MBB: Georgetown 89, Duke 77 Post-Game Thread

[millerecu]

About this time over the last couple of years the question "are we peaking too early" has been posed. This is NOT the case this year, lets hope we peak right on cue this year!

[flyingdutchdevil]

About this time over the last couple of years the question "are we peaking too early" has been posed. This is NOT the case this year, lets hope we peak right on cue this year!

Fabulous point! We can only improve, right? This team is good, but it can become much better. K's creativity will come out in the next month - guaranteed!

We've been playing well, if inconsistent, for sometime. I have faith in our coaching staff and players that they will get so much better.

LET'S GO DUKE!!!

[91_92_01_10_15]

Here's a link to audio of Coach K's post-game press conference:

http://hoyahoops.com/2010/01/30/duke-postgame-press-conference/

[gumbomoop]

Very much enjoyed K's analysis. Straightforward, no self-pity, no fake crap. He explained G'town's great game, without saying "Woe is us/me." Indeed, he said, "We're a good team, too, just not today." He noted, without agonizing over, the lousy game v. NCSt, saying that his team had also played quite well lately, v. Clemson and FSU. He took time to comment on, with all sincerity from what I could hear, how good it was for college bball that the Pres and VP had been there.

Now, perhaps 2 days later, he'll rip into his guys in practice, start Jordan Davidson and Steve Johnson on Thurs, never let Z into another game, whatever. I got no clue [observant posters will have noticed this by now]; but I'm pretty sure he'll have a plan, and it will have both logic and passion.

And, in the aftermath of Duke's and UNC's lousy weekend performances, K's matter-of-fact, at times humorous, post-game analysis makes for a telling contrast with ...... well, with any coach who adopts the self-pitying, woe is us/me, 3d person fake crap.

[Matches]

We've been playing well, if inconsistent, for sometime. I have faith in our coaching staff and players that they will get so much better.



I guess that's the silver lining of playing poorly - there is room for improvement. We got a lot better after last January; hopefully we will this year too. I'm not sure we have an E-Will ready to step in and be a huge contributor, but I do think the Plumlees in particular still have the ability to step up and assume bigger roles. I don't see this as a FF team absent something strange happening in March, but I'm still hopeful of a nice March run, hopefully Sweet 16 and maybe further.

[duke4life32182]

I think K needs to change the line-up and put different players together in units. That or we need a Freshman to give us a spark like EW did last year. The three freshmen we have haven't impressed yet and its about time they step up their game. Along with the other players we have. K is good about changing things for the final push and I don't think this year is any different. The games we win we look awesome. I can handle loosing to GTech and Wis in the style we did, where we have a chance to win just a few things didn't go our way. When we get blown out of the gym twice in a week though something is going wrong. I'm anxious to see us play Thursday with a chance to avenge a loss earlier in the year. I think Thursday you will see some change. JMO though ya never know.

[CrazieDUMB]

A lot has been made of the 4 out, 1 in approach, and I think that really is the key to our problems. Duke's defense is primarily predicated upon denying the passing lanes, especially to big men inside. While this usually works against undisciplined teams, it really exposes us by leaving lanes to the basket wide open. It seems to me that when teams pass effectively and cut creatively, especially when they know Duke will try to jump the passing lanes, our defense falls apart. Remember that GTown had plenty of time to scout us and prepare their offense.

Additionally, when they're 4 out 1 in, our players get too spaced out. Help is a lot further away, which is devastating when so much of our defense relies on switching and awareness to help those defenders that get beat to the basket.

Solution? Well, I don't really see how things can get better unless we completely change our defense, which just ain't gonna happen. This defense only works when its all out; if we don't try to stay in the lanes and shade inside, then we have the same problems and now they can pass even easier. My best idea is to have a good zone ready. If our primary defense doesn't work, let's switch it up and force the other team to hit jump shots. We have so much size and length, I think it's a real pity we don't hit zone more often (talk about a new topic for DBR).

[greybeard]

This may not have been what you meant, but one thing I've noticed is that we don't do a good job on offense dictating what's going to happen. We too often let the defense decide what is available, and just take what the defense leaves open, rather than try to impose a certain result on the defense and make them react.

Not really, but I think you are onto something here. My point was really two. On offense, you must make the other team guard the rim, and you must be able to score at the rim. If not, not only will your offense suffer, but also your defense. The other point is the obvious: you turn it over and allow the other team easy transition baskets, playing good half court defense will suffer as well if you allow the hole to get deep enough.

But, I think that your perspective with regard to Saturday's game at least was what I had in mind. BTW, I was talking Singler, not Scheyer, in my post. The pulling up short on his shot might have been due to his wrist, which Clark alluded to several times.

I think that this "triple threat" position is a bunch of nonsense. Most 3s and 4s catch and start in a more upright, ready to shoot or move position. For Singler to get in "triple threat position," which is what that lean over thing is all about, he has a long, long way to go, with a lot of moving parts, to get to a shooting position, and you also need a whole lot more time to get moving, then from a more upright position. You wouldn't see Bird or most other triple-threat 3-4s doing such nonsense.

[left_hook_lacey]

You had me in agreement, until you maintained that Georgetown did not shoot lights out. I watched the game.

Well, technically they did, but it wasn't because they were just destroying us over and over in half-court sets, they got a lot of fast break lay ups because of either good D on their end, or poor offense by us. I still maintain that the biggest problem in this game wasn't our defense, but poor offense which too often put us a step behind on D in this game.

[davekay1971]

I think that this "triple threat" position is a bunch of nonsense. Most 3s and 4s catch and start in a more upright, ready to shoot or move position. For Singler to get in "triple threat position," which is what that lean over thing is all about, he has a long, long way to go, with a lot of moving parts, to get to a shooting position, and you also need a whole lot more time to get moving, then from a more upright position. You wouldn't see Bird or most other triple-threat 3-4s doing such nonsense.

Gotta disagree on the triple threat position. It really doesn't involve a lot of leaning over. It's more catching the ball in a crouch with your legs bent and ready to move to support one of three actions - jumping for a shot, pushing force into a pass, or taking a quick first step. Getting in the position is nothing more than a quick move to bend the legs, and catching in the position actually improves the quickness going to the a shot or dribble. If you catch standing more upright, you have to bend your knees then come back up for a shot, whereas in the triple threat position your knees are already bent and all you have to do is come up. Similarly, if you're more upright and want to dribble, you have to bend the legs first before you make your move, as opposed to already being in the position to explode on the first step. The pass is really the only thing where being more upright may help a taller player like Kyle or Mason, since, if they have a smaller defender, being more upright opens up their view and is a more natural position for an overhead pass.

Now, the triple threat is more of a perimeter game position. Certainly you don't use it catching the ball in the low post or with your back to the basket. But if you've got a taller guy like Kyle or Mason operating on the perimeter, and driving or going up for a shot is an option at the time they catch the ball, they're going to have some advantage by catching in the triple-threat position.

[moonpie23]

i know it's been said before, but it is about match ups and toughness at the end of the season that wins championships.....

The first title for FLA, they lost to a very mediocre South Carolina team TWICE during the regular season and then had to have a circus shot to win the SEC tourney.. they just matched up horribly with SC...


i agree with coach k....we have a really good team and i think we're not as bad as we looked against state OR g-town....

we've got tough games coming.......we will learn more...

[EltonBrandMan]

I agree it's all about end-of-the-season toughness, but Singler and Scheyer have worried me in the tourney.

[CDu]

i know it's been said before, but it is about match ups and toughness at the end of the season that wins championships.....

The first title for FLA, they lost to a very mediocre South Carolina team TWICE during the regular season and then had to have a circus shot to win the SEC tourney.. they just matched up horribly with SC...


i agree with coach k....we have a really good team and i think we're not as bad as we looked against state OR g-town....

we've got tough games coming.......we will learn more...

I think we're a team that is very susceptible to the matchups right now. State and Georgetown were bad matchups for us. They spread us out, which makes it tough for us to play help defense against dribble penetration, cutters, or post scorers.

I don't hold much hope that this year's team is going to have good matchups against good teams that play 4-out, 1-in (at least defensively). But what I hope can happen is that the Plumlees can improve enough over the next month that we can increase our margin for error in those bad matchups.

[greybeard]

Gotta disagree on the triple threat position. It really doesn't involve a lot of leaning over. It's more catching the ball in a crouch with your legs bent and ready to move to support one of three actions - jumping for a shot, pushing force into a pass, or taking a quick first step. Getting in the position is nothing more than a quick move to bend the legs, and catching in the position actually improves the quickness going to the a shot or dribble. If you catch standing more upright, you have to bend your knees then come back up for a shot, whereas in the triple threat position your knees are already bent and all you have to do is come up. Similarly, if you're more upright and want to dribble, you have to bend the legs first before you make your move, as opposed to already being in the position to explode on the first step. The pass is really the only thing where being more upright may help a taller player like Kyle or Mason, since, if they have a smaller defender, being more upright opens up their view and is a more natural position for an overhead pass.

Now, if you are 6'8" and have a 6'11" guy on you, you might chose to get low. Low is powerful, and you can take a longer and more powerful first step. If you get the big to start coming down, he is out of his element and usually less facile than you will be and advantage you. But not against players who are about the same size or smaller unless, you just want to change things up on a play or two. Confusion and surprise are always good.

Now, the triple threat is more of a perimeter game position. Certainly you don't use it catching the ball in the low post or with your back to the basket. But if you've got a taller guy like Kyle or Mason operating on the perimeter, and driving or going up for a shot is an option at the time they catch the ball, they're going to have some advantage by catching in the triple-threat position.

If you stand up in an upright position you do not straighten your knees, nor do you strighten your back. You stand with both soft, ready for action in any direction. Name me a 3 of any repute who catches it and crouches in this so-called triple threat position. Matter of fact, name me a 2. I'll name you 10 who don't. A guy like Singler would do better catching and holding it relatively high. A two handed pass coming from slightly over one's head can be lofted, drilled, bounced, etc. and to be defended requires the defender to come up to a fairly erect position. Once his momentum comes up even a little, he is lost; he has to come down in order for him to move. When he starts coming down you go up and shoot or pass, or you step and go.

The good thing for an offensive player in a fairly upright position is that it does not take much to get him off balance--the beginning of movement. Thus, moving left/forward or right/forward or up is a relatively simple matter as compared to a more wide legged, crouched stance. On the other hand, for a defensive player, being more susceptible to getting off balance is not a good thing. If one fakes such a player and his weight commits to one side, it will have to finish going there before it can shift back. Advantage offensive player who can only make believe he is committed to moving in a particular direction. We call that faking.

Now a player in a defensive crouch is difficult to fake off balance. That's why they teach such stances. But if the offensive player is standing upright and is willing to shot from where he has the ball, the defender must come out of his stance if a shot or pass is faked with sufficient skill in order to contest. He is then meat, or you simply proceed in your own good time to pass it or shot it.

Nobdy but real little guys get in triple threat position and guys who really, really scat don't either, i.e., Wall. They catch it upright and fake or shot from that position. The squating is a waste of time and effort and creates way too many moving parts for a player of Singler's size. You do not see Scheyer triple threat, you did not see JJ triple threat, you did not see Grant triple threat. How they have Singler triple threat is beyond me.

[jv001]

On offense slightly bent knees in a ready to attach position and not croutched over like Kyle seems to be doing. However on perimeter defense, be in the so called triple threat postion to deny the dribble drive. I know that playing a quick guard that can penetrate in an upright position is asking for trouble. When we double team an opposing player it's essential to stay in a tall position to deny the pass out of the double team. Go Duke!

[Neals384]

I love this board. Many of the posts are wonderful, educational and even inspiring. I'm learning more about BBall than I ever have.

But...

When people post about the team they wish they had...if only so-and-so had come to Duke...

There's a very important life lesson

Play the hand you're dealt. Sure, I wish I was 6'8" not 6'2", coordinated not clutzy, with a swish shot rather than a brick shot...but I still love playing a little BBall myself.

Whatever gifts you've been given...whatever talents you have...make the most of them and regret not what might've been.

For Duke 2010, let's have fun rooting for the team we have. They're wonderful players (maybe not the most athletic, quickest and toughest in the post) who work very hard to bring home a win while entertaining us on game day.

There will be plenty of time between April and September to wax poetic about Kyrie and Duke 2011, or bemoan yet another recruiting loss to you-know-who. Until then, please, let's focus on this year's team.

Neal

[CDu]

On offense slightly bent knees in a ready to attach position and not croutched over like Kyle seems to be doing. However on perimeter defense, be in the so called triple threat postion to deny the dribble drive. I know that playing a quick guard that can penetrate in an upright position is asking for trouble. When we double team an opposing player it's essential to stay in a tall position to deny the pass out of the double team. Go Duke!

The triple threat position refers to an offensive stance, in which you face the defender, ball in hand, ready/able to drive, pass, or shoot.

[greybeard]

The triple threat position refers to an offensive stance, in which you face the defender, ball in hand, ready/able to drive, pass, or shoot.

The so-called triple threat position is the same crouched position that exterior players appropriately take. It works well on defense, but is rarely used by 2,3,4s on offense.

I think for many players being more erect is every bit a triple-threat position as the crouched stance many instructional organization coaches teach kids. From what I know of your basketball IQ, I expect you'd agree.

[Mudge]

I think our defense only looks poor when we play teams with quick guards and capable big men that can both execute. A lot of ACC teams don't have that combination. Of course, once we reach March, I'm afraid that's who we'll be playing. A sweet 16 appearance will be a success for this team.

Unfortunately, this has been Duke's MO (or should I say, cause of death), basically since Duhon and Ewing left; we haven't really had anyone who could guard quick opposing guards on the outside since Dockery (and he was such a weak offensive player that it was like playing 4 on 5 on offense); this era set in when we recruited Paulus to be the PG... it has been continued with Scheyer (a great player, but not quick enough to guard the Scottie Reynolds and certainly not the Ty Lawsons of the world) and Smith in the backcourt... Smith has always been an off-guard, and there was a reason he played off-guard at Oak Hill with Lawson-- he's not quick enough to guard the really good opposing PGs. Last year, Elliot Williams showed signs of maybe being able to handle this role, late in the year, but then he was overwhelmed by Reynolds and Villanova's other guards, and then transferred.

The only time we did fairly well against this kind of player this year, was when it was a sloppy, foolish player, like Ish Smith, who makes a lot of unforced turnovers, trying to play too fast. The problem is that in the tournament, there are any number of teams (Kentucky, Kansas, Villanova, Syracuse, Georgetown, Wisconsin, etc., etc... need I go on) with one or more fundamentally sound guards like this, that we simply can't keep in front of us, because we are, to (unfortunately) quote an idiot, "shockingly unathletic"...

We are not going to be good at the kind of defense that Coach K likes to play, until we get a lockdown defensive PG who can keep the opposing PG in front of him... does Darrell Reveis of the Jets still have college basketball eligibility-- 'cause he is really what we need. The great Duke teams under Coach K had that stopper at PG (Hurley, J. Williams, Duhon, Avery, Dawkins, Amaker, Henderson, Ewing, even, to a lesser extent, Snyder)... we just don't have it now, and it means that Duke won't likely be going to the Final Four this year, let alone winning a championship-- and it won't get better, until we get better at the point, because our defense (every defense!) will always be vulnerable to penetration from the top of the key.

[CDu]

The so-called triple threat position is the same crouched position that exterior players appropriately take. It works well on defense, but is rarely used by 2,3,4s on offense.

I completely disagree here. It's actually fairly commonly used by 2s, 3s, and 4s, because it's what they're taught to do when they catch the ball on the wing (a pass that is often, though certainly not always, thrown by the PG). It's been a big part of our wings' games for years. Singler does it, Scheyer does it, Smith does it, Henderson did it, Battier did it, Dunleavy did it, etc.

Similarly, watch any NBA game and you'll see the wings do it. For example, watch Kobe and LeBron play the wing. But it's not just them - it's pretty much a staple of offensive players for facing up on the perimeter/wing.


I think for many players being more erect is every bit a triple-threat position as the crouched stance many instructional organization coaches teach kids. From what I know of your basketball IQ, I expect you'd agree.

Actually, I don't completely agree. The point of the triple threat position is to help the offensive protect the ball while also being in position to attack the basket. I think it's harder to both protect the ball and be in a position to attack off the dribble from an upright position, because you have to hold the ball high (which means it takes a bit longer to start your dribble move). From the triple threat position, you can jab step to clear space for the shot, or you can simply explode toward the basket.

[greybeard]

I completely disagree here. It's actually fairly commonly used by 2s, 3s, and 4s, because it's what they're taught to do when they catch the ball on the wing (a pass that is often, though certainly not always, thrown by the PG). It's been a big part of our wings' games for years. Singler does it, Scheyer does it, Smith does it, Henderson did it, Battier did it, Dunleavy did it, etc.

The fact that someone occasionally does something does not make it something that is normative. None of those players you mention, ditto for below, regularly caught it in a crouch position in order to initiate. It is in fact counterproductive, in a great many instances, IF you are a scorer, as I ahve discussed previously. To repeat, it makes it more difficult, not easier, to get into shooting position, and, while a first step will be more explosive, it will take huge adjustments to chose among them. BTW, the triple-threat has nothing to do with passing. The triple threat is shoot, go right, go left.


Similarly, watch any NBA game and you'll see the wings do it. For example, watch Kobe and LeBron play the wing. But it's not just them - it's pretty much a staple of offensive players for facing up on the perimeter/wing.

See above and below. Kobe and LeBron, get low, when people really body up, and they want to think about it and freeze the guy. They duck their head and shoulders, rarely crouch, in order to gain some space, and make the defender become more rooted to the ground. When they feel the guy become more rooted, they are preparing themselves to shoot, regrouping their own energy and balance, and then shoot with no opposition possible.



Actually, I don't completely agree. The point of the triple threat position is to help the offensive protect the ball while also being in position to attack the basket. I think it's harder to both protect the ball and be in a position to attack off the dribble from an upright position, because you have to hold the ball high (which means it takes a bit longer to start your dribble move). From the triple threat position, you can jab step to clear space for the shot, or you can simply explode toward the basket.

You protect the ball by shielding it with your body. If you are relatively upright and a guy comes close enough to try to reach around your side from a face up position, you step past him, either through his reach arm, or bringing it across real low or real high as you step through and cross over.

You watch when someone steps into a pro. Now, sometimes, if you want to draw the defender in further, to get him braced for a challenge, you get low. That will often freeze him, and then you do not need to "explode" you just walk past him.

Triple threat is a nonsense position that people who teach clinics build into what they teach everyone as if it were the sine quo non for being able to manipulate momentum to gain an advantage. It isn't, and talented offensive players know it.

[CDu]

The fact that someone occasionally does something does not make it something that is normative. None of those players you mention, ditto for below, regularly caught it in a crouch position in order to initiate. It is in fact counterproductive, in a great many instances, IF you are a scorer, as I ahve discussed previously. To repeat, it makes it more difficult, not easier, to get into shooting position, and, while a first step will be more explosive, it will take huge adjustments to chose among them. BTW, the triple-threat has nothing to do with passing. The triple threat is shoot, go right, go left.

See above and below. Kobe and LeBron, get low, when people really body up, and they want to think about it and freeze the guy. They duck their head and shoulders, rarely crouch, in order to gain some space, and make the defender become more rooted to the ground. When they feel the guy become more rooted, they are preparing themselves to shoot, regrouping their own energy and balance, and then shoot with no opposition possible.

You protect the ball by shielding it with your body. If you are relatively upright and a guy comes close enough to try to reach around your side from a face up position, you step past him, either through his reach arm, or bringing it across real low or real high as you step through and cross over.

You watch when someone steps into a pro. Now, sometimes, if you want to draw the defender in further, to get him braced for a challenge, you get low. That will often freeze him, and then you do not need to "explode" you just walk past him.

I think you're misstating the triple threat position, and that is the cause of our disagreement. The triple threat is merely a position from which you are facing the basket and protecting the ball, but have not committed to anything (dribble, shoot, or pass). You're not crouched in a tiny position, but rather in an attack position (slight crouch, facing the defender, ball protected either low or to the side). So what you have described above as contrary to the triple threat position is, in fact, exactly what the triple threat position is. You get the ball and face up the defender before committing to your dribble. From there, you can either jab-step/head-fake/pass-fake, commit to the dribble, or (if your man is off-balance) simply go up for the shot.

So in fact, what I'm describing is in fact a regularly-employed approach of all guards/wings (including all of the ones I listed in my previous post) when they catch it on the wing but aren't ready to commit to a single move. If you catch-and-shoot or catch and immediately drive, you're electing not to go through the triple threat position. But if you aren't yet committed, the triple threat position is an appropriate alternative that allows you options to deceive the defender, which is the ultimate goal.

[greybeard]

Just to clarify, I think every player who catches it in a scoring position should try to catch in a triple-threat position. On the exterior, I just think that the most common and best triple-threat position is not the one that is taught as the "triple-threat position", that is, the one that one catches in a crouch.

If you play the pivot and catch with the back to the basket, you actually should have a fifthtuple (?) plus threat position. Be able to drop step either way or step hook with either hand (we'll count them as two plus), pivot either way and shoot, either before or after fake), and go left or right to a pull up or shot at the basket (2). When a guy has to catch in a crouched position, except for drop steps, adjustments must be made for any other option. That is why I am in favor of offenses that get the ball to bigs in a relatively erect position which will mean on the move with their coming to a jump stop. To me, that is a much more dangerous position for a big who is serious about scoring the ball, or a coach who is serious about a big's scoring the ball.

[CDu]

Just to clarify, I think every player who catches it in a scoring position should try to catch in a triple-threat position. On the exterior, I just think that the most common and best triple-threat position is not the one that is taught as the "triple-threat position", that is, the one that one catches in a crouch.

If you play the pivot and catch with the back to the basket, you actually should have a fifthtuple (?) plus threat position. Be able to drop step either way or step hook with either hand (we'll count them as two plus), pivot either way and shoot, either before or after fake), and go left or right to a pull up or shot at the basket (2). When a guy has to catch in a crouched position, except for drop steps, adjustments must be made for any other option. That is why I am in favor of offenses that get the ball to bigs in a relatively erect position which will mean on the move with their coming to a jump stop. To me, that is a much more dangerous position for a big who is serious about scoring the ball, or a coach who is serious about a big's scoring the ball.

As noted in my previous post, I think this is the cause of our disagreement. I'm describing the general concept of the triple threat position. You are describing a particular type of triple threat position. I wasn't taught to catch the ball in a crouch, nor do I think of this as what is commonly thought of as the triple threat position.

See below for some web links:
http://www.coachesclipboard.net/OutsideMoves.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_5624_utilize-triple-threat.html
http://www.basichoops.com/2007/04/offense-triple-threat-position.html
http://www.youth-basketball-tips.com/basketball-triple-threat.html

You'll note that the focus of the triple threat position in each case is that you turn and face the basket before making a commitment to shooting, dribbling, or passing. The crouch position is not a prerequisite.

[phaedrus]

As noted in my previous post, I think this is the cause of our disagreement. I'm describing the general concept of the triple threat position. You are describing a particular type of triple threat position. I wasn't taught to catch the ball in a crouch, nor do I think of this as what is commonly thought of as the triple threat position.

See below for some web links:
http://www.coachesclipboard.net/OutsideMoves.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_5624_utilize-triple-threat.html
http://www.basichoops.com/2007/04/offense-triple-threat-position.html
http://www.youth-basketball-tips.com/basketball-triple-threat.html

You'll note that the focus of the triple threat position in each case is that you turn and face the basket before making a commitment to shooting, dribbling, or passing. The crouch position is not a prerequisite.

I think you're conceding too much. "Play low" is a fundamental refrain from basketball coaches, one I've heard from high school coaches and Division 1 coaches. Maybe there is room for argument on just how low you should go, but Triple Threat is supposed to enable a quick pass, shot, or dribble, and you're not going to do anything quick while you're standing upright. You get power for all of the above from your legs, but only when your knees are bent and you're in an athletic stance.

And just to clarify, "getting low" means by bending the knees, not by bending at the waist to lower the torso. Maybe that's the misunderstanding here.

[CDu]

I think you're conceding too much. "Play low" is a fundamental refrain from basketball coaches, one I've heard from high school coaches and Division 1 coaches. Maybe there is room for argument on just how low you should go, but Triple Threat is supposed to enable a quick pass, shot, or dribble, and you're not going to do anything quick while you're standing upright. You get power for all of the above from your legs, but only when your knees are bent and you're in an athletic stance.

And just to clarify, "getting low" means by bending the knees, not by bending at the waist to lower the torso. Maybe that's the misunderstanding here.

I'm sure I'm conceding too much. My point was that the term "triple threat" is simply a term for pivoting to face the basket before making a decision to dribble, shoot, or pass. It's specifically an offensive concept (not a defensive one), and that was my original point.

I agree that ultimately getting in an athletic stance is where the power/explosion comes from. But that's not specifically a requirement for the triple threat position. The degree of crouch/bend (or lack thereof) is a secondary issue and not specific to the concept of the triple threat position (which was my second point).

[greybeard]

I think you're conceding too much. "Play low" is a fundamental refrain from basketball coaches, one I've heard from high school coaches and Division 1 coaches. Maybe there is room for argument on just how low you should go, but Triple Threat is supposed to enable a quick pass, shot, or dribble, and you're not going to do anything quick while you're standing upright. You get power for all of the above from your legs, but only when your knees are bent and you're in an athletic stance.

And just to clarify, "getting low" means by bending the knees, not by bending at the waist to lower the torso. Maybe that's the misunderstanding here.

Look, you need to have flex in your knees, but why do split ends stand relatively upright, why do I backs stand relatively upright, if one can move much faster from a deep flex in the knees which is what the traditional "triple threat" position teaches. The reality is that one can move much faster and more easily in any direction, and thus have greater ability to fake and go, fake and shoot, from an erect position then a deeply flexed one. The latter requires considerable adjustment, which is why the aforementioned stand relatively upright as do most basketball players, except when wanting to make a power move, usually against a much taller player who will have to come down where he is not used to going.

Power comes from the legs pushing into the ground but does not require a deep knee bend, which will more often than not get a person over six feet expecially out of sequence which will lose a tremendous amount of power, rather than the opposite.

You never saw Larry Bird go into a deep knee flex, nor Kevin Durrant, nor Garnet, nor any of the great three shooters in the pros. The reason is that it is not only unnecessary for the generation of sufficient power but risks being out of sync which will discipate power before it ever reaches the hands and will get everything out of whack on the way to release. It also will take forever.

You are simply wrong about the physics here and wrong about how people play. Now, someone like WoJo, maybe he played from a crouched position. I don't remember that far back and frankly he didn't make that much of an impression on me.

Playing defense down low allows one to step slide laterally and body up on people, keep them from going where they want, and reduces greatly the ability to get faked off balance.

In the end, the first thing you need to do in order to move is to go from a position of relative stability to a position of instability, which is called stepping. Much easier to do standing up. Later.

[CDu]

Look, you need to have flex in your knees, but why do split ends stand relatively upright, why do I backs stand relatively upright, if one can move much faster from a deep flex in the knees which is what the traditional "triple threat" position teaches.

Again - this is not correct. I was never taught to have a deep bend in my knees as a player. I was taught that the triple threat position is simply the act of catching and facing up the basket before making a decision about how to attack (whether to shoot, dribble, pass). I think you're incorrectly linking knee-bend to the triple threat. The two are not synonymous, nor are they mutually exclusive.

[greybeard]

Again - this is not correct. I was never taught to have a deep bend in my knees as a player. I was taught that the triple threat position is simply the act of catching and facing up the basket before making a decision about how to attack (whether to shoot, dribble, pass). I think you're incorrectly linking knee-bend to the triple threat. The two are not synonymous, nor are they mutually exclusive.

I know how it is presented by "professional" organizations who work with kids in DC, and I know how Kellog referred to it with regard to Singler and his bent over position, which had deeper than normal knee flex and a bent over torso.

I think it a good thing to face-up at the basket, and liked to challenge defenders with what we used to call a rocking step, not a jab step.

I think that the term "jab" step is either misleading or wrong--that the best step is one that (1) is at a tempo that convinces the defender that you are about to shoot (followed by a slight eye and ball movement that sells it), a tempo that is different for each player and that I found works best when done slow, while a jab step connotes to me something brisk and abrupt; and (2) if done to feign a drive to your strong hand, would probably be done more briskly but again is sold, not by a jab, but by the entire self which creates a false portrait of a commitment of weight.

That said, if all that is meant by the triple threat position is that you face up and be prepared to shoot, fake and go, fake going one way and crossing over and pulling up for a shot, rocking the defender back and forth and doing either of the first or passing it, then we agree that the triple threat position is a good thing BUT ONLY IF THERE IS NOT AN EASY PASS TO BE MADE THAT WILL ALLOW A TEAMMATE TO INITIATE THE OFFENSE THAT MIGHT BETTER CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR TEAM'S OVERALL ATTACK, OR JUST TO GIVE THE OTHER GUY A CHANCE.

[NSDukeFan]

I know how it is presented by "professional" organizations who work with kids in DC, and I know how Kellog referred to it with regard to Singler and his bent over position, which had deeper than normal knee flex and a bent over torso.

I think it a good thing to face-up at the basket, and liked to challenge defenders with what we used to call a rocking step, not a jab step.

I think that the term "jab" step is either misleading or wrong--that the best step is one that (1) is at a tempo that convinces the defender that you are about to shoot (followed by a slight eye and ball movement that sells it), a tempo that is different for each player and that I found works best when done slow, while a jab step connotes to me something brisk and abrupt; and (2) if done to feign a drive to your strong hand, would probably be done more briskly but again is sold, not by a jab, but by the entire self which creates a false portrait of a commitment of weight.

That said, if all that is meant by the triple threat position is that you face up and be prepared to shoot, fake and go, fake going one way and crossing over and pulling up for a shot, rocking the defender back and forth and doing either of the first or passing it, then we agree that the triple threat position is a good thing BUT ONLY IF THERE IS NOT AN EASY PASS TO BE MADE THAT WILL ALLOW A TEAMMATE TO INITIATE THE OFFENSE THAT MIGHT BETTER CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR TEAM'S OVERALL ATTACK, OR JUST TO GIVE THE OTHER GUY A CHANCE.

Typically if you are trying to go by someone, either strong hand or cross over, you will likely be doing this rather quickly. A quick jab step, which should look very briefly like your strong move, is very useful to determine what move you should next use. If the defender doesn't react, you can continue to go by, if he does, you can either cross over or shoot, if given enough space. I think your impression of a jab step is different than mine, as I would not use it, or teach it, as something to make the defender think I was shooting. A ball fake would be better used in that situation, you can also use your eyes as you noted.
Your last bolded section doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me as one of the points of the triple threat position is that you are also in a position to pass THAT WILL ALLOW A TEAMMATE TO INITIATE THE OFFENSE THAT MIGHT BETTER CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR TEAM'S OVERALL ATTACK, OR JUST TO GIVE THE OTHER GUY A CHANCE. You may have to give a ball fake, but this can certainly be done from the triple threat position (which isn't a low crouch, but a position with knees bent where you are ready to move, shoot or pass.)

[greybeard]

Typically if you are trying to go by someone, either strong hand or cross over, you will likely be doing this rather quickly. A quick jab step, which should look very briefly like your strong move, is very useful to determine what move you should next use. If the defender doesn't react, you can continue to go by, if he does, you can either cross over or shoot, if given enough space. I think your impression of a jab step is different than mine, as I would not use it, or teach it, as something to make the defender think I was shooting. A ball fake would be better used in that situation, you can also use your eyes as you noted.
Your last bolded section doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me as one of the points of the triple threat position is that you are also in a position to pass THAT WILL ALLOW A TEAMMATE TO INITIATE THE OFFENSE THAT MIGHT BETTER CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR TEAM'S OVERALL ATTACK, OR JUST TO GIVE THE OTHER GUY A CHANCE. You may have to give a ball fake, but this can certainly be done from the triple threat position (which isn't a low crouch, but a position with knees bent where you are ready to move, shoot or pass.)

You get low and step briskly to the right and go to the left and I'll stand relatively upright and fake right and go left and I will be quicker than you. Neither of us will gain much advantage unless we get the defender off center. Your defender will be low and can step slide and is wide to begin with. My defender will be in a relatively unstable position and easier to fake. My move will be quicker in the transition than yours and I am soon to be 63. So I disagree about which position is more likely to create an opening on a crossover, absent making a tall guy play small if he is not used to it.

As a player I was a big fan of changing people up. I could play power off the catch getting low even on a smaller more athletic defender (hell, they were all althletic) and use it to freeze him so I could step, fake coming back, and then walk by him or simply move as I stepped into a shooting erect position, being reasonably certain that I would have an unimpeded look or if the guy sped to try to contest what he anticipated, beat him while he was still going up. However, I liked playing in a more erect position most of the time, except when I was going hard to the basket and would get low.

The problem with everybody doing the triple threat is that it slows the offense down, terribly. That was a huge differencein the Georgetown game. They have a lot of touches that just move the ball to different points of attack looking for someone with advantage given how the players are situated on the court. It empowers more initiators.

The triple threat catch as a regular practice in my mind kills effective half court offense, at least the kind that I appreciate the most.

[-bdbd]

I thought some of you might be amused by a couple of tidbits left over in the Wash. Post following Saturday's G'town matchup....

For those who have any doubt about the adage that Duke gets everybody's best shot, in the Tuesday Sports section was this highlighted quote:

"I've been going to Georgetown games since 1981 and I thought that was the most spirited crowd...I've ever seen."
-- Michael Wilbon in his online chat Monday talking about Saturday's victory over Duke

This also follows a number of player quotes saying saying, along a similar vein, that that was the most revved-up and intense the players have been all season, for ANY game. FWIW I was at the game and the crowd was VERY intense and loud throughout. Most GT fans were polite to us, with the exception of one drunken idiot seeing me and a couple other Duke fans quietly leaving the stadium afterwards, outdside, ran up and started clapping loudly right in my face (12") and shouting 'go Hoyas!!!' (My response, "Hey man, act like you've been there before..." )


Also, the Post does weekly rankings and comments of the 11 top college programs in the DC area -- GT, MD, ODU, VPI, UVA, VCU, W&M, Mason, Richmond... With GT as number one in the area there was this assessment:
"Cameras caught Duke Assistant Steve Wojciechowski mouthing the words "not true" when Clark Kellog said that the ACC was having a down year during the Hoyas-Duke game."

'made me laugh at least!


:D:D:D

[Rich]

I just wanted to bring this to the top of the thread so everyone could see the similarities between this thread and today's St. John's thread.

The sky is not falling, people. Things worked our pretty well for Duke after the Georgetown game last year. The best staff and team in the country will use this as a learning experience and focus on our next game and the rest of the season.

NEXT PLAY!

[sleepybear]

Only 12 points. It felt like a 20 point loss at the time.

[Rich]

Only 12 points. It felt like a 20 point loss at the time.

Same scenario as today. Down early, felt like a beating, we showed heart and made up some points in the end. The final score was not indicative of the beating we took.

Today's loss was "only" 15 points. It's one (out of conference, January) game. Big deal. Learn and move on.

[Devilsfan]

I believe we had 17 turnovers and 9 assists while shooting a stellar 19% from the three. I know were a young team. But it's Nolan and Kyle, Kyle and Nolan. With all the other McDonald AAs no one could step up today. Sad.

[SMO]

Thank you so much for digging this up! The post-game meltdowns are really funny when you look back on them.

[tele]

Where's Greybeard? I think we could use an alignment.

[SMO]

Fatally flawed, unathletic, lacking the depth that Marty Pocius or Olek Czyz would have provided (!!!), a sweet 16 team at best....this G'town thread makes today's reaction look completely reasonable!

[uh_no]

so which of our players is going to have a zoubek revelation? miles? mason? yeah.....

[CDu]

so which of our players is going to have a zoubek revelation? miles? mason? yeah.....

And this is the key. Last year's team changed dramatically late in the season as Zoubek's emergence as a consistent force allowed the team to have a consistent identity. So simply saying last year's team is evidence that "it can happen" is overlooking the fact that last year was very unlikely. And even last year, we could have easily lost to Baylor or Butler.

This year's team has several players who are either struggling to find their role or struggling to find consistency within their role. If those things happen, maybe we can have a big tourney run again. But simply referencing last year isn't terribly useful.

[SMO]

And this is the key. Last year's team changed dramatically late in the season as Zoubek's emergence as a consistent force allowed the team to have a consistent identity. So simply saying last year's team is evidence that "it can happen" is overlooking the fact that last year was very unlikely. And even last year, we could have easily lost to Baylor or Butler.

This year's team has several players who are either struggling to find their role or struggling to find consistency within their role. If those things happen, maybe we can have a big tourney run again. But simply referencing last year isn't terribly useful.

What would be more useful? What can we say right here and now that will help this team?

[Devilsfan]

I hope K hasn't mellowed with age. I believe it was back in 2005 after a loss at Blacksburg. The team arrived back in Durham at 2 or 3AM and as the story goes K held a practice I believe from 3:30 Am to 7 AM. I think this squad could use some of the K movies will be made about. In K we trust.

[CDu]

What would be more useful? What can we say right here and now that will help this team?

Nothing. It's a message board. I was just pointing out that saying "look at last year" is sort of similar (not quite to the extreme, obviously) to saying "anything can happen."

[SMO]

Nothing. It's a message board. I was just pointing out that saying "look at last year" is sort of similar (not quite to the extreme, obviously) to saying "anything can happen."

I concur. It is, in fact, a message board. Do you concur that it's over?

[CDu]

I concur. It is, in fact, a message board. Do you concur that it's over?

Nope.

[SMO]

Nope.

Optimism springs eternal.:cool:

[CDu]

Optimism springs eternal.:cool:

There's a lot of room between optimism and fatalism. That was the point of my posts in this thread.

[Delaware]

And this is the key. Last year's team changed dramatically late in the season as Zoubek's emergence as a consistent force allowed the team to have a consistent identity. So simply saying last year's team is evidence that "it can happen" is overlooking the fact that last year was very unlikely. And even last year, we could have easily lost to Baylor or Butler.

This year's team has several players who are either struggling to find their role or struggling to find consistency within their role. If those things happen, maybe we can have a big tourney run again. But simply referencing last year isn't terribly useful.

Every year is very unlikely.... it's really hard to win 6 games in a row and play great basketball at the right time. Yes we could have lost to Baylor or Butler but we didn't.

I still say we are one of the top 3-4 teams in the country along with OSU, Kansas and Pitt. Nothing has changed. If we lose a few more games badly I might change my mind.

[CDu]

Every year is very unlikely.... it's really hard to win 6 games in a row and play great basketball at the right time. Yes we could have lost to Baylor or Butler but we didn't.

I don't disagree at all on this. It just seems like many don't appreciate the unlikeliness (which was sort of my point).


I still say we are one of the top 3-4 teams in the country along with OSU, Kansas and Pitt. Nothing has changed. If we lose a few more games badly I might change my mind.

I don't necessarily disagree with this either.