Looking Ahead To 2012-2013

[Matches]

You might want to store this away in your memory banks and look it over the next time we have a discussion on recruiting big men.

I know some have said that we could use the fact that Lance has made it to the NBA as a recruiting tool, however I'm sure there are coaches out there who will point to that and say, "See, Duke's scheme prevented Lance from developing to his full potential."

If we can't turn a physical specimen like Mason Plumlee into an NBA ready player, that might be further ammo to be used against us in recruiting.

Those arguments are so circular, though. If a guy comes in and dominates, then he would've been good with or without Duke. If he performs better in college than in the pros, it's because Duke didn't prepare him properly. If he performs better in the pros than he did in college, it's because Duke was holding him back. People will recruit negatively against us under any and all circumstances.

I agree about Mason and his jumper, though. It reminds me of the Heel fans who were convinced Sean May should come back for his senior year so he could play on the perimeter. Sure, because THAT's what he would have been doing in CH.

[CDu]

You might want to store this away in your memory banks and look it over the next time we have a discussion on recruiting big men.

I know some have said that we could use the fact that Lance has made it to the NBA as a recruiting tool, however I'm sure there are coaches out there who will point to that and say, "See, Duke's scheme prevented Lance from developing to his full potential."

If we can't turn a physical specimen like Mason Plumlee into an NBA ready player, that might be further ammo to be used against us in recruiting.

Yeah, perception is perception. People who don't care for Duke's approach are going to use guys like Thomas as evidence that we don't utilize our bigs properly. And not getting more out of the Plumlees is a question mark.

That said, I don't think Mason should work on his perimeter game. I think he still has enough work to do on his post game before worrying about developing a perimeter shot. I'd argue that his first 1+ years were lost to some degree because he spent too much time playing outside in (I remember some posts during/after his freshman year in which people were suggesting he'd show more shooting range than McRoberts) rather than learning how play closer to the basket.

If he decides to come back, I want to see him work on polishing his back to the basket game and his overall instinctiveness/fluidity in the post. Master that, and he can play with anyone in the league. Without that I think the Jeff Foster comparison isn't too far off.

[CameronCrazy06]

Been reading over this thread for a few days now, and finally registered so I could share my two cents. First of all, as has been said many times, it's almost impossible to predict what will happen next year until we have a better idea what the roster looks like. Right now, we have so many questions that have yet to be answered. (Will Austin/Mason go pro?/Will we add anymore recruits?/Will we lose any players to transfer?/What will our coaching staff look like?/etc.)

As far as Austin and Mason go, it seems like a lot of it is going to be based on who declares from other programs around them, as this will affect their stock a lot. I just heard that Mason will be "testing the waters", as expected. As of right now, I'm under the assumption that both will declare, and that we will not be able to add anymore recruits to our current class (Muhammed and Parker seem like long shots, and I think Amile is leaning towards NC State). However, that may not be a bad thing in the end, because we also have Marshall Plumlee and Murphy coming off of red-shirts, so it's as if we have three new players coming in next year. We're also filling in needs, big time. Rasheed Sulaimon is the type of player we could have used this year; a very talented offensive player who works hard on defense as well. Murphy should also be a contributor right away, and the reports of him adding height and weight are promising. Marshall may come in raw offensively, and I don't expect him to be able to start right away, but we may be forced to insert him in the lineup early. I think he will provide us with solid rebounding and defense, and I think the red-shirt year will help him a lot. From what I've seen, he's definitely more polished than Miles and Mason were offensively as freshmen, but he doesn't have the elite athleticism.

Also it's hard to predict how players will develop over the course of an off-season. I don't think a lot of people saw Ryan Kelly's emergence coming last season, and we could see a similar improvement from a player we don't expect next season. It's very important for our players to stay healthy in this off-season though (hoping Kelly being sidelined 6-8 weeks doesn't set him back too much), and when I say this I'm mainly speaking of Quinn Cook. Injuries set back his season in a big way; I think he could have played a much bigger role on the team if he had a full off-season with the team and was able to participate in the China trip. But I definitely feel like next season's starting lineup will vary constantly just like this season's did. The notion of defining someone's role during the off-season is absurd because so many things can change over the course of the season, as we saw this year. Finding a lineup that works can sometimes take a lot of experimenting, I'm just hopeful we can find one much quicker than it took us to this year.

But no matter what our lineup looks like next season, I want to dismiss the idea that Duke will not be competitive in the postseason. First of all, I know it is easy to take him for granted, but we have arguably the greatest coach in the history of all sports running our team, and it is unwise to ever bet against him. Look at all he accomplished with this team, despite what we lost from the 2010-11 team. Second of all, as I mentioned earlier, we have no idea how our players will develop from now until the start of the next season. Finally, the landscape of the ACC next year is going to look completely different than it does now. For instance, UNC could end up losing up to FIVE players to the NBA Draft. Obviously that would be a big hit to their program, and the past two times they have been hit like that (2005, 2009), they have not been a top-level team in the ACC. NC State has a great recruiting class coming in, and they have the chance to add to it with Jefferson, and this class could propel them into a chance of winning the ACC next year. Teams like FSU and Virginia are going to lose a lot of key pieces, and should take a step back. Obviously, a lot of this is yet to be determined, but from what I can gather, no matter what roster Duke retains from this season, I don't think they'll be out of contention for an ACC Championship.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see, we'll get a much better idea over the next few weeks.

[Channing]

One of the most confounding issues this season was the unwillingless/inability of our guards to feed the post. Occasionally it looked like the team focused on getting Mason and Miles the ball deep in the post where they could take one dribble and put up a good shot, but more often than not the ball would swing to a wing and the guard would just wait for the big to come set the screen. Even then, the guard essentially refused to play a two man game on the pick and roll.

I don't know if the failure was due to short guards who couldn't see over or around those guarding them, poor footwork and positioning by our bigs, or just a focus by K and the staff not to feed the post. I watched Zoubek for 4 years, and am convinced that had he gotten more deep post touches he would have been a very good offensive weapon. He had good post moves, even if he only rarely got to show them.

For that reason, I think Cook's improvement this offseason will be crucial to our success next year. TT may bring certain attributes to the team, but Cook is our best playmaker, appears to have the best handle, and will be our best option (from an offensive standpoint) at PG next year. At times this year it became the Austin show, or the Seth show, and I don't think that will fly next year. We are going to need a team effort each and every game, which will require someone quarterbacking everything. I believe in Marshall, and, with a year of practice at Duke under his belt, think he can and will be very good. However, I don't get the sense that he can create his own offense (ala Thomas Robinson). He will need someone to actively watch him and feed him the ball.

I hate to use it as an example, but our foes down the street appear to focus heavily on this aspect, and look at how effective their big men appear to be year after year.

[Bluealum]

One of the most confounding issues this season was the unwillingless/inability of our guards to feed the post. Occasionally it looked like the team focused on getting Mason and Miles the ball deep in the post where they could take one dribble and put up a good shot, but more often than not the ball would swing to a wing and the guard would just wait for the big to come set the screen. Even then, the guard essentially refused to play a two man game on the pick and roll.

I don't know if the failure was due to short guards who couldn't see over or around those guarding them, poor footwork and positioning by our bigs, or just a focus by K and the staff not to feed the post. I watched Zoubek for 4 years, and am convinced that had he gotten more deep post touches he would have been a very good offensive weapon. He had good post moves, even if he only rarely got to show them.

For that reason, I think Cook's improvement this offseason will be crucial to our success next year. TT may bring certain attributes to the team, but Cook is our best playmaker, appears to have the best handle, and will be our best option (from an offensive standpoint) at PG next year. At times this year it became the Austin show, or the Seth show, and I don't think that will fly next year. We are going to need a team effort each and every game, which will require someone quarterbacking everything. I believe in Marshall, and, with a year of practice at Duke under his belt, think he can and will be very good. However, I don't get the sense that he can create his own offense (ala Thomas Robinson). He will need someone to actively watch him and feed him the ball.

I hate to use it as an example, but our foes down the street appear to focus heavily on this aspect, and look at how effective their big men appear to be year after year.

You rubbed two sore spots so prepare to have your post dissected.
1.) You suggested we don't run a 'big' friendly offense
2.) You suggested our friends down the road do it better while we are still the program least removed from a National Championship

I actually agree with much of what you say, so I shall leave the counter arguments to others. I suspect It is going to be difficult due to the makeup of the team next year to have Cook play a leading role. With 3 or 4 seniors and 2 juniors that give everything they have on every outing, the younger guys have to be dominant to get playing time. If there are pros and cons with players, K usually goes with the older guys.

So...for Cook to take the reigns, and serious minutes away from Curry and Thornton, he has to become stellar on defense. Not better than he is this year, but stellar. I say this because Thornton is a favorite based on attitude and Curry is a 5th year senior who has paid his dues, knows the system, and plays very well against all but the most athletic of defenders. I for one am rooting for, but not expecting, that sort of overwhelming improvement. My guess is he will still be relegated to starting occasionally and playing behind Thornton and Curry since all 3 can't be on the court simultaneously. I think this will be the right strategy to win the most games, but not to win against the most athletic/talented teams, but I know that opinion is not shared by many.

I also agree that our offense has never really been that 'big' friendly, and this obviously is a controversial point. I believe this is why our great big men like Boozer and Williams and even Brand to a lesser extent (he was a #1 pick - but the choice was very controversial in the national media at the time) appear to have exceeded expectations in the NBA. They were great at Duke, but I believe could have been even better in terms of the numbers they put up, if our system used things like the pick and roll, which you mentioned, more extensively. The thing is, even if they were better off in terms of numbers and draft spots (impossible for Brand, but certainly both Williams and Boozer fell further than they should have, for all their talent), it doesn't mean Duke is any better in terms of wins and losses. A big friendly system, like Carolina or Kansas runs, doesn't always translate to more wins. K has great success recruiting elite shooters and encourages them to shoot if they have even a moderate opening. This naturally means less touches for the bigs, which many fail to see in the back and forth that is this never ending topic. We can't be both 3 point shooter friendly and big friendly at the same time, there is a give and take. Our give and take, favoring 3 point shooting and de-emphasizing post entry passing, has proven to be a very successful strategy time and again, as our incredible record over 30 years has shown.

I think the arguments that we don't develop big men is entirely false. I think our talented bigs typically overachieve relative to draft position in the NBA. This speaks to good fundamentals and great coaching...but it also suggests that the system does not spotlight their talents.

I also think that it is easy to argue that Duke is perhaps the best team in the country on which to be a lights out 3 point shooter who can defend. You will get the green light to go, and the screens and movement to get you free. You could argue that our talented guards have often been underachievers relative to draft position in the NBA. Think about where Langdon, Avery, and Redick were drafted compared to Boozer and Williams.

This is our system and it has been enormously successful. Because of it, we will be able to recruit elite shooters to Duke. Also because of it, we will have a bigger challenge recruiting uber-talented big men. When they come, they develop their skills and we win championships, even if they aren't as featured as they would be on other teams. It is what we root for as fans, but I can see why every great shooter wants to come here and most great big men hesitate.

I got a lot more long winded than I expected...so I shall stop. It's just one more opinion on a topic that shall carry on as long as K is coaching at Duke. For that reason alone, I hope it goes on a long, long time.

[Kedsy]

When they come, they develop their skills and we win championships, even if they aren't as featured as they would be on other teams.

Is this really true? The "golden age" of Duke big men lasted 9 years but we only won one national championship. Singular. Brand and S Williams combined for zero (0).

[meowmix911]

Wasn't Shelden Williams drafted 5th by the Hawks? He's had a very mediocre pro career. There's no way he's exceeded his expectations... He's fallen way short, if you look at his numbers relative to his college numbers, by any measure.

[sagegrouse]

Is this really true? The "golden age" of Duke big men lasted 9 years but we only won one national championship. Singular. Brand and S Williams combined for zero (0).

BY that standard, Dawkins, Alarie, Ferry, Gminski, Mullins, Heyman, Verga, and Marin were utter failures for collectively going to 12 Final Fours -- seven distinct ones.

Besides, Singular did win an NCAA championship (2010), but you spelled his name wrong.

Brand and Shel and Boozer did not overlap and won seven ACC titles, three regionals, and one NC in nine years. And there really are 300+ Div I teams trying to win something significant.

sagegrouse

[CDu]

Is this really true? The "golden age" of Duke big men lasted 9 years but we only won one national championship. Singular. Brand and S Williams combined for zero (0).

Three Final Fours (meaning we were a Regional Champion) and 7 ACC Championships. So yes, it's really true. Those Duke teams were really really good, and better than our more recent Duke teams. And they most certainly won championships.

Granted we had even more success in the other Golden Age of Duke basketball (7 Regional Championships, 2 National Championships, fewer ACC Championships) without a true big man. But that was a different era of college basketball. And we augmented it with bigger wings and more transcendent college talent (with some good fortune sprinkled in).

[jv001]

Three Final Fours (meaning we were a Regional Champion) and 7 ACC Championships. So yes, it's really true. Those Duke teams were really really good, and better than our more recent Duke teams. And they most certainly won championships.

Granted we had even more success in the other Golden Age of Duke basketball (7 Regional Championships, 2 National Championships, fewer ACC Championships) without a true big man. But that was a different era of college basketball. And we augmented it with bigger wings and more transcendent college talent (with some good fortune sprinkled in).

Good points and I might add that college basketball has really changed over the years. The college game used to flow much smoother. At least offensively it was smoother. But for some reason the game changed to a rougher style of defense. I remember when ACC teams went into the NCAAT, games were called differently. We (ACC) were not used to the contact and had to adjust quickly or be eliminated early. Then this type of play filtered down to our conference and now the game is played the same in all conferences. Personally I liked the way the game was played when it wasn't so rough. GoDuke!

[dcar1985]

Ok one domino has fallen...Austin is gone, I actually think that allows our offense to flow better next year and be more complex than just having Austin work off a high screen n roll...

[Matches]

Ok one domino has fallen...Austin is gone, I actually think that allows our offense to flow better next year and be more complex than just having Austin work off a high screen n roll...

I can't recall a year where we knew so little about how next year's team would look - maybe 1999 when Brand et al were leaving. But between NBA defections, possible transfer/ graduation rumors, and undeclared recruits, it's hard to say much of anything about next year's team at this point. We could be anywhere from a natty contender to a bubble team.

[Rich]

Ok one domino has fallen...Austin is gone, I actually think that allows our offense to flow better next year and be more complex than just having Austin work off a high screen n roll...

Do you have a link?

[dcar1985]

I can't recall a year where we knew so little about how next year's team would look - maybe 1999 when Brand et al were leaving. But between NBA defections, possible transfer/ graduation rumors, and undeclared recruits, it's hard to say much of anything about next year's team at this point. We could be anywhere from a natty contender to a bubble team.

Im not saying that will necessarily translate into W's...we have a lot of ? on defense and I honestly don't have much faith in Marshall as our starting center if Mason takes off too I just believe the offense will have a better flow to it. Austin is somewhat of a ball stopper and we would get in the habit of standing around and watching him work, that was basically the whole offense...kind of like Melo and how even though he was clearly the best player on the team at times the Nuggets and Knicks look better without him on the court.

[azzefkram]

So...for Cook to take the reigns, and serious minutes away from Curry and Thornton, he has to become stellar on defense. Not better than he is this year, but stellar.

I hope you are way wrong on this because with Curry and Thornton as our primary playmakers Duke becomes very one dimensional on offense.

Curry is a 5th year senior who has paid his dues, knows the system,

Greg Paulus says "Hi."

I think the arguments that we don't develop big men is entirely false.

Couldn't agree more. If you look at the per 40 of MPI, MPII and Kelly, you see significant improvement in pts & rbds with a decrease in fouls. Most of the other stats have stayed about level. Kelly's improvement is kind of eye opening. The improvement is not as pronounced with our guards.

[Channing]

I hope you are way wrong on this because with Curry and Thornton as our primary playmakers Duke becomes very one dimensional on offense.



Greg Paulus says "Hi."



Couldn't agree more. If you look at the per 40 of MPI, MPII and Kelly, you see significant improvement in pts & rbds with a decrease in fouls. Most of the other stats have stayed about level. Kelly's improvement is kind of eye opening. The improvement is not as pronounced with our guards.

Our bigs improve, our offense just does not seem to develop low post players. None of our recent bits: zoubek, plumlee a and b, lance, or Kelly have developed a reliable low post move. The plumlees appeared to have the little hook, but it disappeared for games at a time. Despite their universal high ranking (except miles) they never became, or were never used as low post threats.

As I mentioned, I think the reason is just as attributable to the reluctance to feed the post as it is to the play itself. But, there is no reason Mason and miles shouldn't dominate. Their footwork remains questionable and the seem to lack the go-to instinct inside. Watching the first two possessions of Duke v UNC at Cameron clearly showed what miles and Mason are capable of.

[Kedsy]

BY that standard, Dawkins, Alarie, Ferry, Gminski, Mullins, Heyman, Verga, and Marin were utter failures for collectively going to 12 Final Fours -- seven distinct ones.

It's not my standard. Someone said the Brand/Boozer/Williams teams "won championships." I was pointing out they won "championship" (singular).

Besides, Singular did win an NCAA championship (2010), but you spelled his name wrong.

Ha ha.

Brand and Shel and Boozer did not overlap and won seven ACC titles, three regionals, and one NC in nine years. And there really are 300+ Div I teams trying to win something significant.

I'm not downplaying what they accomplished. Really, my point is we also accomplished plenty both before and after that time period (a lot more before, a little less after, but in the same discussion).

[Reilly]

... Brand and Shel and Boozer did not overlap and won seven ACC titles, three regionals, and one NC in nine years. And there really are 300+ Div I teams trying to win something significant.

sagegrouse

Comparing various golden ages (if I'm counting right) ...

1986-1994: 16 championships in 9 years (2 national, 7 regional, 3 ACCT, 4 ACC regular)

1998-2006: 17 championships in 9 years (1 national, 3 regional, 7 ACCT, 6 ACC regular)

2007-2012: 6 championships in 6 years (1 national, 1 regional, 3 ACCT, 1 ACC regular)

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/

[CDu]

Comparing various golden ages (if I'm counting right) ...

1986-1994: 16 championships in 9 years (2 national, 7 regional, 3 ACCT, 4 ACC regular)

1998-2006: 17 championships in 9 years (1 national, 3 regional, 7 ACCT, 6 ACC regular)

2007-2012: 6 championships in 6 years (1 national, 1 regional, 3 ACCT, 1 ACC regular)

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/

Yup, that looks about right. Clearly a distinct difference between the two 9-year golden ages and the last 6 years. Not that the last 6 years have been anything to sneeze at. But clearly a distinct difference.

[Kedsy]

Yup, that looks about right. Clearly a distinct difference between the two 9-year golden ages and the last 6 years. Not that the last 6 years have been anything to sneeze at. But clearly a distinct difference.

Perhaps. If you skip '83 to '85 and '95 to '97, then there's an argument you should skip '07 to '09 as well (things fall apart plus two recovery seasons). In the last three years according to Reilly's definitions we've had 5 championships in 3 years, which obviously is a smaller sample size, but the ratio is in line with the other two golden ages. We'll have to wait and see, and this would be contingent on K coaching that long, but I think it's very possible the 9 year stretch from 2010 to 2018 will be in the same ballpark as the other two time periods.