DeAndre Daniels recruitment

[Gthoma2a]

But what about Andre Dawkins? He's the probable starter on the current roster.

Apparently he doesn't think that we will have a 6'4 shooting guard playing against 6'6-6'8 natural small forwards. I think that is a real assumption that since we have depth at the position, we don't have to shrink to playing a guy 4 inches shorter than any we have ever had play for a national title team under K unless it is a situational move. I can't say what K will do with any more certainty than anyone, but it does seem like this position doesn't have a "probable" starter. None of the guys have ever started a game at the position in D1 ball, so they are all on equal footing.

[gam7]

Apparently he doesn't think that we will have a 6'4 shooting guard playing against 6'6-6'8 natural small forwards. I think that is a real assumption that since we have depth at the position, we don't have to shrink to playing a guy 4 inches shorter than any we have ever had play for a national title team under K unless it is a situational move. I can't say what K will do with any more certainty than anyone, but it does seem like this position doesn't have a "probable" starter. None of the guys have ever started a game at the position in D1 ball, so they are all on equal footing.

Kedsy is right. Dawkins is a probable starter.

Height is not the only factor the coaches will take into consideration when determining who will start and who the best defender at a given position is. And remember, mismatches work both ways. A 6'6"-6'8" guy would have to guard Dawkins. If you think that next year's team will need to make more of a concerted effort to involve our big guys, it will be an advantage to have someone with Dawkins's range who will open up some space inside the arc.

[Duvall]

Apparently he doesn't think that we will have a 6'4 shooting guard playing against 6'6-6'8 natural small forwards.

Like who? "Natural" small forwards are the exception in college basketball, not the rule.

[Gthoma2a]

Kedsy is right. Dawkins is a probable starter.

Height is not the only factor the coaches will take into consideration when determining who will start and who the best defender at a given position is. And remember, mismatches work both ways. A 6'6"-6'8" guy would have to guard Dawkins. If you think that next year's team will need to make more of a concerted effort to involve our big guys, it will be an advantage to have someone with Dawkins's range who will open up some space inside the arc.

I am hoping that we play 4 versatile players on the floor that have to be respected anywhere on the court so that it spreads with options other than shooting around the defense (or trying to shoot over them; difficult to do when the guy guarding you has inches and one of your biggest points of emphasis during the off-season is your handle). I'd like to see our Plumlees just focus on being rebounders first, but that is my idea to maintain the ball. It may not be what K wants, but the emphasis that we have put on the 3-4 position just seems odd if we have it filled (we have two 3s that we are recruiting this year, one that is coming early from 2012, and Dawkins) for the next two years. It also seems odd to be recruiting guys who state playing time is a key to getting their verbals when our intentions are to have them play backup.

Just so we're clear, is the idea that we will have the 4-5 the same as last year with Miles/Mason/Ryan with a tiny bit of Hairston off the bench, the 3 will be Andre, backed up by Deandre, and then Gbinije playing backup when one is injured, both are in foul trouble or something? Then for the 2, we will have Austin backed up by whoever we aren't using, and the 1 will be Seth, then Tyler, and Quinn third string? Just trying to understand how our lineup will be in your eyes. That is if we assume that Alex wants to redshirt and Marshall will do the same.

[Kedsy]

I am hoping that we play 4 versatile players on the floor that have to be respected anywhere on the court so that it spreads with options other than shooting around the defense (or trying to shoot over them; difficult to do when the guy guarding you has inches and one of your biggest points of emphasis during the off-season is your handle). I'd like to see our Plumlees just focus on being rebounders first, but that is my idea to maintain the ball. It may not be what K wants, but the emphasis that we have put on the 3-4 position just seems odd if we have it filled (we have two 3s that we are recruiting this year, one that is coming early from 2012, and Dawkins) for the next two years. It also seems odd to be recruiting guys who state playing time is a key to getting their verbals when our intentions are to have them play backup.

Just so we're clear, is the idea that we will have the 4-5 the same as last year with Miles/Mason/Ryan with a tiny bit of Hairston off the bench, the 3 will be Andre, backed up by Deandre, and then Gbinije playing backup when one is injured, both are in foul trouble or something? Then for the 2, we will have Austin backed up by whoever we aren't using, and the 1 will be Seth, then Tyler, and Quinn third string? Just trying to understand how our lineup will be in your eyes. That is if we assume that Alex wants to redshirt and Marshall will do the same.

This sort of reasoning is why K always says we don't play positions (even though we obviously do). With a roster as loaded as ours will be in 2011-12, K will choose a rotation with a couple guys playing big minutes, five or six guys between 15 and 23, and one or two playing 6 to 8. There is no second string and third string, there is really more mix and match. Choosing (non-top-ten) freshmen to be among the top 5 or 6 in minutes played is generally a low probability bet with K-coached teams. Not unheard of, but rare.

[Gthoma2a]

This sort of reasoning is why K always says we don't play positions (even though we obviously do). With a roster as loaded as ours will be in 2011-12, K will choose a rotation with a couple guys playing big minutes, five or six guys between 15 and 23, and one or two playing 6 to 8. There is no second string and third string, there is really more mix and match. Choosing (non-top-ten) freshmen to be among the top 5 or 6 in minutes played is generally a low probability bet with K-coached teams. Not unheard of, but rare.

Then who plays and who sits it out next season in your opinion?

[Scorp4me]

...the 3 will be Andre, backed up by Deandre, and then Gbinije playing backup when one is injured, both are in foul trouble or something?

I'm confused, and I'm not pointing out Gthoma who as he said was only asking what people think, but aren't they similary ranked? RSCI rankings has Gbinije at 23 and Daniels at 29 so wouldn't it be Daniels who would be the bench warmer if that was the case? Not that rankings matter, especially when they are so close...just using it for reference.

[dcar1985]

I'm confused, and I'm not pointing out Gthoma who as he said was only asking what people think, but aren't they similary ranked? RSCI rankings has Gbinije at 23 and Daniels at 29 so wouldn't it be Daniels who would be the bench warmer if that was the case? Not that rankings matter, especially when they are so close...just using it for reference.

Thats a case of everyone drinking the Daniels kool aid and still sleeping on Mike...Im not really sold on Daniels game really haven't seen much that impressed me, Mike IMO is solid I think he's ready to play right now, he doesn't have flash to his game which makes it easy for people who aren't basketball nuts to not notice all the little things he does....but he'll come in and make winning plays and I think thats what we need.

[mo.st.dukie]

Apparently he doesn't think that we will have a 6'4 shooting guard playing against 6'6-6'8 natural small forwards. I think that is a real assumption that since we have depth at the position, we don't have to shrink to playing a guy 4 inches shorter than any we have ever had play for a national title team under K unless it is a situational move. I can't say what K will do with any more certainty than anyone, but it does seem like this position doesn't have a "probable" starter. None of the guys have ever started a game at the position in D1 ball, so they are all on equal footing.

The 2004 team started 6'1 Duhon, 6'3 Ewing, and 6'4 Redick and that team should've been the national champs if it weren't for some poor officiating. Height and fitting into traditional NBA-style positions shouldn't be a determining factor in who starts and gets the big minutes. If our returning guys step their games up and Curry is ready to play PG I really like the idea of starting Curry, Rivers, Dawkins, Mason, Miles because of the experience factor. Bring Cook, Gbinije, Daniels (if we get him), and Ryan off the bench as the main rotation of 9 players. Daniels can play some wing but can also play the hybrid 4. Tyler, Josh, and Marshall will get minutes in blowouts or situations where there's an injury or foul trouble. I'm assuming Alex redshirts. I always put experience first but this is only if those upperclassmen step up and earn it over the younger talent.

[gumbomoop]

The 2004 team started 6'1 Duhon, 6'3 Ewing, and 6'4 Redick and that team should've been the national champs if it weren't for some poor officiating. Height and fitting into traditional NBA-style positions shouldn't be a determining factor in who starts and gets the big minutes.

I agree with this. Our wealth of talent, but not experience, next year will perhaps lead to an unusual amount of experimentation early on. Even so, I'll guess we'll see - for Duke and for many opponents - plenty of 3-guard perimeters. Our 3-guards will not be a defensive liability, because most college teams do not have killer SF's. If the reply is, "Yeah, but 2 or 3 teams do, and if we play them in the Final 4, we're dead," well, I'm happy we'll be in the Final 4. UNC does have HB, and that will, yes, pose a big D-challenge for the Devils. A few others, but not lots. And there's just not much posting-up at the college level. [For example, it would really require K to outcoach Roy if HB actually posts up a smaller player; but so far, that's - strangely - not his MO.]

[Scorp4me]

Thats a case of everyone drinking the Daniels kool aid and still sleeping on Mike...

Thanks, that's what i figured, but wasn't sure if I was missing anything. The board always seem to be enamored with the newest recruit, in that way not unlike a child with a toy. I'd love to have them both of course and I like you am a fan of Gbenije. Just didn't see enough to make one a clear cut favorite over the other.

[darjum]

UNC does have HB

They sure do and having players physically capable of slowing him down sure will help.

[Gthoma2a]

Thats a case of everyone drinking the Daniels kool aid and still sleeping on Mike...Im not really sold on Daniels game really haven't seen much that impressed me, Mike IMO is solid I think he's ready to play right now, he doesn't have flash to his game which makes it easy for people who aren't basketball nuts to not notice all the little things he does....but he'll come in and make winning plays and I think thats what we need.

That, or in my case, I see Deandre as a 4 who can use his versatility to really spread the floor. His length will help him on defense if he can get some blocks up. Whether he starts or not, it would be nice to see us have that on the team instead of using the shoot over the defense approach at most positions. I get people loving on experience, but there are going to be several teams with experience. I think our inability to get back into games means we need to be able to compete with teams in terms of athletes. The last few years teams have had to play as frontrunners. When these teams have been trailing, they needed critical mistakes to get back into the game (game 1 against UNC 2011). If we didn't get that, it was Clemson's blowout over us, Georgetown's game where they were just too fast for us to stop their backdoor cuts, Villanova 2009, the St. John's game, or Arizona. We need to find that spurtability that we used to have. We were never out of games because we had a team that was fast, athletic, and had capable ball handlers to spread and shred defenses. Not to mention, it would be nice to see us with guys with feet fast enough to exploit teams with 20 point runs based off of getting turnovers like in the old days.

K will fit his approach to his team, so I kind of hope to see something different to bring back that ability that we have seemed to lack the past few years. I am not asking for the miracle minute, but I hate seeing us in games where I know are out of reach for over a quarter of the game by our teams being slower plotting teams. That type of team has its place, but if it isn't working, it can lead to blowouts.

[roywhite]

That, or in my case, I see Deandre as a 4 who can use his versatility to really spread the floor. His length will help him on defense if he can get some blocks up. Whether he starts or not, it would be nice to see us have that on the team instead of using the shoot over the defense approach at most positions. I get people loving on experience, but there are going to be several teams with experience. I think our inability to get back into games means we need to be able to compete with teams in terms of athletes. The last few years teams have had to play as frontrunners. When these teams have been trailing, they needed critical mistakes to get back into the game (game 1 against UNC 2011). If we didn't get that, it was Clemson's blowout over us, Georgetown's game where they were just too fast for us to stop their backdoor cuts, Villanova 2009, the St. John's game, or Arizona. We need to find that spurtability that we used to have. We were never out of games because we had a team that was fast, athletic, and had capable ball handlers to spread and shred defenses. Not to mention, it would be nice to see us with guys with feet fast enough to exploit teams with 20 point runs based off of getting turnovers like in the old days.

K will fit his approach to his team, so I kind of hope to see something different to bring back that ability that we have seemed to lack the past few years. I am not asking for the miracle minute, but I hate seeing us in games where I know are out of reach for over a quarter of the game by our teams being slower plotting teams. That type of team has its place, but if it isn't working, it can lead to blowouts.

I'll be happy to see Daniels come to Duke, and look forward to seeing him play. But I see him listed at 180 to 191 pounds; is he a "4" at this point?

You seem to concentrate on losses over the last 2 years, but Duke won 67 games! Not to mention being highly ranked, winning 2 ACC championships, and of course a national title. That glass is at least 90% full.

[Gthoma2a]

I'll be happy to see Daniels come to Duke, and look forward to seeing him play. But I see him listed at 180 to 191 pounds; is he a "4" at this point?

You seem to concentrate on losses over the last 2 years, but Duke won 67 games! Not to mention being highly ranked, winning 2 ACC championships, and of course a national title. That glass is at least 90% full.

I know, but it really frustrates me seeing us blown out by athletic teams. I didn't know how Henson would be as a 4, but he was long enough to cause problems for teams, so I'd hope he could do this and make a 4 come to the outside (respect his shot) to open up driving lanes for him/teammates and leave our bigs with a 1 on 1 in the paint so that we have a higher probability to get the rebound. We would need fewer screens if this works. We would also have speed on the break like we haven't had prior with a team of players who can run the court as fast as any defense. I would see it being similar to Kevin Durant's role on the US team. He isn't the strongest, but he throws other teams into a panic on defense, and he can use his length to make up for strength on D.

[gumbomoop]

They [UNC] sure do and having players physically capable of slowing him [HB] down sure will help.

Yes, HB is - potentially, highly likely - among the very few killer SF's in college ball. His admirable strengths include a smooth shot, smarts, willing and solid D, power. The reason he's not yet literally unstoppable is that his handle is adequate, at best. I assume some combo of lousy coaching [....] and his own sense of his mediocre handle led him in virtually every game to not attack the rim. He settled, repeatedly, for jumpers, even though his strength should have allowed him to dominate smaller defenders going to the rim. I for one hope HB does not work on his handle.

Although my general view is that Duke will face very few killer SF's, HB is a near-killer, so, yep, we need someone stronger and taller than Austin and Andre, and quicker than Ryan, to guard HB, esp if he becomes an attack-the-rim guy. [Actually, Ryan might occasionally "stop" HB, by "letting" HB go by him, and then blocking his shot from behind, a skill Ryan actually has, to the surprise of countless opponents.] I've posted elsewhere that I believe K has an eye on Gbinije for situation-specific D.

HB is a specific situation, so I'm counting on Gbinije being as good [smart, strong, willing D] as I and others are counting on his being.

[dcar1985]

I know, but it really frustrates me seeing us blown out by athletic teams. I didn't know how Henson would be as a 4, but he was long enough to cause problems for teams, so I'd hope he could do this and make a 4 come to the outside (respect his shot) to open up driving lanes for him/teammates and leave our bigs with a 1 on 1 in the paint so that we have a higher probability to get the rebound. We would need fewer screens if this works. We would also have speed on the break like we haven't had prior with a team of players who can run the court as fast as any defense. I would see it being similar to Kevin Durant's role on the US team. He isn't the strongest, but he throws other teams into a panic on defense, and he can use his length to make up for strength on D.

Only problem with what your suggesting is that Daniels isn't anywhere as long or tall as Henson or half the scorer that Durant was during his time at Texas...I dont know what kind of numbers he put up at IMG since they dont really play a full schedule but during his actual senior year in high school at Taft Daniels averaged 14.9 points a game which is respectable but its not world changing.

Another thing if you have Daniels playing a perimeter 4 with just one body in the paint that probably wont help improve rebound numbers and w/ more threes being taken will lead to more run outs which is where we get in trouble playing against more athletic teams

[MaxAMillion]

I am hoping that we play 4 versatile players on the floor that have to be respected anywhere on the court so that it spreads with options other than shooting around the defense (or trying to shoot over them; difficult to do when the guy guarding you has inches and one of your biggest points of emphasis during the off-season is your handle). I'd like to see our Plumlees just focus on being rebounders first, but that is my idea to maintain the ball. It may not be what K wants, but the emphasis that we have put on the 3-4 position just seems odd if we have it filled (we have two 3s that we are recruiting this year, one that is coming early from 2012, and Dawkins) for the next two years. It also seems odd to be recruiting guys who state playing time is a key to getting their verbals when our intentions are to have them play backup.

I don't want 4 versatile players on the floor. I want at least two players on the floor who can consistently rebound. You mention the Plumlees focusing on rebounding. If both of them can do that consistently then I would like them both starting. Duke gets beat when the versatility trumps rebounding and defense inside. Duke makes the final four when their inside game is sound.

I really don't care if Duke's power forward player can shoot from outside. I do care if he can rebound and defend. Thomas and Zoubek didn't have to be defended all over the floor. They brought other things to the table that were more important.

[Gthoma2a]

Only problem with what your suggesting is that Daniels isn't anywhere as long or tall as Henson or half the scorer that Durant was during his time at Texas...I dont know what kind of numbers he put up at IMG since they dont really play a full schedule but during his actual senior year in high school at Taft Daniels averaged 14.9 points a game which is respectable but its not world changing.

Another thing if you have Daniels playing a perimeter 4 with just one body in the paint that probably wont help improve rebound numbers and w/ more threes being taken will lead to more run outs which is where we get in trouble playing against more athletic teams

He doesn't have to be the star of the team like Durant did, but if he can play the position, it creates more opportunities is more my point. A guy playing that style will give them another guy they have to respect both shooting and driving. If we have more of that, it makes it to where we aren't a completely predictable screen and shoot team. It will create lanes through spreading the floor. We don't need huge numbers, but we would simply need him to take what is given or find an open teammate off a drive. He has played a point forward type of position, so driving and kicking would be good enough for us since he has played point.

[Kedsy]

He doesn't have to be the star of the team like Durant did, but if he can play the position, it creates more opportunities is more my point. A guy playing that style will give them another guy they have to respect both shooting and driving. If we have more of that, it makes it to where we aren't a completely predictable screen and shoot team. It will create lanes through spreading the floor. We don't need huge numbers, but we would simply need him to take what is given or find an open teammate off a drive. He has played a point forward type of position, so driving and kicking would be good enough for us since he has played point.

I agree that having DeAndre available to play both as a big 3 and a versatile 4 would make the overall offense more dangerous. If he can use his length to block shots that would probably help him on D, although quick feet and being able to play within the Duke system would probably help more. I don't think DeAndre needs to start to help us in this way, however. If he's ready to play solid rotation minutes that's all we would need from him.

However, just from watching him in his highlight videos, I strongly doubt he'd be ready to play "point-forward" at the college level as a freshman.