Singler decision impact to others

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Who is this "Gonzaga kid" of whom you speak?

Tyler Thornton, although I think he should have shown a little more respect and mention the young man by his name.

[Mudge]

Mudge, I see your point, but lets also give Coach K credit for being able to adapt his strategy when something works and when changes in the game dictate it. I think there is a pretty strong national consensus that the college game is a lot more physical than it was in the 90s; as such, it helps to have big guys who can stand up to that physical style of play. I think both Plumlees and Singler fit that bill pretty well. We also just won a national championship with a bigger line-up, and a huge reason for our late season success was an ability to out rebound opponents and play solid post defense. I think both the current style of the game and recent experience suggests that a bigger line up works well. Coach K is one of the best because he is willing to make adjustments to his style, I wouldn't count out the bigger line up so easily

We'll see-- a leopard doesn't change his spots.

[Mudge]

Tyler Thornton, although I think he should have shown a little more respect and mention the young man by his name.

I don't think we'll know his name much better this time next year, as that kid doesn't seem likely to be a big factor this coming year, if I know K's propensity to concentrate minutes in the persons of his best players.

[Big Pappa]

We'll see-- a leopard doesn't change his spots.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that Coach K will stick with the bigger lineup that won him the ship this last year?

If you are saying that he doesn't adapt to the players on his team you are flat out wrong. Coach K is known for exactly that. I think the 2010 championship team is a perfect example.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

I don't think we'll know his name much better this time next year, as that kid doesn't seem likely to be a big factor this coming year, if I know K's propensity to concentrate minutes in the persons of his best players.

He will be in practice, I've heard and seen in the couple games I've watched of him, his defense is top notch, He will be the guy to push kyrie, nolan, and seth everyday in practice, which will make the team better as the year goes on.

[buzz]

The situation is much more analogous to 1992.

Let's hope so.

[gumbomoop]

Realizing the "intent" of the OP is to discuss impact of KS's return on playing time for others, I'll resist that - for now, knowing I'll have dozens of opportunities to post on that interesting issue - to say these things:

1. national impact - consensus preseason #1, with a few "experts" being contrary enough to argue that Mich St will be #1. [Probably no pundit will be contrary enough to put UNC as #1, but maybe Stuart Scott will begin halucinating.] Anyhow, on paper it's Duke, easy.
2. impact on UNC fans - dangerous, depression-inducing, possibly even more than watching KI in all-star games. [Again, pray for Stuart Scott.]
3. impact on K's multiple strategies - positive in so many ways that even K will be hard pressed not to be even more "giddy" than was Roy at HB's Skype-hype.
4. impact on opponents in '10-'11 - one would perhaps be too, too confident to predict either an undefeated season or another NC, so I won't, at least in this post. I will predict, however, that a whole bunch of teams will get KISSSED [KI,Singler, Smith,SEth,Dre], and if they don't like it, they can expect to get stuffed [by the MPs].

[FireOgilvie]

I think the premise behind the initial post of this thread is ridiculous. There are plenty of minutes to go around.

I'm not saying it will pan out exactly this way, but here's a possible example:

Kyle: 30 min
Nolan: 28
Kyrie: 26
Seth: 24
Andre: 20
MP1: 18
MP2: 22
Ryan: 17
Josh and Carrick: 12 combined (not sure how this will end up, although I suspect Josh will get the lion's share of these minutes; even if that's the case, the idea that Carrick won't "follow through" on his commitment seems ludicrous to me)
Tyler: 3

Now, obviously with the above distribution, two of our 11 scholarship players won't see a lot of minutes. But that's pretty much the way things go at Duke and in most other places. The other nine will see plenty, and the two who don't have two or three years more to become a contributing part of the rotation and undoubtedly will do so. Also, if any of Carrick, Josh, and Tyler prove themselves worthy of additional minutes, you could trim the top of the rotation down to 25 or 26 minutes and have 6 to 9 more minutes to hand out to the bottom of the rotation.

Yes, it's a deeper team than we usually have, but K has proven himself willing to go deep when he has the personnel. For example, in 89-90 nine of our players were used for 12 or more minutes per game, and another three combined for 8.5+.

I agree there's a possibility that the OP is a troll.

It's almost a given that Singler and Nolan will average 30 to 35 minutes a game over the course of the season. I don't see Kyrie playing less than 28 either. After that, I think Curry will get the highest amount, then it's up in the air.

4) A relatively inexperienced center whose ability to develop as a low-post player with low-block offensive moves is as yet unknown-- but whose latent potential is enormous (then Boozer; now Mason- as noted earlier, I expect Mason to leapfrog Miles to start at center);

Miles is our 3rd returning scorer, 2nd returning rebounder, and shot 56% from the field last year. He'll be a junior next year. I'm almost positive that at no point in little brother Mason's life has he averaged more points than Miles when they were on the same team (all of high school+). Miles is also a better leaper than Mason (which Mason readily admits although some people on this board forget). Don't sleep on Miles; I don't think he's ready to let Mason leapfrog him just yet.

[Big Pappa]

Realizing the "intent" of the OP is to discuss impact of KS's return on playing time for others, I'll resist that - for now, knowing I'll have dozens of opportunities to post on that interesting issue - to say these things:

1. national impact - consensus preseason #1, with a few "experts" being contrary enough to argue that Mich St will be #1. [Probably no pundit will be contrary enough to put UNC as #1, but maybe Stuart Scott will begin halucinating.] Anyhow, on paper it's Duke, easy.
2. impact on UNC fans - dangerous, depression-inducing, possibly even more than watching KI in all-star games. [Again, pray for Stuart Scott.]
3. impact on K's multiple strategies - positive in so many ways that even K will be hard pressed not to be even more "giddy" than was Roy at HB's Skype-hype.
4. impact on opponents in '10-'11 - one would perhaps be too, too confident to predict either an undefeated season or another NC, so I won't, at least in this post. I will predict, however, that a whole bunch of teams will get KISSSED [KI,Singler, Smith,SEth,Dre], and if they don't like it, they can expect to get stuffed [by the MPs].

That is absolutely FANTASTIC.

[Mudge]

I strongly disagree. The 1999-2000 team had only six guys play double-figure minutes. It went down in the NCAAT in large part because Dunleavy got mono, and that meant they pretty much only played five guys. The 2010-11 team should be a whole lot deeper than that. And a whole lot better. Your analysis above completely ignores Andre, Ryan, Josh, Carrick, and Tyler, who as a bench unit are light years ahead of the 2000 team's bench (Horvath (Fr), Christensen (So), Sanders (Fr), and Buckner (Fr)).

Even more important is the 2000 team was very inexperienced. That team had two experienced starters (Carrowell (Sr) and Battier (Jr)), one experienced rotation player (James), six freshmen, and Christensen, who had played a total of 70 minutes in 1995-96 and was in 1999-2000 more or less starting over, even though he technically was a sophomore. This year's team has six guys who have been through the mill at least once, plus Seth who started at Liberty for a year and has practiced at Duke for a year, and Carrick who at least has some experience at a JC. I really don't think your comparison stands up at all.

Finally, Nate James had started exactly one (1) game in his career prior to the 1999-2000 season, so your #5 isn't really accurate.

We'll see-- you're welcome to disagree-- nothing like finding fault with one really minor aspect of the comparison (i.e.- the amount of quality-- which is an entirely subjective proposition for the 2011 team, at this point, as I am highly unimpressed by what a bench of Dawkins, Kelly, Thornton, Felix, et al, brings to the table-- and the experience of the benches for the two teams) and then contending that the comparison doesn't hold up-- even though I matched up the capabilities and experience of what I perceive to be the likely top 6 players almost exactly between 2000 and 2011.

Unless Singler, Smith, Irving, Curry, and Mason Plumlee do not end up being the 2011 prevailing starting lineup (with Miles as the sixth man) and getting the lion's share of the minutes, your analysis does not strike me as particularly insightful. Also, I think you are incorrect on how many games James had started before 2000, but I await data to support your contention.

[Mudge]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that Coach K will stick with the bigger lineup that won him the ship this last year?

If you are saying that he doesn't adapt to the players on his team you are flat out wrong. Coach K is known for exactly that. I think the 2010 championship team is a perfect example.

I don't think I could have been any clearer: When Coach K has at least 3 really good backcourt players, he tends to play them (a lot) at the same time-- this team will not feature Singler with two Plumlees very often, in my estimation-- K will revert to small ball, because that is his preferred mode of operation... he didn't do it last year, because nobody else but Scheyer and Smith was ready for Prime Time-- that won't be the case next year with Smith, Irving, and (I hear) Curry.

[gep]

I don't know about that, but you would think that second team at least had a decent shot at making the tourney. And it has certainly got to be a good thing to have for practice scrimmages.

I just hope the "second team" doesn't beat up on the "first team" too much... (see Kyle, elbow to his face with stitches, black eye, etc)

[Duvall]

We'll see-- you're welcome to disagree-- nothing like finding fault with one really minor aspect of the comparison (i.e.- the amount of quality-- which is an entirely subjective proposition for the 2011 team, at this point, as I am highly unimpressed by what a bench of Dawkins, Kelly, Thornton, Felix, et al, brings to the table--

Be unimpressed by whatever you like, but Dawkins and Kelly very nearly matched the 2000 production of Horvath, Christensen, Sanders and Buckner last season - and that was as freshmen at the end of a talented roster. And that's not considering what Hairston, Felix and Thornton may bring next year.

It's a better bench, okay?

Also, I think you are incorrect on how many games James had started before 2000, but I await data to support your contention.

Check the database. One start in an injury-plagued three season, one of which was lost to a medical redshirt.

[-bdbd]

First off, I don't think there is any way that Kyle spends much time at the 4 next year. I'm sure he would do whatever he needs to in order to help the team (2008-2009) but his natural position and NBA position is the 3. I'm sure he and Coach K talked about where he would play and what his role would be before he decided to come back. Kyle has been quoted saying that he feels more comfortable at the 3.

Next, I think the starters are:

Kyrie - Nolan - Kyle - MP1 - MP2

Andre and Seth will get plenty of time backing up the 1-3. Ryan and Josh should get time back up the Plumlees with Carrick and Tyler getting in here and there.

Oddly very negative string for a second-time poster to be starting...

This is nothing but WONDERFUL news for real Duke fans. It all-but-guarantees Duke is the preseason #1 pick, and clearly a very strong contender for the 2011 National Championship. Great, great stuff.

No, I don't see this as negatively impacting on any other player. For any "negative" implications Dukefan75 wants to infer for any individual player you can also infer an equal or better positive starting with THIS MAKES THE DUKE TEAM MUCH BETTER FOR 2010-2011. And this effectively addresses for next year what I perceived as potentially an achillies heel - front court depth.

And Dawkins still has the potential to play a very unique roll for this next season on this squad -- he is our strongest experienced player in that "swing range" 6'4" - 6'7" with the quicks/athleticism to match up versus the HB's of the world. Given that uniqueness, and the amount of outside attention Kyle (and Nolan and Curry) should get, I see Dre having some great open shots and see his overall scoring going up. K tends to lean on experience with players (and somewhat so with time distribution).

Gotta disagree with Big Pappa too, at least somewhat. No doubt K has assured KS of much opportunity/time to play out at the wing (regardless of whether you call him a 3 or a 4), but given K's oft-stated preference for playing "the best five, regardless of position," I see us starting 3 G's, plus Kyle and a Plumlee (most likely MP2 I think). Expect to see starters KI, Nolan and Curry (or AD) starting a lot at the beginning, but lots of rotations that allow Kyle to spend time on the perimeter - such as playing the Plumlees together or a Plumlee with Ryan. This will be a very DEEP team with a lot more players than normal getting into the rotation - could easily go 9 deep.

No way this can be interpreted negatively by Duke fans - whether you label it '92 redux, or '99 or 2002, this will be a VERY talented team. Now, very talented teams do lose in the NCAAT, as KA and KY demonstarted just a few weeks ago. But if you are looking ahead to next year you just HAVE to be really excited now...

Defend that crown Devils!!!

[gumbomoop]

... as I am highly unimpressed by what a bench of Dawkins, Kelly, Thornton, Felix, et al, brings to the table

Unless Singler, Smith, Irving, Curry, and Mason Plumlee do not end up being the 2011 prevailing starting lineup (with Miles as the sixth man) and getting the lion's share of the minutes...

I hope in extracting these 2 points I have not taken your views out of context. That's not my intent, for I think I have a substantive enough disagreement that I don't need to mislead.

Here goes: If I read your 2d point above, you think those 6 will get the minutes. Just for argument's sake, may I assume you mean those 6 will get at least, say, 170 of the 200 mpg [say, KS,NS,KI,SC = 30 each; MPs, given foul proclivities, = 25 each]. Now, I happen to agree that these 6 will get the most minutes [absent injuries]. Further, I'm willing to agree with you that TT, CF, and JH [whom you don't mention, but is the "et al"] will be last 3 in mpg, and toward season's end probably not play a lot. Maybe one of those 3 will surprise me [and you], and under other circumstances would certainly play more. But they're all new, and none of them is KI. I don't much cotton to your phrase "highly unimpressed," and think something more like "The verdict's out on these 3" would be more charitable.

OK, that leaves players #7-8, DD and RK. Now really, did Dawkins not show you enough to think he can play 15 mpg [others will scream, "More!"]? And Kelly, do you not agree that he can probably shoot, high-post-pass, block a shot and get a rebound or 2? Really? Wouldn't virtually every team in the country like to have these 2 at #7-8 and 12-15 mpg each? And wouldn't they be perfectly sensible in drooling at such a gift? So, "highly impressed" does strike me as over the top.

[Big Pappa]

No doubt K has assured KS of much opportunity/time to play out at the wing (regardless of whether you call him a 3 or a 4), but given K's oft-stated preference for playing "the best five, regardless of position," I see us starting 3 G's, plus Kyle and a Plumlee (most likely MP2 I think). Expect to see starters KI, Nolan and Curry (or AD) starting a lot at the beginning, but lots of rotations that allow Kyle to spend time on the perimeter - such as playing the Plumlees together or a Plumlee with Ryan. This will be a very DEEP team with a lot more players than normal getting into the rotation - could easily go 9 deep.

No way this can be interpreted negatively by Duke fans - whether you label it '92 redux, or '99 or 2002, this will be a VERY talented team. Now, very talented teams do lose in the NCAAT, as KA and KY demonstarted just a few weeks ago. But if you are looking ahead to next year you just HAVE to be really excited now...

I understand the point about the best 5 but I am not convince that the best 5 will not be Kyrie, Nolan, Kyle, MP1 and MP2. Either way we can agree to disagree and know that this is a GREAT problem to have. Basically, IMO, 7 guys (previously mentioned 5 plus Seth and Dre) that could start for virtually any team in the country next year.

The biggest concern I have is my patience for waiting until the tip of the first game.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I admit I do not know the rules but I think that Matt Leinart took only a dance class his 5th year at USC. Kyle may be able to get by with a very light course load.

Generally when Duke plays there is a bulls eye on its back. Beat Duke and you make your season. Next year will be that only much more so. I think that teams will be very physical against us and we will need to be physical also. There could easily be a role for Felix.

I will let K and staff figure out the starters and the minutes. The team will be a lot of fun to watch.

Two weeks ago we won the National Championship. I can't figure out if I am more excited for winning the championship or for next year to begin.

SoCal

[west_coast_devil]

We'll see-- you're welcome to disagree-- nothing like finding fault with one really minor aspect of the comparison (i.e.- the amount of quality-- which is an entirely subjective proposition for the 2011 team, at this point, as I am highly unimpressed by what a bench of Dawkins, Kelly, Thornton, Felix, et al, brings to the table-- and the experience of the benches for the two teams) and then contending that the comparison doesn't hold up-- even though I matched up the capabilities and experience of what I perceive to be the likely top 6 players almost exactly between 2000 and 2011.

Unless Singler, Smith, Irving, Curry, and Mason Plumlee do not end up being the 2011 prevailing starting lineup (with Miles as the sixth man) and getting the lion's share of the minutes, your analysis does not strike me as particularly insightful. Also, I think you are incorrect on how many games James had started before 2000, but I await data to support your contention.

I really like this line up. Although it appears that the popular opinion on this board is replacing Curry for Mase/Mason; and that placing Kyle in the "4" would only do him a diservice to his future NBA spot at the "3". I think that K finds a way to tailor the offense to keep Kyle on the perimeter as often as possible, which in most cases will cause a mismatch for the opposing team. Cant be more excited for November!!

[Kedsy]

We'll see-- you're welcome to disagree-- nothing like finding fault with one really minor aspect of the comparison (i.e.- the amount of quality-- which is an entirely subjective proposition for the 2011 team, at this point, as I am highly unimpressed by what a bench of Dawkins, Kelly, Thornton, Felix, et al, brings to the table-- and the experience of the benches for the two teams) and then contending that the comparison doesn't hold up-- even though I matched up the capabilities and experience of what I perceive to be the likely top 6 players almost exactly between 2000 and 2011.

Unless Singler, Smith, Irving, Curry, and Mason Plumlee do not end up being the 2011 prevailing starting lineup (with Miles as the sixth man) and getting the lion's share of the minutes, your analysis does not strike me as particularly insightful.

Well, it may not be insightful, but you took a team that essentially played six guys and had only three players with college game experience out of ten, and compared it to a team that will probably go nine deep and has eight players with college game experience out of eleven. Whether or not the starting lineups look similar (which they don't, in my opinion, but that's an argument for another day), the two teams are not comparable.

And, by the way, I don't in any way think that depth and experience can fairly be called "really minor aspect[s]" of a comparison like this. They are two of the most critical characteristics of any college team.

Also, I think you are incorrect on how many games James had started before 2000, but I await data to support your contention.

Well, I looked it up before I posted, which apparently you didn't, twice, so I'm not sure why the burden is on me to "support my contention," but here are the numbers:

In 1996-97, Nate played 17 games, starting 1.
In 1997-98, Nate played 6 games, starting none.
In 1998-99, Nate played 39 games, starting none.

And those are all the seasons he played prior to 1999-2000. There you go. (My source, if you're interested in looking it up this time, is http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/)

[Big Pappa]

According to GoDuke.com:

Singler and head coach Mike Krzyzewski will address the media on Tuesday, April 20 in the media room of Cameron Indoor Stadium. The press conference will begin at 10:30 a.m. eastern and will be streamed live exclusively on GoDuke.com.