Duke is Not Considered Great, and I Love It!

[TwoDukeTattoos]

I love that we are still not considered a FF contender. I love that we're still considered an underdog vs teams that are ranked lower than us. It will keep the team sharp, it will keep them hungry, it will help to buffer any crazy press in the event of a loss. It basically creates a no-pressure situation for us and I think it's finally starting to pay off a bit. Besides, how many of K's FF teams were only considered to be good, but not great? '89? '90? '94?

Basically, we're not favored to beat anyone who is projected to make the E8. Thing is, we actually have the ability to beat anyone. Does it mean we will? No. But the possibility is certainly there. It's a nice spot to be in.

I have to admit, I am more excited about this team than even our last 1-seed team with JJ and Shelden. True, that team had two greats, two retired jerseys on the roster, but this team has a number of assasins that can wreak havoc on any given night. And let's face it, while '06 did have JJ and Shelden, we certainly did not have a G! And now insert EWill! Wow...

This year's Duke team is the epitome of blue collar. It's fitting that we don True Blue, isn't it?

Go Duke.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'll agree that we have a team to get excited about, but I'll take JJ and Shelden back any day. I'm looking forward to this tourney, even if we are a 3 seed (or higher). We have a team that nobody will want to play, and we have lost enough games this year that we understand that anyone can beat us. I think knowing that will help in the long run, it seems some of the recent teams understood that having "Duke" on the shirt meant easy road to regionals. Of course we haven't been there of late. I'll feel better about our chances with Nolan back able to play. As of Elliot's status, he is reminding me some of Casey Sanders. They don't share positions, but they have a similar scenario where both are/were asked to step up more at the end of the season, and the results are a positive output. This team has been fun to watch evolve, I don't recall seeing so much change in a team recently.

[TwoDukeTattoos]

I'll take JJ and Shelden back any day.

I certainly would love for JJ and Shelden to be on this team. But if I'm simply comparing teams, this one excites me a bit more simply because there's more balance. Not always consistency, but almost always balance. There is no "JJ watching" to be done, as K used to say. Besides, G is still an incredible X-factor that '06 didn't possess. JJ faded during tourneys. I don't think G will.

[davekay1971]

I'm excited about this team, and love that we're not being discussed as a contender. We've definitely gotten away from the days where we, as a team, were prone to think teams would roll over for us. This team has all kinds of heart. You can look at the individual players and all you see that our team leaders are fighters - Paulus, Henderson, Scheyer, Singler, Thomas.

We came into this year with some question marks, but also with a core of talent and experience. We have 3 games to go in the regular season, all promising. I don't think we're seeing the February swoon this year that we have before - the wins vs. Md and Wake were both gutty wins, where our team played really good basketball to close out tight, intense games.

I don't mean to turn this into a comparison between our 09 and 06 teams, but since it's been made, I personally think this team has better ingredients for a March run. We're more balanced in our scoring threats. We play tougher. We're deeper, with legitimate contributors like McClure, Zoubs, Plumlee, and Paulus (and, hopefully, Nolan) coming off the bench.

We're certainly a team that can be beaten at any point. But I think we've got a good likelihood to be in the second weekend of the tournament and, if we play well, we've got the tools to make the third weekend.

[Olympic Fan]

Interesting case of Duke being overlooked on ESPN's Midnight Madness earlier this week.

Commentator Jimmy Dykes (a big Big 12 guy) had come up with what he thought were some revealing stats -- that every national champion in the last 20 or 30 years (no graphic, he just spoke it quickly, so I'm not positive about the parameters) had two things in common:

(1) A 10-game winning streak at some point in the season
(2) A double-figure edge in average scoring margin

He then put up a graphic of nine teams that he had picked as national championship caliber based on these two criteria. The list included three ACC teams -- UNC (naturally), Wake and Clemson.

He left off Duke, even though the Devils won 10 straight after the Michigan loss on Dec. 6, and have a 14.7 average margin of victory -- over two points better than Wake or Clemson.

Also, one of their color guys (I didn't recognize him and I flipped over mid-game) was talking about the national championship contenders and he listed about 9-10 teams that he thought could win it. The play-by-play guy prodded him with a couple of other candidates, including Duke ... the color guy responded by pointing to the 27-point loss at Clemson and saying that teams that lose games like that don't win national titles.

Okay, that's his opinion and he's welcome to it ... yet, his list of "legitimate" contenders included Louisville, which a week after Duke's bad loss, lost by 33 points at Notre Dame. I'd argue that Clemson is a much better team than unranked Notre Dame. Overall, Duke and Louisville have almost exactly the same record -- Duke's RPI and SOS are better.

Of course, it will be sweet if Duke can make those characters look bad with a strong NCAA run ... and it will be fun to enter the NCAA Tournament with all the "experts" expecting a short stay instead of projecting a Final Four run.

[The Gordog]

I certainly would love for JJ and Shelden to be on this team. But if I'm simply comparing teams, this one excites me a bit more simply because there's more balance. Not always consistency, but almost always balance. There is no "JJ watching" to be done, as K used to say. Besides, G is still an incredible X-factor that '06 didn't possess. JJ faded during tourneys. I don't think G will.

I don't think JJ faded at all in 2006, rather the injuries to the rest of the team piled up to the point that JJJ was triple-teamed. Dock, Nelson, Paulus, McBob, all had nagging injuries that limited their ability to score.

[Kedsy]

Also, one of their color guys (I didn't recognize him and I flipped over mid-game) was talking about the national championship contenders and he listed about 9-10 teams that he thought could win it. The play-by-play guy prodded him with a couple of other candidates, including Duke ... the color guy responded by pointing to the 27-point loss at Clemson and saying that teams that lose games like that don't win national titles.

Okay, that's his opinion and he's welcome to it ... yet, his list of "legitimate" contenders included Louisville, which a week after Duke's bad loss, lost by 33 points at Notre Dame. I'd argue that Clemson is a much better team than unranked Notre Dame. Overall, Duke and Louisville have almost exactly the same record -- Duke's RPI and SOS are better.

Was Wake on his list? They lost by 27 the same day Duke did.

[hurleyfor3]

Commentator Jimmy Dykes (a big Big 12 guy) had come up with what he thought were some revealing stats -- that every national champion in the last 20 or 30 years (no graphic, he just spoke it quickly, so I'm not positive about the parameters) had two things in common:

(1) A 10-game winning streak at some point in the season
(2) A double-figure edge in average scoring margin

That doesn't seem surprising. Winning the national championship requires a six-game winning streak, and if you also won your conference tournament that takes you to nine.

And also, it's wrong! The '91 team's longest winning streak was seven games. I'll bet Kansas '88 and Arizona '97 didn't have 10-game streaks, either.

[Oriole Way]

I love J.J. and Shelden, but they had a worse supporting cast (in 2006) than this team does. It was much easier for opponents to focus their game plan on stopping J.J. and Shelden because we didn't have an offensive threat to step up if those two were being contained.

Partly because of that, and partly because of fatigue or just plain old bad shooting nights, J.J. frequently had sub-par games in the tournament, and we were toast as a result. Even his game in 2004 against UConn in the Final Four wasn't his best, but he also had Deng, Ewing, Shelden, and Duhon to help shoulder the scoring load.

I think this team is a little more equipped to make a deep run. The main reason is that Gerald Henderson is basically unstoppable, and he creates his own shot effortlessly. J.J. had to work so hard shaking off defenders and using screens to get open that it would take its toll physically.

Even though the numbers may not bear it out, I think this team will be better offensively come tournament time than the 2006 edition. Singler, Scheyer, and Williams are much better scoring options than McRoberts, Paulus, Nelson, Dockery, and Melchionni. If Nolan Smith is healthy and Paulus continues to settle into his role and regain his shooting form, our bench is deeper and better as well.

[jv001]

I love J.J. and Shelden, but they had a worse supporting cast (in 2006) than this team does. It was much easier for opponents to focus their game plan on stopping J.J. and Shelden because we didn't have an offensive threat to step up if those two were being contained.

Partly because of that, and partly because of fatigue or just plain old bad shooting nights, J.J. frequently had sub-par games in the tournament, and we were toast as a result. Even his game in 2004 against UConn in the Final Four wasn't his best, but he also had Deng, Ewing, Shelden, and Duhon to help shoulder the scoring load.

I think this team is a little more equipped to make a deep run. The main reason is that Gerald Henderson is basically unstoppable, and he creates his own shot effortlessly. J.J. had to work so hard shaking off defenders and using screens to get open that it would take its toll physically.

Even though the numbers may not bear it out, I think this team will be better offensively come tournament time than the 2006 edition. Singler, Scheyer, and Williams are much better scoring options than McRoberts, Paulus, Nelson, Dockery, and Melchionni. If Nolan Smith is healthy and Paulus continues to settle into his role and regain his shooting form, our bench is deeper and better as well.

You're about to get me excited. I too would take this team over the 06 team. When JJ was off, we had no answer. This team has more than one step up player and the 06 team did not have a Gerald Henderson on it. I'm not saying Gerald is better than JJ but I am saying Gerald can get his shot anytime and JJ bless his soul could not. Go Duke!

[TwoDukeTattoos]

Still no love for the Dukies as we remain ranked #7 in both polls after pulling off two tough road wins and all anyone is talking about is K's chairlift and Scheyer's traveling. I love it!

[Methodistman]

I'm not saying Gerald is better than JJ but I am saying Gerald can get his shot anytime and JJ bless his soul could not. Go Duke!

While I understand what you are saying, I know Saturday as I watched the second half, I saw that there are times that G cannot get his shot - he was basically a jump-shooter much of the second half. Maybe he was tired, but I was growing frustrated and I just kept hoping he would at least get into the lane.

[CDu]

Also, one of their color guys (I didn't recognize him and I flipped over mid-game) was talking about the national championship contenders and he listed about 9-10 teams that he thought could win it. The play-by-play guy prodded him with a couple of other candidates, including Duke ... the color guy responded by pointing to the 27-point loss at Clemson and saying that teams that lose games like that don't win national titles.

Okay, that's his opinion and he's welcome to it ... yet, his list of "legitimate" contenders included Louisville, which a week after Duke's bad loss, lost by 33 points at Notre Dame. I'd argue that Clemson is a much better team than unranked Notre Dame. Overall, Duke and Louisville have almost exactly the same record -- Duke's RPI and SOS are better.

I always love when the talking heads try to use simple objective criteria for what basically is a gut feeling. I'll bet this sort of thing happens all the time: team A isn't legit for this reason, while team B is legit despite the fact that they're guilty of the same thing as team A.

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Duke is so prominent nationally. The Wake loss to Miami and the Louisville loss to Notre Dame are swept under the rug because they aren't under the same magnifying glass.

The other thing is that Wake and Louisville don't have the easy go-to "weaknesses" we have (no point guard, trouble with penetration, inconsistent post play). It's easier to point to our flaws than to understand how Louisville or Wake are flawed enough to lose like that, when the reality is that all three teams have enough flaws to allow them to lose a game like that.

Ultimately, the tournament comes down to having a lot of skill and a fair amount of luck. I'd guess that there are probably 6-8 teams in any year who are truly capable of winning it without a TON of help, and a lot of luck plays into determining which of those 6-8 teams will wind up winning.

[devildownunder]

Interesting case of Duke being overlooked on ESPN's Midnight Madness earlier this week.

Commentator Jimmy Dykes (a big Big 12 guy) had come up with what he thought were some revealing stats -- that every national champion in the last 20 or 30 years (no graphic, he just spoke it quickly, so I'm not positive about the parameters) had two things in common:

(1) A 10-game winning streak at some point in the season
(2) A double-figure edge in average scoring margin

He then put up a graphic of nine teams that he had picked as national championship caliber based on these two criteria. The list included three ACC teams -- UNC (naturally), Wake and Clemson.

He left off Duke, even though the Devils won 10 straight after the Michigan loss on Dec. 6, and have a 14.7 average margin of victory -- over two points better than Wake or Clemson.

Also, one of their color guys (I didn't recognize him and I flipped over mid-game) was talking about the national championship contenders and he listed about 9-10 teams that he thought could win it. The play-by-play guy prodded him with a couple of other candidates, including Duke ... the color guy responded by pointing to the 27-point loss at Clemson and saying that teams that lose games like that don't win national titles.

Okay, that's his opinion and he's welcome to it ... yet, his list of "legitimate" contenders included Louisville, which a week after Duke's bad loss, lost by 33 points at Notre Dame. I'd argue that Clemson is a much better team than unranked Notre Dame. Overall, Duke and Louisville have almost exactly the same record -- Duke's RPI and SOS are better.

Of course, it will be sweet if Duke can make those characters look bad with a strong NCAA run ... and it will be fun to enter the NCAA Tournament with all the "experts" expecting a short stay instead of projecting a Final Four run.

I'm not a big believer in conspiracies in the sports world. Group think, however, is a different story. It's starting to look like there is a real anti-Duke mentality among many of the people covering College Basketball nationally. I feel a bit odd saying that because without thinking abou it the idea seems farfetched but the evidence is starting to make it look that way.

[DukieBoy]

JJ faded during tourneys. I don't think G will.

Case in point: Duke v. Bucknell 2008 Tourney.

[fisheyes]

Case in point: Duke v. Bucknell 2008 Tourney.

Belmont.

[Chard]

While I understand what you are saying, I know Saturday as I watched the second half, I saw that there are times that G cannot get his shot - he was basically a jump-shooter much of the second half. Maybe he was tired, but I was growing frustrated and I just kept hoping he would at least get into the lane.

I was too but you have to take into account the adjustments by VT. They started crowding the lane, taking away the baseline and letting Duke shoot. Duke obliged but didn't take great shots. Then, the adjustment by Duke: Henderson drove the ball further into the lane, drew a foul and scored two points at the line.

I see what you are saying and I was feeling the same way. Sometimes they just rely on the jump shot too much and that is when they tend to lose leads. When they are on they can blow out an opponent. When they aren't it allows the other team to seize momentum. You just want to pull your hair out as they hoist jumper after jumper. When G forced that foul and hit those shots I was much happier simply because of the subtle adjustment.

This team is still learning, growing; I don't think we've seen their best yet.

[GoingFor#5]

I'm glad we aren't considered great, too. I think it might not be all anti-Duke bias, but its the fact that we are constantly on TV so everybody KNOWS every one of our losses. So they see us lose several times and are like "hah, that's not a great team" whereas other top teams can lose in relative obscurity. I am guilty of this myself, I know nothing about the Big East and any of Pitt or Conn's losses so its easy to assume they are great teams who only lose on fluke nights. But, Duke...noooo everybody knows they got whooped at Clemson and lost nearly 4 straight (most of which were on national TV). I feel good about this team. We've got a little swagger from knowing how good we can play like in the 1st of UNC, but not too much swagger cause we've been humbled.

[sagegrouse]

While I understand what you are saying, I know Saturday as I watched the second half, I saw that there are times that G cannot get his shot - he was basically a jump-shooter much of the second half. Maybe he was tired, but I was growing frustrated and I just kept hoping he would at least get into the lane.

Yes, Gerald was not getting the looks in the 2nd for two reasons: (a) the defense changed and (b) Singler went off. Kyle had 19 points in the 2H after scoring only two in the first half.

sagegrouse