, but I think I prefer this team flying under the radar. I don't want any media trumpeting that they are dangerous!

Duke under the radar? I doubt that.

[MChambers]

Very interesting podcast segment from the Field of 68 crew, including Rob Dauster, (former Clemson guy) Terrence Oglesby, and John Fanta. There's some compare/contrast going on with UNC and Hubert Davis in this but overall a lot of praise for Duke and their head coach, Jon Scheyer. They had another segment on UNC for those interested in that one.

I liked the suggestion that Duke should hang a regular season championship banner this season.

[75Crazie]

Did this thread title really need to be brought back to the first page?

[Billy Dat]

Very interesting podcast segment from the Field of 68 crew, including Rob Dauster, (former Clemson guy) Terrence Oglesby, and John Fanta. There's some compare/contrast going on with UNC and Hubert Davis in this but overall a lot of praise for Duke and their head coach, Jon Scheyer. They had another segment on UNC for those interested in that one.

Fanta is a new discovery for me this season, I really like him. I have always liked Dauster, and TO is good too, and they also have Randolph Childress on. This is the network that Andre Dawkins was part of last year. Sadly, the most prominent personality under the Field of 68 banner is Jeff Goodman who I find to be not only annoying but extraordinarily cliche reliant.

[Lurkingdukedog]

Apparently Jon wasn't even in it for the ACC COY, so good luck with that.

(That being said, I'm perfectly OK with Scheyer not being in either mix. I'm just happy he has us on track at the right time of the year.)

I think that the COTY thing has real problems. The basis for which coaches are under consideration is really based on what the media/pundits/talking heads prognosticate about the teams at the beginning of the season and how things end up in the end. There is often limited basis for their predictions -- and when a team over-achieves based on what the media predicted, that coach is automatically "in the running" for COTY. In my opinion, this was a total issue with Coach K. The recognition of how how a coach is able mold a group of young players into a team that competes each and every day is totally lost in the way the sports writers and voters do their end of the year tallies.

Every group of players has its own issues and wins and losses are only one (obviously very visible) aspect of evaluation. I wonder if COTY even a useful concept or metric?

[wilko]

I think that the COTY thing has real problems. I wonder if COTY even a useful concept or metric?

The COY has become a farce and is a hollow award. Since 2000 - The voters practically invented reasons and inserted new criteria in order to avoid giving it to K.
It was clear that it was some sort of collusion and protectionism for Dean Smiths 6 COY awards. And in the process they made it meaningless.

I cant be bothered to consider this an actual honor anymore.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I think that the COTY thing has real problems. The basis for which coaches are under consideration is really based on what the media/pundits/talking heads prognosticate about the teams at the beginning of the season and how things end up in the end. There is often limited basis for their predictions -- and when a team over-achieves based on what the media predicted, that coach is automatically "in the running" for COTY. In my opinion, this was a total issue with Coach K. The recognition of how how a coach is able mold a group of young players into a team that competes each and every day is totally lost in the way the sports writers and voters do their end of the year tallies.

Every group of players has its own issues and wins and losses are only one (obviously very visible) aspect of evaluation. I wonder if COTY even a useful concept or metric?

I think it is. It's recognition for a job very well done. You're preaching to the choir when it comes to K, we all know that he was deserving many times that he wasn't awarded. That's predictable when the job you do almost every year is elite. It came to the point that the only times people seemed to notice how he was performing was in the years that Duke was down.

I think COY is indeed held out for people who, first, exceeded expectation, then second, who essentially had their team undefeatable. Going by that criteria, I'm totally fine with Scheyer not getting looks. He made us Duke fans happy, but overall he did neither more nor less than what people expected with the players that he has to work with.

(It's also hard to complain in a year when his own fans created a thread calling out his performance.)

[DavidBenAkiva]

I think it is. It's recognition for a job very well done. You're preaching to the choir when it comes to K, we all know that he was deserving many times that he wasn't awarded. That's predictable when the job you do almost every year is elite. It came to the point that the only times people seemed to notice how he was performing was in the years that Duke was down.

I think COY is indeed held out for people who, first, exceeded expectation, then second, who essentially had their team undefeatable. Going by that criteria, I'm totally fine with Scheyer not getting looks. He made us Duke fans happy, but overall he did neither more nor less than what people expected with the players that he has to work with.

(It's also hard to complain in a year when his own fans created a thread calling out his performance.)

How good of a coaching job did the following do, though?

2000-01: Paul Hewitt (17-13 record, 8-8 in ACC), 5th place in the ACC
2004-05: Seth Greenberg (16-14, 8-8) 4th in ACC
2007-08: Seth Greenberg (21-14, 9-7) 4th in ACC
2016-17: Josh Pastner (21-16, 8-10) 11th in ACC
2021-22: Steve Forbes (25-10, 13-7) 5th in ACC
2022-23: Jeff Capel (TBD, 14-6) 5th in ACC

[CameronBornAndBred]

How good of a coaching job did the following do, though?

2000-01: Paul Hewitt (17-13 record, 8-8 in ACC), 5th place in the ACC
2004-05: Seth Greenberg (16-14, 8-8) 4th in ACC
2007-08: Seth Greenberg (21-14, 9-7) 4th in ACC
2016-17: Josh Pastner (21-16, 8-10) 11th in ACC
2021-22: Steve Forbes (25-10, 13-7) 5th in ACC
2022-23: Jeff Capel (TBD, 14-6) 5th in ACC

Good enough to win the award, obviously. I'm not going to look it up, but where were each of those teams predicted to be in the preseason voting? As stated, #1 award winning criteria is to beat expectations.
Remember, to win requires a majority of voters to put you there, so it's not like those guys won with only a couple reporters in agreement.

[Phredd3]

Good enough to win the award, obviously. I'm not going to look it up, but where were each of those teams predicted to be in the preseason voting? As stated, #1 award winning criteria is to beat expectations.
Remember, to win requires a majority of voters to put you there, so it's not like those guys won with only a couple reporters in agreement.

Well, one thing we know is that Pastner's team wasn't supposed to finish lower than 15th!

[CameronBornAndBred]

Well, one thing we know is that Pastner's team wasn't supposed to finish lower than 15th!

Again, I don't vote, and it's a majority. But for the hell of it, here's the reasoning.

A year ago, nobody would believe that Josh Pasnter would be the ACC Coach of the Year in 2017. Add the fact he was going to do at a rebuilding program at Georgia Tech that was expected to win zero in-conference games and it becomes a more outrageous thought.

For Pastner, the award is well deserved. Coming into the 2016-17 season, the Yellow Jackets had almost no returning starters. With that being said, Josh Pastner knew the journey in front of him and went at it with full force.

https://yellowjackedup.com/2017/03/0...h-of-the-year/

[Phredd3]

Again, I don't vote, and it's a majority. But for the hell of it, here's the reasoning.

Sorry, my typing was rather too serious in tone.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Again, I don't vote, and it's a majority. But for the hell of it, here's the reasoning.

https://yellowjackedup.com/2017/03/0...h-of-the-year/

There was a shift right around 2000 that went from "who is the best coach this season" to "who had the bar lowered this season." It's fine if we want to do that. We have separate awards for Player of the Year and Rookie of the Year. Why not have Most Valuable Coach of the Year and Most Impressive Coach of the Year? It just seems like the ACC media is setting expectations at the beginning of the year without looking at the conference schedule and thus creating an easy narrative at the end of the season. I'm not saying Jeff Capel didn't deserve it this year. But if you look at the trend, the guys that won it didn't overcome adversity to the degree that is being implied.