Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 230
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    To me, Oriakhi looked lost on defense all year at Uconn. The switching was awful, for the most part. I have huge doubts whether he could catch on to the likely more complex defense that K would run...especially if he has to help often, depending on what the perimeter D looks like next year.
    Well, I trust your take on him, you've watched him a lot more than I have. I wonder why Coach K would be interested in him, then?

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Well, I trust your take on him, you've watched him a lot more than I have. I wonder why Coach K would be interested in him, then?
    I will say this: fans tend to be much harder on their own teams then is true, or I do anyway. Especially after watching this particular uconn team, you can imagine how I could have a hard time thinking too highly of any player on the team, especially when none stood out as excellent. During the title run, there is no doubt he was essential. he WAS the big man.. there was no drummond...and he though inconsistent at times, he was part of the reason that teams could not do much offensively against them down the stretch. Now, I don't know what changed this year (obviously other than the loss of a certain kemba walker...who was a very very good defender as well), but the defense was as bad as the offense sometimes. Now, there could be a couple reasons for that: a) no kemba, so a less stable perimeter defense, and b) drummond, who didn't really know what he was doing. I think that both of those could have put an undue pressure on alex, and sometimes when the defense fell apart, it was him trying to hold it together...and it was just simply perception (and in my rage at the team, you can't imagine I wanted to go back and figure out exactly who was at fault for every defensive breakdown)...so maybe i am being harsher than I should have been. He did only average 6.7 and 5 a game, for someone who should be a double double machine. Given, uconn's offense was downright horrific, so the decrease in points numbers is highly understandable...but the effort in getting rebounds didn't seem to be there (and that could be a reflection of his seeming unhappiness with both calhoun and sharing PT with Drummond, Oleander, and whomever else)

    Either way, what I don't want is duke fans to get their hopes up that this guy is going to be able to anchor the team on both ends of the floor, to be the "banger" down low that so many have wanted for so long. Maybe he can be. Maybe the overall terribleness of the rest of this particular uconn team, I'll use the word incompetence, maybe it made him look like a lot worse player than he really was. I just think he could have given more effort, shown more improvement over the previous year, and taken more of a leading role a team that desperately needed it.

    I'm just worried that if he were here, some of the attitude problems (want for minutes, lack of 100% effort) would end with him on the bench even more unhappy, and being more of a handicap for the team. I don't think he's worth the risk for one year...I just don't. Uconn's offense is simpler (lol nonexistent...95% iso...) There defense is simple (very little switching) that he would look like a freshman in K's system, in all honesty. By the time he figured it out, the year would likely be close to done...would he have the patience to figure it out? His disapproval of his benching would seem to indicate he doesn't have that patience.

    He will go somewhere where he can start, get a lot of minutes, and be the center of the team, and I don't think that duke would be the best fit for him, and I don't think he is worth the risk for duke.
    1200. DDMF.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Monmouth77 View Post
    Those of you saying that Kelly couldn't play center for Duke must be forgetting the late '80s and early '90s when Duke patrolled the paint exclusively with 6'11 face-up shooters named Ferry and Laettner. Obviously those guys had more talent and (a few) more post moves than we've seen Kelly execute, and Kelly has a lot more shooting range. But sylistically, it's the same idea and not too crazy.
    Dude, those two have their jerseys retired.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Edouble View Post
    Dude, those two have their jerseys retired.
    "Dude," those are two of the greatest college basketball players of all time.

    My point was about style. Folks seem obsessed with the idea that we need a "low post banger" to win titles. It just has not been true for Duke historically, nor does it have to be true in the future.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Durham, NC

    Transfer pending?

    Rivers was interviewed on the radio this morning with Mike and Mike. During the interview he was basically asked if there should be any concern over the cupboard being bare at Duke (or, at least not optimally filled), to which he replied, no. What was a little more intriguing to me was that in addition to praising a few of the remaining and returning players, as well as the red shirt freshman, he said, to paraphrase - we have a transfer coming, too. He said it as if it were a done deal. Did I understand that correctly? Did he tip his hand that Oriakhi is on his way? Anyone else hear that?

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate View Post
    he said, to paraphrase - we have a transfer coming, too. He said it as if it were a done deal. Did I understand that correctly? Did he tip his hand that Oriakhi is on his way? Anyone else hear that?
    Based on what's been posted on the board (article saying Oriakhi won't consider Duke, tweets from Duke players about Ziegler's visit), I'd say it's more likely that this refers to Ziegler, if anyone.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate View Post
    Rivers was interviewed on the radio this morning with Mike and Mike. During the interview he was basically asked if there should be any concern over the cupboard being bare at Duke (or, at least not optimally filled), to which he replied, no. What was a little more intriguing to me was that in addition to praising a few of the remaining and returning players, as well as the red shirt freshman, he said, to paraphrase - we have a transfer coming, too. He said it as if it were a done deal. Did I understand that correctly? Did he tip his hand that Oriakhi is on his way? Anyone else hear that?
    didn't hear it but he also could have meant zeigler

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate View Post
    Rivers was interviewed on the radio this morning with Mike and Mike. During the interview he was basically asked if there should be any concern over the cupboard being bare at Duke (or, at least not optimally filled), to which he replied, no. What was a little more intriguing to me was that in addition to praising a few of the remaining and returning players, as well as the red shirt freshman, he said, to paraphrase - we have a transfer coming, too. He said it as if it were a done deal. Did I understand that correctly? Did he tip his hand that Oriakhi is on his way? Anyone else hear that?
    Considering that Zeigler has already had an official visit to Duke and Rivers has been around the team since then, I'd read that as Zeigler is a strong possibility. Nothing seems to indicate that Oriakhi is interested in Duke, so I can't imagine how he'd know we were getting him.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Durham, NC
    I thought of Zeigler, too, but I guess I wasn't convinced that he was getting a free pass on waiting a year due to transfer, so I assumed Oriakhi. It seems a hardship allowance for the firing of a coach isn't very common. I know it's his dad and all, but we're dealing with the NCAA and some historically confusing decisions. Probably right. I suppose it probably is Zeigler, but that's a lot of guards again next year with the loss of one and addition of two, if my math is correct.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate View Post
    I thought of Zeigler, too, but I guess I wasn't convinced that he was getting a free pass on waiting a year due to transfer, so I assumed Oriakhi. It seems a hardship allowance for the firing of a coach isn't very common. I know it's his dad and all, but we're dealing with the NCAA and some historically confusing decisions. Probably right. I suppose it probably is Zeigler, but that's a lot of guards again next year with the loss of one and addition of two, if my math is correct.
    I'm guessing that Rivers probably doesn't know the specifics on the NCAA hardship waiver either. And I'm guessing he probably was jumping the gun on Zeigler's availability. I'd see a misunderstanding of the NCAA rules regarding a player who he's probably talked to and who has visited (Zeigler) as more likely than knowing another player who he probably hasn't talked to and hasn't visited (Oriakhi) is coming.

    And I'd see Zeigler as a SF, not a guard. His skill set is very different from what we had this past year.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Durham, NC
    And I'd see Zeigler as a SF, not a guard. His skill set is very different from what we had this past year.[/QUOTE]

    That would be a very nice and welcomed addition.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate View Post
    That would be a very nice and welcomed addition.
    Yes, assuming we aren't getting Muhammad (I'd say that's a reasonable guess), getting Zeigler would be a very nice "consolation prize." A junior with similar size and physicality (if not similar skill and explosiveness) who has already shown the ability to be a 15+ ppg scorer at the D-1 level should always be a welcome addition. The question about eligibility remains (and of course the question of whether or not we're actually getting him).

    If Zeigler comes to Duke and is eligible next year, I have no doubt that he starts at SF.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Toledo
    Quote Originally Posted by Monmouth77 View Post
    "Dude," those are two of the greatest college basketball players of all time.

    My point was about style. Folks seem obsessed with the idea that we need a "low post banger" to win titles. It just has not been true for Duke historically, nor does it have to be true in the future.
    Even Carlos Boozer was predominately more of a face-up styled big for the 2001 national championship team. He was, IMO, even smoother and more productive from 10 to 15 feet than he was banging underneath the rim. That's not to say that Boozer wasn't a top-notch talent who could rebound and score deep in the paint at will when called upon, because he was certainly versatile and possessed an array of moves in the post.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Cameron View Post
    Even Carlos Boozer was predominately more of a face-up styled big for the 2001 national championship team. He was, IMO, even smoother and more productive from 10 to 15 feet than he was banging underneath the rim. That's not to say that Boozer wasn't a top-notch talent who could rebound and score deep in the paint at will when called upon, because he was certainly versatile and possessed an array of moves in the post.
    I'd say Boozer was about half and half. He certainly posted up. But you're absolutely right that he liked to turn and face from 10-15 feet (which is now where he makes his living in the NBA). But I think it's fair to call Boozer and Williams back-to-the-basket players. They did it as much as any college star does (because most college stars also show a face-up game too). Brand was the most back-to-the-basket-centric, but even he had shooting touch.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate View Post
    Rivers was interviewed on the radio this morning with Mike and Mike. During the interview he was basically asked if there should be any concern over the cupboard being bare at Duke (or, at least not optimally filled), to which he replied, no. What was a little more intriguing to me was that in addition to praising a few of the remaining and returning players, as well as the red shirt freshman, he said, to paraphrase - we have a transfer coming, too. He said it as if it were a done deal. Did I understand that correctly? Did he tip his hand that Oriakhi is on his way? Anyone else hear that?
    Kyrie also had a similar 'slip' after he declared when he said a recruit (I believe it was DeAndre Daniels) was coming to Duke. That ended up not being true of course, so I dunno how much stock we can put into Austin's statement.

  16. #136

    Starter?

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Yes, assuming we aren't getting Muhammad (I'd say that's a reasonable guess), getting Zeigler would be a very nice "consolation prize." A junior with similar size and physicality (if not similar skill and explosiveness) who has already shown the ability to be a 15+ ppg scorer at the D-1 level should always be a welcome addition. The question about eligibility remains (and of course the question of whether or not we're actually getting him).

    If Zeigler comes to Duke and is eligible next year, I have no doubt that he starts at SF.
    Really? With Tyler, Seth, Quinn, Andre, Alex, and Mike all experienced in Duke's system and demanding minutes and vying for starting roles in the 1-3 spots? Wow he must be better than I am expecting.

    Many have argued that it will be tough to keep Tyler and Seth out of the starting lineup. Many others (myself included) feel we would be best with Quinn (with better health and lateral quickness) playing the point along with Seth/Andre, but this still leaves Tyler and Seth/Andre (a coach fav, and a pair of seniors) with minutes in demand. This does not get into Alex and Mike who had as good a high school rep as Trey did, who are taller and know the system a little better, vying for minutes at SF. We will also have a very impressive frosh in Sulaimon joining us who many have suggested will be pushing for a starting role, or heavy minutes at the least. All this and Trey is a shoe in as starter?

    Frankly with all the guards we have I am not sure why we want a transfer here for next year. If he comes I think it would actually help our chemistry if he were only eligible the following year when Seth and Andre have graduated, as we will still be filled with guys who can play also in the mix.

    If he is good enough to push all but two of the above out of a starting role than he is better than I thought, which is great. I also wonder, like others, how all these veterans can remain happy chewing minutes on the bench as we employ an 8 man rotation once the games become meaningful at the end of the year.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluealum View Post
    Really? With Tyler, Seth, Quinn, Andre, Alex, and Mike all experienced in Duke's system and demanding minutes and vying for starting roles in the 1-3 spots? Wow he must be better than I am expecting.

    Many have argued that it will be tough to keep Tyler and Seth out of the starting lineup. Many others (myself included) feel we would be best with Quinn (with better health and lateral quickness) playing the point along with Seth/Andre, but this still leaves Tyler and Seth/Andre (a coach fav, and a pair of seniors) with minutes in demand. This does not get into Alex and Mike who had as good a high school rep as Trey did, who are taller and know the system a little better, vying for minutes at SF. We will also have a very impressive frosh in Sulaimon joining us who many have suggested will be pushing for a starting role, or heavy minutes at the least. All this and Trey is a shoe in as starter?

    Frankly with all the guards we have I am not sure why we want a transfer here for next year. If he comes I think it would actually help our chemistry if he were only eligible the following year when Seth and Andre have graduated, as we will still be filled with guys who can play also in the mix.

    If he is good enough to push all but two of the above out of a starting role than he is better than I thought, which is great. I also wonder, like others, how all these veterans can remain happy chewing minutes on the bench as we employ an 8 man rotation once the games become meaningful at the end of the year.
    I think Coach K saw the weaknesses in the perimeter this year. As such, I don't think we'll see much of the 3 little-guard combos next year. As such, the remaining options at the 3 are Dawkins (who found his way to the doghouse last year), Gbinije (who hardly played), and Murphy (who redshirted and may see time at PF).

    I'll amend my statement and say that I have little doubt that either Zeigler or Murphy would start at SF next year if Zeigler is eligible. Zeigler is a year older than Gbinije and has two years of college basketball experience. He was a similarly rated player to Gbinije coming out of high school. Considering how little Gbinije played last year, I would expect a junior to be ready to play ahead of him. And with Curry, Kelly, and Sulaimon all possibly in the mix as shooters, it's not clear that Dawkins is a need as a starter unless he improves defensively.

    I'm not saying Zeigler is a world beater. He's not. He's just a big, rugged player, strong rebounder and defender on the wing, and a veteran player who has proven he can score. That's something we haven't had at the wing the past couple of years, and I think it's something Coach K wants to employ as soon as possible.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I think Coach K saw the weaknesses in the perimeter this year. As such, I don't think we'll see much of the 3 little-guard combos next year. As such, the remaining options at the 3 are Dawkins (who found his way to the doghouse last year), Gbinije (who hardly played), and Murphy (who redshirted and may see time at PF).

    I'll amend my statement and say that I have little doubt that either Zeigler or Murphy would start at SF next year if Zeigler is eligible.
    Of course this assumes we don't land Shabazz, because if that happens he's starting at the 3 for sure, unless we felt he could handle the 4 (and I'm not too sure about that).

    Sure, it would be one more wing we'd add to the roster, but what a nice problem to have.

    Having said that, I'm not counting on us nabbing him, so your scenario is probably correct: Either Zeigler or Murphy at the 3, unless Dawkins makes huge strides over the summer.

    Oh, and one more thing. I'm with you on the small guard lineup we were somewhat forced to employ last year. I don't think Coach K was sold on it, and I believe he'd like to see that change this coming season. But if Mason goes, and we don't land Parker, I'm thinking we'll be forced into a smaller 1-3 (PG, SG, SF) lineup again.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    Of course this assumes we don't land Shabazz, because if that happens he's starting at the 3 for sure, unless we felt he could handle the 4 (and I'm not too sure about that).

    Sure, it would be one more wing we'd add to the roster, but what a nice problem to have.

    Having said that, I'm not counting on us nabbing him, so your scenario is probably correct: Either Zeigler or Murphy at the 3, unless Dawkins makes huge strides over the summer.

    Oh, and one more thing. I'm with you on the small guard lineup we were somewhat forced to employ last year. I don't think Coach K was sold on it, and I believe he'd like to see that change this coming season. But if Mason goes, and we don't land Parker, I'm thinking we'll be forced into a smaller 1-3 (PG, SG, SF) lineup again.
    Agreed on all counts. I will add that I don't think it's a coincidence that we're recruiting Zeigler and that we're looking at guys like Outlaw and other 6'5"-6'6" wings in the next couple of years. I think Coach K went with the small lineup because he had to do so - not because he wanted to do so.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Agreed on all counts. I will add that I don't think it's a coincidence that we're recruiting Zeigler and that we're looking at guys like Outlaw and other 6'5"-6'6" wings in the next couple of years. I think Coach K went with the small lineup because he had to do so - not because he wanted to do so.
    I think he's been trying for those types of players all along but they just keep going to other schools. It happens.

    I also think that he was focusing on a PG, so maybe put more energy into that the past couple of years.

Similar Threads

  1. MBB: Missouri 74, Kansas 71
    By ChrisP in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-05-2012, 10:09 AM
  2. Alex Hassan
    By sanhew in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-07-2009, 04:18 PM
  3. Missouri?
    By ClosetHurleyFan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-05-2009, 04:38 PM
  4. Alex Chili
    By gw67 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-28-2008, 11:20 PM

Posting Permissions

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