Looking Ahead To 2012-2013

[elvis14]

I think a healthy Cook probably does not qualify as someone with below average athleticism. He's faster than most point guards and is very quick with the ball. I think his biggest limiting factor on the defensive end (and to a certain extent on the offensive end) is his below average height and length. That being said, improved quickness after an offseason of recovery and development should make him a more capable defender. At the very least, I think we'll get a better look at the player Cook really is/will become this year than last. I'm hopeful that we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

I agree with what COYS is saying here, particularly about his real issue is height. The thing about Cook that has me excited is how he plays with the ball in his hands. He looks to attack and he is very clever with his passing. You can't teach what he got: court vision and the ability to deliver the ball with good timing.

I still think he's crucial to our success next season.

[Monmouth77]

Nice that Pomeroy is supportive of Cook, though he misses wildly with one comment: Rivers wasn't the reason Cook was limited to 12mpg.

Why is that a wild miss? Cook's minutes were arguably limited by his injury/recovery, and by defensive ineffectiveness, but we had a very crowded backcourt last year (5 recruited players at the guard position). The fact that Rivers played a ton is absolutely a reason why Cook saw limited action.

What Pomeroy's projections miss is the fact that our backcourt remains crowded. Cook is still "blocked" in the sense that Sulaimon and Curry (and maybe even Thornton) should get a lot of backcourt minutes this year, and now that we have more frontcourt versatility, we are likely to see fewer 3-guard sets.

Of course, if Pomeroy's projections play out and Cook can play effective D, he could force the issue, and cause greater competition for minutes at the wing positions.

[lotusland]

I hope of the guards play well but if Mason and Ryan don't end up being our best players I doubt Duke wins the conference or makes a very deep run in the tournament this year. I hope our guards are patient in the half court sets and get the ball in to the big fellows most of the time. Both RK and MP2 make good passes and handle the ball well (for a big man) so hopefully the half court offense goes inside out this year. I'm sure Mason will make some unecessary power dribbles and pump fakes and Ryan will dribble into traffic on occasion but it should be their team this year. I don't think any of the guards should be hoisting up threes or going one on one off the dribble early in the shot clock very often this year.

[jimsumner]

I hope of the guards play well but if Mason and Ryan don't end up being our best players I doubt Duke wins the conference or makes a very deep run in the tournament this year. I hope our guards are patient in the half court sets and get the ball in to the big fellows most of the time. Both RK and MP2 make good passes and handle the ball well (for a big man) so hopefully the half court offense goes inside out this year. I'm sure Mason will make some unecessary power dribbles and pump fakes and Ryan will dribble into traffic on occasion but it should be their team this year. I don't think any of the guards should be hoisting up threes or going one on one off the dribble early in the shot clock very often this year.

Just curious but why would this be Mason and Ryan's team instead of Mason, Ryan and Seth's team?

[CDu]

Why is that a wild miss? Cook's minutes were arguably limited by his injury/recovery, and by defensive ineffectiveness, but we had a very crowded backcourt last year (5 recruited players at the guard position). The fact that Rivers played a ton is absolutely a reason why Cook saw limited action.

What Pomeroy's projections miss is the fact that our backcourt remains crowded. Cook is still "blocked" in the sense that Sulaimon and Curry (and maybe even Thornton) should get a lot of backcourt minutes this year, and now that we have more frontcourt versatility, we are likely to see fewer 3-guard sets.

Of course, if Pomeroy's projections play out and Cook can play effective D, he could force the issue, and cause greater competition for minutes at the wing positions.

It's a wild miss because Rivers played SG and SF for us this past year. Cook's minutes were limited by his inability to beat out Thornton for the PG minutes (in part because he was still recovering from injury. Rivers' presence had, at most, only the smallest of impacts on Cook's playing time. There were over 30 mpg available for a PG even with Rivers playing a ton. Cook just wasn't ready last year to assume those minutes.

If Cook is ready to go, there's plenty of playing time available to him. Assuming Curry plays 30 mpg and Sulaimon plays 20-25 mpg, that leaves at least 25-30 mpg for Cook and Thornton (that's assuming we don't play any 3-guard lineups). Assuming 5 mpg at SF for Sulaimon pushes us to 30-35 mpg. So there's plenty of minutes for a starting PG.

Once again, the issue isn't Sulaimon (or Rivers). It's whether or not Cook can beat out Thornton for the PG (or in Thornton's case "PG") minutes.

[Ichabod Drain]

Why is that a wild miss? Cook's minutes were arguably limited by his injury/recovery, and by defensive ineffectiveness, but we had a very crowded backcourt last year (5 recruited players at the guard position). The fact that Rivers played a ton is absolutely a reason why Cook saw limited action.

What Pomeroy's projections miss is the fact that our backcourt remains crowded. Cook is still "blocked" in the sense that Sulaimon and Curry (and maybe even Thornton) should get a lot of backcourt minutes this year, and now that we have more frontcourt versatility, we are likely to see fewer 3-guard sets.

Of course, if Pomeroy's projections play out and Cook can play effective D, he could force the issue, and cause greater competition for minutes at the wing positions.

Except those five recruited guards were playing PG, SG, and SF. Five players for three positions opens up a lot more time than five players for two positions.

[CDu]

Just curious but why would this be Mason and Ryan's team instead of Mason, Ryan and Seth's team?

Agreed. Curry and Mason are All-ACC returnees (and among the highest-rated of those returnees). I'd expect Curry to be our best perimeter guy and Mason to be our best post guy. Kelly will be our second best post guy (though post may be a bit loose in terminology for Kelly). I'd expect this team to belong to all 3 seniors, with a healthy dose of production from our freshmen and sophomore. If we can get decent production from our juniors, too, that's an added bonus.

[jimsumner]

It's a wild miss because Rivers played SG and SF for us this past year. Cook's minutes were limited by his inability to beat out Thornton for the PG minutes (in part because he was still recovering from injury. Rivers' presence had, at most, only the smallest of impacts on Cook's playing time. There were over 30 mpg available for a PG even with Rivers playing a ton. Cook just wasn't ready last year to assume those minutes.

If Cook is ready to go, there's plenty of playing time available to him. Assuming Curry plays 30 mpg and Sulaimon plays 20-25 mpg, that leaves at least 25-30 mpg for Cook and Thornton (that's assuming we don't play any 3-guard lineups). Assuming 5 mpg at SF for Sulaimon pushes us to 30-35 mpg. So there's plenty of minutes for a starting PG.

Once again, the issue isn't Sulaimon (or Rivers). It's whether or not Cook can beat out Thornton for the PG (or in Thornton's case "PG") minutes.

I basically agree. But a counter-argument can be made. Had Rivers not been around, there would have been less temptation to try Curry at the point early in the season, in an effort to get he, Rivers and Dawkins on the floor at the same time.

This analyis still begs the question of whether Cook would have sufficiently healthy to play in a non-Rivers universe. But it's not absurd to see some correlation.

[CDu]

I basically agree. But a counter-argument can be made. Had Rivers not been around, there would have been less temptation to try Curry at the point early in the season, in an effort to get he, Rivers and Dawkins on the floor at the same time.

This analyis still begs the question of whether Cook would have sufficiently healthy to play in a non-Rivers universe. But it's not absurd to see some correlation.

Much less correlation between the playing time of Rivers and Cook and the playing time of Thornton and Cook. So to suggest Rivers as the main reason that Cook's playing time was limited last year is a wild miss by Pomeroy.

Had Rivers not been there, we'd have probably played Thornton more immediately at PG, and we'd have seen more of Curry, Dawkins, and perhaps Gbinije at SG and SF. Cook may have gotten up to 15 mpg. But again, Thornton and Cook combined for 33 mpg last year. The only reason Cook didn't get over 20 mpg last year was because he wasn't able to beat out Thornton for more of those 33 mpg.

[Monmouth77]

It's a wild miss because Rivers played SG and SF for us this past year. Cook's minutes were limited by his inability to beat out Thornton for the PG minutes (in part because he was still recovering from injury. Rivers' presence had, at most, only the smallest of impacts on Cook's playing time. There were over 30 mpg available for a PG even with Rivers playing a ton. Cook just wasn't ready last year to assume those minutes.

If Cook is ready to go, there's plenty of playing time available to him. Assuming Curry plays 30 mpg and Sulaimon plays 20-25 mpg, that leaves at least 25-30 mpg for Cook and Thornton (that's assuming we don't play any 3-guard lineups). Assuming 5 mpg at SF for Sulaimon pushes us to 30-35 mpg. So there's plenty of minutes for a starting PG.

Once again, the issue isn't Sulaimon (or Rivers). It's whether or not Cook can beat out Thornton for the PG (or in Thornton's case "PG") minutes.

I completely agree that "if Cook is ready to go, there's plenty of playing time available to him" which is exactly what my post says.

But I'll stick to my view (and apparently Ken Pomeroy's view) that if our most talented player last year -- Austin Rivers -- did not play so much, Cook would have played a lot more. And the 30 PG minutes you say were available last year were divided between three guys who handled the ball a lot (Curry, Thornton, Cook) not two.

The observation that Rivers played some at SF last year confirms my overall point that we were extremely guard heavy, and that it was hard for Quinn to carve out a bigger role.

I get that Quinn is purely a point, and that his primary competition for floor time, at least theoretically, is Thornton. But I can certainly envision a scenario where a lineup of Sulaimon, Curry, Murphy, Kelly and Plumlee gets a lot of shared court time.

You're telling me the "issue isn't Sulaimon" (in addition to Thornton) in that scenario?

Anyway, I think we agree on the main point here, which is that if Cook plays to what we all hope and feel is his potential, he'll get big PG minutes.

[Monmouth77]

I basically agree. But a counter-argument can be made. Had Rivers not been around, there would have been less temptation to try Curry at the point early in the season, in an effort to get he, Rivers and Dawkins on the floor at the same time.

This analyis still begs the question of whether Cook would have sufficiently healthy to play in a non-Rivers universe. But it's not absurd to see some correlation.

This is my point.

[Starter]

At risk of being a lightning rod, as I usually am when I contribute to these conversations: Cook is the key to the team next year. I thought last year's team didn't have any dynamic elements with the exception of Rivers in isolation, which is why I typically had no problem when he'd be assertive in those spots. Basically, if he didn't score, I didn't really have faith anybody else would consistently with the exception of Mason, who was nonetheless out of his comfort zone in the post. I've always wanted to see Mason play more like Amar'e Stoudemire (the pre-back injury, non-fire-extinguisher punching version) as an explosive, face-up scorer.

Which gets to why Cook is so important -- he's the only guy on the team I see with the ability to facilitate and make things easier for everyone around him. (I reserve the right to add Sulaimon to that very short list; I just haven't seen him play live yet.) The offense when Cook wasn't on the court last year was stagnant, at least to me. Cook has the unique ability to push the tempo, break down defenses and create offense for himself and others. That much was evident, even in the limited time that he played. I still remember how fluid Mason looked during those eight glorious games before Kyrie messed up his foot. That's the element that I would hope resurfaces if he plays with someone like Cook, at least if he's what I think he is.

Honestly, I thought Cook could have grown into last year's version of Eliot Williams or Duhon, someone who emerges over time to change the atmosphere and tempo. When Ryan Kelly, our best halfcourt facilitator, went down, I was hoping Cook would be implemented more so as to benefit from the change of pace he provides. For whatever reason, that didn't happen, but the reports I'm hearing about him just 3-4 months after he was said to have been limited to whatever extent by a balky knee, bode well going forward, especially since I thought him to be a very good basketball player most of the times I saw him play last season. This is a true lead guard with pedigree, talent and respect from his peers around the AAU circuit. If he emerges and grows on both sides of the ball, and I see literally no reason other than health that he can't, then we're talking about a team with the ability to go places. Otherwise, they'll still obviously be a very talented team, but much like last season, their ceiling athletically and results-wise will probably be lower than we'd all like it to be.

[CDu]

But I'll stick to my view (and apparently Ken Pomeroy's view) that if our most talented player last year -- Austin Rivers -- did not play so much, Cook would have played a lot more. And the 30 PG minutes you say were available last year were divided between three guys who handled the ball a lot (Curry, Thornton, Cook) not two.

Sorry, but that's wrong. There were 120 mpg available to the 3 guard spots last year. Curry played 30 of them. Dawkins played 22 of them. Rivers played 33 of them. Gbinije played about 3 of them. Cook and Thornton played about 32 of them. If Rivers (who played SG and SF last year) wasn't there, we'd have seen Curry, Dawkins, and Gbinije play more. Probably something like 33 mpg for Curry, 30 mpg for Dawkins, and 12 mpg for Gbinije. Curry probably would have played exclusively at SG, meaning about 10-12 more mpg (combined) for Thornton and Cook. Given that Cook was playing about 1/3 of the mpg between Thornton and Cook last year, I'd expect Cook to have gotten an additional 3-4 mpg or so.

So, no, Rivers' presence didn't greatly affect Cook's minutes. Cook's inability to beat out Thornton for the PG minutes was what limited him. It all comes back to the fact that he didn't beat out Thornton for the PG minutes (because the two weren't going to play together for extended time in any scenario, so the ceiling for their combined minutes was not that much higher than their actual total minutes last year).

The observation that Rivers played some at SF last year confirms my overall point that we were extremely guard heavy, and that it was hard for Quinn to carve out a bigger role.

No, it was actually a reflection of the lack of performance at SF. That's not really an argument for why Cook couldn't carve out a role, since the lack of quality at SF is EXACTLY the reason that Rivers didn't affect Cook's playing time. Had we had a capable SF, Rivers would have pushed Curry to PG and your (and Pomeroy's) argument would be valid. But we didn't, so Rivers spent a lot of time out of position, freeing up a lot of time for Cook and Thornton at PG.

I get that Quinn is purely a point, and that his primary competition for floor time, at least theoretically, is Thornton. But I can certainly envision a scenario where a lineup of Sulaimon, Curry, Murphy, Kelly and Plumlee gets a lot of shared court time.

You're telling me the "issue isn't Sulaimon" (in addition to Thornton) in that scenario?

First, I doubt that lineup plays a ton of time together this year. Maybe 5-10mpg (I expect Sulaimon to back up Curry at SG and be part of the backup plan at SF moreso than playing PG. That again leaves 30-35 mpg for Thornton and Cook at PG. So, no, I don't see that as the issue.

And beyond that, if you're assuming that Sulaimon plays PG, it's immediately a different scenario than the Rivers scenario (which is what I said was wildly off by Pomeroy), as Rivers played exclusively at SG and SF. So if you're assuming that Sulaimon is a major factor at PG, then that is a different issue and would indeed affect Cook's playing time.

[CDu]

At risk of being a lightning rod, as I usually am when I contribute to these conversations: Cook is the key to the team next year. I thought last year's team didn't have any dynamic elements with the exception of Rivers in isolation, which is why I typically had no problem when he'd be assertive in those spots. Basically, if he didn't score, I didn't really have faith anybody else would consistently with the exception of Mason, who was nonetheless out of his comfort zone in the post. I've always wanted to see Mason play more like Amar'e Stoudemire (the pre-back injury, non-fire-extinguisher punching version) as an explosive, face-up scorer.

Which gets to why Cook is so important -- he's the only guy on the team I see with the ability to facilitate and make things easier for everyone around him. (I reserve the right to add Sulaimon to that very short list; I just haven't seen him play live yet.) The offense when Cook wasn't on the court last year was stagnant, at least to me. Cook has the unique ability to push the tempo, break down defenses and create offense for himself and others. That much was evident, even in the limited time that he played. I still remember how fluid Mason looked during those eight glorious games before Kyrie messed up his foot. That's the element that I would hope resurfaces if he plays with someone like Cook, at least if he's what I think he is.

Honestly, I thought Cook could have grown into last year's version of Eliot Williams or Duhon, someone who emerges over time to change the atmosphere and tempo. When Ryan Kelly, our best halfcourt facilitator, went down, I was hoping Cook would be implemented more so as to benefit from the change of pace he provides. For whatever reason, that didn't happen, but the reports I'm hearing about him just 3-4 months after he was said to have been limited to whatever extent by a balky knee, bode well going forward, especially since I thought him to be a very good basketball player most of the times I saw him play last season. This is a true lead guard with pedigree, talent and respect from his peers around the AAU circuit. If he emerges and grows on both sides of the ball, and I see literally no reason other than health that he can't, then we're talking about a team with the ability to go places. Otherwise, they'll still obviously be a very talented team, but much like last season, their ceiling athletically and results-wise will probably be lower than we'd all like it to be.

I think there are several keys, but Cook is absolutely one of them. In no particular order:
- Can Mason make the jump to 1st Team All-ACC caliber?
- Can Kelly become more than just a good (but streaky) perimeter shooter?
- Can Murphy/Jefferson/Sulaimon produce at SF?
- Can Marshall, Jefferson, and Hairston replace Miles?
- Can Sulaimon and Curry be big-time scorers on the wing?
- Can Cook make the jump to All-ACC caliber PG play?

[Monmouth77]

Sorry, but that's wrong. There were 120 mpg available to the 3 guard spots last year. Curry played 30 of them. Dawkins played 22 of them. Rivers played 33 of them. Gbinije played about 3 of them. Cook and Thornton played about 32 of them. If Rivers (who played SG and SF last year) wasn't there, we'd have seen Curry, Dawkins, and Gbinije play more. Probably something like 33 mpg for Curry, 30 mpg for Dawkins, and 12 mpg for Gbinije. Curry probably would have played exclusively at SG, meaning about 10-12 more mpg (combined) for Thornton and Cook. Given that Cook was playing about 1/3 of the mpg between Thornton and Cook last year, I'd expect Cook to have gotten an additional 3-4 mpg or so.

So, no, Rivers' presence didn't greatly affect Cook's minutes. Cook's inability to beat out Thornton for the PG minutes was what limited him. It all comes back to the fact that he didn't beat out Thornton for the PG minutes (because the two weren't going to play together for extended time in any scenario).



No, it was actually a reflection of the lack of performance at SF. That's not really an argument for why Cook couldn't carve out a role, since the lack of quality at SF is EXACTLY the reason that Rivers didn't affect Cook's playing time. Had we had a capable SF, Rivers would have pushed Curry to PG and your (and Pomeroy's) argument would be valid. But we didn't, so Rivers spent a lot of time out of position, freeing up a lot of time for Cook and Thornton at PG.



First, I doubt that lineup plays a ton of time together this year. Maybe 5-10mpg (I expect Sulaimon to back up Curry at SG and be part of the backup plan at SF moreso than playing PG. That again leaves 30-35 mpg for Thornton and Cook at PG. So, no, I don't see that as the issue.

And beyond that, if you're assuming that Sulaimon plays PG, it's immediately a different scenario than the Rivers scenario (which is what I said was wildly off by Pomeroy), as Rivers played exclusively at SG and SF.

It's not my style to keep arguing about this type of arcana (i.e., who would get exactly how many minutes in a but-for world). Rivers' presence on the team bore some relationship to Cook's playing time. We were guard heavy. And regardless of what position he was forced to play, Rivers was our best guard, and limited the opportunities of the other guards, so that they were fighting with each other-- not Rivers-- for time.

Once again, I completely agree with your primary points, which, as I understand them, are that (1) Cook's inability to beat out Thornton played a bigger role; and (2) the door is wide open for Cook next year if he plays the way we all hope he will.

And let me add, I don't post on this site a fraction as much as you do, but have been reading this board forever, and I typically enjoy your posts-- I'm not picking a fight.

I just found Pomeory's observation interesting, and not completely wrong. Another way to look at this is that Cook and Rivers were our two best ballhandlers last year, regardless of position. This year, it may be Cook and Sulaimon -- that's why I compared them.

[COYS]

At risk of being a lightning rod, as I usually am when I contribute to these conversations: Cook is the key to the team next year. I thought last year's team didn't have any dynamic elements with the exception of Rivers in isolation, which is why I typically had no problem when he'd be assertive in those spots. Basically, if he didn't score, I didn't really have faith anybody else would consistently with the exception of Mason, who was nonetheless out of his comfort zone in the post. I've always wanted to see Mason play more like Amar'e Stoudemire (the pre-back injury, non-fire-extinguisher punching version) as an explosive, face-up scorer.

Which gets to why Cook is so important -- he's the only guy on the team I see with the ability to facilitate and make things easier for everyone around him. (I reserve the right to add Sulaimon to that very short list; I just haven't seen him play live yet.) The offense when Cook wasn't on the court last year was stagnant, at least to me. Cook has the unique ability to push the tempo, break down defenses and create offense for himself and others. That much was evident, even in the limited time that he played. I still remember how fluid Mason looked during those eight glorious games before Kyrie messed up his foot. That's the element that I would hope resurfaces if he plays with someone like Cook, at least if he's what I think he is.

Honestly, I thought Cook could have grown into last year's version of Eliot Williams or Duhon, someone who emerges over time to change the atmosphere and tempo. When Ryan Kelly, our best halfcourt facilitator, went down, I was hoping Cook would be implemented more so as to benefit from the change of pace he provides. For whatever reason, that didn't happen, but the reports I'm hearing about him just 3-4 months after he was said to have been limited to whatever extent by a balky knee, bode well going forward, especially since I thought him to be a very good basketball player most of the times I saw him play last season. This is a true lead guard with pedigree, talent and respect from his peers around the AAU circuit. If he emerges and grows on both sides of the ball, and I see literally no reason other than health that he can't, then we're talking about a team with the ability to go places. Otherwise, they'll still obviously be a very talented team, but much like last season, their ceiling athletically and results-wise will probably be lower than we'd all like it to be.

Excellent post. As his stat sheet numbers demonstrate (just so everyone knows I'm not ripping these from the Insider KenPom article), he was very good on offense who, while in the game, did not shy away from making things happen (21% usage rate). He managed a 118.5 offensive rating despite being a freshman who missed the preseason coming off of an injury that he never fully recovered from until after the season . . . oh and he shot miserably from three point range. An improvement to respectability (35% or so) on his three point shooting would help out his offensive efficiency, significantly, even assuming that his turnover rate increases a small amount (which is not necessarily a sure thing, but definitely a possibility). I think that Cook has the potential to be a very impressive orchestrator on the offensive end.

The real key will be defense. As I stated above, I'm a believer in Cook's raw physical abilities. I think he'll show the quickness to keep up with opposing guards. I actually thought many of his miscues from last season while applying on-ball pressure were due to his overzealous attempts to stay in front of his man. He bit hard on every hesitation, ball fake, or stutter step. That seemed to be more of an issue for him even though he still was still a half step slow while recovering from his knee injury. That being said, size matters. Cook probably won't be a lock down defender even if he improves significantly. Also, since he is almost certainly under six feet, there will be games where he will be physically overmatched, no matter how quick he is when he's healthy.

I have no doubt Cook will be able to make the offense run smoothly right out of the gate. However, there remains the strong possibility that Rasheed's defense will be too valuable to put on the bench. I think we all hope and expect that Alex is too good Not to start and be the big wing we missed so dearly, last year. Seth, Mason, and Ryan are our senior leaders and will definitely play as much as they can. And Tyler will still find his way onto the court. When Alex is in at the three, K will have to sit two of Rasheed, Quinn, Seth, and Tyler. Even when Alex is out or foul trouble/matchups necessitate him moving to the 4, Quinn would still be in competition with Tyler for PG minutes alongside Seth and Rasheed. Quinn will definitely play. But he will really need to establish himself on the defensive end to make himself the unquestioned engine of the offense. Otherwise, he won't be on the court enough to build the offense around.

I love Tyler and think he's very valuable, but I think the best case scenario for next season is for Quinn to show enough improvement that he claims the starting PG spot, proving he can be a capable defender at the point of attack while spearheading the offense. I also assume that Alex will start alongside Seth, Mason, and Ryan. Now, Rasheed can play the role of super-sixth man or at the very least be the first guard off the bench. Tyler can come in and provide bursts of energy and toughness, which I think best utilizes his strengths.

On the other hand, it is possible that Rasheed's defense is too good for him not to start, in which case Quinn would almost certainly find himself in a bench role unless Alex proves he's not ready to start, yet, and we go with three guards, again. Just so it's clear, I'm not rooting against Rasheed to start! However, I can't help but hope that Quinn, as a sophomore who is now healthy and has loads of potential on the offensive end, establishes himself and allows Rasheed to be a super-talent off the bench.

[CDu]

It's not my style to keep arguing about this type of arcana (i.e., who would get exactly how many minutes in a but-for world). Rivers' presence on the team bore some relationship to Cook's playing time. We were guard heavy. And regardless of what position he was forced to play, Rivers was our best guard, and limited the opportunities of the other guards, so that they were fighting with each other-- not Rivers-- for time.

I didn't say Rivers' presence bore no relationship to Cook's playing time. I said it was not close to the primary reason Cook didn't play as much (which was the insinuation Pomeroy made). Not all guard minutes are created equal, and the minutes that Rivers was competing for (or more accurately, who the others were competing with Rivers for) were not the same as the minutes Cook was competing for.

Because Rivers played so much at SF, he was competing with Gbinije, Dawkins, and the SG version of Curry for minutes. Cook was competing with Thornton and the PG version of Curry for minutes. Rivers was the reason that Dawkins and Gbinije didn't play more. Thornton and Curry were the primary reasons that Cook didn't play more. And most accurately, Cook's lack of readiness defensively was the reason he didn't play more. It had little to do with Rivers. I think, had Rivers not been there, Cook plays maybe 2-4mpg more. Had Thornton or Curry not been there, Cook would have played 10+ mpg more.

Once again, I completely agree with your primary points, which, as I understand them, are that (1) Cook's inability to beat out Thornton played a bigger role; and (2) the door is wide open for Cook next year if he plays the way we all hope he will.

And let me add, I don't post on this site a fraction as much as you do, but have been reading this board forever, and I typically enjoy your posts-- I'm not picking a fight.

Totally okay with a disagreement (I love a good debate). No worries - I didn't feel like you were picking a fight.

I just found Pomeory's observation interesting, and not completely wrong.

I also found Pomeroy's overall observation interesting. The ONLY thing I disagreed with in Pomeroy's analysis was just his incorrect attribution of Cook's lack of minutes being due to Rivers. As I said above, Cook was competing with Thornton and Curry for PG minutes. At most, he and Thornton were getting ~40 mpg (their skill sets aren't that complementary together). Those two got 32 mpg last year. So at most, Rivers' absence would lead to 8-12 more mpg or so for the two combined. The lack of minutes was because Cook couldn't beat out Thornton.

Another way to look at this is that Cook and Rivers were our two best ballhandlers last year, regardless of position. This year, it may be Cook and Sulaimon -- that's why I compared them.

Many of our best teams have had multiple good ballhandlers on the floor. So that's not really a good argument as to why Rivers robbed minutes from Cook. If Cook had been ready last year, there'd have been no problem with him playing 25+ mpg alongside Curry and/or Rivers. Similarly, if he's ready to go this year, he'll have no problem seeing 25+ mpg alongside Curry and/or Sulaimon.

[Starter]

With Cook's defense, by the way, I've always thought it to be a chicken or egg type thing. Would he have been a better defender if he had had more court time to learn from his mistakes and get used to game speed? I didn't see him in practice or anything, but probably, right? Or was it that they had no faith in him on that end to play him? Because honestly, I didn't think Thornton offered some overwhelmingly humongous advantage in that area. I'm not trying to launch into a big picture diatribe about how Duke assigns playing time or anything, I'm just saying that if Cook plays more, I'd have to think he'll get better by virtue of more repetitions under fire and the apparent athleticism to make it work. Honestly, I didn't think he was that terrible, outside of a couple of games where he was overmatched that tend to stick in our minds. I also don't so much worry about his size; Cook's not really smaller than the guy ahead of him last year, and he put up some pretty stellar numbers relative to the amount of time he played.

And not for nothing, I realize you have to play defense to play at Duke, but I tend to think you have a bit of rope if you have something valuable to offer on the offensive end. I mean, to be honest -- forgive me here -- I thought J.J. Redick was a pretty lousy defender during his time at Duke. (He's gotten much better in the pros.) Obviously, Redick had skills you weren't going to leave on the bench because he was a sieve. And I know Cook isn't exactly J.J. Redick in terms of value or situation, but I'd hope the upgrade Cook offers on offense would be enough to give him some slack to round into a solid defender. I guess we'll see how it works out.

[Monmouth77]

I didn't say Rivers' presence bore no relationship to Cook's playing time. I said it was not close to the primary reason Cook didn't play as much (which was the insinuation Pomeroy made). Not all guard minutes are created equal, and the minutes that Rivers was competing for (or more accurately, who the others were competing with Rivers for) were not the same as the minutes Cook was competing for.

Because Rivers played so much at SF, he was competing with Gbinije, Dawkins, and the SG version of Curry for minutes. Cook was competing with Thornton and the PG version of Curry for minutes. Rivers was the reason that Dawkins and Gbinije didn't play more. Thornton and Curry were the primary reasons that Cook didn't play more. And most accurately, Cook's lack of readiness defensively was the reason he didn't play more. It had little to do with Rivers. I think, had Rivers not been there, Cook plays maybe 2-4mpg more. Had Thornton or Curry not been there, Cook would have played 10+ mpg more.

Once again, I completely agree with your primary points, which, as I understand them, are that (1) Cook's inability to beat out Thornton played a bigger role; and (2) the door is wide open for Cook next year if he plays the way we all hope he will.



Totally okay with a disagreement (I love a good debate). No worries - I didn't feel like you were picking a fight.



I also found Pomeroy's overall observation interesting. The ONLY thing I disagreed with in Pomeroy's analysis was just his incorrect attribution of Cook's lack of minutes being due to Rivers. As I said above, Cook was competing with Thornton and Curry for PG minutes. At most, he and Thornton were getting ~40 mpg (their skill sets aren't that complementary together). Those two got 32 mpg last year. So at most, Rivers' absence would lead to 8-12 more mpg or so for the two combined. The lack of minutes was because Cook couldn't beat out Thornton.



Many of our best teams have had multiple good ballhandlers on the floor. So that's not really a good argument as to why Rivers robbed minutes from Cook. If Cook had been ready last year, there'd have been no problem with him playing 25+ mpg alongside Curry and/or Rivers. Similarly, if he's ready to go this year, he'll have no problem seeing 25+ mpg alongside Curry and/or Sulaimon.

After this, I promise to stop beating a dead horse, and sidetracking this thread. Much more interested in the posts discussing what Cook and Sulaimon can bring to the table next year.

But your last post, I think, just clarified for me why Pomeroy's point about Rivers resonated. I totally agree that Duke's best teams have had multiple great ball handlers. That's one of the reasons why last year's team struggled, when it struggled. Our ball movement was lacking, and, among regular players only Rivers could reliably get to the rim.

Cook is another guy who has that ability, but for reasons we've now discussed exhaustively, he didn't see the floor enough to make a difference in the way we ran our offense. I think Pomeroy's point-- though it overlooks the other important reasons why Cook didn't get as much burn (defense, health, Thornton (who got minutes because of better defense and health, and vocal leadership-- not ball skills)-- is that, without Rivers, Cook would have/could have been the guy with the ball in his hands the most, and driving to the basket, and taking free throws.

I understand that Rivers played a lot of small forward-- for whatever that designation is worth. What he did though, which no one else could do, is beat his man off the dribble and finish at the rim. That's Quinn's strength (in addition to court vision, and hopefully, some passing acumen).

Now, you say, we could have had two guys doing that, and in theory you are right. But in the context of last's year's team, given Rivers' ability to get to the rim, and our general ability to shoot the ball, what we had to emphasize at the PG position was defense. And in the cost-benefit analysis, it was more important to have Thornton's ballhawking on the floor, than Quinn's offensive moxie.

Without Rivers though, I am not sure you see more Gbnije. I think the team would have really needed a guy to handle the ball, and it would have been Cook. Or, put another way, we were able to play a defense-first PG like Thornton because we had Rivers to break down defenses.

Hopefully, that's Cook's job this year at the PG position, and hopefully our overall team defense is better.

[Steven43]

Just curious but why would this be Mason and Ryan's team instead of Mason, Ryan and Seth's team?

Did you see Seth play last year?


Perhaps you're of the opinion that it should be the team of anyone who is a senior starter. I guess I could see that.