Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70
  1. #41

    Austin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    If I were the coach, then yes, I would give serious thought to this idea. I've been waiting for it for some time, and wondering why Coach K hasn't tried this already. He must have a reason. Perhaps he doesn't have confidence in Austin's decision making yet, or is worried about putting too much pressure on him.
    I too have wondered why we haven't experimented using Austin at the point. He has the size and seems to have the handle to play PG, and as other posters have pointed out a lot of the offense flows through him already. A lineup of Austin at point and Seth and Andre on the wings, with Tyler, Quinn and Mike as backups, looks potent to me.

    But I'm sure Coach K and the rest of the staff have thought a lot more about this than I have, and that there are good reasons why we're not seeing it. Perhaps Austin is too valuable as a scorer to have him play point. Maybe with his fierce scorer's mentality he is not pass oriented enough to play PG, although he has shown the ability to make nice passes. Maybe the staff wants to develop other players at the point. Whatever it is, I'm sure there are good reasons, even if they are not evident to us mere mortals.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    I'm just getting around to watching the game, but after reading this thread I wanted to make some quick comments first.

    This isn't your ordinary Duke team. There's a lot of talent, we're very deep. Unfortunately this is one of the rare times that we haven't returned any bonafide stars. All our returning players were role players being asked to step-up and to a certain extent were being asked to be the man. As we saw years ago when we asked a very talented Chris Duhon to take over the point from a departed Jason Williams, it didn't go as smoothly as many of us expected. It took a full year for Chris to develop his mastery of the team and he eventually had an outstanding senior year.

    Seth was asked to take over the point, a position which isn't his normal one. Could the transition have been smoother if he was surrounded by more established players? It's very possible, however that isn't the make-up of our team and I'd say this experiment is a failure. This isn't a knock on Seth, as I seem to recall Nolan's first crack at running the point didn't go over so well two years ago.

    As I said above this isn't your normal Duke team and I believe if several of the players currently battling for playing time can't seperate themselves from their peers, then we'll continue to see Coach K play a deeper rotation than years past.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Put another way, Tyler is out there because of his defense and his floor leadership/intangibles. Quinn is clearly a better offensive player than Tyler. If Quinn's defense and floor leadership/intangibles were anywhere close to Tyler's, then Quinn would already be starting. He might get there later in the season, but obviously he's not there yet.
    I totally agree, though Quinn's sole and natural position is at pg and though he exhibits some nice point guard qualities - so far he has not shown he can contribute on the perimeter in the ways this team needs. It is nice that he has shown the ability to score, but isn't that what Austin, Andre, and Seth have already been doing? With Tyler we get the extra intangibles and all the bits of disruption he causes on the defensive end that tends to cause the oppositions offensive sets to break down. This is a nice supplement to the perimeter scoring we can already provide. I kind of think that is what K's logic has been here, or maybe something resembling that. Replace Tyler with Quinn and we may very well lose those intangibles and take away shots from the other 3 perimeter guys.
    "Just be you. You is Enough."

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Tyler

    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I agree that Tyler does not seem to make our offense better, quite the contrary, as we've been discussing in the other thread. So I assume K is talking about better defense and better communication when Tyler is on the floor. Perhaps better toughness. These are all valuable attributes, and once Quinn's defense is up to snuff, I think the ongoing question will be whether Tyler needs to be starting to bring those intangibles or whether he can provide the same benefit in short bursts off the bench.
    It does seem to me that Tyler has more of a nose for the ball, and a willingness to go after loose balls that no one else has displayed, except maybe Silent G. It's hard to quantify that, unless you have access to statistics that I've never seen, but I've seen Tyler get balls where I thought Duke had no chance.

    I agree that he also excels at team defense and apparently is the best communicator (or leader?) on the team.

    I think it's understandable that many fans (I include myself) wonder if Tyler is really the best option, given his lack of offensive production and his good, but not exceptional, on the ball defense. Those are things that are apparent to the to casual fans and to relatively sophisticated fans.

    Obviously, the coaching staff sees things we don't see, or he wouldn't be starting. While I am on occasion willing to question coaching decisions, it seems to me that I simply don't know enough to question Tyler's playing time.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, North Carolina

    10 Win Seasons

    As noted by Jim Sumner in his excellent game recap:
    Duke ran its record to 10-1, keeping intact an NCAA-leading record of double-figure winning seasons that started in 1928-29. This was actually a big deal at one time. Try 1974 or 1982, for example
    I was a freshman in 1982 (Dean Smith's first NCAA title) and we won 10 that year and 11 in 1983 (Valvano's title year), and I remember someone saying back then that Duke had the longest streak of 10-win seasons. I wonder who is second? We know who it's not - 8-20 in 2002!
    Last edited by Johnboy; 12-20-2011 at 01:34 PM. Reason: clarity

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I'm sorry if I sound repetitive. For some reason I can't stop myself.
    You are only sounding repetitive because you consistently knock down the repetitive, disproven arguments about playing time that other keep bringing up. We should link to your arguments and make them a sticky post at the top of the EK Board until the season is done.

  7. #47
    Coach K indicated in post game that both Seth and Ryan are coming back from injuries.

    Miles had the best +/- @26, Austin +23, while Mason had the best overall game

    DU UNCG Metrics +/- Total Duke Blue Devils

    54 (43) 52 11 63 Mason Plumlee, F
    59 (36) 40 23 63 Austin Rivers, G
    53 (27) 35 26 61 Miles Plumlee, F

    62 (48) 39 14 53 Andre Dawkins, G
    45 (29) 34 16 50 Ryan Kelly, F

    47 (32) 33 15 48 Quinn Cook, G

    41 (29) 24 12 36 Michael Gbinije, G-F
    32 (27) 26 +5 31 Seth Curry, G

    29 (17) 17 12 29 Tyler Thornton, G
    24 (21) 19 +3 22 Josh Hairston, F
    04 (6) 01 (2) (1) Todd Zafirovski, F
    135 TOTALS
    27

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Points about the Point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Waynne View Post
    I too have wondered why we haven't experimented using Austin at the point. He has the size and seems to have the handle to play PG, and as other posters have pointed out a lot of the offense flows through him already. A lineup of Austin at point and Seth and Andre on the wings, with Tyler, Quinn and Mike as backups, looks potent to me.

    But I'm sure Coach K and the rest of the staff have thought a lot more about this than I have, and that there are good reasons why we're not seeing it. Perhaps Austin is too valuable as a scorer to have him play point. Maybe with his fierce scorer's mentality he is not pass oriented enough to play PG, although he has shown the ability to make nice passes. Maybe the staff wants to develop other players at the point. Whatever it is, I'm sure there are good reasons, even if they are not evident to us mere mortals.
    May I quote Bobby Knight? "What's a point guard?" Austin Rivers will be on the floor much of the time (his 30.1 MPG is tied for #1), and he is no stranger to the ball. The question is, who will be in the game with him? And, if you concede that Mason, Ryan and Austin would normally be on the floor, what other attributes are needed? Offense is always nice, but Duke has a lot of weapons. I would say defense and ballhandling. K and others think that leadership is important, which is awfully hard to evaluate on the TV.

    sagegrouse

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    May I quote Bobby Knight? "What's a point guard?" ....
    A lot about Duke b'ball seems to be getting broken down into finer and finer detail around here. Maybe we can get statistics about how many possessions Duke has per game, and who advances the ball and institgates the offense each time. Is it a long pass fast break ... an under the bucket in-bounds play ... a traditional walk the ball up and advance to the front court (and who does it how many times) .... even so, after the initial pass in the traditional walk up the ball set, everybody's a distributor to the extent any more passes are made ...

  10. #50

    +/- for each lineup

    Here are the various lineups and +/- results for each:

    PT Duke UNCG +/-

    7.0 11 10 1 Seth-Austin-Mason-Ryan-Tyler *3
    4.9 08 10 (2) Seth-Austin-Dre-Mason-Miles *2
    2.8 10 04 6 Dre-Ryan-Mason-Quinn-Mike

    2.6 9 1 8 Austin-Dre-Mason-Miles-Tyler
    2.4 6 5 1 Austin-Dre-Miles-Quinn-Josh
    2.4 6 4 2 Seth-Austin-Dre-Ryan-Miles *2
    2.2 4 0 4 Seth-Austin-Mason-Miles-Tyler *2
    2.1 4 6 (2) Dre-Quinn-Josh-Mike-Todd
    2.0 3 3 0 Seth-Miles-Quinn-Josh-Mike
    1.8 4 0 4 Dre-Miles-Quinn-Josh-Mike
    1.7 5 5 0 Dre-Mason-Ryan-Qiuinn-Mike
    1.6 5 4 1 Austin-Dre-Mason-Ryan-Tyler
    1.4 5 2 3 Austin-Ryan-Miles-Quinn-Mike
    1.2 3 0 3 Dre-Ryan-Miles-Quinn-Mike
    1.1 0 0 0 Seth-Dre-Miles-Tyler-Josh
    1.1 2 7 (5) Dre-Mason-Quinn-Josh-Mike
    1.0 5 0 5 Austin-Miles-Quinn-Josh-Mike
    0.4 0 0 0 Austin-Dre-Ryan-Miles-Tyler
    0.4 0 0 0 Seth-Dre-Miles-Quinn-Josh
    0.2 0 2 (2) Dre-Mason-Miles-Tyler-Mike
    40.0 90 63 27

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    If I were the coach, then yes, I would give serious thought to this idea. I've been waiting for it for some time, and wondering why Coach K hasn't tried this already. He must have a reason. Perhaps he doesn't have confidence in Austin's decision making yet, or is worried about putting too much pressure on him.
    I don't know that moving Rivers to PG would dramatically change how the offense runs. Rivers attacks off the dribble already from his guard spot. I'm not sure that having him bring the ball up would change that. He's a score-first guard who does most of his scoring when creating his own shot. I don't see him suddenly turning into a fluid playmaker as a PG. My concern with making Rivers the PG is that it would do one of two things (or both):
    - limit fluidity of the offense (Rivers has primarily been an isolation player)
    - hinder Rivers' freedom to attack (make him uncertain about when to pass)

    So far the offensive approach has been a guard (generally Curry or Thornton) bringing the ball up and passing to the wing. At that point, we have 3 wings, one post, and a forward who sets high screens. If we move Rivers to PG, I see the same approach happening. But does Rivers become less aggressive, thinking he needs to change his role and set up others? Does he end up taking even more shots (since he'll be the one bringing it up and deciding how to initiate the offense)? Or do we simply end up with the same thing but a different guy bringing the ball up?

    And as (I believe) you've noted before, I don't think that offensive efficiency has been the problem for this team. We've been pretty good (top 10) offensively so far. It's on defense where we've struggled at times.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnboy View Post
    As noted by Jim Sumner in his excellent game recap:

    I was a freshman in 1982 (Dean Smith's first NCAA title) and we won 10 that year and 11 in 1983 (Valvano's title year), and I remember someone saying back then that Duke had the longest streak of 10-win seasons. I wonder who is second? We know who it's not - 8-20 in 2002!
    I was a senior in 1982, and I vaguely remember the answer (who's second) being Louisville. But I could easily be wrong about that, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I don't know that moving Rivers to PG would dramatically change how the offense runs. Rivers attacks off the dribble already from his guard spot. I'm not sure that having him bring the ball up would change that. He's a score-first guard who does most of his scoring when creating his own shot. I don't see him suddenly turning into a fluid playmaker as a PG. My concern with making Rivers the PG is that it would do one of two things (or both):
    - limit fluidity of the offense (Rivers has primarily been an isolation player)
    - hinder Rivers' freedom to attack (make him uncertain about when to pass)

    So far the offensive approach has been a guard (generally Curry or Thornton) bringing the ball up and passing to the wing. At that point, we have 3 wings, one post, and a forward who sets high screens. If we move Rivers to PG, I see the same approach happening. But does Rivers become less aggressive, thinking he needs to change his role and set up others? Does he end up taking even more shots (since he'll be the one bringing it up and deciding how to initiate the offense)? Or do we simply end up with the same thing but a different guy bringing the ball up?

    And as (I believe) you've noted before, I don't think that offensive efficiency has been the problem for this team. We've been pretty good (top 10) offensively so far. It's on defense where we've struggled at times.
    Well, yes, I have mentioned several times that our offensive efficiency is fine, although I might add that it has been declining somewhat in the past few games while Tyler has started at PG. Still, on offense I like the Austin/Seth/Andre combo, and if Austin (or Seth) played PG we could have that on the floor a bit more than we have the past few games.

    But the main reason I have been wondering what we'd be like with Austin at PG is on defense. Austin hasn't stayed in front of his man so well thus far, but he's tall (for a guard), quick, and athletic. And very competitive. If Coach K challenged him with the task of shutting down the opposing PG, I'd like to see how Austin would react. If he could embrace the role of lockdown defender (and if he was capable of it, of which I'm not at all sure), the team would be significantly better. And unless the other team's SG is unusually tall or strong, Seth and Tyler might be better suited to guard the wing anyway, where their quick hands would bother a lesser ballhandler more and their tendencies to help off their man wouldn't be leaving the PG alone. Also, if Austin became successful at shutting down the ball, it would allow us to ratchet up the defense in bursts, as Michael improves and earns some time at SF.

    Of course, Austin may not be capable of being that kind of defender, in which case we'd have to play someone at PG who is, or at least someone who is more capable than we've shown in some of our early games.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    But the main reason I have been wondering what we'd be like with Austin at PG is on defense. Also, if Austin became successful at shutting down the ball, it would allow us to ratchet up the defense in bursts, as Michael improves and earns some time at SF.
    Well, I think most of the "Rivers at PG" discussion has been with regard to Rivers playing the PG offensively. There's no reason we couldn't use the same starting lineup (or replace Thornton with Dawkins or Cook) and still have Rivers defend the PG while playing the wing on offense. There's no rule that the PG has to defend the other team's PG.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    There's no rule that the PG has to defend the other team's PG.
    Are you sure? Have you read the NCAA rulebook? War and Peace is a quicker read. It could be buried in there somewhere.

    Seriously, Nolan Smith usually guarded the other team's PG in 2010.

    Duke has been pretty consistent on Rivers. They want the ball in his hands. A lot. But they want him to attack the glass at every reasonable opportunity. They would like him to respond to help D better by finding the open man. But initiating the offense is not his primary job.

    Between Curry, Thornton and Cook, Duke should be able to let Rivers play off the ball.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    Are you sure? Have you read the NCAA rulebook? War and Peace is a quicker read. It could be buried in there somewhere.

    Seriously, Nolan Smith usually guarded the other team's PG in 2010.

    Duke has been pretty consistent on Rivers. They want the ball in his hands. A lot. But they want him to attack the glass at every reasonable opportunity. They would like him to respond to help D better by finding the open man. But initiating the offense is not his primary job.

    Between Curry, Thornton and Cook, Duke should be able to let Rivers play off the ball.
    I agree that Duke should be able to play Austin off the ball and find a solution at the 1 amongst Curry, Thornton and Cook. But what if each of the three proves to have some deficiency in their game by mid-January? Say Thornton is an offensive liability that allows teams to help off him a lot, Cook just is not ready defensively and Curry cannot score from the PG position and is only an average distributor. That could provide room for some adjustments, among them:
    • Turn the keys over to Quinn and hope he grows. You wont hear the end of this on these boards, I predict.
    • Keep Seth running the point with the acknowledgement that Austin will have the ball in his hands. Essentially, keep the current four-man backcourt rotation.
    • Switch Austin and Seth and make it a total switch.


    I personally think Seth is trying to figure out how he relates on the court to everyone and he's going to get a lot better once that settles out for him. As long as Austin has the ball a lot, it lessens the need to lean on Seth's natural point guard abilities. But as long as we have defensive deficiencies, Tyler is going to play significant minutes at the expense of our our best backcourt/wing lineup (Dawkins, Curry,Rivers).

    Ahhhhhghh. Tradeoffs. I really want this to start to get fixed.

  17. #57

    Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    I agree that Duke should be able to play Austin off the ball and find a solution at the 1 amongst Curry, Thornton and Cook. But what if each of the three proves to have some deficiency in their game by mid-January? Say Thornton is an offensive liability that allows teams to help off him a lot, Cook just is not ready defensively and Curry cannot score from the PG position and is only an average distributor. That could provide room for some adjustments, among them:
    • Turn the keys over to Quinn and hope he grows. You wont hear the end of this on these boards, I predict.
    • Keep Seth running the point with the acknowledgement that Austin will have the ball in his hands. Essentially, keep the current four-man backcourt rotation.
    • Switch Austin and Seth and make it a total switch.


    I personally think Seth is trying to figure out how he relates on the court to everyone and he's going to get a lot better once that settles out for him. As long as Austin has the ball a lot, it lessens the need to lean on Seth's natural point guard abilities. But as long as we have defensive deficiencies, Tyler is going to play significant minutes at the expense of our our best backcourt/wing lineup (Dawkins, Curry,Rivers).

    Ahhhhhghh. Tradeoffs. I really want this to start to get fixed.
    Based on what has been happening recently, Seth hasn't shown natural PG abilities and instead looks more like a shooting guard trying to handle the PG responsibilities. Coach K has moved Tyler into the role since he wanted more leadership and perceives he provides improved defense. Quinn seems to have the handle and court vision along with quickness to handle the role he excelled at in high school. My guess is that his defense, which has improved as the season has progressed will continue to improve. We are fortunate to have three guards who can play point. None is a perfect fit at this time, but each will offer advantages and one may show enough to be the starter going into the ACC season. I am in the camp that believes that Austin should be free of the PG duty.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    ...

    Ahhhhhghh. Tradeoffs. I really want this to start to get fixed.
    This is why NBA fans can excoriate management.

    In college hoops, though, you can't trade the bench for Chris Paul.

    It's both the best and worst of the ncaa. It's all about the journey, not attaining perfection.

    -jk

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    Between Curry, Thornton and Cook, Duke should be able to let Rivers play off the ball.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Well, I think most of the "Rivers at PG" discussion has been with regard to Rivers playing the PG offensively. There's no reason we couldn't use the same starting lineup (or replace Thornton with Dawkins or Cook) and still have Rivers defend the PG while playing the wing on offense. There's no rule that the PG has to defend the other team's PG.
    Of course Austin could defend the opposing PG and play wing on offense. And, yes, as Jim points out, we have sufficient answers at the point so that Austin doesn't need to play PG. My theory is actually the inverse of what you're saying. if Austin can effectively shut down the opposing PG, there is no need for Tyler to start. As I believe an Austin/Seth/Andre perimeter is much more effective on offense than a Tyler/Seth/Austin perimeter, I wouldn't mind seeing if Austin can successfully defend opposing PGs. If he can, then the question becomes whether our O would be more effective with Seth or Austin initiating the offense. At the beginning of the season, I understand why the coaching staff went with Seth in that role -- he had superior experience and maturity. At this stage, it would be interesting to see whether and how Austin would embrace the role.

    Either way, I think we're a stronger team with Tyler and Quinn coming off the bench than with Andre coming off the bench, although certainly Andre has looked very good so far in his sixth man role.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    My theory is actually the inverse of what you're saying. if Austin can effectively shut down the opposing PG, there is no need for Tyler to start.
    Ah I see. Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Either way, I think we're a stronger team with Tyler and Quinn coming off the bench than with Andre coming off the bench, although certainly Andre has looked very good so far in his sixth man role.
    I'd say at the moment that the 6th man role is suiting Dawkins quite well. It's hard to say whether we're any better or worse off with Dawkins starting or as 6th man. We've had mostly solid games and one real stinker. If you throw out the one stinker, I don't think the offensive efficiency as a team has suffered terribly with either approach, nor has the defensive efficiency altered a lot.

    Honestly, I'm not sure whether it matters who is guarding the PG. None of our guys including Rivers have shown to be consistently effective in stopping dribble penetration (and some of that blame goes to hesitant hedges by the bigs). It's possible that Rivers could do better at it than Curry.

Similar Threads

  1. MBB: Duke 79, BC 59 Post-Game Thread
    By BlueintheFace in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 01-17-2010, 12:27 PM
  2. MBB: Duke vs. FSU post game thread
    By Bob Green in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 01-12-2009, 02:24 PM
  3. Duke v. SIU Post-Game Thread
    By Cavlaw in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 214
    Last Post: 11-24-2008, 10:20 PM
  4. Duke MBB v. Barton College - In-Game and Post-Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 12:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •