Looking Ahead To 2012-2013

[Olympic Fan]

Guessing starting lineups is always a big off-season exercise ... even though K often uses a variety of lineups.

That said, I've been amazed reading this thread how little regard most of you have for Tyler Thornton. Even if YOU don't like him, it's obvious that Coach K loves him. Do you ever listen to K talk about him? Before you elevate Cook past TT, consider who is making the call.

After that, I guess the biggest gripe I'd have with most of your would be leaving Rasheed Suliaman out of the equation. He'll be the team's best on-the-ball defender from day one. And while he's not the explosive offensive player that Austin was, he's a very good one and probably a more mature all-around player.

I think any potentil lineup starts with Thornton, Curry, Kelly and probably Sulaiman (unless Muhammad comes). Agree that Ziegler would be in the mix (1) if he comes and (2) if he wins his appeal to be eiligible. That's two big ifs and even if both work out, no guarantee that he beats out the much-more-talented (if less experienced) Sulaiman.

I very much doubt that Dawkins is in the starting mix. I see kids improve over the course of their career, but when a kid makes so little improment in his first three years, hard to see him suddenly doing it as a senior. Cook is a longshot as long as Thornton is here, but he does have more of a chance to make a big improvement after his freshman year.

For fifth starter, Mason is a lock if he returns. Otherwise, Murphy and Hairston seem the best bets ... although don't rule out MP3. I'd feel that way even if Parker or Jefferson come ... it would be awhile before either is in the mix for a starting job.

[dcar1985]

Guessing starting lineups is always a big off-season exercise ... even though K often uses a variety of lineups.

That said, I've been amazed reading this thread how little regard most of you have for Tyler Thornton. Even if YOU don't like him, it's obvious that Coach K loves him. Do you ever listen to K talk about him? Before you elevate Cook past TT, consider who is making the call.

After that, I guess the biggest gripe I'd have with most of your would be leaving Rasheed Suliaman out of the equation. He'll be the team's best on-the-ball defender from day one. And while he's not the explosive offensive player that Austin was, he's a very good one and probably a more mature all-around player.

I think any potentil lineup starts with Thornton, Curry, Kelly and probably Sulaiman (unless Muhammad comes). Agree that Ziegler would be in the mix (1) if he comes and (2) if he wins his appeal to be eiligible. That's two big ifs and even if both work out, no guarantee that he beats out the much-more-talented (if less experienced) Sulaiman.

I very much doubt that Dawkins is in the starting mix. I see kids improve over the course of their career, but when a kid makes so little improment in his first three years, hard to see him suddenly doing it as a senior. Cook is a longshot as long as Thornton is here, but he does have more of a chance to make a big improvement after his freshman year.

For fifth starter, Mason is a lock if he returns. Otherwise, Murphy and Hairston seem the best bets ... although don't rule out MP3. I'd feel that way even if Parker or Jefferson come ... it would be awhile before either is in the mix for a starting job.

Gbinije not even mentioned, he really gets slept on around here...I think its crazy, especially when you see how many people get on here and scream that we need this athletic long wing...I see big contributions coming from this kid...I think him and Rasheed on the floor together could get after it on D

I hope Alex is ready to go next year, he gets the nod for most as a starter or in rotation b/c of the comparisons to Kyle and Mike Jr. hopefully its more then just b/c he looks like them.

MP3...I'm sorry but I just don't see it...not expecting much

[Kfanarmy]

If Dre can score and score consistently then he will be on the court. He made several nice midrange moves near the end of the season and while some of them weren't converted he at least made the effort. The physical tools are there, but I'm not sure the confidence is.

I'm not sure it is a physical or confidence issue...my personal opinion is that he turned a little green when AR started getting so much attention in the final third of the season, and quit playing hard...just my opinion...

[gumbomoop]

I will say it again. Sleeping on Rasheed Suliamon is a mistake. Dude can ball.

Andre is a bit of a wildcard for me. The jumper is such a weapon. If he could just get to a point where he could put it on the floor, and use his hops to rise up for the midrange jumper off one or two dribbles, along with also taking it all the way to the hoop to finish with strong dunks or draw fouls, he would be a different player. Just do that and improve his defense a little more. Time is running out though.

Amen on Rasheed. His handle is a big plus, as are his all-around smarts and vigor.

Re Andre, I will guess that your concerns reflect an overwhelming consensus on EK. If there's a kind of painful consensus that Andre needs to improve in these numerous ways, is there also a "nevertheless-consensus" that he could improve enough this summer to play 25 mpg and get 13-14 ppg in 2012-'13? It strikes me that recent threads and posts predict, quite the contrary, that Andre's mpg might well go down, and his scoring will continue to fluctuate from game to game.

I continue to prefer that Andre redshirt next season, as he could be a much more effective player with some time to make up for his early arrival. I'm just skeptical that he can improve substantially in so many areas over the summer. Would a redshirt for a rising senior be just too embarrassing?

I regret that this isn't likely, but the Plumlee/Murphy redshirts open up the possibility that K might think about the composition of the team over a 2-3 year period.

[Des Esseintes]

Agreed. I see basically 0% chance of that lineup occurring. Basically, I see no way Curry isn't starting next year (assuming he returns for his senior year). The only question I see is whether he's playing PG or SG. And that will be determined by both his development as well as the development of those around him.

Curry's position is indeed super-interesting. Playing him at the point was abandoned this past season and may turn out to be untenable. On the other hand, the Duke lineup that has both our best talent AND effective size probably requires him at the one. The possibilities of who could then start at the 2 and 3 skyrocket. K kept Scheyer at the point in 2010 even though Nolan had made a leap forward in his game, so it's not impossible that it could happen. I hope they at least consider it. A quantum leap forward from one of the "natural" pgs would be fine too, of course.

[Des Esseintes]

I'm not sure it is a physical or confidence issue...my personal opinion is that he turned a little green when AR started getting so much attention in the final third of the season, and quit playing hard...just my opinion...

Just your opinion. Every thread on this board you're taking the opportunity to insult the players. Never once with anything even resembling evidence. Instead, it is always you claiming to know secret, unpleasant motivations behind a kid's behavior. Why you think you are qualified to make those calls, I would love to know. For my part, I think yours is a vicious, disgusting way to be a fan, but hey, that's just my opinion.

[Greg_Newton]

I think any potentil lineup starts with Thornton, Curry, Kelly and probably Sulaiman (unless Muhammad comes).

Wow. I'm expecting him to be good myself, but those are pretty strong words from you, OF. Good to hear.

I have to say, I kind of cringe at a Thornton-Curry backcourt that doesn't include Murphy or Gbinije at the SF, especially if we're startin an undersized PF. I know they're two of our best players - each in their own way - but they just complement each other so terribly. As a sum, they make for a small backcourt with below-average lateral quickness on defense and an inability to penetrate. On a guard-offense and pressure-defense-orientated team, that's just... not ideal.

I don't know what the answer is, though. Thornton-Sulaimon-Zeigler/Gbinije-Murphy-Kelly with Seth as a super-sub would almost be better from a strategic standpoint, but... I suppose there's no way Seth comes off the bench. Plus, that means neither Dawkins and Cook are in the 8-man.

Guess we'll just have to see how things shake out in the next month or so. Hopefully the puzzle pieces will come together better than they did this year...

[tommy]

Wow. I'm expecting him to be good myself, but those are pretty strong words from you, OF. Good to hear.

I have to say, I kind of cringe at a Thornton-Curry backcourt that doesn't include Murphy or Gbinije at the SF, especially if we're startin an undersized PF. I know they're two of our best players - each in their own way - but they just complement each other so terribly. As a sum, they make for a small backcourt with below-average lateral quickness on defense and an inability to penetrate. On a guard-offense and pressure-defense-orientated team, that's just... not ideal.

I don't know what the answer is, though. Thornton-Sulaimon-Zeigler/Gbinije-Murphy-Kelly with Seth as a super-sub would almost be better from a strategic standpoint, but... I suppose there's no way Seth comes off the bench. Plus, that means neither Dawkins and Cook are in the 8-man.

Guess we'll just have to see how things shake out in the next month or so. Hopefully the puzzle pieces will come together better than they did this year...

I don't see any way that the starting backcourt next year is Thornton and Curry. Like you say, too small and neither really makes the offense go.

I've mentioned in previous threads that I really like the idea of Seth as a shot-in-the-arm scorer off the bench, without the point guard responsibilities, without the major carry-the-team from the 2-spot scoring responsibilities. Seth is more of a complimentary player, by personality I think. I also believe, as much as K thinks of Tyler, he's got to give Quinn Cook every chance to win the starting PG job. If Quinn can seize that opportunity, then I would really love to see the starting backcourt be Quinn and Sulaimon -- who by all accounts is going to be a very dynamic two-way guard -- with Ty and Seth spelling them, and with Andre in a reserve role behind them for when nobody else is hitting. With those starters, the backcourt would be bigger, more creative, and more flexible -- all of which we need.

At the 3, I like Shabazz.

If he's not with us, then it has to be Gbinije, really, with the possibility of Ziegler if he comes. Mike G: I hope you're working hard already in this off-season, cuz we're gonna need you. It's big boy time.

At the 4, Murphy, though I would prefer him at the 3, which I think is going to be his more natural position, and a position that if he's there, makes the team bigger and again, more flexible. But that may not work out with this group. If not, I just think he's going to be a better basketball player than Josh Hairston right out of the gate, though Josh will still be a good energy guy off the bench at the 4.

And at the 5, Ryan, backed up by Marshall. (of course assuming no Mason.) Again, not ideal, as it's another starter playing out of position. It would be fantastic if Marshall was ready to play starters minutes, and I have no idea if he will be. If he is, then pushing Ryan down to the 4, Murphy to the 3 to compete with Mike G -- now that is a lineup I would be a lot more excited about.

Let's see what happens on April 10 or 11 or whatever it is. Most of this could be out the window at that point.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

Wow. I'm expecting him to be good myself, but those are pretty strong words from you, OF. Good to hear.

I have to say, I kind of cringe at a Thornton-Curry backcourt that doesn't include Murphy or Gbinije at the SF, especially if we're startin an undersized PF. I know they're two of our best players - each in their own way - but they just complement each other so terribly. As a sum, they make for a small backcourt with below-average lateral quickness on defense and an inability to penetrate. On a guard-offense and pressure-defense-orientated team, that's just... not ideal.

I don't know what the answer is, though. Thornton-Sulaimon-Zeigler/Gbinije-Murphy-Kelly with Seth as a super-sub would almost be better from a strategic standpoint, but... I suppose there's no way Seth comes off the bench. Plus, that means neither Dawkins and Cook are in the 8-man rotation.

Guess we'll just have to see how things shake out in the next month or so. Hopefully the puzzle pieces will come together better than they did this year...

I think you are spot on. A starting backcourt of Thornton-Curry would be a nightmare for us with other backcourts around the country (against better opponents) and certainly does not instill any fear in our opponents...actually quite the opposite IMO. Like he said, they don't really create much offense, they're average/below average outside shooters, they don't create turnovers, and would more than like struggle against bigger/more athletic backcourts. After the way our bckcourt played on the most part this year and going into next year without Austin, I think they have to look more outside the box. What that means exactly, I'm not sure but all of our returning guards have some serious flaws that will need to be masked somehow, or hopefully addressed,

[roywhite]

I think you are spot on. A starting backcourt of Thornton-Curry would be a nightmare for us with other backcourts around the country (against better opponents) and certainly does not instill any fear in our opponents...actually quite the opposite IMO. Like he said, they don't really create much offense, they're average/below average outside shooters, they don't create turnovers, and would more than like struggle against bigger/more athletic backcourts. After the way our bckcourt played on the most part this year and going into next year without Austin, I think they have to look more outside the box. What that means exactly, I'm not sure but all of our returning guards have some serious flaws that will need to be masked somehow, or hopefully addressed,

Interesting that Sulaimon may emerge as the most complete backcourt guy (defender, shooter, driver, court sense, handle) or the guy with the fewest flaws, if you will. His main "flaw" in the early stages will simply be inexperience.

[nocilla]

I don't see any way that the starting backcourt next year is Thornton and Curry. Like you say, too small and neither really makes the offense go.

I think you are spot on. A starting backcourt of Thornton-Curry would be a nightmare for us with other backcourts around the country (against better opponents) and certainly does not instill any fear in our opponents...actually quite the opposite IMO.

I have to respectfully disagree. Curry and Kelly are basically locked in as starters at this point. Thornton is Coach K's favorite and it would take a big show of improvement from Cook to supplant him. And I would not be worried at all with Thornton and Curry starting in the backcourt. Curry is likely to be first team All-ACC next year. He is not the quickest defensively but does have quick hands. Thornton's main strength is defense. Defensively, I would be more worried about Cook and Curry starting. The big key to me is to have some size at the 3 spot. That is where I see the biggest change from this season. Murphy was supposedly competing for the spot last year, I assume over Dawkins. I see no reason why he won't compete with Dawkins again for that spot. And with Rivers gone, Dawkins can play more at SG which I think suits him much better. Hopefully Gbinijie, as well as Murphy, have progressed enough to play good minutes at SF. Sulaimon is interesting, but being a freshman, I have a hard time projecting him to play a lot of minutes right away. If he is that good that he can bump the upperclassmen then great. Of course Shabazz would really shake things up, but I'm not counting those eggs until they hatch.

[unexpected]

I have to respectfully disagree. Curry and Kelly are basically locked in as starters at this point. Thornton is Coach K's favorite and it would take a big show of improvement from Cook to supplant him. And I would not be worried at all with Thornton and Curry starting in the backcourt. Curry is likely to be first team All-ACC next year. He is not the quickest defensively but does have quick hands. Thornton's main strength is defense. Defensively, I would be more worried about Cook and Curry starting. The big key to me is to have some size at the 3 spot. That is where I see the biggest change from this season. Murphy was supposedly competing for the spot last year, I assume over Dawkins. I see no reason why he won't compete with Dawkins again for that spot. And with Rivers gone, Dawkins can play more at SG which I think suits him much better. Hopefully Gbinijie, as well as Murphy, have progressed enough to play good minutes at SF. Sulaimon is interesting, but being a freshman, I have a hard time projecting him to play a lot of minutes right away. If he is that good that he can bump the upperclassmen then great. Of course Shabazz would really shake things up, but I'm not counting those eggs until they hatch.

You don't understand! You have to project the starting lineups based on HEIGHT! I kidd, but thank you for the sensible post.

Amazing that people think that Murphy and Sulaimon (two players that have never played college ball) are going to supplant Curry and Dawkins.

[CDu]

You don't understand! You have to project the starting lineups based on HEIGHT! I kidd, but thank you for the sensible post.

Amazing that people think that Murphy and Sulaimon (two players that have never played college ball) are going to supplant Curry and Dawkins.

I haven't seen Sulaimon play yet (looking forward to tonight), but I've heard nothing but good things about him. He may not be quite the shooter that Dawkins is (although he's clearly no slouch from deep as he won the 3pt shooting contest) but he's widely considered to have better ballhandling skills, similar explosiveness, and better defensive skills than Dawkins. And the reports from the McD's practices suggest he's filled out his frame and become quite strong as well. I'm not saying he will definitely bump Dawkins. I'm just saying it's probably a good idea to consider the possibility.

As for the starting backcourt, I think it will take a lot for Curry not to start. And I think Coach K realizes that the undersized backcourt wasn't effective last year. I think he just tried to make it work as best he could understanding the defensive limitations of Dawkins and Cook. Murphy was expected to push for a starting spot last year and Coach K has talked about him as a possible 4-year All-ACC player. That sounds like a player he expects to seriously compete for a starting spot next year.

I don't think there's much question Curry will start. He's the best backcourt player we have coming back and he's the one backcourt player who isn't a big liability on either end of the floor (very solid offensively, tolerable defensively). I think the question will be how much Curry can improve his ballhandling and distributing, how ready Sulaimon is, and how much Cook, Thornton, and Dawkins improve in their areas of weakness. While Coach K loves Thornton's toughness, communication, and energy, I'm sure he's well aware that teams basically played 5 against 4 on offense when Thornton was in the game. That can't be a working model going forward, just like we can't have defensive liabilities on the other end. Whoever of Thornton, Cook, Dawkins, and Sulaimon proves they're capable on both ends of the floor will join Curry.

The question then is who plays the 3. If Mason returns, the options would appear to be Dawkins, Murphy, and Gbinije. I'm sure Dawkins will get every chance to win the spot as he's a senior. But I'm also sure that Coach K thinks very highly of Murphy.

[tdrake51]

I think Curry is being underestimated. There is no way a newcomer comes in and starts over an All ACC fifth year senior. Also, I think Curry can be a much better scorer without Austin. I feel like Seth deferred a bit too much at times. He has shown glimpses of a very good all around game.

I think the biggest key to Curry's season is who starts at PG. If he has to start the offense and create for others, he is going to struggle unless he makes huge improvements. Cook has to start for Curry (and IMO this team) to have the most success.

[CDu]

I think Curry is being underestimated. There is no way a newcomer comes in and starts over an All ACC fifth year senior. Also, I think Curry can be a much better scorer without Austin. I feel like Seth deferred a bit too much at times. He has shown glimpses of a very good all around game.

I think the biggest key to Curry's season is who starts at PG. If he has to start the offense and create for others, he is going to struggle unless he makes huge improvements. Cook has to start for Curry (and IMO this team) to have the most success.

I agree with you that Curry is being underestimated. I'll reiterate what I said just above your post. I think it comes down to minimizing weaknesses. Curry has, among the returning backcourt players, the fewest weaknesses in his game. Thornton (offense), Cook (defense), and Dawkins (defense, dribbling, and focus) have glaring areas for improvement. Sulaimon has no experience in the Duke system or against college competition. I think that the extent to which each of these players can show the most improvement in their areas for improvement will determine who joins Curry in the lineup.

As such, I don't think it's fair to say with certainty that Cook has to start for the team to be the most effective. Cook may address one aspect that we lacked last year, but he may introduce further weaknesses in other areas. If Thornton can improve his offensive game to the point that he has to be accounted for and Curry continues to improve as a playmaker (he made definite strides there last year) while Cook doesn't get better defensively then Thornton makes sense as the starter. If Curry improves his game offensively and Dawkins matures as a player, ballhandler, and defender then Dawkins could start alongside Curry. If Sulaimon shows he's ready to be an impact player on both ends of the court then he might start alongside Curry.

This will be a very interesting offseason and early season next year because I feel that so many spots are up for grabs. Moreso than in recent memory. And it could get more interesting as players decide to come or go. That could be a good thing (lots of talented players on the roster) or a bad thing (those talented players may not reach their potential). I'll look forward to seeing how it all shakes out.

[nocilla]

Amazing that people think that Murphy and Sulaimon (two players that have never played college ball) are going to supplant Curry and Dawkins.

Well, supplanting Dawkins isn't that far-fetched. But Curry will start unless something drastic happens. I actually don't think Dawkins will start next year, I think Murphy will supplant him. I think Dawkins will compete with Sulaimon for the 6th man role.

[unexpected]

Well, supplanting Dawkins isn't that far-fetched. But Curry will start unless something drastic happens. I actually don't think Dawkins will start next year, I think Murphy will supplant him. I think Dawkins will compete with Sulaimon for the 6th man role.

No one has ever seen Alex Murphy play. No one knows how well he shoots, how well he defends, and or how strong he is. Every projection made on Alex Murphy is made out of some sort of desire to have a "tall" SF, or some justification based out of his recruiting ranking.

Dawkins has been in the crucible of ACC competition for 3 years now. Next year, he will be a senior. When he is hitting his shots, there are few better. Give the kid a chance - very few people have been through what he has been through over the past 3 years. He has started the majority of games for us for the past 2 years. Unless something earth-shattering happens, he will start.

The grass is always greener on the other side, but the easiest way for a freshman to contribute is in the 6 man role. That's what Dawkins did, that's what Nolan Smith did, that's what Eliot Williams did, etc. I have no doubt that Sulaimon will be warrior - but I doubt it will be on day 1.

We're always high on new recruits. Lance Thomas was supposed to be the Messiah. Eric Boateng, Michael Thompson, Shavlik Randolph, Pocius, Olek Czyz, even Gbinije - all of these names have floated around these boards over the years as recruits who started from Day 1.

We have great tendency to discount what we currently know and have for the promise of a new recruit. Our kids will be great - I just wish we wouldn't besot them with such high expectations.

[A-Tex Devil]

So now that the season is over, I see both a lot of unbridled optimism and unreasonable pessimism on this thread for next year's team. Even if we don't get any of the 3-5 targets (if you include potential transfers that don't have to sit out a year) and Mason leaves, a weak ACC is going to allow us to go at least 10-6, and get into the tourney. That's not our standard, but if everything goes wrong, we may be looking at 2007. If everything goes right, we could be looking at likeable, one year away, team like 2000, 2003, or perhaps even better.

But back to the subject -- I am having a hard time getting excited about Murphy, Mar. Plumlee and Gbinije as difference makers next year. We really needed help in some areas this year, including depth on the front line. We are in an era where if freshmen can contribute, they play, and play significantly. Even at Duke. Ryan Kelly is the only guy I can recall who went from a non-factor his freshman year to a significant contributor (and arguably a top 3 player) in later years. Seriously, go back and look at our rosters. I am sure I am missing someone, but if freshman do not play, they tend to be bench players throughout their careers, or at the very best starters with limited minutes. Maybe I'll give Murphy a bit of a pass since he came in early, but I think we need to be careful projecting too much on these 3 guys. If they were difference makers, they probably would have played this year.

[CDu]

No one has ever seen Alex Murphy play. No one knows how well he shoots, how well he defends, and or how strong he is. Every projection made on Alex Murphy is made out of some sort of desire to have a "tall" SF, or some justification based out of his recruiting ranking.

Dawkins has been in the crucible of ACC competition for 3 years now. Next year, he will be a senior. When he is hitting his shots, there are few better. Give the kid a chance - very few people have been through what he has been through over the past 3 years. He has started the majority of games for us for the past 2 years. Unless something earth-shattering happens, he will start.

The grass is always greener on the other side, but the easiest way for a freshman to contribute is in the 6 man role. That's what Dawkins did, that's what Nolan Smith did, that's what Eliot Williams did, etc. I have no doubt that Sulaimon will be warrior - but I doubt it will be on day 1.

We're always high on new recruits. Lance Thomas was supposed to be the Messiah. Eric Boateng, Michael Thompson, Shavlik Randolph, Pocius, Olek Czyz, even Gbinije - all of these names have floated around these boards over the years as recruits who started from Day 1.

We have great tendency to discount what we currently know and have for the promise of a new recruit. Our kids will be great - I just wish we wouldn't besot them with such high expectations.

I generally agree with your sentiments in this post. But I think you're a bit off target on the bolded part. It's true that SOME of the talk of Murphy starting is based on hope for a tall wing and/or his high rating as a junior (before he declared he'd enter school early, which bumped him down relative to his new class). But there's also the quotes from Coach K that he sees Murphy as a potential 4-year All-ACC player. Coach K always praises his players, but its uncommon for him to toss out those kind of superlatives.

[CDu]

So now that the season is over, I see both a lot of unbridled optimism and unreasonable pessimism on this thread for next year's team. Even if we don't get any of the 3-5 targets (if you include potential transfers that don't have to sit out a year) and Mason leaves, a weak ACC is going to allow us to go at least 10-6, and get into the tourney. That's not our standard, but if everything goes wrong, we may be looking at 2007. If everything goes right, we could be looking at likeable, one year away, team like 2000, 2003, or perhaps even better.

But back to the subject -- I am having a hard time getting excited about Murphy, Mar. Plumlee and Gbinije as difference makers next year. We really needed help in some areas this year, including depth on the front line. We are in an era where if freshmen can contribute, they play, and play significantly. Even at Duke. Ryan Kelly is the only guy I can recall who went from a non-factor his freshman year to a significant contributor (and arguably a top 3 player) in later years. Seriously, go back and look at our rosters. I am sure I am missing someone, but if freshman do not play, they tend to be bench players throughout their careers, or at the very best starters with limited minutes. Maybe I'll give Murphy a bit of a pass since he came in early, but I think we need to be careful projecting too much on these 3 guys. If they were difference makers, they probably would have played this year.

I'd give Marshall a pass as well. It's not fair to expect him to play major minutes when we have two guys (his brothers) clearly more experienced and more mature at his position, and two more guys (Kelly and Hairston) who could fill in in a pinch). I'm not expecting huge things next year from Marshall (I don't even expect him to start next year). But I do expect him to be a significant contributor by his redshirt sophomore season.