Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 131
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Quote Originally Posted by Cockabeau View Post
    K has the luxury to tinker with the lineups big or small.
    But as I have predicted 4 months ago, the "dagger" team will be
    Ki
    Nolan
    Curry/Dawkins
    Singler
    Plumlee
    Tweet! Foul! You consistently said Andre had work to do, lacked lateral quickness, and was not prepared to supplant Curry in a projected starting lineup. For example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Cockabeau View Post
    ... I love Dawkins but he really needs to work on his lateral quickness.

    The best players play and I can't see anyone supplanting Curry as our fifth starter...
    Quote Originally Posted by Cockabeau View Post
    Let's put it this way. [Curry] is our best shooter, he fits in the scheme on Pressure defense, he is quick and he can handle the rock.

    These are qualities that Miles,Andre or any other player threatening for the 5th spot don't possess.

    With Curry, we force teams to play 5 on 5. Who is going to beat us?
    Many have argued that Dawkins at the 3 is more effective defensively than Curry and that they aren't interchangeable.

    We all make mistakes - being wrong is fine; revisionist history, not so much.

    -jk

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Cockabeau View Post
    K has the luxury to tinker with the lineups big or small.
    But as I have predicted 4 months ago, the "dagger" team will be
    Ki
    Nolan
    Curry/Dawkins
    Singler
    Plumlee
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    Tweet! Foul! You consistently said Andre had work to do, lacked lateral quickness, and was not prepared to supplant Curry in a projected starting lineup.
    -jk is totally correct here. You (Cockabeau) posted about 150,000 times that the starting and primary lineup would be Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, Kyle, and a Plumlee (I'm pretty sure Mason but I can't swear to that). You never mentioned Andre as a possibility in your "dagger" lineup.

  3. #43
    The most interesting thing I find from these numbers is that Kyle has now played almost 60% of his minutes at the 4 (actually 59% but... close enough). To me the big/small lineup debate was more about where Kyle would play than anything else. The pro "big lineup" always thought that Kyle would spend some time at the 4, but he's now playing a decent-sized majority of his time there (admittedly in a pretty small sample size still).

    I also wonder at what point does the starting lineup change to reflect the fact that Duke goes small more often than not when Kyle is in the lineup. Obviously it doesn't have to change... but I could definitely see it happening at some point. Dawkins is certainly playing well enough to warrant a starting spot (but so are a lot of people).

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    -jk is totally correct here. You (Cockabeau) posted about 150,000 times that the starting and primary lineup would be Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, Kyle, and a Plumlee (I'm pretty sure Mason but I can't swear to that). You never mentioned Andre as a possibility in your "dagger" lineup.
    ok so five out of 5 ....

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    20 Minutes From The Heaven That Is Cameron Indoor

    From the +/- Sticky Thread Showing Lineup used and effectiveness

    Quote Originally Posted by Cockabeau View Post
    ok so five out of 5 ....
    Look closely for that "dagger" lineup you harped on. I bolded it for you. (Helpful Hint: Start from the bottom up. You will get there faster)

    LINEUPS
    Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason (52-30, x7, 22)
    Irving-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Miles (23-4, x3, 19)
    Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Miles (29-11, x6, 18)
    Irving-Smith-Singler-Mason-Kelly (53-38, x10, 15)
    Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Miles (20-6, x5, 14)
    Irving-Smith-Singler-Mason-Miles (35-24, x6, 11)
    Irving-Smith-Curry-Singler-Miles (16-7, x5, 9)
    Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly (11-2, x2, 9)
    Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason-Kelly (9-2, x1, 7)
    Irving-Thornton-Smith-Kelly-Miles (10-4, x1, 6)
    Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Hairston-Mason (9-3, x1, 6)
    Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Hairston-Kelly (7-2, x1, 5)
    Curry-Peters-Dawkins-Hairston-Miles (4-0, x1, 4)
    Thornton-Curry-Singler-Mason-Miles (4-0, x1, 4)
    Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Mason (22-19, x6, 3)
    Thornton-Curry-Dawkins-Hairston-Kelly (13-10, x1, 3)
    Irving-Curry-Dawkins-Mason-Miles (8-5, x2, 3)
    Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason-Miles (6-3, x1, 3)
    Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Hairston-Kelly (4-1, x1, 3)
    Irving-Thornton-Dawkins-Singler-Mason (3-0, x2, 3)
    Smith-Curry-Singler-Kelly-Miles (3-0, x1, 3)
    Thornton-Curry-Dawkins-Hairston-Miles (16-14, x3, 2)
    Thornton-Curry-Singler-Mason-Kelly (5-3, x1, 2)
    Thornton-Smith-Curry-Singler-Miles (5-3, x1, 2)
    Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Hairston-Miles (4-2, x2, 2)
    Irving-Thornton-Curry-Hairston-Kelly (4-2, x1, 2)
    Irving-Smith-Singler-Hairston-Mason (3-1, x1, 2)
    Irving-Curry-Singler-Mason-Miles (2-0, x1, 2)
    Irving-Thornton-Smith-Mason-Kelly (2-0, x1, 2)
    Irving-Smith-Curry-Hairston-Mason (2-1, x2, 1)
    Irving-Smith-Singler-Kelly-Miles (5-5, x3, 0)
    Irving-Smith-Curry-Mason-Kelly (5-5, x2, 0)
    Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Hairston-Mason (2-2, x1, 0)
    Irving-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly (2-2, x1, 0)
    Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly (0-0, x1, 0)
    Thornton-Smith-Curry-Mason-Kelly (0-0, x1, 0)
    Irving-Curry-Dawkins-Mason-Kelly (5-6, x2, -1)
    Irving-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Mason (4-5, x3, -1)
    Thornton-Smith-Dawkins-Hairston-Mason (1-2, x1, -1)
    Thornton-Smith-Curry-Hairston-Mason (0-1, x1, -1)
    Thornton-Smith-Curry-Singler-Hairston (2-4, x1, -2)
    Irving-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly-Miles (0-2, x1, -2)
    Thornton-Curry-Peters-Hairston-Miles (0-2, x1, -2)
    Irving-Thornton-Dawkins-Hairston-Mason (0-2, x1, -2)
    Irving-Smith-Curry-Mason-Miles (3-6, x1, -3)
    Thornton-Curry-Peters-Hairston-Kelly (0-3, x1, -3)
    Thornton-Curry-Peters-Hairston-Zafirovski (10-14, x2, -4)
    Irving-Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Singler (0-4, x1, -4)
    Thornton-Curry-Dawkins-Kelly-Miles (0-4, x1, -4)
    Irving-Smith-Curry-Singler-Mason (21-26, x6, -5)
    Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Mason-Kelly (0-5, x1, -5)
    Irving-Smith-Singler-Hairston-Miles (0-5, x1, -5)

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Cockabeau View Post
    ok so five out of 5 ....
    What does this even mean?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    it means Corona/ambien...ha ha!

    As for Kedsey, im not sure what this is or how you obtained it.

  8. #48
    I was going to let things be, but I just couldn't let it go. It's amusing to see that all of the posters who were pushing for the larger lineup (70 %) have conveniently avoided this topic, now seeing that a smaller lineup may be our most effective after all, or have suddenly decided to call a lineup including Andre the new "middle sized lineup". Most of the large lineup posters continuously stated that we would be exploited at the 3 spot if Andre were to play there for too many minutes in Kyle's absence. That Andre was too small for opposing teams 3's. The indisputable fact is, the smaller lineup included Kyle playing the 4 spot. Some may argue that I repeatedly stated that Seth would play the 3. I will concede that. However, I will also point out that I repeatedly stated that we would play small (3 guards) for most of the minutes in games, which to this point is correct. We all know that Dre is/was referred to as being a guard in these discussions.

    All this being said, we are still very early in the season. We will see how things pan out.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by hedevil View Post
    I was going to let things be, but I just couldn't let it go. It's amusing to see that all of the posters who were pushing for the larger lineup (70 %) have conveniently avoided this topic, now seeing that a smaller lineup may be our most effective after all, or have suddenly decided to call a lineup including Andre the new "middle sized lineup". Most of the large lineup posters continuously stated that we would be exploited at the 3 spot if Andre were to play there for too many minutes in Kyle's absence. That Andre was too small for opposing teams 3's. The indisputable fact is, the smaller lineup included Kyle playing the 4 spot. Some may argue that I repeatedly stated that Seth would play the 3. I will concede that. However, I will also point out that I repeatedly stated that we would play small (3 guards) for most of the minutes in games, which to this point is correct. We all know that Dre is/was referred to as being a guard in these discussions.

    All this being said, we are still very early in the season. We will see how things pan out.
    Pretty sure many of the "large lineup" folks are acknowledging that Dawkins is playing better than expected, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most people in the big lineup camp felt that Singler and Dawkins would split the time at the 3 (which has been correct). The only question was whether Dawkins would be ready to handle the responsibility of 20ish mpg at the 3. I'm happy to admit (and have already done so) that Dawkins has surprised me with his progress this year.

    I'm personally amused at you and Cockabeau patting your backs when you both have been as wrong as the "big lineup" group. This debate was basically a debate of Irving/Smith/Singler/Two bigs versus Irving/Smith/Curry/Singler/One big. This was just as much about whether or not Curry would start/play in a lineup with three small guards as it was about whether or not Singler would play at the 4. The "pro-big" crowd said we wouldn't see much of the three small guards (Irving/Curry/Smith) together because they'd get exploited, while most of the "pro-small" group argued that Curry would start alongside Smith and Irving in a tiny backcourt. To this point, we have seen very little of the Irving/Curry/Smith backcourt. It's not the starting backcourt (which was the "pro small contention), and it has been rarely used. Revising your "pro small" argument to say "well, it could be Curry or Dawkins" is revisionist history.

    Basically, almost everyone has been wrong in this debate (to this point), and that includes me. Unless you predicted that Dawkins (not Curry) would be the reason we haven't stayed primarily big, you don't have much of a basis to pat yourself on the back. I'm sure there were some that predicted this. And to those that did, kudos. But that was a small group if I recall correctly.
    Last edited by CDu; 11-27-2010 at 03:43 PM.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by hedevil View Post
    I was going to let things be, but I just couldn't let it go. It's amusing to see that all of the posters who were pushing for the larger lineup (70 %) have conveniently avoided this topic, now seeing that a smaller lineup may be our most effective after all, or have suddenly decided to call a lineup including Andre the new "middle sized lineup". Most of the large lineup posters continuously stated that we would be exploited at the 3 spot if Andre were to play there for too many minutes in Kyle's absence. That Andre was too small for opposing teams 3's. The indisputable fact is, the smaller lineup included Kyle playing the 4 spot. Some may argue that I repeatedly stated that Seth would play the 3. I will concede that. However, I will also point out that I repeatedly stated that we would play small (3 guards) for most of the minutes in games, which to this point is correct. We all know that Dre is/was referred to as being a guard in these discussions.

    All this being said, we are still very early in the season. We will see how things pan out.
    Well, to be fair to those (myself included) who argued for the big lineup, we consistently said Seth was too small to play the 3 for any length of time. And most of us still think so. Pretty much all the "small lineup" advocates had Kyrie, Nolan, and Seth in their starting/predominant lineup. Andre's name rarely came up during this debate (from either side) because neither the big lineup people nor the small lineup people realized how amazingly improved he would be on the defensive side of the ball.

    As far as which side "wins" when we play Andre at the 3 and Kyle at the 4, I said just a few posts ago that I am counting it as "small," primarily (as you say) because the lineup has Kyle at the 4 and that was the core of the debate. However, if we all knew how strong Andre would be defending the SF position, I believe the debate would have unfolded very differently.

    I guess my view on this subject is that both sides of this debate were wrong, but so far the small lineup people have been less wrong. It will be interesting to see if the trend continues in ACC games, as most ACC teams have pretty big SFs.


    EDIT: Ah, I see CDu got there first and said pretty much the same thing. Great minds and all that.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    ... I also think that the debate has diverged away from the original discussion questions (i.e., will Singler start/play mostly at the 3?) into a big/small debate. ...

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    ... Basically, almost everyone has been wrong in this debate (to this point), and that includes me. Unless you predicted that Dawkins (not Curry) would be the reason we haven't stayed primarily big, you don't have much of a basis to pat yourself on the back. ...
    It seems that a big part of winning an argument is to frame the question.

    My recollection of the "debate" is whether Kyle would be playing the "4." This was the fallout from the the predict who-gets-how-many-minutes insanity that continuously arose during the summer. Most claimed that Kyle would play the "3" (primarily because he had "become" a "3"), but conceded that he might get a "few" minutes at the "4" in end game situation. A few (of us) predicted that Kyle would get significant time at the "4," not that he would start there, because Coach K likes to go with "smaller" line-ups to take advantage of pressure D and ball control and becaue he prefers having his best players in the game.

    The fact that Kyle is playing nearly as much at the "4" as the "3" would indicate to me that some were indeed correct and many were indeed incorrect. I don't really care either way, but enduring continued bickering does get a bit annoying - particularly dredging up and nit-picking old posts. Rather, lets focus more on the efficacy of the various line-ups, just for the fun of it.

    Kedsey, thanks for compiling the stats, it is interesting to see how things break out.

    Quick question, it appears that Kyle and Hairston have played together with another "big." Does that count as Kyle at the "3" or "4?" I have to admit I haven't watched closely enough to remember whether one guarded a post player while another guarded a wing.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    And the older thread was "removed" somehow. I wonder why that is?

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    I don't really care either way, but enduring continued bickering does get a bit annoying - particularly dredging up and nit-picking old posts. Rather, lets focus more on the efficacy of the various line-ups, just for the fun of it.
    Completely agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Quick question, it appears that Kyle and Hairston have played together with another "big." Does that count as Kyle at the "3" or "4?" I have to admit I haven't watched closely enough to remember whether one guarded a post player while another guarded a wing.
    Hairston has played pretty much exclusively as a 4 this year. His perimeter game (both offensivley and defensively) aren't developed enough to play the wing. So when Singler and Hairston are in together with another big, Singler is at the 3.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Quote Originally Posted by Cockabeau View Post
    And the older thread was "removed" somehow. I wonder why that is?
    No thread has been removed on this topic.

    -jk

  15. #55
    Seth played only 13 mins tonight, to Andre's 21, and had a rough night going 1-6 for 3 pts. Dre was 4-7, all 3s, for 14 pts.

    He is definitely the biggest surprise of the season so far, at least for me. He and Mason are neck and neck for most improved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cockabeau View Post
    And the older thread was "removed" somehow. I wonder why that is?
    I'm not sure what thread you are referring to, though -jk obviously linked to one previously that hasn't been removed. Here's another that you started.

    No mention of Dawkins by you, just Curry.

    I am looking forward to a starting lineup next year of:

    Irving
    Smith
    Curry
    Dawkins
    Plumlee

    I can't see how teams can beat this team.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    20 Minutes From The Heaven That Is Cameron Indoor
    Quote Originally Posted by hedevil View Post
    I was going to let things be, but I just couldn't let it go. It's amusing to see that all of the posters who were pushing for the larger lineup (70 %) have conveniently avoided this topic, now seeing that a smaller lineup may be our most effective after all, or have suddenly decided to call a lineup including Andre the new "middle sized lineup". Most of the large lineup posters continuously stated that we would be exploited at the 3 spot if Andre were to play there for too many minutes in Kyle's absence. That Andre was too small for opposing teams 3's. The indisputable fact is, the smaller lineup included Kyle playing the 4 spot. Some may argue that I repeatedly stated that Seth would play the 3. I will concede that. However, I will also point out that I repeatedly stated that we would play small (3 guards) for most of the minutes in games, which to this point is correct. We all know that Dre is/was referred to as being a guard in these discussions.

    All this being said, we are still very early in the season. We will see how things pan out.
    I am amused that anyone thinks that after 5 games the rotation is set. Like BD80, all the arguing over it is annoying and taking away from enjoying what looks to be a great season, so this is my last post on that matter.

    Below is my opening post when I started that thread where I clearly stated that Andre at the 3 was a "medium" sized lineup, and that what I, Boozer (cannot speak for the others), was debating, was that K would start and play for heavy minutes a the lineup of Kyrie/Nolan/Seth/Kyle/1 Big.

    Duke Identity 2010/11- Big or Small?
    Last season K said our identity was Defense-Rebounding with a 2 Big lineup most of the time and Kyle at the Small Forward (3) position. Going into the 2010/11 season the stable of big men is solid with 4 guys (Miles, Mason, Ryan, Josh).

    However the stable of guards/wings is super large with 5 guys in (Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, Andre, Tyler).

    Kyle is the hybrid with the skill set to fit into either group. So the question is which group will Kyle spend the most time in? Now, if Kyle is at the 4 with Andre at the 3, then I would call that a medium size line up. However most of those arguing K will go small are basing that on a line up of Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, Kyle, 1 Big.So for the poll, the actual question revolves around how many minutes the trio of Kyrie, Nolan, and Seth play together?
    The poll question from that thread was Kyle at the 4 with 2 bigs 25+minutes, or Kyle at the 3 with Kyrie/Nolan/Seth and 1 big for 25+ minutes. Like CDu so astutely pointed out, to date neither has been correct.

    So far Kyle has played more minutes at the 4 than I expected, which is fine. Andre's play has been a big reason for that along with Miles having some struggles on the offensive end, and Kelly not quite ready for heavy minutes.

    Either way it's a darn strong team and I am darn glad I was wrong about Andre. His play has allowed K even more options than I thought he would have. He can throw many different looks at teams. Today we went big a lot. Next Wed we may go small/medium a lot. We have that luxury, which again is a GREAT thing.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by hedevil View Post
    I was going to let things be, but I just couldn't let it go. It's amusing to see that all of the posters who were pushing for the larger lineup (70 %) have conveniently avoided this topic, now seeing that a smaller lineup may be our most effective after all, or have suddenly decided to call a lineup including Andre the new "middle sized lineup"....
    Okay, two things: first, I was a summertime proponent of the big line-up and posted numerous times Miles and Mason Plumlee would both start. Second, I was wrong.

    It doesn't appear to me anyone has "conveniently avoided this topic." I certainly am not avoiding it. However, the small line-up vocal minority who are now screaming, "I told you so" appear guilty of revisionism from where I sit as the effective line-up Duke is utilizing with Dawkins at the three was not proposed/discussed with passion by anyone over the dog days of summer.
    Bob Green

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Quick question, it appears that Kyle and Hairston have played together with another "big." Does that count as Kyle at the "3" or "4?" I have to admit I haven't watched closely enough to remember whether one guarded a post player while another guarded a wing.
    I think Josh has been playing the 4 and guarding a post/inside player while he is in with Kyle. I have counted Kyle/Josh/big as a "big" lineup for the purposes of this thread.

  19. #59
    Boozer - I have always stated that coach K would rotate lineups for the first half of the season. Who believes that the lineup is set?

    I agree with you and others that this topic can be annoying and distracting from the team and season that we have to look foward to.



    Bob Green - I have addmitted to being a believer in the small lineup (Seth being included) in the later part of the season (which isn't here). There are no I told you so's from me, except for the fact that I did pick Kyle to play most of his minutes at the 4. In addition, I believe/believed that Dre at the 3 with Kyle at the 4 falls under the small lineup category. The fact that "some" of the big lineup supporters are now referring to the Dre and Kyle "middle sized lineup" seems a bit dishonest in regards to the summer debate. When Dre was discussed, it was in relation to him playing the 2 and 3 spot. Meaning: small lineup if Kyle slides to the 4. If there was going to be a mysterious middle sized lineup, there was ample opportunity to discuss it. It appears that Boozer had it right, but most posters (including myself) were debating between 2 lineups.

    I cannot claim victory nor defeat due to my late-in-the season predictions. I do however want to make myself clear by repeating what I said all summer long. "This team is going to be great. I trust coach K to find out what works and go with it." I would rather Duke win a NC and be wrong on all things, than not win and be right.

  20. #60
    I predicted this thread.

Similar Threads

  1. "We stink!! I want a refund!" and the coach says, "ok"
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-01-2010, 06:17 PM
  2. Small nit on the "Duke Shells Terps" write-up
    By Kewlswim in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-14-2010, 11:32 PM
  3. Icing the Shooter: "Good" play or "Bad"
    By greybeard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-07-2008, 03:53 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
  •