Bad News, Good News

[Fish80]

deleted post

My political affiliation is irrelevant to this topic. But for the record you've got that wrong too.

I like to support my team, including the coaching staff. Some of you guys like to take out your frustration from a loss by bashing K. I don't do that. I'd rather be supportive of the entire team.

[Chicago 1995]

And Roy is routinely criticized by UNC fans for going TOO DEEP on his bench and playing TOO MANY people. The line goes that Roy needs to shorten his bench so his best players can develop a better feel for each other rather than being so disjointed on offense.

I just think it's ironic that people criticize K for not being more like Roy, and Roy for not being more like K.

There's a balance to be struck between Roy's insistance on playing 12 at least 10 minutes a night (it seems) and K's insistence on having at least four players play in excess of 32 minutes a night.

Happy medium and all.

[Highlander]

If there is a perfect rotation, what is it? 8 players? 9? 10? From what I see, 12 is too many and 7 is too few. I would guess 8 or 9 would be about right.

Whatever the magic number for a prefect rotation is, there isn't a consensus. If K played 8, he would be criticized for not playing 9, and if Roy played 9 he'd be criticized for not playing 10 or 8. So there probably is a medium, but I doubt it would ever be happy...

I just think its ironic that K and Roy answered this question differently with their respective teams, yet both are routinely criticized.

[Jumbo]

People,
Let's keep this calm, ok? No need to make comments about political affiliation; no need to play amateur psychologist here either.

What we've got here is a situation where like-minded people can disagree. In fact, it's almost a Catch-22. In the first half, Duke substituted liberally, used nine guys, and were down nine at the half. During the first 10 minutes or so of the second half, Coach K went to a six-man rotation, and Duke cut the lead to two. That was as close as Duke got, and it can be debated whether fatigue had to do with that. (My personal opinion was that talent won out more than fresh legs, but Duke might've been a little tired, all the same. It's hard not to think about depth when it's all Packer talks about.)

So, this really boils down to the second half. Keep in mind that for the past several games, K has used the approach of deep, liberal substitutions in the first half with all nine guys, followed by a 7-man rotation in the second half. So, the question becomes, "At what point would you have subbed in the second half?" All things being equal, you'd probably have rotated a couple of guys in between the 15 and 10 minute marks, I'd assume. This was also right during Duke's big run. So, would you have risked that momentum with a couple of subs (keep in mind that Duke was playing a unique, small lineup -- it's possible that any change could have disrupted that rhythm)? It's a valid debate topic. Maybe Zoubek, Thomas and/or Pocius would have kept the heat on UNC and the starters would have been stronger down the stretch. But it's equally possible that Duke never would have pulled the lead so close, because as much as we like them, Z, LT and MP represent a significant dropoff in ability from the first group right now, and even from UNC's top subs (experienced players like Ginyard, Green, Frasor and Miller).

I think Coach K was walking a tightrope at this point against a better opponent. Sure, he can be criticized, but everything is hypothetical. I know that as I was watching the game, I wasn't sure what to do. I figured we'd need a couple of subs at some point, but during the run, I couldn't justify pulling anyone from the game.

So, there's room to disagree here, but it's also imperative that people see both sides. On the one hand, people have to be willing to acknowledge that fatigue might have played a role in the loss. On the other hand, people have to recognize that players 7-9 are not equal in ability to players 1-6, and that inserting them in the game would have been a calculated risk, because there's no guarantee they would have made the run the starters did.

So, by all means debate, this, but please try to recognize all the angles.

[Fish80]

Well reasoned, rational. Perhaps I get a little too defensive when people criticise playing time. You are right, there are valid points on both sides of the issue. In this particular game, I agree with the strategy K used. Getting back in the game was the priority, and it came at the expense of subs.

[Chicago 1995]

People,
On the one hand, people have to be willing to acknowledge that fatigue might have played a role in the loss. On the other hand, people have to recognize that players 7-9 are not equal in ability to players 1-6, and that inserting them in the game would have been a calculated risk, because there's no guarantee they would have made the run the starters did.

So, by all means debate, this, but please try to recognize all the angles.

Jumbo makes some very good points above, and I'd second his thought that there's a rational argument for each side of the discussion about the rotation yesterday.

This is quibbling, but I'm not so sure the line of demarcation is 1-6 vs. 7-9. Generally, that's probably a fair place to draw the line, but yesterday I don't know that there was a big difference between 5 & 6 and 7-9.

It's known, I suspect, that I'm an advocate of a deeper rotation. I've been happy, for the most of the season, with the rotation and that we've not resorted to an iron six and little else. Yesterday we went to a shorter rotation for the comeback and it almost worked.

My complaint, really, isn't with Ks rotation this year or yesterday so much as the justification for the short rotation. Lance, Brian and Marty didn't contribute much in the scorebook yesterday, but I don't think that's a justification for keeping them out. As I said earlier, giving them a chance to play through early struggles -- at least generally -- is in my opinion a better idea. I'd also like to see some recognition that our bench players aren't the only guys that struggle or the only guys that have off nights, and maybe see them get the same chance to play through those struggles as other players have received.

The rotation didn't cost us the game yesterday. Lack of production did -- and not just from 7-9.

I feel better about where we're at in terms of depth going into the tourneys than I have in years though. All nine of our guys can play and contribute, and Ks going to go to them. That's great. I'm looking forward to Lance, Brian and Marty playing next week quite a bit. We're going to need them.

[BluBones]

I'm astonished that this debate is still alive. This is the worst year we've had in almost a decade, and yet we were ranked nearly the entire year and we're going to the NCAA's. For the record, rather than make a public display of my ignorance of basketball I'm delighted to observe the decisions the coaching staff makes and learn from them.

[trinitydevil]

Fish you say we are Bashing K. Hardly! If you read imagepros post HE said he thinks we have the best staff in America, and I agree. And you call that bashing? Puhhhlease! Look at how many posts there were echoing, or even preceding what he said. Ever considered you might be wrong? I doubt it.

While you say you support the entire team, you appear to support the coach, and NOT the kids that are not playing. You made that clearly evident when YOU commented on how they (MP, BZ, LT) DO NOT produce. Like image, and all the others on this thread EXCEPT you, WE support Marty, Zou, Lance. Please do not turn this around and say YOU do. YOU made your point clear on about 4 posts here. YOU "support the entire team" as you say, but YOU don't think they can play? Well which is it Fish? I mean honestly, it can't be BOTH ways. It was YOU who commented on their lack of contribution, not ours. It was YOU who questioned how they could get playing time. After it was logically explained, YOU get sarcastic.

I agree with what IP, Dukie8, Few, Savannah and many others here have said. Speaking of that, IP and I sit in section 15 at Cameron. Next season, come and join us one time. You'll hear a LOT more of the "play the bench" talk from fans around us. It's the topic of converstation at every game. But nevermind, you wouldn't want to sit there. You'd fell waaayyy out of place.

Also, it's pretty obvious who was responsible for the ban of IP. OK, you finally win, but a cheap way to do it. Keep it up and it will be all the oldtimers, just like the "good ole days" huh? Like I said a few months ago, you guys should start your own site and sit in your little circle and praise the Almighty.

And by the way, don't bother to ban me, I'm already gone!

[Jumbo]

Trinity,
Just to clear up any confusion you might have, moderators do not have the ability to ban posters. Only the administrators (J&B) do. In fact, by the time I saw this thread, ImagePro was already banned. I'm trying to figure out what he did to get banned, since he and I had been exchanging some nice messages prior to the game.
On another note, please read my message about respecting other opinions. Your recent post in response to Fish is an example of what we're trying to avoid. You are basically taking the moral high grouind, in essence, by saying any post advocating less depth is a knock on the players, and that knocking players is out of bounds. That's not fair. If it's fair for someone to say why a reserve should play more, it's only fair for someone else to be able to explain why guys should play less. Again, you guys don't need to see eye-to-eye, but you, at the very least, need to understand the other person's argument. Because both sides make valid points.
Let's shoot for a bit less hostility and a little more of an enviornment where people can exchange ideas and learn from one another, ok?

[feldspar]

Trinity,
Just to clear up any confusion you might have, moderators do not have the ability to ban posters. Only the administrators (J&B) do. In fact, by the time I saw this thread, ImagePro was already banned. I'm trying to figure out what he did to get banned, since he and I had been exchanging some nice messages prior to the game.
On another note, please read my note about respecting other peoples's opinions. Your recent post in response to Fish is an example of what we're trying to avoid. You are basically taking the moral high grouind, in essence, by saying any post advocating less depth is a knock on the players. That's not fair. If it's fair for someone to say why goes should play more, it's only fair for someone else to be able to explain why guys should say less. Again, you guys don't need to see eye-to-eye, but you, at the very least, need to understand the other person's argument. Because both sides make valid points.
Let's shoot for a bit less hostility and a little more of an enviornment where people can exchange ideas and learn from one another, ok?

I just gotta say, I love the new Jumbo.

He makes me want to be a better person.

[Jumbo]

I just gotta say, I love the new Jumbo.

He makes me want to be a better person.

Greg and Steve are excellent mentors for this new role, I think. WWBTDFD?

[dbr]

Jumbo's correct. He had nothing to do with the ban of ImagePro. Besides, the ban was of short duration and was already lifted.

[Dukefan4Life]

i dont know why we dont use our bench more than we do! I know freshman make mistakes and it could cost the team, but even in some of the games where we knew we would crush they didnt get much PT. I have seen it so many times where we dont use our bench then come tourney time we get in foul trouble and then use a guy who hasnt played all season then expect him to step up and save the day! we get some of the best players in america! i say use them!

[Fish80]

Fish you say we are Bashing K. Hardly! If you read imagepros post HE said he thinks we have the best staff in America, and I agree. And you call that bashing? Puhhhlease! Look at how many posts there were echoing, or even preceding what he said. Ever considered you might be wrong? I doubt it.

While you say you support the entire team, you appear to support the coach, and NOT the kids that are not playing. You made that clearly evident when YOU commented on how they (MP, BZ, LT) DO NOT produce. Like image, and all the others on this thread EXCEPT you, WE support Marty, Zou, Lance. Please do not turn this around and say YOU do. YOU made your point clear on about 4 posts here. YOU "support the entire team" as you say, but YOU don't think they can play? Well which is it Fish? I mean honestly, it can't be BOTH ways. It was YOU who commented on their lack of contribution, not ours. It was YOU who questioned how they could get playing time. After it was logically explained, YOU get sarcastic.

I agree with what IP, Dukie8, Few, Savannah and many others here have said. Speaking of that, IP and I sit in section 15 at Cameron. Next season, come and join us one time. You'll hear a LOT more of the "play the bench" talk from fans around us. It's the topic of converstation at every game. But nevermind, you wouldn't want to sit there. You'd fell waaayyy out of place.

Also, it's pretty obvious who was responsible for the ban of IP. OK, you finally win, but a cheap way to do it. Keep it up and it will be all the oldtimers, just like the "good ole days" huh? Like I said a few months ago, you guys should start your own site and sit in your little circle and praise the Almighty.

And by the way, don't bother to ban me, I'm already gone!

If Fish is wrong, then I don't want to be right. Wait a minute, I am Fish.

trinity, I had no intention of getting imagepro banned and truely hope that my posts did not in some way cause the banning of imagepro. I enjoy discussions with imagepro and look forward to many more.

I'd like to see more time for the bench. In fact, I hope in the NC State game that all 8 guys get between 20 and 30 minutes (average 25, I think). I might be wrong about bench development - maybe the bench could be deeper than it is now if guys had played more in December and January.

But on the specifics of the UNC game on Sunday, I agree with the strategy employed. Not everyone does, and that's fine. C'est la vie.

[Zeb]

I want to add to the praise for the so-called "new Jumbo". His comments on this thread are exemplary and in the finest tradition of DBR. A few months ago, I would have assumed he'd be in the mosh pit duking it out with the rest of the rabid partisans. Now he's part of the solution. Bravo.

[feldspar]

I want to add to the praise for the so-called "new Jumbo". His comments on this thread are exemplary and in the finest tradition of DBR. A few months ago, I would have assumed he'd be in the mosh pit duking it out with the rest of the rabid partisans. Now he's part of the solution. Bravo.

I'm smelling an ABC after-school special.