Page 21 of 64 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 1266
  1. #401
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by -bdbd View Post
    Thanks Kedsy. Useful info.

    First, I think many here are losing focus of the string - Tony Parker and his recruitment. All the hand-wringing and complaining about Duke's big man recruiting is just a sidebar discussion (and maybe not 100% constructive). Yes, Duke hasn't had a strong on-court interior focus for a few years, but that is a bit of a red herring. That's because it is an EFFECT and not the CAUSE of the recruiting misses of Monroe, Patterson, Adams, McG, etc. K is masterful at adapting to optimize the players on-hand. so I always chuckle at the NC-CH and MI and UK attacks on us as being perimeter oriented, because if we had won a couple of those recruiting wars for top-flight bigs then there is zero doubt inn my mind that we'd have been played more interior-oriented strategies. We are seeing that this year with the strength on Mason on the interior. And there is zero doubt that we would see it with a big like TP policing the interior too. But, then again, those punch-lines about Duke bigs as pick-setters are really just targeted at the recruits, as most serious fans understand what I described above to be the case.

    While I subscribe to the "we'll be just fine" school of thought (and K and staff are aware of that perception and already addressing it), I do understand the concern that we have as we just simply near-missed on some of the very top interior bigs in the last few years. From Kedsey's list, I guess the concern causing all of the hand-wringing here is that the BEST back-to-basket players signed by each of those programs was: Duke - 18, U-con - 2, KY - 1/3, GT - 6 (Monroe could and did play a bunch of back-to-basket there), OSU - 1, And I might add that NC has a couple of top-10 bigs in those years that might be considered applicable. So, yes, among those elite programs we might be considered the most successful of the bunch at recruiting guards/wings, but less successful with interior bigs. But again, these things can go in waves, and if Duke grabs Tony, Jabari Parker and Randle over the next couple years then that silliness goes away (at least for a while).

    But the important/relevant track record for the recruits to notice is K's history of adjusting the team's style to optimize the talent he has to work with in a given year. It is just happenstance that over the last few years the balance of the talent at Duke was tilted in the guard direction. With TP and Randle that will change! Obviously.

    As Kedsy points out, Duke has truly been among the elite, overall, wrt overall recruiting success - something that isn't as much of a "given" as some here seem to think.
    I don't think its a question of being a "back-to-the-basketball scorer" which seems to be assigned pretty absurdly to be honest. Anthony Davis or Terrence Jones couldn't post up in high school, but Mason could??

    I think its about recruiting bigs that can play strong physical defense and rebound on both ends. Basically every Duke team that has made it to the final four has had that kind of big. Zoubek wasn't a traditional "back to the basket scorer" even though he is listed here as such (I don't think I saw him make multiple post move in a game till literally the first weekend of March Madness) but he rebounded exceedingly well on both ends and really protected the basket on defense.

    Mason, the best big we've had since Zoubek is not that type of big and neither is Kelly. Both are finesse big guys that don't intimidate. I know Coach K is the great, but if your big guys don't rebound well at both ends and play elite defense you will never get past the sweet sixteen.

    I think that the Coaching staff is really making a push to bring in those types of players. I think that's probably why they went after Marshall Plumlee who is a much different player than his brothers. He could become something like Zoubek in a few years because of his enormous frame. That is also why Tony Parker is so valuable. He looks to be in the mold of a Boozer or Brand.

  2. #402
    Quote Originally Posted by loldevilz View Post
    I don't think its a question of being a "back-to-the-basketball scorer" which seems to be assigned pretty absurdly to be honest. Anthony Davis or Terrence Jones couldn't post up in high school, but Mason could??

    I think its about recruiting bigs that can play strong physical defense and rebound on both ends. Basically every Duke team that has made it to the final four has had that kind of big. Zoubek wasn't a traditional "back to the basket scorer" even though he is listed here as such (I don't think I saw him make multiple post move in a game till literally the first weekend of March Madness) but he rebounded exceedingly well on both ends and really protected the basket on defense.

    Mason, the best big we've had since Zoubek is not that type of big and neither is Kelly. Both are finesse big guys that don't intimidate. I know Coach K is the great, but if your big guys don't rebound well at both ends and play elite defense you will never get past the sweet sixteen.

    I think that the Coaching staff is really making a push to bring in those types of players. I think that's probably why they went after Marshall Plumlee who is a much different player than his brothers. He could become something like Zoubek in a few years because of his enormous frame. That is also why Tony Parker is so valuable. He looks to be in the mold of a Boozer or Brand.
    You're being inconsistent. Parker isn't known for his strong physical defense. What little I've heard about his D is it needs work. He's a valuable commodity because he's a big-body, back-to-the-basket scorer. Mason is one of the best rebounders in the country right now, and one of the top shotblockers in the conference, so why isn't he "that type of big." Ryan is also a top quality shotblocker.

    And who was the bruiser who protected the basket on defense for the 1991 team? Or 1992 for that matter? Or 1988? Or even 1986? Lots of Duke Final Four teams did not have Brand or Boozer.

    Personally, I think the angst going on around here for Tony Parker is because people around here like to freak out about recruiting. If he ends up coming to Duke, these people will find something else to obsess about.

  3. #403
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Personally, I think the angst going on around here for Tony Parker is because people around here like to freak out about recruiting. If he ends up coming to Duke, these people will find something else to obsess about.
    Well, I think something else is in play here. I think some folks have turned Parker into the next Elton Brand. If that were the case, I think it'd be okay to freak out about missing on him. Having another Elton Brand would do wonders for our team next year.

    Of course, I don't think Parker is in that caliber of player (VERY few are). But I think that's what's causing some of the complaining.

  4. #404
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Well, I think something else is in play here. I think some folks have turned Parker into the next Elton Brand. If that were the case, I think it'd be okay to freak out about missing on him. Having another Elton Brand would do wonders for our team next year.

    Of course, I don't think Parker is in that caliber of player (VERY few are). But I think that's what's causing some of the complaining.
    What concerns me is UConn-Duke 2004. Yes, I can live with making it to the Final Four, as we did that year, but what I mean is that without Parker or Mason, I am worried about what we will do defensively against quality bigs. Based on what we've seen from Marshall and Kelly, it is very possible that they will struggle defensively against quality big men, but in addition to that, it would be nice to have depth (i.e., fouls to give from guys who can hold their own when matched up with big opponents).
    "I don't like them when they are eating my azaleas or rhododendrons or pansies." - Coach K

  5. #405
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC

    Amen!

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Well, I think something else is in play here. I think some folks have turned Parker into the next Elton Brand. If that were the case, I think it'd be okay to freak out about missing on him. Having another Elton Brand would do wonders for our team next year.Of course, I don't think Parker is in that caliber of player (VERY few are). But I think that's what's causing some of the complaining.
    You are so correct. There are major differences in the two. I have confidence in Coach K putting the best players available on the court for Duke. There are just so many good big men coming out of high school that can qualify at Duke. My main concern is not that Parker will be a big miss on the court, but missing on him will just add fuel to the fire. I'm sure opposing coaches are using negative recruiting against us. If we could indeed land one highly rated player that just might change some of this. GoDuke!

  6. #406
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Quote Originally Posted by gam7 View Post
    What concerns me is UConn-Duke 2004. Yes, I can live with making it to the Final Four, as we did that year, but what I mean is that without Parker or Mason, I am worried about what we will do defensively against quality bigs. Based on what we've seen from Marshall and Kelly, it is very possible that they will struggle defensively against quality big men, but in addition to that, it would be nice to have depth (i.e., fouls to give from guys who can hold their own when matched up with big opponents).
    I'll bite: what have you seen of Marshall?

    -jk

  7. #407
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by gam7 View Post
    What concerns me is UConn-Duke 2004. Yes, I can live with making it to the Final Four, as we did that year, but what I mean is that without Parker or Mason, I am worried about what we will do defensively against quality bigs. Based on what we've seen from Marshall and Kelly, it is very possible that they will struggle defensively against quality big men, but in addition to that, it would be nice to have depth (i.e., fouls to give from guys who can hold their own when matched up with big opponents).
    Well, we've seen nothing from Marshall, so I think it's too early to say he'll struggle next year defensively. And further, I don't think there's anything to suggest that Parker is better defensively than Marshall. Nothing in the scouting reports says strong defender. He's a widebody, but widebody doesn't necessarily imply strong defense.

  8. #408
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by jv001 View Post
    If we could indeed land one highly rated player that just might change some of this. GoDuke!
    Ummm...you mean like, say...Austin Rivers? He was rated number 1. Or maybe Kyrie Irving? He was rated number 2

    Or perhaps you meant "highly rated big man?" We have three playing now; and one redshirting. Maybe they're not top 10, but they are all really good, even Marshall who would be playing if he were on another team.

  9. #409
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    Ummm...you mean like, say...Austin Rivers? He was rated number 1. Or maybe Kyrie Irving? He was rated number 2

    Or perhaps you meant "highly rated big man?" We have three playing now; and one redshirting. Maybe they're not top 10, but they are all really good, even Marshall who would be playing if he were on another team.
    Jim, you are missing the point.

    We can't recruit big men. Pointing out facts to the contrary is just, well, bothersome.

    Quit with the logic. Go with the mob. It's time for concern.

    Oh, and ignore the prior threads about how happy we were to get MP3. Yesterday's news, my friend. Yesterday's news.

    {fret}

  10. #410
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Personally, I think the angst going on around here for Tony Parker is because people around here like to freak out about recruiting. If he ends up coming to Duke, these people will find something else to obsess about.
    Coach K has recruited Tony Parker really, really hard, seemingly more so than #2 recruit Mitch McGary. This feels like a bigger miss than McGary even though their relative production as freshmen next year would have been very different most likely. There's also no fall-back prospects I know in the Class of 2012.

    So some hand-wringing is natural, and understandable. But if it werent Parker it would be over someone else.

  11. #411
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    Or perhaps you meant "highly rated big man?" We have three playing now; and one redshirting. Maybe they're not top 10, but they are all really good, even Marshall who would be playing if he were on another team.
    I'm pretty sure he meant highly-rated big man. But you're right. In fact, two of the big men on our roster were rated higher out of high school than Parker is. So I'm not sure why getting Parker would change perception about our recruiting. Well, I guess I could think of a reason, but I'd rather not discuss that.

  12. #412
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Well, we've seen nothing from Marshall, so I think it's too early to say he'll struggle next year defensively. And further, I don't think there's anything to suggest that Parker is better defensively than Marshall. Nothing in the scouting reports says strong defender. He's a widebody, but widebody doesn't necessarily imply strong defense.
    Well, I was Marshall's high school big man coach. No, I wasn't. I should say that I am not in the "panic camp."

    Fair enough, I have not seen Marshall play. That's one reason I said it's merely "possible" that he and Kelly will struggle defensively guarding quality big guys next year. Maybe Marshall will be a good defender next year. After all, based on what people say, he will probably work hard and he'll have a full year of first-rate diet and weight training under his belt by next year. I sure hope so. But let's face it, he's skinny right now and a big part of defending down low is being able to hold your ground.

    The other reason I said it's only "possible" they'll struggle is that we may well see improvement from from Kelly. He has made great strides with his body and with his offense over the last three years. Next year, I wouldn't be too surprised to see a step up from him defensively.

    I haven't seen anything to suggest that Parker will be better defensively, but I am fairly certain that Parker will be able to hold his ground against a lot of big guys, will be able to rebound, and most importantly, will have five fouls to give. It would really help to have one or two more people who fits that description on next year's roster.
    "I don't like them when they are eating my azaleas or rhododendrons or pansies." - Coach K

  13. #413
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    As the great twentieth century philosopher Reese Bobby said, "if you ain't first, you're last."
    Or, "if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes."

  14. #414

    The Thing That Nobody Wants to Discuss Openly

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I'm pretty sure he meant highly-rated big man. But you're right. In fact, two of the big men on our roster were rated higher out of high school than Parker is. So I'm not sure why getting Parker would change perception about our recruiting. Well, I guess I could think of a reason, but I'd rather not discuss that.
    What you'd rather not discuss is the elephant in the room on this board. What do Josh McRoberts, Brian Zoubek, Miles Plumlee, Mason Plumlee, Ryan Kelly, and Marshall Plumlee have in common besides playing basketball at Duke University and being 6'10" or taller? Perceptions can be very difficult to change, especially when they keep getting reinforced. It's extremely challenging to recruit top-level big men when being forced--for reasons that might be entirely out of Duke's hands--into a very shallow pool of which to compete. That is one of the reasons I feel Tony Parker is a more important recruit than Mitch McGary was.

  15. #415
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern VA
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I'm pretty sure he meant highly-rated big man. But you're right. In fact, two of the big men on our roster were rated higher out of high school than Parker is. So I'm not sure why getting Parker would change perception about our recruiting. Well, I guess I could think of a reason, but I'd rather not discuss that.
    Look guys, again, I think we'll be fine and have enough quality players to maintain a top-ten-type rating for the foreseeable future (1.5+ years). BUT, let's be fair. What some of the angst around here stems from is the concern over the lack of big, strong interior bigs probably next year (and possibly beyond). The focus and worry assigned to Parker is not purely unreasonable "the sky is falling" panic, but the perception that he specifically addresses a vulnerability and a need for us next year - that of interior size/strength/toughness (and probably rebounding, a known TP strength). It isn't about Kelly being higher ranked than TP (about #12 in his class out of H.S.), it is about TP being pretty highly ranked (top-20) and being being a tough, strong, primarily interior-focused big. Mason is sort-of addressing that need this year, but will be very possibly gone for 2012-2013. And Kelly and MP3 just are not currently that type of player - and Kelly, at least, likely never will be. Yes, TP is not an offensive star, but he IS a strong interior presence that we will apparently otherwise totally lack in 2012-2013. And he does have a frame and basic physical capabilities that K and staff clearly think they can build on (just imagine him after a top D1 weight-training program!). And while I truly believe Marshall will develop into a important player for us in 2-3 years, relying on him as our only interior-oriented big next year is, well, a bit frightening. Does anyone recall what happened late in his H.S. career when he went up against another TP-like inside post player, former Duke commit Adams? Adams just ate him up - and he, Adams, wasn't nearly as highly rated as Tony. So there IS a reasonable case for concern over how Duke will match up next year with opponents who will have similar style bigs - NC and MD (with a player similar to TP coming in next year) come immediately to mind.

    Will K find a way? Almost certainly K will find ways to cover, disguise and help fill that vulnerability. But it is reasonable to be concerned about it. And I am 110% certain K and staff are already working very hard to take care of it on the recruiting trail. If TP goes elsewhere - and I refuse to throw in the towel already like many here seem to have already done (!??) - then expect to see some new names of interior-oriented bigs show up on our radar for the 2013 class (if not any late-adds for 2012...).

    And let's not forget that Duke is presently hearing VERY nice things from the 2013 #1 PF, who happens to be a AAU teammate and buddy of a certain just-committed Texas SG...

  16. #416
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nashville
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Well, I think something else is in play here. I think some folks have turned Parker into the next Elton Brand. If that were the case, I think it'd be okay to freak out about missing on him. Having another Elton Brand would do wonders for our team next year.

    Of course, I don't think Parker is in that caliber of player (VERY few are). But I think that's what's causing some of the complaining.
    I'm not sure why it's surprising that people are upset about this. There's really a laundry list of reasons that TP was more important than your average #20 recruit:

    -It's never been the plan for Kelly be "our center". He's a stretch 4, and this means he'll likely be forced into an unnatural position, especially against bigger frontlines. Because...
    -It's never been the plan for Marshall to start as a RS frosh. I saw him play several times pre-Duke (as recently as this summer) and always came away with the impression that he was clearly a determined worker and awesome kid, but nowhere near being a competitive high-major center. I had thought that best case, he might contribute a few (~10) mpg in his second year, and more likely start to come into his own in his 3rd or 4th year (when I do think he'll be great guy to have holding down the 5). But he's a long way away. This is kind of reinforced by the fact that the coaches' decision to redshirt him because he would have been unable to crack even the back end of the rotation, as we saw in China.
    -Josh starting at PF his junior year wouldn't be the end of the world, but alongside Kelly, it's definitely not ideal. He's 6'7 and overly athletic, has had trouble stopping taller players, and hasn't really been an offensive threat. He's got great energy, but you'd rather have a guy like that coming off the bench.

    All this would add up to an offensively gifted but finesse, rebounding and lateral quickness-challenged stretch 4 being our C, a 6'7 player who is not likely to see many minutes this year as our PF, and a guy who will, IMO, not be ready as our ONLY post backup. Our only other option would be a second-year SF who was deemed not ready to play wing as a freshman, and he certainly couldn't sub for Kelly.

    Throw in the fact that 2012 is a class with once-in-a-decade - maybe longer - depth at the PF/C position, and our recruiting plan was to "take" 2 PF/Cs, and possibly a stretch 4. Given that we're Duke and literally have a gaping hole in the starting lineup for a big body to step in alongside Kelly next season, everyone - I mean everyone - was confident that we would get at least one big, and acknowledged that the unlikely event of a failure to do so would be a major whiff.

    So, we've nervously watched as K has gone all out for a big over the past year-plus - telling ourselves that the "big man issue" isn't that big of a deal, certainly not big enough to prevent us from landing at least one solid big from this loaded class - and somehow, the enormous crop of potential post recruits has somehow been whittled down to one - Tony Parker. Who, yes, also happens to be the embodiment of what we've not had for a few years due to the "perception problem".

    Was he going to come in and put up 18 and 10? No. Would he have been a 6'9 270 lb space eater who could have rebounded around the rim, been at least a threat on the blocks on offense, enforced the lane on defense, freed up Kelly on both ends of the floor, and quite possibly turned our frontcourt into a strength rather than a liability by doing these things? Well, yeah. That was the expectation. And that's not even taking the following year into consideration, where we're in great shape for the two top players in the country, and haven't seriously recruited a low-block guy, under the assumption that things would work out this year. Those two players happen to be 6'9, and one is a SF and one is a PF who, like all PFs, thinks he's a SF too. It sure would have been nice to have an established hoss down low to point to as proof that they wouldn't get chained to the post, rather than only work-in-progress MP3 in his RS frosh year. Parker would have been the perfect "1-in" to complement our projected plethora of 6'6-6'9 forwards in a 4-out-1-in system in coming years.

    Now, obviously the program isn't going to collapse and we'll probably still be a top 20 team next year (hopefully top 10-15 if we have Austin or Bazz), and hopefully a contender again the following year. But given the above, is it really hard to fathom why some believe that this is is a pretty significant blow to absorb?
    Last edited by Greg_Newton; 12-09-2011 at 02:22 AM.

  17. #417
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by gam7 View Post
    What concerns me is UConn-Duke 2004.
    Jigga what? Duke 2004 had excellent inside defense. Our problem in that game was not an absence of quality defensive bigs on the team. It was an absence of quality defensive bigs with less than five fouls at the end of the game. This topic has been discussed fairly often on the board, but that was an insanely officiated game, unfair to UConn in the first half, deeply unfair to Duke in the second. Duke lost that game when Emeka Okafor annihilated an interior minus fouled-out Shavlik and Shelden. Nobody's post D is going to look great when you lose your top two centers.

    (Off-topic, but I've always thought UConn was probably the stronger team that year and that Duke played a magnificent game, its best of the season, before succumbing to terrible luck and a NPOY performance from Okafor late. I've rarely been prouder of a team in defeat.)

  18. #418
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven43 View Post
    What you'd rather not discuss is the elephant in the room on this board. What do Josh McRoberts, Brian Zoubek, Miles Plumlee, Mason Plumlee, Ryan Kelly, and Marshall Plumlee have in common besides playing basketball at Duke University and being 6'10" or taller? Perceptions can be very difficult to change, especially when they keep getting reinforced. It's extremely challenging to recruit top-level big men when being forced--for reasons that might be entirely out of Duke's hands--into a very shallow pool of which to compete. That is one of the reasons I feel Tony Parker is a more important recruit than Mitch McGary was.
    Wait a second-- it really looks like you saying that you would want Tony Parker less if he was White instead of African-American... really? That's insane. The type of player he is, his size and weight, his skill set... these are things that have nothing to do with the pigment of his skin. I want him to attend Duke (something that I believe to be a huge longshot at this point) because of what he would add to our basketball team in terms of skills and potential, not because he would "darken" our profile.

    I find your post disgusting and offensive and I honestly pity you for your outdated beliefs.

    -Jason "as an aside-- highly-recruited PFs Lance Thomas and Josh Hairston are not too happy with you, I suspect" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  19. #419
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Wait a second-- it really looks like you saying that you would want Tony Parker less if he was White instead of African-American... really? That's insane. The type of player he is, his size and weight, his skill set... these are things that have nothing to do with the pigment of his skin. I want him to attend Duke (something that I believe to be a huge longshot at this point) because of what he would add to our basketball team in terms of skills and potential, not because he would "darken" our profile.

    I find your post disgusting and offensive and I honestly pity you for your outdated beliefs.

    -Jason "as an aside-- highly-recruited PFs Lance Thomas and Josh Hairston are not too happy with you, I suspect" Evans
    I was having trouble understanding what the point of his list was, and hope that's not it. If so -- wow. And add Sheldon and Elton (as well as Alaa Abdelnaby, Casey Saunders, John Smith, Rashown McCleod, Carlos Boozer, etc.) to the big guys who might not be too happy with such an outlook.


    Seriously, what was the point of your list? It cannot be what Jason suggests because it is simply factually inaccurate. Please do tell.

  20. #420
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Spelling violatin alert!

    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I was having trouble understanding what the point of his list was, and hope that's not it. If so -- wow. And add Sheldon and Elton (as well as Alaa Abdelnaby, Casey Saunders, John Smith, Rashown McCleod, Carlos Boozer, etc.) to the big guys who might not be too happy with such an outlook.


    Seriously, what was the point of your list? It cannot be what Jason suggests because it is simply factually inaccurate. Please do tell.
    OldPhiKap, who is Sheldon?

Similar Threads

  1. Shabazz Muhammad or Tony Parker
    By Duke31122 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-08-2012, 11:17 PM
  2. Tony Parker & Alex Murphy
    By Aycock95 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-19-2011, 01:48 PM
  3. Watch Tony Parker Live Tonight
    By airowe in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-10-2011, 10:34 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
  •