Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 281 to 287 of 287
  1. #281
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    The first possesion of the next game should be a triple pick for Kyle curling after cutting along the baseline. ...
    Gotta say, that Coach K is a friggin' GENIUS

  2. #282
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Towson, MD
    Been very busy recently, but I wanted to respond to (some of) the rest of Jumbo's reply to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    So "wearing down" does not mean tired? Interesting, I'll make note of that one. Oh, and Kyle wore down last year? Like, in say, the ACC Tourney? Oh, wait, he played 40 minutes 3 days in a row. And averaged 18 ppg. And shot 47.4% from 3-point range. And grabbed 8 rpg. Yeah, he really had dead legs. Or maybe he was tired when he came flying in at the end of the Texas game to tip in the winning basket. Heck, he even scored 15 points against Villanova in a game where everyone was awful. It's utterly absurd to suggest that he wore down last year, and even more ridiculous to sugest that playing a few extra minutes twice a week makes a college player wear down. This isn't the NBA, where teams play 4 games a week quite often over an 82-game grind. Practices are far more punishing than games, especially under Coach K. Dawkins got 9 minutes tonight, btw, and hardly contributed. Sticking Scheyer and Singler on the bench a few extra minutes each game won't do anything to "develop" him.
    I don't expect Singler or Scheyer to be tired at the beginning of conference play. It's at the end of the season where I expect excess minutes to catch up to them. For the record, my main issue is playing our guys 35-38 minutes against inferior competition (OOC opponents on our home floor, weak OOC opponents on neutral floors) when Duke builds enormous leads, and when those guys are on the floor when it's unnecessary. In other words, I think it's a mistake for Singler and Shcheyer to be on the floor with less than 6-8 minutes to go in the second half when Duke is up by 20+. The BC game was a prime example, as both Scheyer and Singler were on the floor with 6:30 minutes left and up 23. There have been several other games when those two players have been on the floor when they should have been subbed out at least 2-4 minutes earlier. Those are valuable minutes which could be used to give young players like Dawkins and Kelly extra run, in addition to some rest for Singler and Scheyer. Regardless of whether you think that matters a couple of minutes in the grande scheme of things matter, it is still a few minutes less during which those kids could injure themselves in a game where the outcome has been thoroughly decided.

    Anyway, I agree that Singler last season indeed did not suffer any adverse affects from those minutes early in the season. I was incorrect to include Singler's sophomore season among the examples of players wearing down or tiring due to heavy minutes throughout the season. However, Scheyer and Henderson shot poorly during the tournament last season, and Redick's final stretch run was good evidence for those who think Duke's star players wear down due to excessive minutes. Furthermore, Singler only shot 5/13 in the loss against Villanova. While that certainly looked good in comparison to his teammates, it was still not a good performance in general. I will concede that Singler did NOT wear down, and I am not saying otherwise, but to say that he scored 15 points on 13 shots, shooting less than 40%, does not mean he shot well nor played well.

    And as for saying that "sticking Scheyer and Singler on the bench a few extra minutes each game won't do anything" to develop Dawkins, I disagree. It is my opinion that freshmen learn so much from playing time and experiencing real game minutes, especially talented freshman such as Dawkins who must adept to the dramatic differences in speed and skill from the high school game to the college game. Especially since I think Dawkins, on average, has played at least 5 minutes too few over the course of the season. Those 5 minutes are significant for a freshman of the talent-level of Dawkins. And many of those 5 minutes could easily be accrued by sitting Scheyer and Singler in blowouts, when instead they play several more minutes than is necessary when the outcome of the game has been decided. Even Bob Knight, in the final few minutes of the BC game, suggested that Coach K would probably have wished he had given Dawkins more playing time. If Knight thought that at the end of the BC game, I guarantee you he would say the same thing in several of Duke's other convincing wins.

    And something I will address very quickly which I feel strongly about: practicing well and earning minutes for actual games during practice is overrated. I have seen both you and others say that players earn minutes in practice, and if they are not playing well in practice, they do not deserve minutes. Guys like Dawkins and Kelly are matched up against the same players every day in practice. I assume Kelly will usually be guarding Singler or Thomas in practice, and Dawkins would be guarding guys like Scheyer and Smith in practice. If not those players, they are most likely guarding walk-ons. The players that they will face in real games are so much different than the very limited amount of players they can guard in practice. Similarly, the weaknesses that Dawkins and Kelly display during practice guarding certain players with defined skillsets will not always be the same weaknesses they will display defending real opponents. Not only do you not know for certain that Dawkins and Kelly are not "earning" the minutes in practice (how do you know for sure that's it's not a result of K simply tightening his rotation excessively?), but not practicing well should not always mean that these kids cannot contribute during games.

    That issue is something I will address more specifically at another time, but I thought it was something worth addressing in a preliminary fashion since the tendency to use it as rationale for limiting minutes irks me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Well, let's see. It's basically a quarter of the game. It was also enough time for Tech's 8th man -- Glen Rice Jr. (BTW, you're aware that Tech's bench played 60 minutes and Duke's played 57 right? Huge difference there.)
    Here we go again with the misplaced and uncalled for sarcasm. When did I bring up the minutes of the GT bench? When did I say that it mattered whatsoever?

    I am bringing up the importance of developing Duke's bench and better employing Duke's bench players so that Duke benefits. How Paul Hewitt utilizes his bench does not matter to me, nor have I suggested that it does.

    If you think that an opposing team's bench minutes should dictate how many minutes Duke bench should get in general, that's fine. But that's not relevant to the context of our conversation.

    I have to go, but I will address your last points about Dawkins and Kelly, who I believe are important to the future success of this team, in the next couple of days.

  3. #283
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Oriole Way View Post
    I said: "ACC teams will give them trouble, even in a down year, because ACC big men are bigger, more athletic and more talented than the out of conference opponents they have faced (with the exception of a team like UConn)."

    I was comparing the talent level of players that Thomas and Zoubek will be facing in ACC play to the out of conference (italicized for emphasis in case you miss it a second time) competition they have already faced. At no point did I say that Clemson was inferior competition, as you mistakenly infer.

    You either misread what I said, or you put words in my mouth. This is not the first time you have done this with my posts, and it is particularly frustrating when I ask you to stop, and you immediately do it again in your very next response to me.
    Someone who used to post here once said something to the effect of -- and I'm paraphrasing -- "If you constantly think people aren't comprehending what you're writing or putting words in your mouth, maybe they aren't the problem. Maybe it's you. And maybe you need to write more clearly."

    In this case, you conveniently deleted a key point -- and the first sentence -- of the section with which I disagreed. Here it is: "Zoubek and Thomas have been playing great, but it has been against inferior competition." Thomas and Zoukek played well against Clemson. You talked about OOC teams later in that paragraph, but the point remains that you conviently left Clemson out of your analysis. Either that was just a mistake, or it was disingenuous. Either way, it undermines your argument. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my responses, but you have consistently made strong, provocative comments that have been severly lacking in factual support. I probably shouldn't get as irritated by that, but I'm not one to let those things go unanswered.

  4. #284
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    And here are more examples of your posting strong statements either without any evidence, or with evidence presented as if it is conclusive when, it fact, it is anything but. For instance:

    Quote Originally Posted by Oriole Way View Post
    However, Scheyer and Henderson shot poorly during the tournament last season,
    This is the first of several correlation/causation issues I'm going to point out. Firstly, Scheyer did not shoot the ball poorly during the tournament last year. In the first two games, he was 7-for-18 form the field (not great), but 6-for-12 from 3-point range (outstanding). He shot the ball poorly against Villanova, which is an entirely different statement. Henderson did shoot poorly in the NCAAs.
    But was that because of fatigue? That's hard to say. Henderson, after all, was 9-for-17, including 4-for-7 from deep, in the ACC final against Florida State. If he were tired from playing a lot of minutes over the course of the season, it's reasonable to suggest that the game he would have felt in the most would have been against FSU, considering it was Duke's third game in three days, right?
    Or how about Scheyer? His horrible shooting slump last for much of January and early February, but then he broke out of it in mid-February and shot incredibly well to close the season, with the exception of that last game against Villanova. Hard to blame fatigue there, right?
    Instead, I hold that a) Villanova was a really good team, particularly defensively, which forced Duke into tough shots and b) Duke shot poorly, which just happens sometimes in basketball. It figures that you're going to be playing better teams later in the year -- especially deep in the tournament -- so when you show end-of-season stats, that seems to be the simpler argument. It's not that Duke's players are tired; they're playing against a good team.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oriole Way View Post
    and Redick's final stretch run was good evidence for those who think Duke's star players wear down due to excessive minutes.
    Here's another correlation/causation issue. Redick shot 3-for-18 against LSU. It was ugly. But one game doesn't constitute a "final stretch run," which necessarily implies a span of games. And so here were Redick's shooting numbers in the ACC and NCAA Tourneys in 2006, prior to the LSU game: 9-17; 6-17; 8-17; 10-20; 7-14. That's really, really good. Instead, how about this theory: LSU loaded up on Redick and made it virtually impossible for him to get a good look at the basket in that game. They left the likes of Sean Dockery, DeMarcus Nelson, Lee Melchionni and Greg Paulus wide open -- none of whom could be accused of having played too many minutes -- and dared them to make jump shots. Seriously, if you remember that game, they shot with no one around them. And they went 3-for-19. Redick started forcing shots when it was clear those guys couldn't hit. I fail to see evidence of fatigue there.

    Also, if you're going to say that Duke's "star players wear down due to excessive minutes," I could just as easily say "Duke's players thrive with excessive minutes." How? Here are Christian Laettner's career NCAA Tourney stats: 17.7 ppg, 7.3 rpg, .601 FG%, .474 3FG%, .850 FT%. Here are Shane Battier's NCAA Tourney stats: 14.6 ppg (remember, he wasn't a scorer his first two years, and if you want to look at his junior/senior seasons, the numbers are even more impressive), 7.1 rpg, .500 FG%, .370 3FG%, .824 FT%.

    Now, clearly this is not proof. Neither is the Redick/Henderson argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oriole Way View Post
    Furthermore, Singler only shot 5/13 in the loss against Villanova. While that certainly looked good in comparison to his teammates, it was still not a good performance in general. I will concede that Singler did NOT wear down, and I am not saying otherwise, but to say that he scored 15 points on 13 shots, shooting less than 40%, does not mean he shot well nor played well.
    Thank you for admitting that you were wrong about Singler originally. And I'll answer this as I did before -- Villanova was an excellent defensive team that matched up perfectly with Duke, open looks were at a premium, etc. It's otherwise known as the "Good Team Theory." And, again, sometimes guys just miss shots for no good reason. Just like every now and then Roy Halladay will get knocked out in the third inning or Phil Mickelson will shoot a 79.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oriole Way View Post
    And as for saying that "sticking Scheyer and Singler on the bench a few extra minutes each game won't do anything" to develop Dawkins, I disagree. It is my opinion that freshmen learn so much from playing time and experiencing real game minutes, especially talented freshman such as Dawkins who must adept to the dramatic differences in speed and skill from the high school game to the college game.
    Ah, but as you say, this is purely an opinion. More on this in a moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oriole Way View Post
    Especially since I think Dawkins, on average, has played at least 5 minutes too few over the course of the season.
    I'm curious as to how you arrive at 5 minutes as if it's a threshold of sorts, but let's keep moving.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oriole Way View Post
    Those 5 minutes are significant for a freshman of the talent-level of Dawkins. And many of those 5 minutes could easily be accrued by sitting Scheyer and Singler in blowouts, when instead they play several more minutes than is necessary when the outcome of the game has been decided.
    Aha! Let's agree, for argument's sake, that extra playing time in games is key for development (I will present a counter-example in a moment). Is that development limited only to freshmen? I assume you would agree that, no, all players can develop in a game; in fact, an entire team can. And, if that's the case, then, perhaps Coach K is using those minutes to develop other things that he thinks are more important that Dawkins? For instance, in one of the blowouts (I forget which one), Duke went zone from roughly the 8-minute mark to the 2-minute mark. That was a chance to get some of his starters working on something that might be key in a tourney game down the line. Or maybe he thinks it's important to get Mason Plumlee more PT with the starters, so that he's as good as we think/hope by mid-February. The point is the team can still develop in different ways, and while your developmental priorities might be different than K's, it doesn't mean that he's wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oriole Way View Post
    Even Bob Knight, in the final few minutes of the BC game, suggested that Coach K would probably have wished he had given Dawkins more playing time. If Knight thought that at the end of the BC game, I guarantee you he would say the same thing in several of Duke's other convincing wins.
    I heard Knight say that and thought it was odd, since Dawkins played about half the game. It does make me wonder if K had talked to him about Dawkins before the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oriole Way View Post
    And something I will address very quickly which I feel strongly about: practicing well and earning minutes for actual games during practice is overrated.
    OK, this is my biggest gripe yet. On what are you basing your argument? Your playing career? Your coaching career? Your time as a manager? Your time spent covering the team? A friend who played college ball? Anything? There is absolutely no support for an opinion like that. When I get into the practice argument, I have a favorite story that I use a lot. And while it's certainly not definitive, it's at least an attempt to provide some factual basis behind my opinion. So, let me get to it in just a second ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oriole Way View Post
    I have seen both you and others say that players earn minutes in practice, and if they are not playing well in practice, they do not deserve minutes. Guys like Dawkins and Kelly are matched up against the same players every day in practice. I assume Kelly will usually be guarding Singler or Thomas in practice, and Dawkins would be guarding guys like Scheyer and Smith in practice. If not those players, they are most likely guarding walk-ons. The players that they will face in real games are so much different than the very limited amount of players they can guard in practice. Similarly, the weaknesses that Dawkins and Kelly display during practice guarding certain players with defined skillsets will not always be the same weaknesses they will display defending real opponents. Not only do you not know for certain that Dawkins and Kelly are not "earning" the minutes in practice (how do you know for sure that's it's not a result of K simply tightening his rotation excessively?), but not practicing well should not always mean that these kids cannot contribute during games.
    Let me begin by saying that I agree with you that, on a matchup basis, I agree with you that it's tough to grade how Dawkins will do against, say, L.D. Williams tonight if he's going against Scheyer every day instead. But when I talk about practice, I'm generally not talking about individual matchups, or even physical things. I'm talking about mental mistakes.

    Dawkins has two big flaws in his game. The first is his positioning/understanding of Duke's defense. He gets beat a lot, loses his man off the ball a lot. That affects the entire team. That's also something that can be learned in practice. The second is his ball-handling. He's not really comfortable handling against pressure yet. I tend to believe skill development occurs mostly during the offseason. So, that means that, if K doesn't feel like he can handle the ball well enough on a team with limited guards, it's awfully hard for him to take Scheyer and Smith off the court.

    I believe Kelly's biggest issue is his body -- he's not quick enough to play the 3 and not big enough to be consistently effective in the post, especially since Duke has four better bigs. The other issue is the speed of his game -- and I have to credit a friend for pointing this out -- his passing is terrific against weaker teams, but when he's had playing time against better opponents, he has struggled to adjust to the speed of the game at both ends, reacting slower in both his offensive decision-making and defensive positioning. I don't think he can do anything about his body until the offseason, but I think the speed-of-game thing is something that can be picked up in practice.

    But why do I think practice is valuable? Because (and here comes my story again), practice is about repetition. And when you make mistakes in practice, you will make them in games. And when you make them in games, you can seriously retard a player's development. I have witnessed this first-hand. As I've said countless times, I watched a team try to work a freshman into the lineup of a veteran team once. He was athletic, filled with potential, and had some talent that could have helped down the line. But no one -- incluidng his fellow freshmen -- made more mistakes in practice. He was constantly going the wrong way, not grasping concepts. But his coach threw him out there anyway. Not surprisingly, he made the same mistakes in games. He got down on himself. He only got worse in practice. Eventually, his coach took him out of the rotation. He finished the year with the scout team and -- I'm not making this up -- never amounted to anything as a college player.

    Is that both an extreme and convenient example? Yes. Is it 100% true? Yes. I recognize that some players develop differently from others, but there are significant dangers in playing guys for extended minutes before they're ready to handle them. In this specific case, I am confident that K and his staff can get Andre up to speed defensively, and that they can hide his ball-handling enough so that his shooting can help the team down the stretch. I view Ryan Kelly as a luxury. Duke has more than enough good bigs to beat teams. If he forces his way into the mix, great! But if not, we're fine there.

    Either way, I'm basing my comments on their development on as much factual evidence as I can bring to the situation. I wish you would do the same, or maybe back down just a bit.

  5. #285
    There comes a time in every online forum discussion when the debate becomes more of a semantic chess match and autopsy of past posts than anything that's really advancing our understanding further. This might be one of those times.

    For what it's worth, I don't think cumulative starter fatigue is a legit issue. I've long felt that K has missed opportunities to get our bench more real game experience during blow outs-- and even non-blow outs. But when I apply this gripe to this year's team, I'm not sure who I'm really referring to besides Dawkins. Kelly gets roughly the minutes he should considering the overall composition of the team.

    Considering we have four players getting significant frontcourt minutes, might this be the year that my annual gripe about bench minutes is less justifiable?

  6. #286
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Mcluhan View Post
    There comes a time in every online forum discussion when the debate becomes more of a semantic chess match and autopsy of past posts than anything that's really advancing our understanding further. This might be one of those times.

    For what it's worth, I don't think cumulative starter fatigue is a legit issue. I've long felt that K has missed opportunities to get our bench more real game experience during blow outs-- and even non-blow outs. But when I apply this gripe to this year's team, I'm not sure who I'm really referring to besides Dawkins. Kelly gets roughly the minutes he should considering the overall composition of the team.

    Considering we have four players getting significant frontcourt minutes, might this be the year that my annual gripe about bench minutes is less justifiable?
    You're probably right. And just so it's clear, it's not like I believe utilizing the bench isn't important. I was probably president of the "Play Casey Sanders" fan club back in the day -- not his frosh year, but his soph year, when he'd actually performed in enough games to show some real ability. I didn't want him to play because I was worried about fatigue, but because I felt he offered some different attributes that could help the team. When he was pressed into action after Boozer's injury, he delivered, so I guess that at least shows that you don't have to be getting regular playing time to help the team if the situation dictates.

  7. #287
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Towson, MD
    Jumbo - just want to finish replying to your initial response to me, then I will get to your most recent response when I have some more time. Basically, I would like to address the issue of playing time for Dawkins and Kelly, and why I would like to see more of it. I will start with Kelly here, then get to Dawkins later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    And I can't wait to hear why Duke needs to give regular playing time to a fifth big man in Ryan Kelly.
    In terms of Kelly, I would argue that Duke actually needs a fifth big, especially during road games. The reason for Duke needing Kelly - and a fifth big - is that all of our big men are extremely foul prone. This is especially true for Brian Zoubek and Miles Plumee, who foul and are called for fouls (I make a distinction because referees seem to look for Zoubek and Miles to be making fouls, rarely giving them the benefit of the doubt) at an alarming rate. Thomas, since ACC play started, has been called for 4 or more fouls in 3 of 5 games, and I expect him to be in foul trouble for most of ACC play going forward. By the way, Thomas since the beginning of ACC play:

    Clemson: 2-4 FG, 4 rebounds, 2 fouls, 4 pts in 29 minutes
    Iowa State: 4-5, 3 rebounds, 4 fouls, 10 pts in 30 minutes
    Georgia Tech: 0-1, 1 rebound, 5 fouls, 0 points in 14 minutes
    BC: 0-1, 3 rebounds, 2 fouls, 2 points in 19 minutes
    Wake Forest: 2-4, 1 rebound, 4 fouls, 4 points in 14 minutes

    In 5 games during all those minutes, Thomas has 1 total steal and zero blocks. While those hustle stats shouldn't dictate whether a defender is defending well, they are usually indicative of defensive efficiency. I believe Thomas is a liability on offense and that his defense does not warrant a starting spot. I also think that Miles Plumlee makes Thomas a better defender than he is, and that Plumlee's ability, productivity, and presence has made Duke so much more effective defensively in the post than Thomas has. I expect ACC play to continue to illustrate this view.

    Anyway, back to our bigs and foul trouble.

    Mason Plumlee is also susceptible to foul trouble, making a few freshmen fouls due to inexperience and frustration alike.

    As such, Kelly is needed as a fifth big because Duke will usually have at least two big men in foul trouble. Foul trouble becomes even more of a problem on the road, where referees have a bias in favor of the home team in question. No calls at Cameron become hand checks, charges drawn by Duke bigs become blocks, and blocking fouls by the opponent become charges on Duke. That is one reason why Duke players usually experience foul trouble more easily on the road, and why Duke seems to annually have 5 players foul out at Wake Forest.

    Kelly might not be physically developed enough to handle 20+ minutes a night before tiring or being exploited defensively by opponents, but he still brings some valuable skills to the table which can help Duke, and he is a talented player who will become better in the long run thanks to whatever experience he can get this season. Kelly is a phenomenal passer for his size, and he feeds the post better than anyone on the team.

    One area at which all of Duke's guards need to improve is passing into the post. I can't tell you how many times I have watched Kyle Singler dribble the perimeter, have Miles Plumlee establish good position in the post, have Miles Plumlee extend his arms and call out for a pass, have Singler look directly at Plumlee, and have Singler continue to dribble and look for somewhere else to pass. I'm not sure if Singler doesn't have confidence in Miles, doesn't have confidence in himself to make an accurate entry pass, or doesn't care to make entry passes to the post to begin with, but Kelly is our only player who doesn't seem to have this problem. With his size, he can see over defenders better than anyone else we have, and his entry passes are consistently excellent. Kelly's nice passing ability into the post would also address another deficiency feel Duke's offense has, which is that our post players haven't been getting enough touches up until this point.

    It's game time, so I will continue later.

Similar Threads

  1. MBB: Duke at Georgia Tech Pre-Game and In-Game Thread
    By Bob Green in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 01-09-2010, 04:18 PM
  2. MBB: Duke 70, Georgia Tech 56 Post-Game Thread
    By Jumbo in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 01-17-2009, 07:46 PM
  3. Duke MBB v. Ga Tech Post-Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-15-2008, 08:50 AM
  4. Duke MBB v GA Tech post-game thread
    By throatybeard in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 09:08 AM
  5. Duke MBB vs. Georgia Tech pre-game & in-game thread
    By Bob Green in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 02-27-2008, 11:10 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
  •