Phase II - 2011-2012

[NSDukeFan]

(Great Phase points)...

Here’s some point in time metrics, closing out Phase 1.
• .469 FG% (down from .492 pre-OSU. Darn).
• .446 Opp FG%.
• .681 FT% (229 to 152 in attempts).
• .432 3pt%.
• +8 Rebounding differential on the season (total, not per game).
• -4 Offensive Rebound differential on the season, total. Doh!
• A:TO ratio: 93:108. Doh!
• 7.8 Steals per game.
• KenPom: 7th overall; AdjO: 116.3 (7th); AdjD: 90.6 (18th).
• Only averaging 77 points a game. This should increase in Phase 2, but we need to push pace more and get more secondary break points.
• Good: 23rd in FG %. 20th in 3pt % - 8 for 19 per game.
• Bad: 274th in rebounding, 249th in assists. 200th in steals. 217th in blocks.

Thanks for the great Phase report Superdave and as usual I appreciate the discussion that has followed. I just relooked at the stats you had posted and was surprised at how poor the team's rebounding numbers are, at least compared to my (perhaps, inflated) expectations. With a good set of big men, I would have hoped that the team would have an advantage rebounding the ball this year, but unfortunately that hasn't been the case. I wonder if that is due to not getting enough rebounds from the 3 and 4 positions, and Ryan and Andre may be average to below average rebounders for their positions. In addition to perimeter defense and seeing some minutes for the non-top 6, this is an area that I would hope to see some improvement in Phase 2.

[superdave]

Thanks for the great Phase report Superdave and as usual I appreciate the discussion that has followed. I just relooked at the stats you had posted and was surprised at how poor the team's rebounding numbers are, at least compared to my (perhaps, inflated) expectations. With a good set of big men, I would have hoped that the team would have an advantage rebounding the ball this year, but unfortunately that hasn't been the case. I wonder if that is due to not getting enough rebounds from the 3 and 4 positions, and Ryan and Andre may be average to below average rebounders for their positions. In addition to perimeter defense and seeing some minutes for the non-top 6, this is an area that I would hope to see some improvement in Phase 2.

Last year Kyle played a lot of minutes at the 3, so there's part of your drop-off. I did notice our guards - anecdotally - crashing the boards a few times, Michigan State coming to mind first. If we are going to play a slower pace this year, which I think our 77ppg and lack of pushing the ball suggest, then I'd hope we'd get a lot better on the boards. To do so we need to the guards and Kelly crashing more. I'm not sure Phase 2 is going to shed much light on this issue though.

[FellowTraveler]

Just spent some time reading this thread, and some others, and checking out Ken Pomeroy’s player stats, which are now online. Following are some thoughts, mostly having to do with Tyler Thornton and Andre Dawkins, and the general question of boosting productivity outside of the Rivers/Curry/Kelly/Mason, about whom there seems to be broad agreement in favor of continued extensive playing time. [NOTE: I wrote most of this last night, and all the statistics referenced were current yesterday, but may not be today.]

Watching Duke play, it’s hard not to like Thornton’s aggressiveness. And if you know how good a shooter, and solid an athlete, Dawkins is, it’s hard not to be frustrated that he isn’t doing more, whether you blame him or team strategy. I think those two very natural reactions created some skewed perceptions of their actual performance.

Tyler Thornton commits a whopping 7.2 fouls per 40 minutes. Only Gbinije (6.1) and Hairston (5.3) come within 2.4 fouls of Hairston. And Thornton was similarly foul-prone last year, committing 6.3 fouls/40 minutes. Among the top ten teams in Pomeroy’s team ratings, only there are only three other players who have accumulated at least 100 minutes of playing time while committing at least 7 fouls per 40 minutes.

Some people tend to excuse or ignore fouls committed by hard-nosed perimeter players, or, even more perversely, see such fouls as further evidence of their defensive tenacity. And that’s fine if we’re talking about the difference between 2.8 and 3.0 fouls per 40; the higher foul rate may indeed be a price you’d happily pay for more aggressive defense. But the extraordinary rate at which Tyler Thornton commits fouls is huge defensive liability. It gives away points. It puts the opposition in the bonus faster, which gives away more points, and affects the way teammates play defense.

I’ve previously said that while I consider Thornton a very good defender, I don’t think he is (yet) a great one. Like others, I’ve been of the opinion that his positives -- disruptiveness in passing lanes, initial harassment of a ball-handler, etc -- are, to some extent, offset by the fact that he can be taken off the dribble. But I hadn’t realized his foul rate was this high. I’m now not sure he’s even a “very good” defender. And it’s hard to make the case that he’s a much better defender than Andre Dawkins when you consider that Thornton commits five more fouls per 40 minutes than Dawkins does.

Then there’s turnovers. Thornton turns the ball over on 29 percent of his possessions -- second-highest on the team, behind only Gbinije’s astounding 45.6 turnover rate (compiled, obviously, in too few minutes to be particularly meaningful.) Among other perimeter players, Curry has a TO rate of 20.0, Rivers 15.6, Quinn 15.3, and Andre 8.0. (Andre’s very low rate -- 57th nationwide -- is, of course, largely a function of the fact that he touches the ball so much less than almost anyone else, though it should be noted that his usage rate is -- slightly -- higher than Thornton’s. Also worth noting: In games when Andre has played more and gotten more touches, he still hasn’t turned the ball over: Only 1 turnover in 107 total minutes against Michigan State, Michigan, and Kansas. None last year in his 28-point outburst against Bradley.)

My bottom line on Thornton, at this point, is that I’m afraid a lot of people -- including, at times, me -- like the idea of Tyler Thornton (solid, aggressive, tough, fully committed defensively) so much that we lose sight of the (current) reality of Tyler Thornton, which is that he commits fouls and turnovers at an extremely high rate, which significantly undermines his effectiveness on both ends of the court.

And what of more PT for Gbinije? He fouls almost as much as Tyler and commits a turnover on every other possession. I’ve seen no reason other than his size and shape to conclude that, given significant minutes, he’d outproduce anyone on the team, except perhaps Alex Murphy and Todd Zafirovski. Murphy? Murphy hasn’t set foot on the court yet. I think I tend to defer to the wisdom of the coaching staff considerably less than the median DBR poster, but even I don’t think the zero minutes I’ve seen Murphy play provide enough evidence to second guess his playing time. Finally, Quinn Cook actually has the best assist rate on the team and a reasonable turnover rate (15.3) and fouls/40 (3.0), but he has not yet shot the ball well and remains a defensive question mark (though he seems further along than many of us expected.) I think there’s a better case for expanding Quinn’s role than that of Tyler/Mike/Alex, but I’m not sure it would make much sense to give Quinn significantly more PT unless he was the primary ball-handler while on the court, which seems both unlikely to occur and fairly risky.

So, from what I’ve seen so far, on the court and in the numbers, if the goal is to improve the productivity of minutes that aren’t used by Rivers, Curry, Kelly or the Plumlees, I think running some plays on a consistent basis for the guy who lit Michigan State up for 26 points is significantly more likely to succeed than giving his PT to anyone else. We know Dawkins can be productive against quality competition. We don’t yet know that about anyone else, and have significant reasons to doubt that they are ready.

The idea of giving Dawkins, Gbinije and Murphy more or less equal PT over the next few games and seeing what happens is not one I find compelling. First: We’ve seen little to nothing out of Gbinije and Murphy that would justify such a move. Second: 10-15 minutes per game of mostly garbage-time PT against overmatched opponents is not likely to provide a strong basis for comparative analysis of their performance. Most importantly: Time spent taking a flyer on Gbinije/Murphy is time not spent figuring out how to work Dawkins into the offense more, which I think is very important. Nor is it time spent perfecting (or coming as close as possible) the overall team offense and defense with the 7 players who are likely to be the core of this year’s team, which I think is of paramount importance.

[OldSchool]

And what of more PT for Gbinije? He fouls almost as much as Tyler and commits a turnover on every other possession. I’ve seen no reason other than his size and shape to conclude that, given significant minutes, he’d outproduce anyone on the team, except perhaps Alex Murphy and Todd Zafirovski.

The idea of giving Dawkins, Gbinije and Murphy more or less equal PT over the next few games and seeing what happens is not one I find compelling. First: We’ve seen little to nothing out of Gbinije and Murphy that would justify such a move. Second: 10-15 minutes per game of mostly garbage-time PT against overmatched opponents is not likely to provide a strong basis for comparative analysis of their performance. Most importantly: Time spent taking a flyer on Gbinije/Murphy is time not spent figuring out how to work Dawkins into the offense more, which I think is very important. Nor is it time spent perfecting (or coming as close as possible) the overall team offense and defense with the 7 players who are likely to be the core of this year’s team, which I think is of paramount importance.

Gbinije has seen 1 minute against Belmont, 14 against Presbyterian, 2 against Davidson and 16 against Ohio State. In my view, one cannot draw firm conclusions about anything from just those minutes.

In his most recent outing against the best team we've played, Ohio State, in 16 minutes Mike had 1 steal, 1 foul and no turnovers and was 1-1 from the floor.

The argument for playing G more is NOT that he would "outproduce" Andre. Obviously Andre is a more potent offensive weapon, and I would certainly expect that to be the case throughout this season.

The point is that a very athletic 6'7" 205 Mike may offer a much stronger defensive ability than Andre at least against teams that field a true forward at the 3 instead of playing three guards like we do. I said "may" because he is only a freshman and it is not a given that he will in fact in game situations be a better defender than Andre.

I would not propose playing G "more or less equal PT" with Andre. But I would give him more minutes than he has been getting, at least before the OSU game, probably in the 10-20 minutes a game range, unless he is playing unusually well and earns more minutes or it makes sense to play him more minutes against a particular team for matchup reasons.

Even if Mike does prove to be an effective defender (and perhaps helps in other areas as well like rebounding) that does not mean Andre would not be our most effective player at the 3 on balance. But if Mike does prove effective, we may find it very beneficial at the end of the season to be able to use him against guys like Barnes or Gilchrist or other talented true forwards.

[Kedsy]

I would not propose playing G "more or less equal PT" with Andre. But I would give him more minutes than he has been getting, at least before the OSU game, probably in the 10-20 minutes a game range, unless he is playing unusually well and earns more minutes or it makes sense to play him more minutes against a particular team for matchup reasons.

Currently, Austin has played 31 mpg and Seth 32, numbers that are unlikely to go down. Add the 80 minutes played at the 4 and 5, and that leaves a total of 57 minutes for everyone else.

Right now that 57 minutes is split: Andre (27), Tyler (16), Quinn (8), Mike (5) (which is only 56 minutes, but that's because of decimal places). If Mike upped his time to 20 (which I realize is at the high end of your range), he'd either be playing the same (or more) minutes as Andre; or Tyler and Quinn would only combine for 15 minutes. Especially considering the reports that Quinn's minutes are about to go up, that latter possibility seems unlikely.

My point is, as a practical matter, you sort of are proposing Mike and Andre having "more or less equal PT."

[OldSchool]

Currently, Austin has played 31 mpg and Seth 32, numbers that are unlikely to go down. Add the 80 minutes played at the 4 and 5, and that leaves a total of 57 minutes for everyone else.

Right now that 57 minutes is split: Andre (27), Tyler (16), Quinn (8), Mike (5) (which is only 56 minutes, but that's because of decimal places). If Mike upped his time to 20 (which I realize is at the high end of your range), he'd either be playing the same (or more) minutes as Andre; or Tyler and Quinn would only combine for 15 minutes. Especially considering the reports that Quinn's minutes are about to go up, that latter possibility seems unlikely.

My point is, as a practical matter, you sort of are proposing Mike and Andre having "more or less equal PT."

Andre's minutes were moving up before OSU -- in the three games before OSU Andre got 32, 35 and 34 minutes. I would split the 3 position between Andre (say, 25-30 mins) and G (say, 10-15 mins, with more possible against particular matchups). (I am assuming Alex redshirts or gets few minutes, which assumption may be unwarranted.)

Against teams playing 3 guards or weaker opponents we could get away with matching up someone other than Andre or Mike at the 3 position, so that could change the minutes and allow more flexible lineup possibilities.

But I would expect against the tougher opponents and at the end of the year it's going to be either Andre or, if Mike works out, Mike defending the 3.

Perhaps Austin could be used in that role if Quinn forces himself into the starting lineup and Seth moves over to start at the 2. Andre would become a sixth man in that situation. Personally, I think that is unlikely though not out of the question.

I think when we start getting deep into conference play we will see Seth, Austin and Andre as starters with Seth and Austin subbed by Tyler and Quinn and, if Mike works out, Andre subbed by Mike.

[FellowTraveler]

Gbinije has seen 1 minute against Belmont, 14 against Presbyterian, 2 against Davidson and 16 against Ohio State. In my view, one cannot draw firm conclusions about anything from just those minutes.

I agree.

The argument for playing G more is NOT that he would "outproduce" Andre. Obviously Andre is a more potent offensive weapon, and I would certainly expect that to be the case throughout this season. The point is that a very athletic 6'7" 205 Mike may offer a much stronger defensive ability than Andre at least against teams that field a true forward at the 3 instead of playing three guards like we do.

Just to clarify, I was using the word "outproduce" more broadly than you seem to have interpreted it. I.e., I was not referring solely to offense.

[superdave]

Nolan's tweet at 10:47pm eastern tonight

NdotSmitty Nolan D. Smith
@QCook323 big day tomorrow!! Get some rest!!
2 minutes ago


Hmmmm...referencing a Quinn starting nod? Or am I reading too much into the twitter?

[Newton_14]

Nolan's tweet at 10:47pm eastern tonight

NdotSmitty Nolan D. Smith
@QCook323 big day tomorrow!! Get some rest!!
2 minutes ago


Hmmmm...referencing a Quinn starting nod? Or am I reading too much into the twitter?

I read it the same way. Interesting. If Andre is the guy sitting that's an awful small perimeter. I will be interested to see what the philosophy on defense is, and what the lineup rotations look like.

[Bob Green]

If Andre is the guy sitting that's an awful small perimeter.

A small perimeter might work tomorrow against Colorado State, but on Saturday we tip it off against Washington who goes 6'3", 6'5" and 6'6" with their starting guards and has a 6'5" Sixth Man. I have a hard time believing Andre Dawkins does not continue to see 25+ minutes per game. I'm a believer in Quinn Cook and would welcome more playing time for him in order to facilitate his development, but I do not believe he is going to be inserted into the starting line-up and immediately start playing major minutes. Yes, Cook's minutes might increase but Dawkins remains our best option at small forward/third guard.

[Greg_Newton]

Not sure where else to put this, but I REALLY hope we arrive at the following strategy by the end of the season.

I've thought a lot about this, and it seems simple to me. Used right, Rivers and Curry should be the best backcourt in the country; as much as I like Cook, there should be no need to replace one of them with an a ~RSCI 30 freshman. I think we just need to straight-up swap their roles in the offense; have Rivers bring the ball up and run the break, while Curry receives the first pass and "initiates" the halfcourt offense. I'm basing this on the following claims/assumptions:

1. Curry bringing the ball up is detrimental to his game. He is not blessed with an intuitive handle or explosive quickness, so when he's pressed, he has to consciously protect the ball, watch his defender, all while executing 2-4 little moves to create space as he gets up the court to initiate the offense. He has to work to do this, and maintain sharp focus on his 1-on-1 matchup. Multiply this by the number of possessions he's bringing it up, and I really think it wears him down, physically and mentally. Then there's also the stat someone posted where he's shooting ~20% better on shots off of passes than on shots off the dribble.

2. Curry bringing the ball up does not benefit the team. For the above reasons, he does not tend to arrive at the top of the key under control, with space and his head up. This means his first pass to a wing player does not usually come at the perfect time and place, it's more of a "here, this guy's bothering me so take it" pass. It's not like he's breaking the defense down and creating an advantage before dishing off the first pass.

3. Curry thrives when receiving the ball on the wing after coming off of a screen. He's at his best when our offense gives him a half-step on the defender, or the defense is broken down in some way he can exploit. He's great when he's a step ahead of the defense, but he can't get that step when he's on an island at the top of the key. He needs to be put in situations where he can rely on his instincts and IQ to be effective, not his handle and quickness.

4. Rivers bringing the ball up would be beneficial for him. It's in his best interests to learn how to be a PG (certainly NBA-wise), and player who can manage a game without springing at any semblance of a lane he sees, and I think K is perfectly capable of teaching him how to bring the ball up and run the break under control without forcing his offense. Furthermore, he has one of the most intuitive handles and quickest first steps I've ever seen; I think he'd love to have an extra 50 feet to humiliate any brave full-court defenders, and to showcase his moves without having to do so in a congested halfcourt set while slowing ball movement.

5. Rivers is not at his best on the wing. How many times have we seen him try to split three defenders on the wing and get stripped, lose the ball, even dribble it off of his foot? He's clearly not in his element in a crowded, constantly shifting halfcourt situation like Curry is. On the other hand, how unstoppable has he looked breaking down defenders on an island when he has space to make that second dribble?

6. Rivers bringing the ball up would be beneficial for the team. This is largely a function of 3, 4 and 5. Plus, Rivers' quickness, height and natural handle should allow him to arrive in the halfcourt with the space and awareness to make the first pass right when it needs to be made. Lastly, I think you'd quickly see teams stop pressing us full or 3/4 court, even quick ones. Would you want to be Austin's victim on an island for 50 feet every position? Good way to make Sportscenter, I guess...

--------------

Now, for our offensive set. I want to see every offensive possession go like this:

1. Rivers brings the ball up, looking for Curry on the wing. Curry comes off of a Mason screen on the left foul-line extended, and receives the pass at the three point-line as Ryan comes to the top of the key and sets a screen for Rivers to fade to the weak side.

2. If he's wide open, Curry shoots this "layup". If the defender is close but a step behind him, he catches the ball in stride and takes a dribble forward. This is where he's at his best, and can use his sneaky Curry-sense to make plays (and hopefully will have more energy to do so without the burden of all the ballhandling duties). He can a) pull up, b) take another dribble then a floater, c) continue to the rim if there's a lane (where he's actually been very good at finishing if he gets there), d) dish/lob to a rolling Mason, or e) simply kick it back out to Dre, Austin or Ryan.

3. If nothing's there for Curry, he a) looks to see if Mason has established deep post position following the screen, and if not, b) passes to Kelly at the top of the key.

4. Kelly a) takes the three if the PF has not followed him out; otherwise, he b) looks for Mason, who has now had more time to establish iso post position on the left block, his favorite spot, c) waves Mason to the other block and works on his man, or d) swings it to Dre or Austin on the right wing.

I'm not sure what the next couple options would be, because I've never been great at the X's and O's of set plays. However, once we've gone through a few options and the shot clock hits 15-20 without a good shot, THEN we find Austin again, spread the floor, and set a high screen with Kelly.

This "last resort" gives one of the best penetrators in the country room to go to work with the option to a) dish to Kelly, one of the best shooting bigs in the country, on the pop if his man helps, b) dish to Dre or Curry, the two best shooters in the country, on the wings if their men help, c) dish/lob to Mason on the baseline, one of the best finishers in the country, if his man helps, d) shoot a pull-up three from straight ahead, which he's been money on, or e) take it at the rim, what he does best.

Not only does this give us a higher ceiling in March than any other option, IMO, it makes us better right now. I don't know why we're not doing it already.

[Mcluhan]

You make a compelling case.

[billyj]

I am sold! But can Coach K deal with 5 extra turnovers per game. Growing pains I guess?

[Oriole Way]

Not sure where else to put this, but I REALLY hope we arrive at the following strategy by the end of the season.

I've thought a lot about this, and it seems simple to me. Used right, Rivers and Curry should be the best backcourt in the country; as much as I like Cook, there should be no need to replace one of them with an a ~RSCI 30 freshman. I think we just need to straight-up swap their roles in the offense; have Rivers bring the ball up and run the break, while Curry receives the first pass and "initiates" the halfcourt offense. I'm basing this on the following claims/assumptions:

1. Curry bringing the ball up is detrimental to his game. He is not blessed with an intuitive handle or explosive quickness, so when he's pressed, he has to consciously protect the ball, watch his defender, all while executing 2-4 little moves to create space as he gets up the court to initiate the offense. He has to work to do this, and maintain sharp focus on his 1-on-1 matchup. Multiply this by the number of possessions he's bringing it up, and I really think it wears him down, physically and mentally. Then there's also the stat someone posted where he's shooting ~20% better on shots off of passes than on shots off the dribble.

2. Curry bringing the ball up does not benefit the team. For the above reasons, he does not tend to arrive at the top of the key under control, with space and his head up. This means his first pass to a wing player does not usually come at the perfect time and place, it's more of a "here, this guy's bothering me so take it" pass. It's not like he's breaking the defense down and creating an advantage before dishing off the first pass.

3. Curry thrives when receiving the ball on the wing after coming off of a screen. He's at his best when our offense gives him a half-step on the defender, or the defense is broken down in some way he can exploit. He's great when he's a step ahead of the defense, but he can't get that step when he's on an island at the top of the key. He needs to be put in situations where he can rely on his instincts and IQ to be effective, not his handle and quickness.

4. Rivers bringing the ball up would be beneficial for him. It's in his best interests to learn how to be a PG (certainly NBA-wise), and player who can manage a game without springing at any semblance of a lane he sees, and I think K is perfectly capable of teaching him how to bring the ball up and run the break under control without forcing his offense. Furthermore, he has one of the most intuitive handles and quickest first steps I've ever seen; I think he'd love to have an extra 50 feet to humiliate any brave full-court defenders, and to showcase his moves without having to do so in a congested halfcourt set while slowing ball movement.

5. Rivers is not at his best on the wing. How many times have we seen him try to split three defenders on the wing and get stripped, lose the ball, even dribble it off of his foot? He's clearly not in his element in a crowded, constantly shifting halfcourt situation like Curry is. On the other hand, how unstoppable has he looked breaking down defenders on an island when he has space to make that second dribble?

6. Rivers bringing the ball up would be beneficial for the team. This is largely a function of 3, 4 and 5. Plus, Rivers' quickness, height and natural handle should allow him to arrive in the halfcourt with the space and awareness to make the first pass right when it needs to be made. Lastly, I think you'd quickly see teams stop pressing us full or 3/4 court, even quick ones. Would you want to be Austin's victim on an island for 50 feet every position? Good way to make Sportscenter, I guess...

--------------

Now, for our offensive set. I want to see every offensive possession go like this:

1. Rivers brings the ball up, looking for Curry on the wing. Curry comes off of a Mason screen on the left foul-line extended, and receives the pass at the three point-line as Ryan comes to the top of the key and sets a screen for Rivers to fade to the weak side.

2. If he's wide open, Curry shoots this "layup". If the defender is close but a step behind him, he catches the ball in stride and takes a dribble forward. This is where he's at his best, and can use his sneaky Curry-sense to make plays (and hopefully will have more energy to do so without the burden of all the ballhandling duties). He can a) pull up, b) take another dribble then a floater, c) continue to the rim if there's a lane (where he's actually been very good at finishing if he gets there), d) dish/lob to a rolling Mason, or e) simply kick it back out to Dre, Austin or Ryan.

3. If nothing's there for Curry, he a) looks to see if Mason has established deep post position following the screen, and if not, b) passes to Kelly at the top of the key.

4. Kelly a) takes the three if the PF has not followed him out; otherwise, he b) looks for Mason, who has now had more time to establish iso post position on the left block, his favorite spot, c) waves Mason to the other block and works on his man, or d) swings it to Dre or Austin on the right wing.

I'm not sure what the next couple options would be, because I've never been great at the X's and O's of set plays. However, once we've gone through a few options and the shot clock hits 15-20 without a good shot, THEN we find Austin again, spread the floor, and set a high screen with Kelly.

This "last resort" gives one of the best penetrators in the country room to go to work with the option to a) dish to Kelly, one of the best shooting bigs in the country, on the pop if his man helps, b) dish to Dre or Curry, the two best shooters in the country, on the wings if their men help, c) dish/lob to Mason on the baseline, one of the best finishers in the country, if his man helps, d) shoot a pull-up three from straight ahead, which he's been money on, or e) take it at the rim, what he does best.

Not only does this give us a higher ceiling in March than any other option, IMO, it makes us better right now. I don't know why we're not doing it already.

Great post, and you make a lot of great points.

I have to disagree about Rivers bringing the ball up being the ultimate solution, although I wouldn't be surprised if Duke goes that route, and I wouldn't be surprised if I turn out to be wrong and it works. But, I don't think it will work.

I think the main reason we haven't seen Rivers starting/running the offense is that K knows that relying on Rivers so heavily will tire him, and it will also ask him to play the part of a point guard - even if he's only bringing the ball up for an initial pass to Curry - when he doesn't have the passing abilities to do so. When I have more time, I'd like to do a better job of explaining why I think Rivers bringing the ball up as you suggest would be easy (for the better defending teams) to defend against, and would also bog down the offense.

I'd like to qualify my belief that Rivers wouldn't be the ideal solution by saying that he would likely do a fine job in the role against lower-tier opponents. However, when playing against good defensive teams, it will be fairly easy for opponents to game plan for Rivers bringing the ball up because Duke doesn't have any other players who can consistently penetrate into the lane (other than Cook, who will still be on the bench on not playing as much if Rivers is to be used as you suggest). Teams will be able to get away with applying more man-to-man pressure on Rivers further away from the basket, while simultaneously overplaying the passing lanes. With someone like Cook running the offense - someone who has good handles, superior passing ability, and who provides a second penetrating option - it becomes easier for Duke to create offense because our best shot-creator - Rivers - isn't preoccupied with getting the ball up the floor to set up the offense and is instead available to receive a pass and proceed to shoot or make a move into the lane.

With two guards who are capable of penetrating past their initial defender in Cook and Rivers, the opponent's defense will be forced to move much more (and Duke will be better able to move the ball around and create space), which will lead to more opportunities for the other Duke players. An offense with Rivers bringing the ball up the floor will be much more static, in my opinion, and ultimately not as efficient as an offense with Cook bringing the ball up the floor and running the team.

[FellowTraveler]

Not only does this give us a higher ceiling in March than any other option, IMO, it makes us better right now. I don't know why we're not doing it already.

My initial reaction to this is quite favorable. I'd add a wrinkle, though: Switching the Curry/Dawkins roles periodically. Something along the lines of 65 percent of plays as you described, 35 percent as you described but with Curry & Dawkins flipped. A few reasons:

1) When Dawkins is standing in the corner/wing as the 4th or 5th option, he doesn't get shots, or even quality touches. He's basically a non-factor in the offense as you've described. I believe Duke's offense has a higher ceiling if it establishes Dawkins as a significant factor.

2) Though Dawkins isn't as versatile as Curry when receiving the ball as you've described (which is why I advocate a 65/35 split rather than 65/35), I do believe he and Mason have good offensive chemistry, and can run the screen & roll effectively together.

3) Curry gets a bit more rest. Among other reasons why this is important: Duke may still need/want Curry to bring the ball up the court late in close games, either because the opposition is pressing/trapping and Rivers needs help, or because he's a better free throw shooter than Rivers.

My other quibble is that I wouldn't run this set *every* possession; I'd also like to see a non-trivial number that begin by simply feeding Mason in the post, or getting the ball to Kelly in the high post. (Thinking back to the OSU game, Dawkins' one shot was a good look from straight on, about 17 feet out that he just shot a little long ... I think Duke could've gotten that shot again, for Dawkins & others, and could've gotten Kelly the ball in that spot, from which he can shoot or feed the post or drive a bit ... a lot of good things can happen from there, but Duke didn't seem to try.)

[jamesfrommaiden]

So far so good I'd say. The team has come a long way in a short amount of time while winning against good competition and bringing home a championship from Maui. It is not an easy task to maintain such success while trying to replace the best gaurd in the ACC and one of the nation's best in Nolan Smith and the glue of the program over the previous four years in Kyle Singler. One of the greatest Blue Devils ever. We all know what the problems are. There is huge room for improvement with this team. I would say the future is looking extremely bright for this young group of men. Who truley knows how good Duke will be this year? I just jnow there is the talent in place along with the greatest coach in NCAA history to get there.

[Kedsy]

Not sure where else to put this, but I REALLY hope we arrive at the following strategy by the end of the season.

I like this for the most part. I think it makes more sense than starting Quinn because it's a better defensive configuration.

I wouldn't be so rigid about every play looking like that, though. For one thing, as FellowTraveler noted, it makes Andre a lot less involved in the offense, and I think Andre needs to be more involved, not less. For another thing, your strategy seems to also lessen Mason's involvement in the offense, which doesn't seem optimal given how well he's been playing. Finally, Austin giving up the ball and not seeing it again for 15 seconds doesn't sound ideal to me. Instead of always passing to the wing, he can sometimes try to make his play from the top of the key. Of course if he does this, he needs to be more willing to dish off the drive (either inside to Mason or out to a three-point shooter) than he's shown so far, but I think he can get there. I agree he should pass to the wing more often than not. But I think we need more flexibility when we initiate the offense.

[Duke Defense]

I realize sometimes height/weight get inflated for rosters... but according to goduke.com Rivers and Dawkins are the same size-- each 6'4" and 200#. Dre has hops but Rivers has some too. He may just not have enough experience, but I'd be curious if Rivers could guard most opposing teams' 3. Haven't paid enough attention to see how much Rivers has guarded a 3 so far this year. That move might allow Cook and Curry to guard opposing teams' 1 and 2s, and give us someone to handle the press and another penetrator on offense in Cook. Nowadays it appears most teams' 3/wing players don't post up very much anyway-- if they do shoot inside it's off a drive. Dre could sub in for any of 3 and Curry could run point (as he is now) when Cook sat. Curious to see if K tries that in Phase II.

For teams w/especially tall guards like Washington, may need to use Dre more on defense and Cook less.

[FellowTraveler]

RE: Dawkins/Cook, it strikes me that the most unfortunate aspect of the possibility of Cook getting some of Dawkins' playing time is that Dawkins may be the Duke player who would most benefit from playing alongside a PG like Cook.

On some teams, the pieces fit together perfectly; on others, they don't. This appears to be the latter type of team -- which doesn't mean it can't be successful, but does mean there's likely to remain greater-than-average uncertainty/debate about the best ways to deploy players.

[Greg_Newton]

My initial reaction to this is quite favorable. I'd add a wrinkle, though: Switching the Curry/Dawkins roles periodically. Something along the lines of 65 percent of plays as you described, 35 percent as you described but with Curry & Dawkins flipped. A few reasons:

1) When Dawkins is standing in the corner/wing as the 4th or 5th option, he doesn't get shots, or even quality touches. He's basically a non-factor in the offense as you've described. I believe Duke's offense has a higher ceiling if it establishes Dawkins as a significant factor.

2) Though Dawkins isn't as versatile as Curry when receiving the ball as you've described (which is why I advocate a 65/35 split rather than 65/35), I do believe he and Mason have good offensive chemistry, and can run the screen & roll effectively together.

3) Curry gets a bit more rest. Among other reasons why this is important: Duke may still need/want Curry to bring the ball up the court late in close games, either because the opposition is pressing/trapping and Rivers needs help, or because he's a better free throw shooter than Rivers.

My other quibble is that I wouldn't run this set *every* possession; I'd also like to see a non-trivial number that begin by simply feeding Mason in the post, or getting the ball to Kelly in the high post. (Thinking back to the OSU game, Dawkins' one shot was a good look from straight on, about 17 feet out that he just shot a little long ... I think Duke could've gotten that shot again, for Dawkins & others, and could've gotten Kelly the ball in that spot, from which he can shoot or feed the post or drive a bit ... a lot of good things can happen from there, but Duke didn't seem to try.)

Good poin -, I actually meant to add that I'd like to see a couple "JJ plays" for Dawkins, especially early. I wouldn't even be opposed to the first 2-3 possessions of each game being double/triple screen sets for Dawk before we move into our "normal" game, just for the heck of it (it's not like we usually start gangbusters anyway). I do think that Mason could be very involved in this kind of progression, though; he's not usually fed from the top of the key from the point guard anyway, so it would just involve K telling Seth/Ryan to look for Mason as their first option.

I do agree we couldn't just run it every time downcourt - I meant that kind of tongue in cheek. It just seems like the ideal way to capitalize on everyone's strengths to me, and in an ideal world, I'd like to see them perfect the flow and run it until someone stops it. We have so many possessions where guys are trying to do things they're not great at, as it is, which is frustrating.

Oriole - I'd be interested to hear your expanded argument (and I don't mean that sarcastically). For now though, off to Cameron (where I'm sure Curry will have 15 assists and Austin 15 TOs, now... )