how is he the 9th best player in the draft? i thought be would be a low first round pick at best.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/rank?draftyear=2007&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnbadraft%2fdraft%2ftracker%2frank%3fdraftyear%3d2007

also on a side not, the top 20 college players is on now on espn classic.

1/15/2007 10:03:01 PM

k

1/15/2007 10:07:23 PM

I think he is the best bust in the draft

1/15/2007 10:08:51 PM

so says the history of duke draftees :x



ps tinyurl.com is your friend

1/15/2007 10:10:39 PM

i would've even taken a non-busted-knee shavlik randolph over mcroberts if somehow they could've been in the same draft

well, maybe not

he's not even the ninth best player in the ACC on a lot of nights

1/15/2007 10:15:29 PM

there aren't many bogut, divac type big men and mcroberts should be a solid pf for that reason alone. he's got decent range, so so post skills (won't hold up in the nba though), and is a great passer. i don't think he'll flop, but he won't be roty or an all star either.

1/15/2007 10:17:30 PM

he's the 2nd best big man in the ACC and that hype goes a long way



(prove me wrong motherfuckers)

1/15/2007 10:19:27 PM

^you're right...but i think mcroberts will be a starter for many years because of his passing skills alone. not to mention that this year he is finishing around the basket...he catches alley-oops that aren't even close to him (wording is retarded tonight).

he'll never be a 20-10 guy, but a team like the bulls or pistons would draft him really high imo

1/15/2007 10:22:43 PM

I could name a few big guys I rather have than McRoberts....

Hansbrough - hard to stop down low on offense
Sean Williams - may be the most athletic big man in the ACC, blocks everything
McCauley - can pass just as well as McRoberts yet can play physical down low as well

1/15/2007 10:43:20 PM

Hansbrough obviously being the best....then McRoberts being the 2nd best


just like I said

1/15/2007 10:44:29 PM

no offense, but i think if mcroberts was in mccauley's role he would average 20 pts, 10 rebs, and 6 assists...he just isn't asked to be "that" guy for duke because of depth and their style of play.

1/15/2007 10:45:41 PM

I think it's the opposite....I think he is being asked to be THE guy but can't live up to it. Who else does Duke have? Nelson, Scheyer, Paulus.....not really gamebreakers. McCauley has over time become our best inside threat and most of the time our first option but he's been way efficient. Just look at this shooting percentage and then the assists he has also.

1/15/2007 10:51:10 PM

be realistic man...who else is going to give us an inside presence at state?

nelson and scheyer can drop 20 each any given night depending on the matchup and paulus is hitting shots as well. duke NEVER has one dominant player...it's a system based on team defense which is why some prospects may not be nba ready. you can't honestly say that you wouldn't take mcroberts, scheyer, or nelson to place in the ncsu starting lineup...

if you are right PackMan03, then i look forward to watching mccauley in the nba.

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 11:01 PM. Reason : r not f]

1/15/2007 11:00:54 PM

so you're saying McRoberts will be a picked over Branden Wright in June, I think not. McRoberts isn't going anwhere this year any way. Big baby Davis, Kevin Durant, and a host of others will make him at best the fifth big man taken, and likely in the 7-9 range, putting him out of the lottery. Depending on Paulus to get you stats can't be very encouraging to him either

1/15/2007 11:26:23 PM

This choad is spewing delusional shit all over this thread

1/15/2007 11:35:30 PM

mcroberts will be a top ten pick if he goes pro this year...it's all on potential just like marvin williams

1/15/2007 11:37:11 PM

McRoberts would likely be a lottery pick based off potential. Personally, I think he is overrated as a college player right now, but he has size and athleticism. He needs to get more aggressive on the offensive side consistently and he'll put up monster numbers night it and night out.

Though I sort of disagree about Hansbrough. He was pretty much 'the man' last year and was great. Now this year he doesn't have to be, true, but he has shown he is capable of being the guy if need be. I don't think he'll ever be all that succesful at the next level but his biggest asset at the college level is his assertiveness and confidence...

btw, No. 10 on that list is Hasheem Thabeet, who is one of the more raw players offensively I've seen at the college level. He has a crazy high ceiling but he won't leave after this year I wouldn't think..

*** oh, oops.. I kept thinking of Hansbrough when I was reading the McCauley posts.. well my point still stands I guess..

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 11:43 PM. Reason : x]

1/15/2007 11:40:28 PM

McRoberts has the same potential as Marvin Williams?? WOW. There has only been one Duke player who I felt I underestimated in the pros while at Duke, Duhon. Don't get me wrong, McRoberts will be a top 20 pick, but this "athleticism" will be average at best once he gets to the NBA. He will get nowhere fast in the pros until he can consistently hit the 18 foot jumper

1/15/2007 11:48:00 PM

^you're an idiot...show me where anyone said McRoberts has as much potential as Marvin Williams.

reading is fundamental.

marvin williams was drafted on POTENTIAL, mcroberts will be top ten on POTENTIAL alone. he was projected top 5 out of high school and has proven to be more versatile than expected, although not as dominant which is what NyM410 was saying.

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 11:51 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 11:50:29 PM

In all honesty, it seems from your post everyone drafted in the lottery not a senior is selected on "potential," proven commodities in college as lottery picks have had thier day as far as the majority is concerned. Saying Williams was drafted on potential is a stretch to me, or at least the most low risk "potential pick" that I've ever seen.

Quote :

"you're an idiot"

Well I'll certainly cry myself to sleep over that one



[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 1:11 AM. Reason : .]

1/16/2007 1:09:50 AM

McROBOTS

1/16/2007 2:38:26 AM

I like this kid, he has the all around game and he is finesse. On top of that he is a dominating player.

1/16/2007 2:59:12 AM

since when was McRoberts a dominating player? when i watch Duke play, he doesnt stand out to me that much

1/16/2007 3:10:11 AM

Then somebody isn't watching DUKE ball then...

1/16/2007 3:11:40 AM

dom·i·nate
–verb (used with object)
1. to rule over; govern; control.
2. to tower above; overlook; overshadow

these guys dominated in college:






this guy doesnt:


[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 3:30 AM. Reason : crapt]

1/16/2007 3:18:51 AM

Racist. That's all that is right there.

4 strong muscular black men to one white boy.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 3:21 AM. Reason : /]

1/16/2007 3:20:45 AM

wow nice retort...

mcroberts doesnt play a position, have the skill, and have the body frame to be dominating, simply put

1/16/2007 3:24:16 AM

Haha, are you serious?

How about this;

these guys dominated in college:




this guy doesnt:

1/16/2007 3:24:43 AM

i would tend to agree


I've watched every televised Duke game this season (and last season for that matter) and there's nothing "dominating" about McRoberts. if anything, his praise is for his finesse.

he's not a great shot blocker, he doesn't push and shove for position, he will never get 20+ FG attempts while playing at Duke

however, he does have a nice jump shot, he does set great screens, he does move pretty well without the ball, he does shoot (at least lately) well from the line

1/16/2007 8:10:26 AM

he seems lazy to me
im not sure which McRobot is going to show up for the game

1/16/2007 9:36:21 AM

Beastily McRoberts is. Jealous haters you guys are.

1/16/2007 9:57:45 AM

McRoberts is a) not better than, b) has less potential than, and c) will be drafted behind Brandan Wright

1/16/2007 10:28:57 AM

McRoberts=Costner + 1 year of experience.

Big, clearly talented, but lazy and lackluster.

He'll go in the top 20.

1/16/2007 11:08:05 AM

Quote :

"duke NEVER has one dominant player..."

JJ Redick? I mean he only set the ACC scoring record

1/16/2007 11:16:10 AM

I wouldn't say JJ was dominant. He did have S. Williams at the low block. The team did run through JJ though, as is evident by their tourny loss when JJ was shut down.

1/16/2007 12:14:03 PM

Josh isnt a good center, he would be a better power forward with his ball handling abilities, hes quick to so i think his block play would be beneficial IF he had a true center to rely on like ShelWill

1/16/2007 12:18:11 PM

I agree on the not dominate but he is improving with each game and the costner analogy. You can't say he doesn't have "ups" either, especially for a white boy. I feel like he needs more meat and some anger if they want him at center.

1/16/2007 12:30:10 PM

Quote :

""duke NEVER has one dominant player...""

jay williams could dominate

1/16/2007 1:36:09 PM

one dominant player =/ a player who can dominant.

i meant dominant as in, one guy that stands out and is the entire team. duke HAS NEVER had all of their reliance in ONE player...jay williams had tons of guys around him...redick had an all american down low...etc, etc.

Quote :

"Saying Williams was drafted on potential is a stretch to me, or at least the most low risk "potential pick" that I've ever seen."

marvin williams wasn't even a starter. he averaged 11 points and 7 rebounds in 22 minutes per game. career high of 20 points against oakland and 15 rebounds against iowa state.

mcroberts averages 13 points and 8 rebounds with 4 assists and 3 blocks a game. career high of 21 points against temple and 17 rebounds against san jose state.

their stats are pretty similar even though they are entirely different players. there are probably 100 guys in college basketball that average 12 points and 7 rebounds or so...the rest comes down to potential and visibility. if you watched college basketball when williams was their sixth man you would have heard at least 100 times, "HE WILL BE A TOP 10 PICK ON POTENTIAL ALONE"...that's why scouts make their money...they project who will develop into what their team needs, not who averages what their team needs in college.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 5:30 PM. Reason : clarifying dominant]

1/16/2007 5:29:03 PM

last night mcroberts had some huge plays...big dunks, great handling, etc.

11 points, 8 rebounds, 6 assists, 3 blocks and a steal

i'll take that anyday.

it's also nice to see that he's the main ball handler for duke now...it's freed up paulus and he's been on fire lately. he had 17 last night.

mcroberts in the acc:
24th in scoring (no surprise since he's still hesitant)
5th in rebounding
8th in assists
4th in blocks
8th in assist/turnover ratio
2nd in def. rebounds

i'll take a well rounded 6'10" big man who can handle the ball in the top ten any day...and that's what will happen.

1/19/2007 10:20:23 AM

Grant Hill?

Christian Lattiner (sp?) - I hate that fucker but he was fucking great in college.

Gminski?

Ferry?

Dawkins?

Those players were all borderline dominant, especially Hill and Gminski.

1/19/2007 10:35:27 AM

i said ONE dominant player...there is always more than ONE guy

grant hill had hurley and leattner

ferry and dawkins had each other

and the g-man had jim spanarkel

duke has always had fairly evenly distributed teams talent wise so the stats get spread out.

1/19/2007 10:41:28 AM

remember when Jay beat Maryland by himself

yeah, that was dominating at all

1/19/2007 10:44:31 AM

Quote :

" said ONE dominant player...there is always more than ONE guy grant hill had hurley and leattner ferry and dawkins had each other and the g-man had jim spanarkel duke has always had fairly evenly distributed teams talent wise so the stats get spread out."

Then by that logic, Jordan was never dominant because he had Pippen.

1/19/2007 10:49:05 AM

Moody what do you want? a team that has only one good person on the team? Jordan had Pippen but you cant begin to say he wasn't dominant

1/19/2007 11:06:45 AM

the whole point was when whatever his name was said that costner is better than mcroberts...it has turned into something else though. it's a lot easier to fill up the stat book when you're the only scoring option and that's what the point was...

1/19/2007 3:10:32 PM

Quote :

"the whole point was when whatever his name was said that costner is better than mcroberts...it has turned into something else though. it's a lot easier to fill up the stat book when you're the only scoring option and that's what the point was..."

I guess that would be a good argument if McCaully wasn't only a point or 2 per game behind Costner.

Which means that he isn't the only scoring option.

[Edited on January 20, 2007 at 2:56 AM. Reason : http://nbadraft.net/ has him at #18]

[Edited on January 20, 2007 at 2:58 AM. Reason : however, http://www.hoopsvibe.com/nba/nba-draft/2007-nba-mock-draft-ar23523.html have him at #4?!?!?]

1/20/2007 2:55:16 AM

costner and ben are better on the offensive side but there is no stat for playing great defense altering shots. theres just blocks and rebounds and overall i think mcroberts is a bit better.

1/20/2007 2:58:14 AM

He's definately a better defender than Costner.

Probably a better overall defender (pressure, away from the basket) than McCaully, but I think they are probably equal at low post defense.

1/20/2007 3:03:25 AM

If the refs call a fair game, McRoberts fouls out tomorrow.

1/20/2007 3:08:19 AM