Mike Krzyzewski

Seems to me he has a problem developing players to play at a professional level. Most of his players that make the NBA don't become superstats, and only a few seem to contribute. Is this because he doesn't not how to improve players, but simply teachs them to play in his system and nothing more?

 

I thought the whole reason they were at Duke or any other place of higher education was to become productive members of society in their chosen field of study, not as a developmental league for the entertainment industry and their devoted and somewhat distorted fanatics? Did I miss something somewhere?

 

damn how old is THIS arguement?

 

This was just my counter dumb ass thread to Thelt. Anyone with common sense would know to ignore it as I did Thelt's... apparently not everyone has common sense. :huh:

 

K got the most out of the talent of the players he had. IMO Dawkins was the only true NBA talented recruit he had in the early years. After that it was Hill and after that, Williams. If you want to tell me Jamison, Carter, or Haywood got better during their years at UNC then I would laugh at you. They were players who had athletic talent of which it really didn't evidence itself in the NBA for a couple of years after they left. The players at Duke that have had that level of talent have gone on to be good to great NBA players.

 

I see.

 

Its because he takes players of lesser talent and gets the most out of them.

 

You keep this between you and Thelt. I don't see what that has to do with my posting.

Between us, I wish all bullshit threads would cease to exist on this forum, but nothing's gonna change here.

 

Coach K could win twenty games and win the ACC with three high school players and a couple of guys from the furniture factory league team.

 

Hey, hey, hey....easy on the hard working factory types.