Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 82
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC

    It doesnt matter who starts...

    ...but who finishes. And I suspect who finishes will be the the 5 who get defensive stops. Unless of course you sub for O and D which K did semmingly more last year than in previous years.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Quote Originally Posted by airowe View Post
    http://sports.chronicleblogs.com/200...us-in-cameron/

    "If the season were to start now, Krzyzewski said the starters would be Jon Scheyer, Nolan Smith, Kyle Singler, and both Mason and Miles Plumlee. Krzyzewski did say, though, that Lance Thomas would play essentially as a sixth starter, and mentioned that freshman Andre Dawkins would be the first guard off the bench."
    I suspect this statement was meant to send a message to the players as much as anything else. K is a master psychologist and motivator.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by I Was Framed View Post
    I know that it has been a while, but we aren't that big. That starting lineup is
    (approx)
    6'10
    6'11
    6'8
    6'5
    6'2

    That is what a traditional basketball team is supposed to look like.
    I'm not sure a traditional basketball team is, but I'm fairly concerned about the ability of that lineup to play Duke basketball, particularly on defense. But it's not like we have much of a choice.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    I'm not sure a traditional basketball team is, but I'm fairly concerned about the ability of that lineup to play Duke basketball, particularly on defense. But it's not like we have much of a choice.
    Why are you concerned? Do you think Kyle won't be able to guard the other team's "3"?

    None of the others would seem disadvantaged on defense, unless you think K's wrong about Miles being ready to start (and yes, I know he started at the beginning of last year, too, but this year we have several more options and if K thinks he's the one then my guess is he'll be able to bring it on D).

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

    Yeah but

    Quote Originally Posted by I Was Framed View Post
    I know that it has been a while, but we aren't that big. That starting lineup is
    (approx)
    6'10
    6'11
    6'8
    6'5
    6'2

    That is what a traditional basketball team is supposed to look like.

    A six foot ish PG
    A six five ish SG
    A six eight ish SF
    A six nine ish PF
    A seven foot ish C
    In this day and age it is pretty common to see
    PG 5'11
    SG 6'3
    SF 6'6
    PF 6'7
    C 6'9

    Many recent Duke teams have had this look too.

    This year's edition is pretty darn tall. Of course height really doesn't matter as long as the performance is there, but it can help to create matchup problems, and all things being equal - it is a game of inches. Small ball can be fun, but it is nice to be the big team once in a while.

    The excitement builds...

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    I'm not sure a traditional basketball team is, but I'm fairly concerned about the ability of that lineup to play Duke basketball, particularly on defense. But it's not like we have much of a choice.
    I may be wrong, but wasn't the word "zone" being mentioned by K and some Duke players several months ago? I seem to recall talk about it. I wonder how much changes with the addition of Dawkins.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Texas/NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    I'm not sure a traditional basketball team is, but I'm fairly concerned about the ability of that lineup to play Duke basketball, particularly on defense. But it's not like we have much of a choice.
    That is my fear too. We better be pretty darn effective on offense or lay off that duke defense I love so much. Then again, having two rim protectors could be nice.

  8. #68
    FWIW, Collins recently said that Nolan is 6'3". I don't believe it, but he said it.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St Augustine, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by devilboomer View Post
    FWIW, Collins recently said that Nolan is 6'3". I don't believe it, but he said it.
    Maybe he's using the same tape that measured DeMarcus at 6'4".

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Listening to Coach K's presser right now, and he said that the starting lineup, if it was today:

    Smith
    Scheyer
    Singler
    Plumlee
    Plumlee

    With Lance playing starter level minutes and defending 1-5
    Zou getting solid minutes in the 5

    Kyle is dedicated perimeter layer this year

    All this before practice really starts, of course.

    One nice note - no one was rehabbing this summer, which is a first in 3-4 years.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by Exiled_Devil View Post
    One nice note - no one was rehabbing this summer, which is a first in 3-4 years.
    Guess Olek counts as no one

    This lineup is typical for the NBA; not college.

    In the NBA, PGs are around 6'0-6'3, SGs are 6'4-6'7, SFs are 6'6-6'9, PFs are 6'8-7'0 and Cs are around 6'9-7'1 (these are the averages. I know that Jameer Nelson is shorter and Shaq is taller, but these are generalizations. Please don't hit me with the exceptions).

    This is exciting - have we ever had a starting line-up like this before?

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    1990

    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    Guess Olek counts as no one

    This lineup is typical for the NBA; not college.

    In the NBA, PGs are around 6'0-6'3, SGs are 6'4-6'7, SFs are 6'6-6'9, PFs are 6'8-7'0 and Cs are around 6'9-7'1 (these are the averages. I know that Jameer Nelson is shorter and Shaq is taller, but these are generalizations. Please don't hit me with the exceptions).

    This is exciting - have we ever had a starting line-up like this before?
    In 1990, we had Abdelnaby and Laettner starting, both around 6'11", with Brickey (a very strong and athletic player) at 6'5" or so as the "3". It wasn't a great regular season, although we made the NCAA finals.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Exiled_Devil View Post
    Listening to Coach K's presser right now, and he said that the starting lineup, if it was today:

    Smith
    Scheyer
    Singler
    Plumlee
    Plumlee
    We will see what happens as the season starts but I'm really happy to hear that from K as a potential starting lineup. Hope it's the starting line up when the season starts. I thought Miles should have been given more playing time last year so he could become less lost and have time for the game to slow down for him. I've thought this in the past with other players as well but it's just my humble opinion.

  14. #74
    Lance does not need motivation, but the Plumlees need confidence and they are the future forwards as long as they stay at Duke.

    I don't think it is a ploy to garner excitement only to swap in Lance or Z later. K also said, BTW that Lance plays starter minutes (like Jon did a couple seasons ago).

    It also makes sense from a practice perspective to give Seth and Andre and Ryan experience to practice against, while pairing them with experienced forwards. conversely the Plumlees practice vs. two senior forwards/center, and have experienced wing men.

    When substitutions are made, no drop off, and these are Duke's 5 most balanced players with respect to overall game. coach K can sub in to tinker with match-ups based on the opponent.

    Jon Scheyer / Seth Curry (0nly in Blue/White and practices)
    Nolan Smith / Andre Dawkins
    Kyle Singler / Ryan Kelly
    Mason Plumlee / Lance Thomas
    Miles Plumlee / Brian Zoubek

    with Olek Czyz, Jordan Davidson, Steve Johnson and Casey Peters in reserve.

    The perimeter guys on second team help Duke starters adjust to faster top shooting opponents, and the Plumlees give Lance and Z practice vs. the type of forwards that can be problematic for them.

    From an overall short term and long term balancing perspective, these formations make a lot of sense. Seth develops as Jon's successor with or without Irving and Thornton will be there as true PG.

    Andre develops, Kelly is a possibility if Singler leaves early and no Barnes to replace him. Lance and Zoubek are second stringers that get replaced by Hairston and Czyz and if Barnes comes, Kelly slides to 4.

    That's probably Duke's biggest weakness at this point, the 5-10 MPG when Singler subs out either an undersized frosh or a tall too slow frosh both of whom can shoot or a senior who can defend but can't shoot. Which one minimizes the loss in productivity those 5-10 MPG will vary based on the opponent.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by ACCBBallFan View Post
    That's probably Duke's biggest weakness at this point, the 5-10 MPG when Singler subs out either an undersized frosh or a tall too slow frosh both of whom can shoot or a senior who can defend but can't shoot. Which one minimizes the loss in productivity those 5-10 MPG will vary based on the opponent.
    Barring foul trouble, that 5-10 minutes is going to be more like zero-5.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by I Was Framed View Post
    I do think that Kyle and Jon will have varying degrees of trouble staying in front of their respective assignments. This isn't a crack on them. They are great players and great defenders. However, they also have the responsibility of staying in front of some of the most athletic players in the game at SF and SG.
    I sort of disagree with this, especially with regards to Singler. Kyle is very athletic himself. He's also so smart, mean, and hard working on the court. I am not worried at all about his ability to guard the 3 spot.

    I do not mean to direct anything at you Framed, but I am not seeing a whole lot of talk about Kyle on the boards this week. I know we are all excited to see if Mason is the real deal, and if Nolan has improved, but Kyle is our best player, and the real key to our season. He's the most legitimate NPOY candidate we've had in 4 years. His ability to defend the 3 is nothing to worry about.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    I'm not sure a traditional basketball team is, but I'm fairly concerned about the ability of that lineup to play Duke basketball, particularly on defense. But it's not like we have much of a choice.
    The uniforms will still read "Duke" and there will be basketball being played both offensive and defensive. While K has shown a propensity to play a certain style of both offense and defense, you don't do what he has done without adjusting for the make up of the team. I don't forsee any square pegs being forced into round holes this season. If you know what I mean.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Edouble View Post
    I sort of disagree with this, especially with regards to Singler. Kyle is very athletic himself. He's also so smart, mean, and hard working on the court. I am not worried at all about his ability to guard the 3 spot.

    I do not mean to direct anything at you Framed, but I am not seeing a whole lot of talk about Kyle on the boards this week. I know we are all excited to see if Mason is the real deal, and if Nolan has improved, but Kyle is our best player, and the real key to our season. He's the most legitimate NPOY candidate we've had in 4 years. His ability to defend the 3 is nothing to worry about.
    Remember when Kyle was put on that guy from Rhode Island last year? He was more of a 2 so I think Kyle can handle most college 3s.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Edouble View Post
    I am not seeing a whole lot of talk about Kyle on the boards this week. I know we are all excited to see if Mason is the real deal, and if Nolan has improved, but Kyle is our best player, and the real key to our season. He's the most legitimate NPOY candidate we've had in 4 years. His ability to defend the 3 is nothing to worry about.
    This is definitely a good reminder point. The reason there's more talk about NS is probably due to the fact that we assume the expected excellence from KS and JS isn't quite enough to get to Final 4. It may be unfair, shortsighted even, to take JS and KS for granted, because, indeed, we can't imagine a steadier-excellent player in the country - none - than JS; nor can we imagine a better all-rounder - none - than KS [who will defend brilliantly all but the fastest guys]. But if it's shortsighted to take these 2 very, very special players for granted, surely it isn't shortsighted to say the Devils are unlikely to get to F4 absent major improvement from NS.

    Given lack of depth at "traditional" 1-2 guard spots, NS's health and improvement are big, big issues. Those who have noted that NS has a whole new attitude/demeanor provide great encouragement to those of us who didn't see Craziness game.

    I bet we could [almost] all agree that NS's improvement, JS's consistent steadiness and intermittent brilliance, and KS's rising to CPOY and NPOY are all roughly equally important to get us to this year's NC.

  20. #80
    Kyle is the best player we have had since JJ. He can guard all 5 spots if need be. I understand all the concern but when can we remember Kyle getting beat on the perimeter. Down the stretch of the RI game he was put on Jimmy Baron and on the last shot of the game got a piece of the ball to hold on for the win.

    All the talk out of Carolina is that Henson will be starting at the 3 for them. Are we worried that a 6 10 freshmen will be blowing by Kyle? Why is it that we are worried sick about playing Kyle against opposing 3's but yet Carolina is not worried about starting a bigger player at the 3 who is not a NPOY type player?

Similar Threads

  1. 2009-2010 MBB team
    By houstondukie in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 380
    Last Post: 04-16-2010, 11:16 AM
  2. Discuss other ACC teams 2009-2010
    By ACCBBallFan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 07:58 PM
  3. Starting Line Up 2009-10
    By durhamjets33 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 268
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 02:55 PM
  4. MBB Starting Lineup speculation 2009-10
    By Hancock 4 Duke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-06-2009, 12:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •