MBB: Wisconsin 73, Duke 69 Post-Game Thread

[jv001]

Or is it better to play a defense that has a successful 30 year track record, or to play a defense that wasn't hugely successful for you in this game and that is harder to rebound out of, because someone who has posted 3 times on a message board thinks that guarantees a win?

Great point. I heard Boeheim(sp?) say today on espn that playing man-to-man in the exhibition game they lost was a mistake. He said it showed they cannot play man-to-man. Everyone that has followed basketball for a long time knows that rebounding out of a zone defense is hard to do. Unless you have played it for a long time. Then it's not easy. When we used it against Wisconsin, we did not rebound the basketball successully. With our size, that's getting away from our strength this year. but it's good discussion. Go Duke!

[Oriole Way]

Your opinion (which you seem to state as fact) on playing time didn't turn out to be far from what coach K played Dawkins. At no point during the game did I think it was abundantly clear that they were getting blown out.

I thought the team played poorly in the second half until Dawkins actually started getting shots off, and without Dawkins, I am fairly confident the team would have lost by at least 15 points. If that's not a blowout, then we just have different definitions of the term.

Dawkins has seemed pretty confident to me so far and I thought Williams played very confidently at the end of last year.

You mean the Elliot Williams who started games? Sure, he was confident, because he was starting and getting the minutes he deserved. But he hadn't gotten the minutes he needed up until he was named a starter, and by then, it had already cost Duke losses. But the Elliot Williams I saw early in the season, prior to being named a starter, was not confident. Williams played very tentatively early on, and I have no doubt it was because of K's quick hook. K started playing Williams more not because Williams suddenly started playing better, but because it was evident Duke's season was going down the toilet unless a change was made in the starting lineup, giving Williams more playing time and Greg Paulus less PT. It was the right decision made several games too late.

Luckily for Dawkins, and luckily for Duke, Andre's shot is so good that he has made more of an obvious impact than Williams did at the same stage, and he is also a more confident player to begin with. But both players were/are among their team's top 4 most talented players, and both players weren't/haven't been receiving enough playing time early on during the season. K is handling Dawkins similarly to Williams, punishing defensive mistakes with benchings instead of letting them play through their mistakes, and it worries me.

[Indoor66]

You mean the Elliot Williams who started games? Sure, he was confident, because he was starting and getting the minutes he deserved. But he hadn't gotten the minutes he needed up until he was named a starter, and by then, it had already cost Duke losses. But the Elliot Williams I saw early in the season, prior to being named a starter, was not confident. Williams played very tentatively early on, and I have no doubt it was because of K's quick hook. K started playing Williams more not because Williams suddenly started playing better, but because it was evident Duke's season was going down the toilet unless a change was made in the starting lineup, giving Williams more playing time and Greg Paulus less PT. It was the right decision made several games too late.

Luckily for Dawkins, and luckily for Duke, Andre's shot is so good that he has made more of an obvious impact than Williams did at the same stage, and he is also a more confident player to begin with. But both players were/are among their team's top 4 most talented players, and both players weren't/haven't been receiving enough playing time early on during the season. K is handling Dawkins similarly to Williams, punishing defensive mistakes with benchings instead of letting them play through their mistakes, and it worries me.

After reading these two paragraphs, I wonder why Duke is not looking for a new coach who properly evaluates players when considering playing time. It is obvious that your opinion is that Duke should.

[Jumbo]

I thought the team played poorly in the second half until Dawkins actually started getting shots off, and without Dawkins, I am fairly confident the team would have lost by at least 15 points. If that's not a blowout, then we just have different definitions of the term.



You mean the Elliot Williams who started games? Sure, he was confident, because he was starting and getting the minutes he deserved. But he hadn't gotten the minutes he needed up until he was named a starter, and by then, it had already cost Duke losses. But the Elliot Williams I saw early in the season, prior to being named a starter, was not confident. Williams played very tentatively early on, and I have no doubt it was because of K's quick hook. K started playing Williams more not because Williams suddenly started playing better, but because it was evident Duke's season was going down the toilet unless a change was made in the starting lineup, giving Williams more playing time and Greg Paulus less PT. It was the right decision made several games too late.

Luckily for Dawkins, and luckily for Duke, Andre's shot is so good that he has made more of an obvious impact than Williams did at the same stage, and he is also a more confident player to begin with. But both players were/are among their team's top 4 most talented players, and both players weren't/haven't been receiving enough playing time early on during the season. K is handling Dawkins similarly to Williams, punishing defensive mistakes with benchings instead of letting them play through their mistakes, and it worries me.

I'll respectfully disagree with two of the points you've made.

First, Elliot Williams. You state that he wasn't confident early in the season and that because of Coach K's quick hook. "No doubt" is how you phrased it. But Elliot got some extended playing time early in the year -- double-digit minutes in 6 of Duke's first 7 games, including the two wins at MSG in the CVC tourney. What I observed -- both firsthand and on TV -- was a player with outstanding quickness, but who was moving too fast for his own good in some ways, and too slow in others. It took him a long time to make decisions on offense and, when he did, he rushed plays. On defense, his athletic skills were evident, but so was his lack of communication on screens and the number of times he lost his man or didn't rotate to help. Keep in mind, this was a team with a deep perimeter.

Obviously, his minutes declined from there. But, apparently, he kept learning, because when he got back into the lineup, he wasn't making nearly as many mistakes, particularly defensively. However, even by the end of the year, his offense wasn't quite up to snuff. You obviously remember that teams essentially stopped guarding him beyond the the 3-point line; he got most of his buckets off the break or offensive boards. Elliot was a weapon. But when Nolan Smith came back from his concussion, he was simply a better player than Elliot, particularly in the ACC Tourney. So, I take exception that Elliot was one of Duke top-4 players. He certainly wasn't better than Jon, G or Kyle, and I don't think he was nearly as good as Nolan, either. The other guys? Maybe. In fact, probably ... by the end of the year. But not early in the season -- he hadn't developed enough. And that didn't cost Duke wins.

The same holds true for Andre. Right now, he really has one weapon. It's an incedible weapon -- as sweet a shot as I've seen in the country this year. But there are sacrifices being made to get that shot on the floor. His defenisve IQ just isn't there yet. He hasn't shown that he moves laterally very well, although he has a good vertical and pretty good strength. He hasn't shown much off the dribble. I think Andre is an extremely valuable player, and will get much, much better. But I don't think he's as good an all-around player as Miles Plumlee right now. I think Mason Plumlee will prove in short order that he's a better player, although I'm clearly taking a leap of faith in making that pronouncement at this point. And, honestly, I'm not sure Andre helps -- right now -- in as many ways as Lance Thomas.

That will change with time. But does that mean Duke needs to start Andre Dawkins and play him 30 minutes? No, it does not.

[Wander]

And that didn't cost Duke wins.

There's no possible way you know that. Do you really think Elliott wasn't a good enough player to earn ANY minutes on February 11th and February 15th but all of a sudden good enough to earn 30 minutes on February 19th? His sudden large increase in minutes was basically an admission by Coach K that he hadn't been playing Elliott enough. And considering that we played much better from February 19th onward, it's not unreasonable to guess that we would have maybe won another game or two if K made this change earlier (yes, of course, Scheyer at point was the more significant change involved here, but Elliott's increased role wasn't trivial either).

All that said, I think we're playing Andre properly. He needs to learn defense better, but I'm overall happy with him and the minutes he's getting so far. I don't see much of a comparison with the Elliott situation last year.

[Jumbo]

There's no possible way you know that. Do you really think Elliott wasn't a good enough player to earn ANY minutes on February 11th and February 15th but all of a sudden good enough to earn 30 minutes on February 19th? His sudden large increase in minutes was basically an admission by Coach K that he hadn't been playing Elliott enough. And considering that we played much better from February 19th onward, it's not unreasonable to guess that we would have maybe won another game or two if K made this change earlier (yes, of course, Scheyer at point was the more significant change involved here, but Elliott's increased role wasn't trivial either).

That's a fair point. I can't know for sure that we wouldn't have won a game or two during the 4-out-of-6 slide with Williams playing a more prominent role.

[Oriole Way]

After reading these two paragraphs, I wonder why Duke is not looking for a new coach who properly evaluates players when considering playing time. It is obvious that your opinion is that Duke should.

That's an absolutely ridiculous thing for you to infer from my post. I never said anything close to that, and I surely don't intend for that to be implied. The goal of my post is to constructively criticize what I believe to be flaws in Coach K's coaching, in the hopes that he makes adjustments.

[Oriole Way]

That's a fair point. I can't know for sure that we wouldn't have won a game or two during the 4-out-of-6 slide with Williams playing a more prominent role.

Wander's point is an excellent one which is a strong basis for my criticism of K and how he handled Williams last season, and why I am concerned about Dawkins. All of which gets me to my response to some of your points, all of which are greatly appreciated, by the way...

[Oriole Way]

I'll respectfully disagree with two of the points you've made.

First, Elliot Williams. You state that he wasn't confident early in the season and that because of Coach K's quick hook. "No doubt" is how you phrased it. But Elliot got some extended playing time early in the year -- double-digit minutes in 6 of Duke's first 7 games, including the two wins at MSG in the CVC tourney. What I observed -- both firsthand and on TV -- was a player with outstanding quickness, but who was moving too fast for his own good in some ways, and too slow in others. It took him a long time to make decisions on offense and, when he did, he rushed plays. On defense, his athletic skills were evident, but so was his lack of communication on screens and the number of times he lost his man or didn't rotate to help. Keep in mind, this was a team with a deep perimeter.

I really believe you're thinking too much like K does here, which is expecting too much from a freshman, and benching him as opposed to letting him develop, play through his mistakes, learn from his mistakes, and get comfortable with collegiate play in real game situations with extended minutes on the floor. Everything you said was true, and I saw the exact same things. I never said Williams didn't make freshman mistakes. But all of those shortcomings are expected from a freshman with no college experience. I believe the best way for a freshman of Elliot Williams' elite talent level is give him plenty of minutes to gain the experience. A shortage of playing time for Williams early in the season was Coach K's biggest failing last season.

Obviously, his minutes declined from there. But, apparently, he kept learning, because when he got back into the lineup, he wasn't making nearly as many mistakes, particularly defensively. However, even by the end of the year, his offense wasn't quite up to snuff. You obviously remember that teams essentially stopped guarding him beyond the the 3-point line; he got most of his buckets off the break or offensive boards.

Again, I completely agree with your observations, and they are correct. But I interpret William's play differently. It's just my opinion, but I am extremely confident that Williams would have been more effective in March if he had been playing more in November, December, and January. It might not have been a drastic difference, but I feel it would have been notable.

Before Williams was named a starter, I was very frustrated that he and Miles Plumlee weren't getting enough playing time, and I felt that Williams especially was losing valuable minutes with which he could gain experience and become a better player. Furthermore, I felt that even a freshman Williams making mistakes would be just as effective as a senior Paulus making different kinds of mistakes and hurting the team because of talent deficiencies and injury problems. I was strongly in support of making Jon Scheyer the team's point guard and Williams a starter before those moves were made, and they worked out as well as I thought they would. For many of the same reasons, and because I trust my ability to evaluate talent, I have no doubt that if Williams had been developed better by Coach K by getting more playing time early in the season, he would have been even more effective late in the season. Players with his talent improve drastically with more playing time and experience in game situations.

Williams was invaluable to the team last season because of his quickness, size, and defensive ability. He rebounded very well for such a young guard, and he provided some defensive versatility. Those were attributes he still offered at the end of the season, even if his long-range perimeter shot left something to be desired. With Singler, Scheyer, Smith, and Paulus, Williams wasn't really needed to shoot from the perimeter, so while it was a flaw in his game which teams exploited, his ability to slash to the rim, rebound, and the defensive skills I already mentioned - all skills which were overall team weaknesses for Duke - made him one of Duke's best options as a starter and best players to get a bulk of the playing time.

Elliot was a weapon. But when Nolan Smith came back from his concussion, he was simply a better player than Elliot, particularly in the ACC Tourney. So, I take exception that Elliot was one of Duke top-4 players. He certainly wasn't better than Jon, G or Kyle, and I don't think he was nearly as good as Nolan, either. The other guys? Maybe. In fact, probably ... by the end of the year.

I said Williams was one of Duke's 4 most talented players. And quite honestly, even later in the season, Williams was frequently a better player than Nolan as well, but that is more up for debate. The problem with Nolan, unfortunately, has always been that when he's playing poorly, he really hurts the team because of poor shot selection, turnovers, and inconsistent on-the-ball defense. Because of how often he handles the ball and because of how many shots he usually takes, it can be devastating to Duke when Nolan is playing poorly, and his confidence is affected. Sometimes with Nolan there seems to be a downward spiral where he plays poorly, his confidence gets shaken, and he sometime he lets adversity and that shaken confidence affect his play even more. Poor confidence leading to lack of confidence, lack of confidence and frustration leading to more poor play. I don't want to stray to too far from the topic of Williams, Dawkins, and how K has handled them, but my point here is that while Williams at his best was never as good as Nolan at his best last season, Williams hurt Duke less severely when he played poorly than when Nolan did. Either way, I think Williams was and is a more talented player than Smith.

But not early in the season -- he hadn't developed enough. And that didn't cost Duke wins.

That just it, I feel that he wasn't developed enough because K didn't develop him, not because he didn't have the ability. I do feel it cost Duke wins, and even if it didn't, Duke would have been a better team all season if Williams had been receiving the appropriate playing time.

The same holds true for Andre. Right now, he really has one weapon. It's an incedible weapon -- as sweet a shot as I've seen in the country this year. But there are sacrifices being made to get that shot on the floor. His defenisve IQ just isn't there yet. He hasn't shown that he moves laterally very well, although he has a good vertical and pretty good strength. He hasn't shown much off the dribble. I think Andre is an extremely valuable player, and will get much, much better. But I don't think he's as good an all-around player as Miles Plumlee right now. I think Mason Plumlee will prove in short order that he's a better player, although I'm clearly taking a leap of faith in making that pronouncement at this point. And, honestly, I'm not sure Andre helps -- right now -- in as many ways as Lance Thomas.

That will change with time. But does that mean Duke needs to start Andre Dawkins and play him 30 minutes? No, it does not.

I'll respectfully disagree with a few points here, but I would like to quickly say that I didn't say that Andre should be starting and playing 30 minutes a game, and I don't think that he should at this stage. I do believe that Andre should already be averaging at least 25 minutes off the bench, and in every single game this season, I believe he has gotten about 5 minutes fewer than he needs to develop and to make Duke a better team.

As for your other points, Andre's defensive IQ will get there with experience. That's why I'm really making an issue of his PT and what I perceive to be not enough of it. I am willing to put up with defensive lapses because he will improve with game experience so that he will eventually reach the ideal defensive IQ, whatever that may be, sooner than he would at the rate of development and amount of minutes we're seeing now. More importantly, Dawkins incredible talent and efficiency as a shooter, both 3-pt and foul shooting, help offset his defensive liabilities to the point where it's more than worth it to give him additional minutes, especially because those minutes are an investment in future returns. As I'm sure you know, we have something special in this kid and his talent. Someone of his shooting ability is extremely rare, and we've had a few all-time great pure shooters at Duke.

As for not showing much off the dribble, again, that is something that can be worked on and developed with more PT. And again, even as it is, opposing teams are not adjusting to Andre enough to even justify driving yet. As long as they're going to leave him open, they should continue to pay. As conference play rolls around, I have no doubt opposing coaches will make it a priority to make sure Dawkins is guarded, and at that point, Andre will need to adjust by driving to the rim more and shot-faking more. But getting more playing time doesn't hurt. Quite simply, Andre has not needed to drive to the rim just yet, but extra PT will afford him the opportunity to work on that aspect of his game as well.

I absolutely love Miles Plumlee and he's one of my favorite players on the team. I was upset with how Coach K handled him as well last season. I expect big things from him. I think Miles is a more well-rounded player than Dawkins, but at this stage I don't think he's a better player than Dawkins. The main reason for this is that Andre Dawkins would offer a great deal to Duke in 30 minutes, whereas Miles would foul out well before he could even reach 30 minutes on the floor. Not only would Dawkins make more of an impact with more PT than Miles, but it's more realistic for Dawkins to be on the floor for that amount of time. It's difficult comparing two extremely talented players when one is a big man and the other is a guard because they're skill sets and roles are so different. I'm just very happy we have both of them on the team.

[Jumbo]

I really believe you're thinking too much like K does here, which is expecting too much from a freshman, and benching him as opposed to letting him develop, play through his mistakes, learn from his mistakes, and get comfortable with collegiate play in real game situations with extended minutes on the floor. Everything you said was true, and I saw the exact same things. I never said Williams didn't make freshman mistakes. But all of those shortcomings are expected from a freshman with no college experience. I believe the best way for a freshman of Elliot Williams' elite talent level is give him plenty of minutes to gain the experience. A shortage of playing time for Williams early in the season was Coach K's biggest failing last season.

Well, I don't think the phrase "thinking too much like K" should be considered an insult, so thank you! In all seriousness, I'm not sure that's entirely true. For one, K certainly isn't opposed to playing freshmen -- from Kyle Singler all the way back to Johnny Dawkins, if you're a freshman, and you can play, he won't hold you back. It's only certain freshmen who he develops in a different way.

And I've told this story dozens of times here, but my personal experience being around a team showed me how playing a freshman before he was ready -- he was routinely screwing up in practice, then making those mistakes in games -- retarded his growth. There is a danger between allowing a guy to play through his mistakes and allowing him to make repeated mistakes so they become habits. Obviously, it's not a black and white issue; it depends on the player.

Again, I completely agree with your observations, and they are correct. But I interpret William's play differently. It's just my opinion, but I am extremely confident that Williams would have been more effective in March if he had been playing more in November, December, and January. It might not have been a drastic difference, but I feel it would have been notable.

Before Williams was named a starter, I was very frustrated that he and Miles Plumlee weren't getting enough playing time, and I felt that Williams especially was losing valuable minutes with which he could gain experience and become a better player. Furthermore, I felt that even a freshman Williams making mistakes would be just as effective as a senior Paulus making different kinds of mistakes and hurting the team because of talent deficiencies and injury problems. I was strongly in support of making Jon Scheyer the team's point guard and Williams a starter before those moves were made, and they worked out as well as I thought they would. For many of the same reasons, and because I trust my ability to evaluate talent, I have no doubt that if Williams had been developed better by Coach K by getting more playing time early in the season, he would have been even more effective late in the season. Players with his talent improve drastically with more playing time and experience in game situations.

Williams was invaluable to the team last season because of his quickness, size, and defensive ability. He rebounded very well for such a young guard, and he provided some defensive versatility. Those were attributes he still offered at the end of the season, even if his long-range perimeter shot left something to be desired. With Singler, Scheyer, Smith, and Paulus, Williams wasn't really needed to shoot from the perimeter, so while it was a flaw in his game which teams exploited, his ability to slash to the rim, rebound, and the defensive skills I already mentioned - all skills which were overall team weaknesses for Duke - made him one of Duke's best options as a starter and best players to get a bulk of the playing time.

We agree on a lot of stuff. I actually think Scheyer should have moved to point guard the year before -- instead of bringing him off the bench, I wish he would have supplanted Paulus, especially since DeMarcus Nelson guarded opposing point guards anyway. It also would have enabled Nolan Smith to develop differently as a freshman.

I wish Plumlee had been ready last year, but he wasn't. He's one of the guys who, I think, would have been hurt by more playing time, because his confidence was fragile. Plus, as has been repeated often, he was still growing into his body. He wasn't really ready to make a big impact out there.

I do not agree, though, that the only way to improve is through game situations. I think you can only be ready to learn in a game situation if you've been able to handle easier situations in practice. And, there is some proof there, in that Elliot looked much better when he got playing time after the BC loss than early in the season. Clearly he improved, and since he hadn't been playing much, that improvement/learning came in practice.[/QUOTE]

I said Williams was one of Duke's 4 most talented players. And quite honestly, even later in the season, Williams was frequently a better player than Nolan as well, but that is more up for debate. The problem with Nolan, unfortunately, has always been that when he's playing poorly, he really hurts the team because of poor shot selection, turnovers, and inconsistent on-the-ball defense. Because of how often he handles the ball and because of how many shots he usually takes, it can be devastating to Duke when Nolan is playing poorly, and his confidence is affected. Sometimes with Nolan there seems to be a downward spiral where he plays poorly, his confidence gets shaken, and he sometime he lets adversity and that shaken confidence affect his play even more. Poor confidence leading to lack of confidence, lack of confidence and frustration leading to more poor play. I don't want to stray to too far from the topic of Williams, Dawkins, and how K has handled them, but my point here is that while Williams at his best was never as good as Nolan at his best last season, Williams hurt Duke less severely when he played poorly than when Nolan did. Either way, I think Williams was and is a more talented player than Smith. [/QUOTE]
Not sure I agree with that. Nolan is/was more skilled that Williams. And while forced shots and turnovers from Nolan hurt the team, so did Williams' inability to make things happen on offense. Being able to lay off him and clog the driving lanes was every bit as disruptive to Duke's offense as some forced plays from Nolan. Plus, Williams was a ball-stopper. It's not like he caught the ball and moved it quickly; he'd catch a pass, freeze, size up his man, and then move the ball. That frequently disrupted our flow.

That just it, I feel that he wasn't developed enough because K didn't develop him, not because he didn't have the ability. I do feel it cost Duke wins, and even if it didn't, Duke would have been a better team all season if Williams had been receiving the appropriate playing time.

Development takes time. Development happens in different ways. I don't feel Williams was ready to contribute to early wins, and we had some big wins (like at Purdue) where he played a minor role. Now, was he ready in time to have helped against BC? Probably -- I mean, it woud be quite a coincidence if he suddenly was ready to play just in time for St. John's. I do think K made a mistake last year with his brief move of putting Paulus back in the starting the lineup. If he was desparate, I'd have preferred Williams to have been that desparation move. But ultimately, given the way the season went over the last month (with the exception of the Villanova game, which was a perfect storm of problems), everything worked out late.

I'll respectfully disagree with a few points here, but I would like to quickly say that I didn't say that Andre should be starting and playing 30 minutes a game, and I don't think that he should at this stage. I do believe that Andre should already be averaging at least 25 minutes off the bench, and in every single game this season, I believe he has gotten about 5 minutes fewer than he needs to develop and to make Duke a better team.

I guess I just don't understand what the magic number is for "minutes" leading to "development." Andre is a key presence on this team, and whether he plays 15 minutes one game or 25 the next, he's a big part of things. Matchups/performance/strategy will dictate certain lineup changes, and his playing time is going to fluctuate a bit, and that fuctuation should not preclude his development. Just as I think playing an extra 5 minutes a game won't exhaust a player, I don't think an extra 5 minutes of playing time will make any developmental difference for someone who is already in the rotation.

As for your other points, Andre's defensive IQ will get there with experience.

This, clearly, is our fundamental point of disagreement. There is a reaosn why teams practice, after all. He is going to learn a lot more about communication, switching, positioning by getting reps designed to teach those skills than under pressure-cooker games where has 5 other things to worry about, too.

That's why I'm really making an issue of his PT and what I perceive to be not enough of it. I am willing to put up with defensive lapses because he will improve with game experience so that he will eventually reach the ideal defensive IQ, whatever that may be, sooner than he would at the rate of development and amount of minutes we're seeing now.

Here's what I don't understand. You cited the lack of playing time given to Williams as "costing Duke wins" last year. So, clearly, you value wins. What if Andre's defense costs Duke a win? Aren't those contradictory sentiments? Again, especially in Andre's case (given how much time he missed), I think practice is absolutely critical for his growth as a player. I think December is a huge month for him, because once exams are over, the team won't have restrictions on practice and will have very few games. He'll be able to get a real crash course in some of the stuff he hasn't learned, and I expect improved D during ACC games.

More importantly, Dawkins incredible talent and efficiency as a shooter, both 3-pt and foul shooting, help offset his defensive liabilities to the point where it's more than worth it to give him additional minutes, especially because those minutes are an investment in future returns. As I'm sure you know, we have something special in this kid and his talent. Someone of his shooting ability is extremely rare, and we've had a few all-time great pure shooters at Duke.

Agreed, except I don't think you can say that his shooting will always offset his other liabilities. It's too hard to measure. And while I know we have a lot invested in his future, I want to win this season. And I think if a few things fall into place, we can win big this season. One of those things is Andre's development, of course. We just think different roads will lead to the destination we both want to reach.

As for not showing much off the dribble, again, that is something that can be worked on and developed with more PT. And again, even as it is, opposing teams are not adjusting to Andre enough to even justify driving yet. As long as they're going to leave him open, they should continue to pay. As conference play rolls around, I have no doubt opposing coaches will make it a priority to make sure Dawkins is guarded, and at that point, Andre will need to adjust by driving to the rim more and shot-faking more. But getting more playing time doesn't hurt. Quite simply, Andre has not needed to drive to the rim just yet, but extra PT will afford him the opportunity to work on that aspect of his game as well.

Actually, I think skill development (this is different from improving defensive IQ) mostly happens in the offseason. I don't think Andre will have a tighter handle this year, whether he plays 40 minutes a game or never gets in a game. And I'm not simply talking about being able to pump fake and shoot a 15-footer or go in a straight line to the rim. We obviously have a lack of perimeter depth, which means our perimter players need t be able to handle the ball in tight spots. Jon, Nolan and Kyle can, but I'm not sure Andre is ready for that responsibility, based on his dribbling/passing skills yet, which might place a ceiling on what we can ask from him this season. Clearly, he doesn't have to be a savior -- he has to play a role.

I absolutely love Miles Plumlee and he's one of my favorite players on the team. I was upset with how Coach K handled him as well last season. I expect big things from him. I think Miles is a more well-rounded player than Dawkins, but at this stage I don't think he's a better player than Dawkins. The main reason for this is that Andre Dawkins would offer a great deal to Duke in 30 minutes, whereas Miles would foul out well before he could even reach 30 minutes on the floor. Not only would Dawkins make more of an impact with more PT than Miles, but it's more realistic for Dawkins to be on the floor for that amount of time. It's difficult comparing two extremely talented players when one is a big man and the other is a guard because they're skill sets and roles are so different. I'm just very happy we have both of them on the team.

Agreed that I'm glad to have both. And I'm even happier to have Mason than either of them (I think). I suspect Miles will play even better once Mason gets into the flow -- he seems to feed off his younger brother and gain confidence.

I like the idea of finishing games with Andre on the floor with our big 3 and Mason in the middle. But I'm not sure it's smart to go small extensively during the early parts of games. For one, I think Lance Thomas still offers us a lot defensively. I think Zoubs can still be effective against certain opponents. I think it's important that we keep playing those 8 guys regularly. And I also think -- and I'm generally a proponent of being a small, quick team -- that we try to keep 2 bigs on the floor a lot early, because as I've mentioned, we're going to be able to overcome off nights with offensive rebounding and interior defense if our bigs are confident.

For this team to win it all, virtually everyone is going to have to play an important role. While it's easier to see how much better the Plumlees and Dawkins can get, and while it's absolutely right to hope that they are among our top 6 players come March, let's not short-change the contributions a pair of veterans like Thomas and Zoubek can provide. I guarantee you there will be a game this year where someone will be hurting us dearly, Thomas will come into the game to guard him, do his job, and change the outcome.