True, but by the same token if a shot here or a shot there during a number of regular season games had gone the other way -- including Austin's game winner vs. UNC -- we'd have lost several more games this year.
Originally Posted by
tommy
Miami failed to make the field of 68..
Look, Duke was ranked in the sixth after losing to NC, which played the best game of the year. For most of the season, Duke was ranked higher than sixth. I think that Dukehad had the better of the play against FSU. You disagree or think that Duke, having beat whom they did, was overrated the entire season; it's a free country.
Originally Posted by
tommy
The two most important factors in parity, to the degree it even exists, are a) the saturation television coverage of college basketball, and b) the cultural change whereby kids all want to be a star, and they want to be a star right now. A) and B) are not unrelated. Kids think, "why should I sit on the bench for two years as the 10th man at Duke and maybe never star there when I can start right away at VCU or Davidson or Xavier or Belmont or any of dozens of teams?" "I can start at, say, Memphis, and almost all my games will be on ESPN anyway, mom and my guys can watch me from home, I'll get all the exposure I need to the pro's, and I'll just go from there."
When I say "if parity even exists" that's because while it is more common for a "mid-major" to rise up and make a decent run in the tournament, and there are more good basketball teams out there than ever, there are still very few big upsets, relatively speaking, that happen in the tournament, and the Cinderellas only rarely make it very far, and never win the whole thing..
You're telling me that you don't se amazing ball players at the guard spots on most all credible division one teams who are amazing athletes, can shot the three, score off the dribble, score at the rim and mid range, and play within the offenses created, I mean a million of them, we see things differently. The same for the three position; I'd take FSU's three/four guy over Barnes. There are many others. Will the scouts agree? We'll see who emerges as star 3s and who doesn't on the next level.
As for coaches, I'm not even going to engage this one. The schemes that I've seen out there all over the place, the discipline and ability of teams to execute in them, the bench coaching--read an article, I think it was in the Sunday Times a while back, about the mid majors--the job that the coach from VCU has done in organizing a fair at which ADs can meet and interview mid-major coaches, how the numbers of participants has exploded. Please.
Originally Posted by
tommy
Mason Plumlee is sure to be drafted. He is far from sure to make it in the league. Duke started this year with Coach K stating that we were going to emphasize pounding the ball into the post, and we did. Mason has had some excellent outings, but many times has been unproductive. Hence, the middling 11 point average. I know you think we should have fed him more, and maybe you're right, but he has not exhibited a "give me the damn ball" mentality and has not exhibited the willingness to just take over games on the interior. He's been dominated by more than one college big man this year.
He is a freak athlete, and the NBA loves that and will draft him on it, but that is not a guarantee of success in the league. He has a lot of work to do with his footwork, with developing a face-up jump shot, with his defensive positioning, and with his overall intensity before he is anything close to a sure thing in the NBA..
Mason is a power forward; Duke polayed an offense the first few games that ran things for Mason, he was getting it early and often, on the move, guys, when they caught it often were INSIDE the 3 line and their first option was to find a way to get it to Mason, quickly.
I don't know when K made that statement but the loss of Marshall created an entirely different landscape. Some games to compete and win, K had to get it to Mason often; the team did; Mason delivered.
Otherwise, K needed Mason to devote max energy for entirely too many minutes being a beast on defense and the defensive boards to feature him on offense, couldn't risk the fouls and tiring him out. The tiring out issue was magnified because K had Mason muscling it to the rim as the exclucive means of scoring because he needed that type of attack and Mason was the list (for reasons, listen to Bopb Knight).
K declared pretty early that his team was going to live and die with the three. Not easy making qualoity entry passses from the 3 line, especially if tightly guarded by longerathletic defenders, and impossible to coming off a sreen set so you are figting through two guys and end up 5 feet behind the three line and if you break through, your job is to get in the paint and finish, except for an occasional lob over the rim when Mason had inside position. Penetrating off the bounce, or catching it inside the line, where you would have better passing lanes, was not what K wanted. Very few plays were run for Mason. When they were, you could tell, or at least I could.
We never saw a 10 foot jump shot from Mason. Impossible that he doesn't have that shot. K wanted him at the rim, not taking 10 footers.
Mason was a horrible foul shooter until past the middle of the season, and, while he improved, he was at best iffy. He shoots better, he scores more, and they can go to him more. My golf instructor told me once, you should be a single handicapper." He never saw be put or chip.
Originally Posted by
tommy
Well, nobody knows that anyone will play in the NBA. Anthony Davis could get run over by a truck tomorrow. I can't say I KNOW those three guys won't play in the NBA, but I would bet some folding money on it. Sure, they could improve in a number of areas, and I could lose that bet, but based on their performances so far in their college careers, and the skill sets they have and don't have, none of those three guys is in my mind anywhere close to an NBA player.
Cute. We'll get to the meat now.
Originally Posted by
tommy
I love all three guys, but here's the reality: Ryan shoots it very well for a big, and he has a high basketball IQ. He's not nearly physical enough or quick enough for the league at the 4 position, and he'd have a lot harder time getting that jumpshot off against NBA-level athletes...
How much did Ryan improve physically from his sophomore season to this season. Ryan shot the 3 ball, see above. We rarely saw him catch it mid range and have the option of a shot, going left or right, pulling up and shooting, or taking it to the basket, try to score the ball or dish. I think he has that game, and certainly will with another 10-15-20 pounds. He also is smarter on the court thn the average bear, which helps to catch it in that range with advantage. We rarely saw Ryan post up, have a little baseline game, or high post game. See the three ball offense.
Originally Posted by
tommy
Dawkins is a one-dimensional player. He has shown no ability to do anything on the floor other than make catch-and-shoot jump shots. No handle, no drive to the hoop, no defense. And even his shot is extremely streaky, and his whole game deteriorates when he isn't seeing the ball go through the net. There are tons of excellent college shooters who never sniff the NBA because all they do is shoot. Unfortunately, I think that's going to be Andre's fate as well...
The fact that Dawkins was a catch and shoot guy does not mean that he didn't have an off-the-bounce game. K built his offense around two guys taking it off the bounce, and they took it all the way, not for a mid range game. That's the list. How many guys can you have dribbling the thing with a three ball offense that features as its principle way of attacking the rim having two guards dribble until they see a lane and go?
Dawkins may not have a mid range game with an ability to shoot off the dribble, but I doubt it. There are pros who made their living as spot up shooters. Curry's pops comes mind. So you say that Dawkins is not that guy, but that guy was the featured guy in college; Drawkins has always played the extra guy to whomever since he arrived.
Defense. When you are scoring the ball, your defense improves dramatically. Dawkins, one might say, does not have a chance to get in the flow of the game, to miss three or four and stay out there, shoot his way out of it, score on some run outs, play mid-range if his three ain't falling, so we do not know how well he can defend. Besides, according to you, none of the guards can defend, including Austin and including Tyler. You make Austin a spot player, and see how well he defends. Tyler is a terrific defender. Look, no one guards anyone one-on-one. The lack of length in the backcourt and the absence of an athletic 3, creates much more space for an offensive guy to get around someone than when all your defenders are under 6'2".
Originally Posted by
tommy
Curry's game is also not multi-faceted enough for the league. He's a good shooter when he has space to get it off. I have not seen NBA range from him, however. He's improved his ability to get to the hoop this year, but he's not going to be able to do that against NBA defenders. His overall quickness is average. His handle is pretty shaky, and his defense is just OK. He's short and slight, so he gets overpowered a lot on defense and shot over. Those problems will only be exacerbated once he gets into an NBA camp.
He has all the range he will need and has shown it. Why shoot from 5 feet from behind the line if you can get your shot from 5 feet closer. The guy has great feel for the game and gets in great position to receive the ball. He gets to the rim pretty darn good and is scoring the ball against some pretty tall and athletic defenders. His job is to do that and only that when he takes it inside except for the occasional lob. If he had broader options, like giving it up to a big who had moved into the space currently left open so Seth could get to the rim, the defense has to be worried about that. Curry rarely stops to make a mid ranged. He doesn't have that game? Really. K paraphraised, "we live or die with the three ball."
Originally Posted by
tommy
Jason Williams was the National Player of the Year and the #2 pick in the NBA draft. He absolutely dominated college guards physically. He was overwhelming in terms of quickness with the ball, quickness without it, and brute strength. He could also drain outside jumpshots with range. The complete packag...
Absolutely. You put Curry in a 6'3" body (I think that he is a powerfully built young guy), he is not JWill, and I never said he was. I said he is close (I forget the exact words). JWill's move was the step back off the dribble, holding it sideways with a pause, if the defender came, JWill crossed over and went to the basket; if he didn't, JWill nailed the three. Maybe that move was not available on the next level? Curry has the same dribble step back shot, he has not shown the pause pair-of pants move (checkers, you have a king and slide it between two of the other guys pieces), he catches in better spots for his threes (moves better without the ball), and I think is terrific at getting inside the defense and finishing at the rim. If not JWill, then maybe his brother, only with more muscle. Fair?
Originally Posted by
tommy
JJ Redick was one of the greatest shooters to ever play college basketball, who, along with Shelden Williams, carried Duke teams to places they really had no business going. He is Duke's alltime leading scorer, was the National Player of the Year, and a lottery pick...
Reddick was the best jump shooter the cololege game has seen. The entire offense was geared to getting him a shot. You feature a Seth with JJ's size and Seth's greater quickness, speed, bribling ability, and ability to get to the rim and score, and you might have a guy who walks into the pros and has a bigger impact than JJ, at least in his first 3 years. You might have Seth's older brother with muscle.
Originally Posted by
tommy
Johnny D was also the National Player of the Year and was Duke's alltime leading scorer at the time he graduated. He was lightning quick with and without the ball, had an excellent handle and quick hands.
But, could he shoot from range, you know, the three? We don't know. He certainly never featured anything much beyond 15-16 feet to my memory. Again, you put a few inches on Seth, I think you have his older brother. I never said he would have been Dawkin's equal.
Originally Posted by
tommy
Again, I love Seth, but he shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath with any of these Duke immortals..
See above. And, here's another one, with the added size, Seth might well be a better pro than Austin, who could not have played with Kyle in the same backcourt, could not have played with Scheyer, Nelson and Singler, while I think tht Seth would have been a tremendous asset playing with those guys.
Originally Posted by
tommy
But sorry, he's nowhere close to Tommy Amaker. I'll give you stronger body, but Tommy was the consummate playmaker, setting up teammates all day and night with the ball right where they wanted it and in positions they were comfortable in. He made the game easy for his teammates on offense, which is not something Tyler does. Nor does Tyler hit open jumpshots with the same regularity that Tommy did..
Oh, and Tommy was also the National Defensive Player of the Year. Tyler has not been in that conversation, as he has been only a part-time starter on this team and frankly, his defense leaves much to be desired in some key areas, primarily moving his feet to stop dribble penetration...