sensei_hanson
New Member
I don't really know what my feelings are on this one. I think a healthy Grant Hill and Elton Brand would nullify this debate to a certain degree, but given the trend Dukies have for being NBA flops, you can't ignore it.
The big thing is that what makes you successful in the college game usually doesn't translate much into the pro game. It's more team-oriented in college and usually you can make up for a lack of athleticism and talent with intangibles like leadership, basketball savvy and overall hard work. Like the role-player argument mentioned in the article. Battier is a classic example. He did so many things well in college, but none of them excellent. His defense was probably his biggest asset but in the NBA, he simply doesn't have the physical capabilities to get up, block shots and bang bodies with the elite athletes he's up against on a nightly basis.
Another thing is the pedigree of winning with Duke. Players can go through four years of basketball as a Blue Devil and lose 20-25 games total in their career. Then they get drafted by a lousy NBA team and lose that many before the all-star break. You go to Duke with the assumption you'll be competing for a national title every year. Contrast that with going to Cleveland and realize that for your first two seasons, you're competing for spots in the draft lottery. It's hard on young players to adjust to an environment of losing like that. And in situations like Jay Will in Chicago, Brand in Chicago, (you'd think Chicago would stray away from Dookies after this) Grant Hill in Detroit and, to a lesser extent, Battier in Memphis, these guys are thrown into the fire right away and expected to produce on bad teams, with teammates who are probably more comfortable (dangerous term, maybe "realistic") with losing more games than they're going to win.
Just some theories, I guess. Still, it is perplexing why several Duke players have taken this path in the NBA.
The big thing is that what makes you successful in the college game usually doesn't translate much into the pro game. It's more team-oriented in college and usually you can make up for a lack of athleticism and talent with intangibles like leadership, basketball savvy and overall hard work. Like the role-player argument mentioned in the article. Battier is a classic example. He did so many things well in college, but none of them excellent. His defense was probably his biggest asset but in the NBA, he simply doesn't have the physical capabilities to get up, block shots and bang bodies with the elite athletes he's up against on a nightly basis.
Another thing is the pedigree of winning with Duke. Players can go through four years of basketball as a Blue Devil and lose 20-25 games total in their career. Then they get drafted by a lousy NBA team and lose that many before the all-star break. You go to Duke with the assumption you'll be competing for a national title every year. Contrast that with going to Cleveland and realize that for your first two seasons, you're competing for spots in the draft lottery. It's hard on young players to adjust to an environment of losing like that. And in situations like Jay Will in Chicago, Brand in Chicago, (you'd think Chicago would stray away from Dookies after this) Grant Hill in Detroit and, to a lesser extent, Battier in Memphis, these guys are thrown into the fire right away and expected to produce on bad teams, with teammates who are probably more comfortable (dangerous term, maybe "realistic") with losing more games than they're going to win.
Just some theories, I guess. Still, it is perplexing why several Duke players have taken this path in the NBA.
