Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007

    Plumlees vs. Lance and Zoubs

    Now that we're about 10 games into the season, the LBS game should get us to think about all this a bit more. I think there have been two misconceptions that a lot of us have labored under, (including me) that appear to have been wrong.

    1. The Plumlees were going to come in and tear up the league, providing rebounding, defense, and great low post scoring.

    2. Lance and Zoubs were senior write-offs, players who never amounted to much, playing out the string on their college careers.

    At this juncture, both assumptions appear to have been wrong. Although the Plumlees have been quite effective in rebounding and defense, neither has shown any consistent low post offensive play. Conversely, Zoubs has hit a number of shots under the basket, while Lance has developed a late-in-the-career jump shot (see Brian Davis and Dahntay Jones) that appears to be useable, at least when he's open.

    Now. At some point, you have to say, what do we have, and what can we expect? I know a lot of you still expect the Plumlees to be major contributors by season's end. However, at this point, I think history should show that probably isn't going to happen. When we examine the careers of similar earlier Duke players, the best ones would be Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Mike Gminski, and Danny Ferry, all of whom were of similar size and came in highly recruited, (except G man, who snuck in under the radar a year early). Of those players, all of whom went on to be All-Americans, not one of them averaged more than 8 points a game as freshmen except Gminski, and he played for a bad team (without Tate Armstrong) with no bench.

    Those were the best. More recently (and maybe representatively) we have Shavlik Randolph, Chris Burgess, and Josh McRoberts. All three were highly rated, two were busts at Duke, and the third didn't stay long enough to really achieve his potential (McRoberts; Burgess was done by his sophomore year.) All of them, for that matter, appeared to at the outset, be equal to
    or better than the Plumlees. So, if history is any indication, expecting great things this year from MP1 or MP2 is too much; even if they go on to be All Americas, they aren't quite ready to do it this year.

    So. The answer, I believe is just use what we've got. What we have are four incomplete post players, each with different strengths and weaknesses.
    It's going to be up to K to figure out how to use them all to get the most production out of the 4 and 5 (and maybe 3 with Lance) positions. That, IMHO, would mean about 20 minutes a game for each, +-5 and/or minutes
    for RK. By moving the players in and out, K can use depth to replace ability.
    Keeping fresh legs in the post, will mean more rebounds and better defense, and more easy scoring opportunities against tired defenders. K can also use each player's abilities according to the matchups. Since we have pretty good scoring from the 1, 2, and 3 spots, that may be all we need. What do people think?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Like a great Shakespearian play, Zoub was our (the fans) comic relief four three years but I have to admit he has seemed to transform into quite a sweet basketball player this year. By far he and Lance have out preformed Plum one and Plum two. Plum two seems lost out there at times and on one specific play last night he didn't seem to have the strength to finish at point blank range. I thought I'd never say this but I'm becoming a fan of #55. We might go far into March if this continues and we don't run into a team that runs extremely well and forces us to get back on D in a hurray. I hope we get the luck of the draw because we can play half court with anybody, imo.

  3. #3
    Lance and Zoubs are currently playing better. The Plumlees will get their opportunities. Matchup issues with various teams are a variable. Nice to have all four of them. Not sure how much else there is to discuss, though I'm not necessarily opposed to it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    With all due respect, you might want to revisit Laettner's freshman season. It really doesn't support your position.

    None of the others do, either but Laettner is an especially egregrious misreading.

  5. #5
    I say let coaches coach and players play. Everybody else sit back and watch.

    When someone becomes coach K, I'll listen. Until then....
    ~rthomas

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Asheville

    Misconception comments--long post warning

    First of all, kudos to Hq2 for some interesting points of discussion and some well-presented opinions---even if there are some valid points of contention.

    For years and years I have read on the boards how some new guy is going to tear it up for us the first year and lead us to the championship. All posters should be required to read Throaty's list before even thinking about posting the hint of a possibility of such a rare occurrence. While it certainly can happen, I believe that it just seems overblown so often that it detracts from the normal reasonable discussions on the boards.

    It never ceases to amaze me how such a supposedly knowledgeable fan base here on the DBR boards consistently repeats this kind of stuff. Duke basketball is team basketball. Even the most talented players have to learn to play with the other players to achieve maximum potential for winning.

    What I constantly read on these boards is no different than fans that think the quarterback is bad because he gets sacked all the time because the line play is terrible and he gets no time to throw the ball, or the running back is no good because the line doesn't give him any holes to run through.

    Haven't you noticed the comments every year by Coach K about the maturity and development of the new players by the end of the regular season? He usually points out during post game interviews that such-and-such a first year player should really be considered a sophmore since he has completed a season with the team. Do you ever think what kind of a point he is trying to make when he says that?

    If you watch the plays as they develop and note how players get in position to receive a pass from Jon for another successful assist, you may understand what I am alluding to. Or, maybe you will note that Jon knows just where that player is going to be so that he can pass the ball to him at just the right time. And if you are really observant, you may see how another player sets a pick in a completely different area of the court so that the scoring player can get to that spot where Jon knows he will end up. The team is coached that way, and the only way to be able to pull all of that stuff off, is for the players to play together alot, and be "coachable." Just raw talent doesn't cut it. I believe two examples of this were Memphis under Calamari and "The Fab Five" of Michigan with an inexperienced time out call.

    Look at the big jump in Plumlee I's play after last year. That should happen with Plumlee II. Another thing to watch out for is: while Andre is a great shooter at this point in the season, he will hopefully make a big jump defensively by the beginning of next season and, therefore, be more of an asset to the team. Coach K substitutes for a purpose. The emphasis on defense is just where Coach K believes it's supposed to be. Remember, if the other team can't score, you cannot lose----even if you have less than ideal firepower on your side.

    So, maybe the best that the experienced posters can do is to try to somehow limit the "rah-rah" posters from getting out of hand a lot of the time. Or, maybe a test on the Stickies before they can post. With the addition of so many new posters repeating the same old worn-out cliche's, it takes me hours and hours of valuable wasted time reading the boards every day instead of just a few hours a day. (I wish I was kidding on this point, but I'm not. For the newbies: a member's post count is not necesarily reflective of their years spent on the boards.)

    ricks

  7. #7
    I agree that there is quite a bit of inconsistency right now, but I love watching Miles block shots way up above the rim. To quote an oft used saying, that's something you can't teach.

    When the last time we saw that at Duke? Even the landlord did all of his shot blocking below the rim.

  8. #8
    To me, there's no need to group Lance and Z together, as they're completely different. I've slowly become a fan of Zoubek as an efficient offensive player, excellent rebounder and a guy who bothers opposing players on defense with his size. On the other hand, I still feel Lance does not bring enough to the offensive side of the game to warrant being higher than a role player for a team with Final Four hopes, defensive versatility aside.

    I'm still excited about what the Plumlees can do for us by season's end. They bring a dose of - wait for it - athleticism that will I hope give Duke its first really complete lineup since 2004. There are plenty of recent examples of big guys who have contributed very early in their career that make me think this is possible - like Kyle Singler and Trevor Booker. I'm not guaranteeing they'll pan out this year, but I think you're being a bit quick to dismiss them based on November/December games, particularly when one of them was injured for most of that time period and the other actually has better season averages so far than Lance.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by hq2 View Post
    Now. At some point, you have to say, what do we have, and what can we expect? I know a lot of you still expect the Plumlees to be major contributors by season's end. However, at this point, I think history should show that probably isn't going to happen. When we examine the careers of similar earlier Duke players, the best ones would be Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Mike Gminski, and Danny Ferry, all of whom were of similar size and came in highly recruited, (except G man, who snuck in under the radar a year early). Of those players, all of whom went on to be All-Americans, not one of them averaged more than 8 points a game as freshmen except Gminski, and he played for a bad team (without Tate Armstrong) with no bench.
    In my opinion there is a problem with your analysis. The problem is not that fans have distorted expectations regarding the contributions of "highly recruited" players, but rather that they have distorted expectations of what statistics can be said to be "major" contributions.

    You named four Duke big men from days of yore as examples of less-than-major contributors, and said we should examine their careers, so I did. Gminski averaged 15 ppg and 11 rpg his freshman year. That rebounding average would have led the ACC in 2008-09, not to mention that he averaged a solid double-double. Laettner averaged 8.9 ppg and 4.7 rpg his freshman year (in only 17 minutes). I couldn't find league stats for 1988-89, but in 2008-09, in the entire ACC, there were only 23 players that topped both those numbers. Ferry averaged 5.9 ppg and 5.5 rpg (on a senior dominated national championship game team). His rebounding average would have been 23rd in the 2008-09 ACC. Even Parks, who played on an upperclassman dominated national champion, had 15.6 points per 40 minutes, along with 7.5 rebounds per 40 and 3.1 blocks per 40.

    One could argue Parks (whose actual averages were 5.0 and 2.5) was not a major contributor as a freshman, but based on his per 40 numbers he was certainly contributing while he was on the court. Freshmen tend to play a lot fewer minutes than seniors. But even if we can discount Parks, the other three were certainly major contributors based on their actual stats and not just per 40. They weren't averaging 15 and 10 (well, Gminski was), but just because they weren't all-ACC doesn't mean they didn't contribute.

    This year, Miles Plumlee averages 7.7 ppg and 6.4 rpg (18th in ACC in rebounding, which has to mean he's a major contributor, doesn't it?). His per 40 numbers are 16.1 pp40, 13.4 rp40, and 3.1 block per 40. Mason is still coming back from an injury, but his per 40 numbers are 11.9 pp40, 7.8 rp40, 4.4 assists per 40, and 1.7 blocks per 40. Similar to Parks he is contributing but not playing a lot of minutes yet.

    So, while I would agree there are unrealistic expectations with regard to our young bigs, I think the unrealistic part is not in expecting these players to contribute, but in defining a reasonable measure of that contribution.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Which is precisely the point I was making (and note that I did point out that
    Gminski was an exception, but that team (whom I saw repeatedly because I had season tickets that year) had no bench and little other reliable scoring besides Spanarkel). You need to have realistic expectations as to what players can do at this point in their careers. It takes time for big men to develop. To mention Laettner (see above), the Georgetown 22-point game aside, Laettner did not average double figures as a freshman, and shot mostly layups because Danny Ferry drew most of the defenders. He did not have a good low post game that year either. A lot of these kids are still just growing into their bodies, and don't really know what they can do yet. They need some time to get adjusted and learn their capabilities.

    And the same goes for the Plumlees as well. They simply need some time to develop and grow into their abilities. In terms of athletic abilitiy, MP1 IMHO is the equal of Chris Burgess, and MP2 the equal of Cherokee Parks, but they still need to learn what they can do. Expecting them to somehow step in and produce double-doubles at this point in their careers is simply not realistic. We need to accept what they can do, not expect more than that, and get contributions from Lance and Zoubs to fill things out some.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by hq2 View Post

    When we examine the careers of similar earlier Duke players, the best ones would be Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Mike Gminski, and Danny Ferry, all of whom were of similar size and came in highly recruited, (except G man, who snuck in under the radar a year early). Of those players, all of whom went on to be All-Americans, not one of them averaged more than 8 points a game as freshmen except Gminski, and he played for a bad team (without Tate Armstrong) with no bench.
    Your recollection of Cherokee Parks' career at Duke is different from mine. As I recall, the only All-America team that included him was McDonald's in 1991 (when he was in high school). He was second team All-ACC at Duke ... not an All-American.

  12. #12

    Alonzo

    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    With all due respect, you might want to revisit Laettner's freshman season. It really doesn't support your position.
    I think Alonzo Mourning will back Jim up on that one.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    " I know a lot of you still expect the Plumlees to be major contributors by season's end. However, at this point, I think history should show that probably isn't going to happen. When we examine the careers of similar earlier Duke players, the best ones would be Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Mike Gminski, and Danny Ferry, all of whom were of similar size and came in highly recruited, "
    Let's examine this section. For the life of me, I can't imagine why these four guys are the best analogs to the Plumlees. For one thing, Miles Plumlee was the consensus #81 player in his class. Ferry was #1, Parks top 5, Laettner top 15. Similar size? So was Todd Anderson. Why not Greg Newton? Or Crawford Palmer? Or Eric Meek?

    Not to mention that Miles Plumlee is a sophomore.

    Mike Gminski's competition at center was Scott Goetsch and Cameron Hall. Put Miles back in a time machine to 1977 and have him replace Gminski. Think he'd sit on the bench behind Goetsch?

    Ferry started early at Duke because Bilas was recovering from knee surgery. As Bilas got stronger, Ferry went to the bench but played a lot. So, where's the comparison to Mason?

    As a freshman, Parks backed up a senior by the name of Laettner. So, there goes your starting spot. K did play the two side-by-side on occasion but Grant Hill and Tony Lang played much of the time at the 4, with Brian Davis at the 3. No offense to Lance, but those comparisons to Grant Hill aren't too common.

    But Laettner is the exact opposite if your hypothesis. He hardly played early, backing up two future first-rounders, Danny Ferry and Alaa Abdelnaby. But what you say won't happen with the Plumlees did happen with Laettner. He got better. And better.

    By the end of the season he had put Abdelnaby on the bench. He had 15 points and 7 rebounds in the ACC Tournament title game against UNC (J.R. Reid, Scott Williams, Pete Chilcutt). He then scored 60 points in the four East Region games, including that 24 and 9 performance Mourning and the Hoyas. He ended his freshman season with 13 points against Seton Hall, despite being in foul trouble most of the game.

    He ended the season averaging 8.9 ppg, which is more than 8 and shot over 70% from the field. So, how does Laettner averaging 14.6 ppg in five NCAA Tournament games support the thesis that the Plumlees can't get any better over the course of the season?
    Last edited by SupaDave; 12-31-2009 at 10:44 AM. Reason: fixed quotes

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    A number of points to address about all this. First of all, with regard to Laettner. Yes, at the end of the season he had benched Abelnaby. But Laettner was a better shooter than either of the Plumlees; he came out of high school a good shooter, and still was not a good low post player as a freshman. Laettner scored 22 points against Alonzo and Dikembe because they were too busy trying to stop Ferry, so Laettner kept getting open on the baseline.

    Secondly, with regard to my choice of players for comparison. I was trying to find the best players to compare the Plumlees to, to say what could the Plumlees realistically do, at best. I didn't even bother with the ones we know who didn't do much; Crawford Palmer, Joey Beard, Burgess, Greg Newton, Clay Buckley, Shav Randolph, McRoberts (well, he was O.K. but still underachieved), Eric Meek, who didn't do anything at all as a freshman (although he was injured some then) and not much as a sophomore, Marty Nessly, (!!!) George Burgin, etc. Some of those (Burgess and McRoberts in particular) would probably be better comparisons, because they were great athletes with somewhat limited basketball skills. The point is, even at the best, the future All-Americas were still limited as freshman. Most of the other players did even less.

    Third, with regard to their statistics. The Plumlee's per 40 minutes production looks impressive, until you see who they did it against; namely lousy teams with short or mediocre low post players. Against teams with respectable big men (Uconn, Arizona State, Wisconsin) they have been able to do little or nothing on offense besides layups and tip-ins. Shav Randolph had a 26 point game early in his freshman year, and disappeared later on against quality comp.

    Finally with regard to development. No question, they'll get better; these kinds of players (usually, Burgess) do. But that's not saying they'll be getting 15 points boards and 10 points each by the end of the season. I'd say 7 and 5 each is more in line with expectations; and more in line with history.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    "Secondly, with regard to my choice of players for comparison. I was trying to find the best players to compare the Plumlees to, to say what could the Plumlees realistically do, at best"
    Then why use the word "similar?" Your word, not mine. Again, why compare Miles Plumlee to Danny Ferry? How were their reputations similar coming out of high school?

    You used four players to support your thesis that Duke shouldn't expect significant improvement this season from the Plumlees. You seem to ignore context. None of these four examples support your argument and Laettner could not be a better example of the contrary.

    If I were trying to make the point that freshmen couldn't make big shots in the NCAA Tournament, I wouldn't use Michael Jordan to support that point.

    Players, even freshmen improve over the course of a season. Look at Shavlik Randolph and Shelden Williams at the beginning of their freshmen seasons and at the end of their freshmen seasons. One could cite season stats to demonstrate that Randolph had a better freshman season than Williams. But that would ignore in-season advances and declines.

    Numerous other examples exist. The idea that the Plumlees, especially the one who BROKE HIS WRIST-cannot get better over the next three months is nonsense. IMO.
    Last edited by SupaDave; 12-31-2009 at 10:46 AM. Reason: fixed quote

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Inman, SC & Fort Myers, FL
    I think that we are in an excellent position. We have two seniors who have improved and can play significant minutes. Then we have two brothers who can develop and also play significant minutes, but upon whom we need not rely exclusively while they develop. How great is that? I am pleased with most aspects of the Duke team this year.

  17. #17
    I was surprised before the season that people thought Miles and Mason would be a force on offense in the post. Miles has built himself into more of a post option but Mason himself said he didn't view himself or have any intentions fo being a banger inside.

    IMO Mason looks like a freshman on the court. His injury time didn't help but he looks an awful lot like McRobert's did as a freshman. Since both Miles and Mason will see their playing time jump significantly next year...i expect their confidence and production will jump also.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, GA/Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by mgtr View Post
    I think that we are in an excellent position. We have two seniors who have improved and can play significant minutes. Then we have two brothers who can develop and also play significant minutes, but upon whom we need not rely exclusively while they develop. How great is that? I am pleased with most aspects of the Duke team this year.
    Exactly. As Jim has stated - the Plumlees are no Ferry/Laetner's but they are contributing. Not to mention their potential is tremendous - once they get it.

    You have to remember that things are situational and Coach K will lean on the players that know the system more.

    Honestly, ALL four players will continue to improve throughout the season as the TEAM grows and learns. There just so happens to be two that could turn into absolute monsters if things come together - and even that takes time.

    So let's not try to minimize anyone's contributions just yet. The ACC starts soon...

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Over the years, Mike Krzyzewski has demonstrated a considerable willingness to change lineups and rotations, depending on what happens during games, what happens during practices, matchups and other variables. All we have to do is look at last season, when he benched a three-year starter at point guard and followed up by tripling the PT of a freshman reserve-turned starter partly on the basis of improved practice performances.

    Greg Paulus and Elliott Williams were not outliers. Krzyzewski does this sort of thing all the time. So, the idea that players are locked into permanent roles at the end of December simply doesn't hold water.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Well, we agree on that anyway. One of K's great strengths as a coach has always been his ability to use the players' abilities as they are. He designs the offense around what they can do, rather than forcing them to fit the system. He'll get his mileage out of all four. The Plumlees will run the floor both ways, Zoubs will plug up the middle, Lance will get some jumpers. If we can get, say 20-25 points combined from all four each game, I think that would be enough.

Similar Threads

  1. Zoubs DBR Editorial
    By Kewlswim in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-30-2009, 08:20 PM
  2. Lance Stephenson-09'
    By Franzez in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-11-2009, 06:21 PM
  3. Coach K on Paulus, Zoubs and more
    By watzone in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 11:54 AM
  4. Lance
    By aav2aav2 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 02:50 PM

Posting Permissions

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