Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 125
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I want them both to leave.

    That said, I think Leslie leaving has more positive implications for Duke than McAdoo leaving. Leslie just killed us in the game at Duke before foul trouble limited him. We really had no answer for him, and none of the guys we have returning will have an answer either. Without him, that's a very good State team, but it's one that we can match up with much better (though Brown and Purvis will still cause headaches).... State with Leslie and more depth is quite possibly an entirely different animal.
    Good points, good matchup details. I guess I want Leslie to leave even more than I want State to have a great season, and as I noted in my post, it's easy for me to say, right now, that I hope State will have a fine season. Not so easy if and when it happens, next season, at Duke's expense.

    As I do not follow the NBA at all, I'd be interested in hearing posters comment on whether Leslie is a player without a position at the next level. Either here or on some other, even a new, thread.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    Good points, good matchup details. I guess I want Leslie to leave even more than I want State to have a great season, and as I noted in my post, it's easy for me to say right now that I hope State will have a fine season. Not so easy if and when it happens at Duke's expense.
    Yeah, I have several friends who are huge State fans, and for their sake I'd like to see State have a great season. However, when push comes to shove, I'm selfish and would prefer us to have the better year. What I'd really like to see is Duke #1, State #2, and UNC #12 in conference. But the most important thing for me is Duke #1.

    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    As I do not follow the NBA at all, I'd be interested in hearing posters comment on whether Leslie is a player without a position at the next level. Either here or on some other, even a new, thread.
    Leslie is very much a player without a position right now. He's got ideal SF size and athleticism, but he lacks even PF offensive skills. He's a lot like Tyrus Thomas in terms of size, athleticism, and potential, but also similar in lack of polish. The differences between the two are that Thomas was a better defender and had a "higher motor." Thomas went very high in the draft based on the combination of potential/defense/"motor" and the fact that his team made the final four largely on his defensive dominance. But he never did find a position in the NBA (too small to play PF well, too limited offensively to play SF well). That (combined with the concerns about Leslie's focus and "motor") will probably not do Leslie favors come draft time if he goes this year.

    That said, Leslie is the type of guy who could go as high as the lottery and as low as the second round this year. It just takes one GM to fall in love with his athleticism and overlook the lack of a position. I think his career path may very well be similar to Thomas's path once in the NBA, but we'll see.

  3. #83

    A couple of thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by sporthenry View Post
    How often have you seen Paige play? TT was DC Gatorade POY and regularly got the better of KM.
    Instead of relying on Tyler's high school accolades, I'm relying upon his play at Duke against ACC level competition. Based on that, he's a guy who is very, very limited offensively and an above average but not outstanding defender. He's a limited player who should be a back up PG brought on for energy and defense. I'm not going out on a limb thinking that Paige -- a McDonald's All-American -- is very likely going to be a more complete and therefore better player than Tyler. I've seen Paige play 3 times. He's a lot further along offensively. Rankings matter to you when they benefit Duke -- pointing to the difference in ranking between Tokoto and Sheed, for example -- but here, where both rankings and Tyler's actual play would suggest that we've got a weakness here, and Carolina has an advantage, rankings aren't as important. I don't mind using rankings -- especially for guys that haven't played -- but let's be consistent in doing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sporthenry View Post
    I think many are learning this whole looking to the new guys isn't always the best. Granted K seems to have less trust in freshman than other teams but how many people were bummed we lost out on Tyler Adams, or Deandre Daniels or expected Murphy or Gbinije to play significant roles for us this year? Relying on Freshmen outside the top 10-15 becomes a crapshoot. Freshmen year Kemba Walker only averaged 9 points on 27% from 3 with 2.9 assists and 1.8 TO and he was the #15 recruit for that year. Or how about Alex Murphy's brother, Erik, RSCI #43 above Kawhi Leonard and Erik Bledsoe yet only averaged 9 minutes and 3.5 points his freshmen year or 4.3 points in 10.8 minutes before playing 26 minutes shooting 42% from 3 and averaging 10.5 points. And it isn't like Florida was loaded at the forward position with the likes of Alex Tyus or Vernon Macklin. Or Korie Lucious who was RSCI#87 and only averaged 9 minutes and 3.7 points 1.2 assists with 1 turnover before developing into a solid PG albeit with character issues. Or Gorgui Dieng who played 15.6 minutes averaged 4.4 rebounds and 5.7 points before blowing up. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that many of these other teams usually have a worse lineup than Duke does and it isn't like we need our players to develop into lottery picks or game changing players like Dieng.
    That's absolutely right. Outside of top 8 recruits of so -- I forget where the cut off was in the study I read -- many of these guys aren't impact players as freshman. That cuts both ways though. We're going to need big contributions from Sheed and Murphy and MPIII, but they could struggle as freshmen, redshirt or otherwise, just as much as UNC.

    Quote Originally Posted by sporthenry View Post
    And guards have more room for growth doesn't make them better. They actually have to grow. You seem to think like an NBA GM but this is a one year gig and if they don't actually grow then our known commodities are better, hence they have a lot more questions than us.
    I'm not looking at this like a GM. Hairston and Bullock are a rising sophomore and a rising junior, respectively. They are at the points in their careers where the greatest growth is to be expected. On the flip side, Seth's a fifth year senior and Andre a rising senior. You don't see significant growth out of players with that experience. Curry and Dawkins are what the are, and that's good, but with some serious holes and limitations. To think that Bullock and Hairston might improve enough as a duo to be better than Andre and Seth isn't crazy at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by sporthenry View Post
    And JP Tokoto is not a name I've heard in a while probably b/c he dropped a lot. I'll admit I base a lot on the rankings but the guy has dropped to mid 60's and dropping usually isn't good (while you get diamonds in the rough like Jeremy Lamb, its more b/c nobody saw them play not b/c they dropped). But this is my biggest gripe, you put Tokoto in the same sentence as Sheed who just got down playing second fiddle in the McD AA to Bazz, yet you still dismiss Alex Murphy who was a top 20 recruit in that class or Gbinije who was top 30 last year. So I'm going to take Gbinije and Murphy who have had a year to practice against fellow top 30 recruits who are 2-3 years their elder and work under the tutelage of our coaching staff and get stronger than a guy in Wisconsin who seemingly didn't develop much and it appears the rest of the HS players caught up to him. So I'd say between Gbinije and Murphy, there is our upside over UNC.
    I wasn't suggesting Tokoto was a key to UNC's season next year, just he's a very athletic wing they are adding to the McDonald, Bullock, Hairston mix. To be honest, I can't put a lot of weight in Gbinijie because despite our desperate need for a player with his skill set and ample playing time to earn at the SF position, Gbinijie couldn't crack the rotation, HS ranking of 30ish or not. I think it's crazy to expect anything from him next year. Yes, he'll improve, but that he couldn't play this year is a huge redflag. I think the same reservations can be had with Cook to a lesser extent. We needed a PG that could create off the dribble and push tempo and provide offense, and Quinn couldn't take over that role this year, despite the need. We saw more from Quinn than from Mike, so I'm more optimistic about his growth and having an increased role this year, but there are reasons for concern there too.

    Murphy's an important recruit. I'm not dismissing him. We just don't know a darn thing about him, and his ranking isn't all that different from Marcus Paige, who you dismiss compared to Tyler Thornton.

    I know what we have coming back and what we have coming in, and I don't think it's a top 25 team (assuming we've got Mason back) until we see if Cook can make the jump we need him to make, and if Murphy and Sheed are closer than not to impact kinds of players we need them to be. Maybe that means Carolina isn't a top 25 team in my mind either, but it doesn't change the fact that I think we need to temper our expectations for now. Maybe Ziegler and/or Parker and/or Jefferson change the calculus. Less likely Oriakhi or Bazz does. For now though, this is a team, I think, that's got a lot of questions and limitations, and has more to prove to than other teams. That's why I don't think we're a top 25 squad.
    Last edited by Chicago 1995; 04-04-2012 at 11:19 AM. Reason: coding

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    I'm not looking at this like a GM. Hairston and Bullock are a rising sophomore and a rising junior, respectively. They are at the points in their careers where the greatest growth is to be expected. On the flip side, Seth's a fifth year senior and Andre a rising senior. You don't see significant growth out of players with that experience. Curry and Dawkins are what the are, and that's good, but with some serious holes and limitations. To think that Bullock and Hairston might improve enough as a duo to be better than Andre and Seth isn't crazy at all.
    I don't think either duo will make drastic jumps. I don't think it's crazy to think that Bullock/Hairston will be better than Curry/Dawkins. But I wouldn't expect that to be the case, either. Remember that Curry was All-ACC and Dawkins was a streaky but at times dominant shooter. That duo is currently well ahead of the UNC pair in development. That said, I'd expect McDonald to start over Hairston. And I'd expect Sulaimon to be very much in the mix as well (not to mention the possibility of Zeigler or Muhammad or the development of Gbinije and/or Murphy) so the comparison is somewhat moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    Murphy's an important recruit. I'm not dismissing him. We just don't know a darn thing about him, and his ranking isn't all that different from Marcus Paige, who you dismiss compared to Tyler Thornton.
    Murphy was ranked in the #10-15 range in his (and Paige's) class before he reclassified to enter Duke a year early. But even if you discount that rating difference, he's had a year in the college system, gaining strength and practicing against major college players unlike Paige. I'd expect more out of Murphy than Paige next year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    I know what we have coming back and what we have coming in, and I don't think it's a top 25 team (assuming we've got Mason back) until we see if Cook can make the jump we need him to make, and if Murphy and Sheed are closer than not to impact kinds of players we need them to be. Maybe that means Carolina isn't a top 25 team in my mind either, but it doesn't change the fact that I think we need to temper our expectations for now. Maybe Ziegler and/or Parker and/or Jefferson change the calculus. Less likely Oriakhi or Bazz does. For now though, this is a team, I think, that's got a lot of questions and limitations, and has more to prove to than other teams. That's why I don't think we're a top 25 squad.
    No offense, but it seems like your vision of what a top 25 team looks like is very different than what will actually constitute a top 25 team. Both Duke and UNC are EASILY top 25 teams. You keep talking about our questions, but continue to overlook all the questions that the other potential top 25 teams have. Somebody has to be in the top 25, and many if not most of those teams will have substantial questions.

    I'd recommend that you take an actual look at the rosters next year for the teams you keep listing as ahead of Duke. Consider who is leaving and what they meant to those teams. Consider what is returning and the strengths and limitations of those players. Consider what prospects are coming in and how they compare to our players. Once you do that, you'll see why we're pretty clearly going to be a top 25 team next year.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    That's a very nice defensive trio, but it's a very limited offensive trio. Johnson did become a more consistent scorer down the stretch, but he was absolutely not better than Robinson. In the last 10 games, Johnson averaged 13.5 ppg (topping 15 pts in 4 of those 10), Robinson averaged 17.5 ppg (topping 15 pts in 9 of those 10). And that's in spite of the fact that defenses built their gameplan around defending Robinson and Taylor, leaving Johnson and Releford to beat them.

    As an opponent, Withey is the only guy of those three that concerns me offensively. Johnson is a decent scorer but not noteworthy.



    Ellis is a terrific recruit. I very much doubt that he'll come even remotely close to replacing what Robinson provided. McLemore is nice too, but he's not close to replacing what you lost in Taylor. The rest of the guys you mentioned are 3-star (or less) recruits that are very unlikely to make a big impact next year.

    I think you're discounting just how reliant you were on Taylor and Robinson offensively and overstating the readiness of your incoming players.
    My bad on the Johnson scoring averages, must have missed some numbers. I blame the brain cells I lost on Bourbon Street.

    I absolutely did not intend to say that Perry Ellis would replace Thomas Robinson. I am quite sure he will struggle with defense and scoring, especially early on in the year. In a very similar situation in '09, Marcus Morris was forced to start as a freshman next to Cole Aldrich, and he put up 8 points a game on a conference champion and Sweet 16 team. Ellis is much stronger and better on the block, but with less range on his jumper. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect 8 ppg or a little better.

    It is also reasonable to expect each of Johnson-Withey-Releford to score a few more points per game, purely because they will be forced to shoot more. I think they may struggle early, as nobody will be double/triple teaming the PF next year, and they won't have wide open jumpers all game. But I think, as seniors, they can adjust and step up. Also McLemore has been practicing with the team since January, so while he will be a first year player, he won't be fresh out of high school. (He's also been lifting with the best S&C coach in the country.)

    I do not expect anything more than mop-up minutes from Lucas and Peters, but they (+ Andrew White and Anrio Adams) do provide depth, something that was sorely missing in '12. The only bench players for KU this year were liabilities, outside of Young's offensive rebounding.


    Perhaps you are right, and maybe I've been drinking too much Bill Self koolaid. But this year's team lost a helluva lot more from '11, and finished the year in the title game. No, there are no Thomas Robinsons ready to jump from 14 minutes a game to a NPOY candidate, but the team will be more balanced. And let's be honest, CBB was pretty awful in 2012, and it's going to be a whole lot worse in '13. Predicting KU as a top 5 team is relative to the rest of the country.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    For what it's worth, Parrish and Goodman (who IMO are the best writers of the major websites out there) have us at #18. They assume our worst case scenario of Mason leaving and not getting anyone else. Out of the teams we've been debating about, they have Duke below Memphis, Gonzaga, NC State, UNC, Wisconsin, and UNLV, and above Texas, Ohio State, Creighton and VCU. I don't agree with the exact order but the overall ranking seems reasonable to me.

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...eload-are-no-1

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by TexHawk View Post
    I absolutely did not intend to say that Perry Ellis would replace Thomas Robinson. I am quite sure he will struggle with defense and scoring, especially early on in the year. In a very similar situation in '09, Marcus Morris was forced to start as a freshman next to Cole Aldrich, and he put up 8 points a game on a conference champion and Sweet 16 team. Ellis is much stronger and better on the block, but with less range on his jumper. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect 8 ppg or a little better.

    It is also reasonable to expect each of Johnson-Withey-Releford to score a few more points per game, purely because they will be forced to shoot more. I think they may struggle early, as nobody will be double/triple teaming the PF next year, and they won't have wide open jumpers all game. But I think, as seniors, they can adjust and step up. Also McLemore has been practicing with the team since January, so while he will be a first year player, he won't be fresh out of high school. (He's also been lifting with the best S&C coach in the country.)

    I do not expect anything more than mop-up minutes from Lucas and Peters, but they (+ Andrew White and Anrio Adams) do provide depth, something that was sorely missing in '12. The only bench players for KU this year were liabilities, outside of Young's offensive rebounding.
    I don't disagree with anything you've said here. But unless you see drastic jumps in performance/skill set from those seniors, I don't see anyone other than Withey (if he has a Cole Aldrich-like emergence offensively) who I worry about defending. Johnson is a good shooter and solid ballhandler, but he's not the matchup problem that Taylor could be. I don't expect Releford to be much more than a complementary offensive player. Maybe McLemore comes in and wows next year.

    You are correct that your depth will be better, but the top-end will be greatly weaker next year. And depth (unless it is superstar depth) really isn't all that meaningful once you get into March. You need to have the horses, and barring some unforeseen developments I don't see Kansas having them. Most teams trim the rotation to 7-8 guys, so being better at the 7th - 10th spots in the rotation but worse at the top two spots is a bad tradeoff.

    Quote Originally Posted by TexHawk View Post
    Perhaps you are right, and maybe I've been drinking too much Bill Self koolaid. But this year's team lost a helluva lot more from '11, and finished the year in the title game. No, there are no Thomas Robinsons ready to jump from 14 minutes a game to a NPOY candidate, but the team will be more balanced. And let's be honest, CBB was pretty awful in 2012, and it's going to be a whole lot worse in '13. Predicting KU as a top 5 team is relative to the rest of the country.
    Self is a very good coach and his run in the Big-12 has been phenomenal. So I don't mean to suggest that Kansas won't be good. He'll find a way to make them good. I just don't think they'll be elite. I'd put Louisville, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, NC State, Duke (especially if Mason returns), UNC (if McAdoo returns), Baylor, and Florida ahead of Kansas at this point based on what those teams are bringing back. That's not to say that Self can't pull a rabbit out of his hat again. Just that I think those teams have more talent right now. And that's ignoring teams like MSU and Syracuse who (like Kansas) must completely replace the core of their team with much less proven players.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    For what it's worth, Parrish and Goodman (who IMO are the best writers of the major websites out there) have us at #18. They assume our worst case scenario of Mason leaving and not getting anyone else. Out of the teams we've been debating about, they have Duke below Memphis, Gonzaga, NC State, UNC, Wisconsin, and UNLV, and above Texas, Ohio State, Creighton and VCU. I don't agree with the exact order but the overall ranking seems reasonable to me.

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...eload-are-no-1
    I see that to be an unlikely scenario (losing Mason and getting nobody else). I also (clearly) disagree with the ranking, especially when looking at some of the teams they list above Duke (notably MSU, Syracuse, Kansas, and Memphis). For some reason they seem very willing to assume Mason will go but not several of the guys projected much higher than Mason in the draft. We'll see how it all plays out.

    If we lose Mason and get nobody back, I'd be fine with a ~#15 ranking. Getting an upgrade at SF, C, or keeping Mason and I think we're easily top-10.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    For what it's worth, Parrish and Goodman (who IMO are the best writers of the major websites out there) have us at #18. They assume our worst case scenario of Mason leaving and not getting anyone else. Out of the teams we've been debating about, they have Duke below Memphis, Gonzaga, NC State, UNC, Wisconsin, and UNLV, and above Texas, Ohio State, Creighton and VCU. I don't agree with the exact order but the overall ranking seems reasonable to me.

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...eload-are-no-1
    I had also seen those rankings and they seemed about right to me. If Mason comes back and the guard play improves with Cook and Sheed, then I could see the team closer to the low teens in the rankings. Many teams are going to lose more talent than Duke will, but there are numerous teams with ample talent and experience still ahead of Duke. Curry, Dawkins, and Thornton simply don't match up that well with top ten team types of guards, who tend to be much more complete in their skill sets and have ample lateral quickness. So Cook and Sheed, step up!

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I don't think either duo will make drastic jumps. I don't think it's crazy to think that Bullock/Hairston will be better than Curry/Dawkins. But I wouldn't expect that to be the case, either. Remember that Curry was All-ACC and Dawkins was a streaky but at times dominant shooter. That duo is currently well ahead of the UNC pair in development. That said, I'd expect McDonald to start over Hairston. And I'd expect Sulaimon to be very much in the mix as well (not to mention the possibility of Zeigler or Muhammad or the development of Gbinije and/or Murphy) so the comparison is somewhat moot.
    I don't think there's any way you can say Andre Dawkins is way ahead of either of those guys in development given how inconsistent he is. Dawkins season numbers are almost identical to Bullock's, for what its worth.

    As for Curry, his third team All-ACC honor is nice feather in his cap, but I'm not going to go overboard what what that means. Greg Paulus was once third team All-ACC.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Murphy was ranked in the #10-15 range in his (and Paige's) class before he reclassified to enter Duke a year early. But even if you discount that rating difference, he's had a year in the college system, gaining strength and practicing against major college players unlike Paige. I'd expect more out of Murphy than Paige next year.
    That's fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    No offense, but it seems like your vision of what a top 25 team looks like is very different than what will actually constitute a top 25 team. Both Duke and UNC are EASILY top 25 teams. You keep talking about our questions, but continue to overlook all the questions that the other potential top 25 teams have. Somebody has to be in the top 25, and many if not most of those teams will have substantial questions.

    I'd recommend that you take an actual look at the rosters next year for the teams you keep listing as ahead of Duke. Consider who is leaving and what they meant to those teams. Consider what is returning and the strengths and limitations of those players. Consider what prospects are coming in and how they compare to our players. Once you do that, you'll see why we're pretty clearly going to be a top 25 team next year.
    The presumption that I haven't done this is a little annoying. I have. Y'all disagree, which is fine, but I've looked at those rosters and in some instances, I bet I've seen those teams play more than others here have. Wisconsin, for example, should be and will be ranked ahead of us going into next season. That's been dismissed here largely because they lose Jordan Taylor. Well, they bring back everyone else and they add a recruit who is every bit the impact recruit that Sheed is. UNLV, Gonzaga, San Diego State are all teams people scoff at when looking at these rankings. They all bring back a lot more thn we do on teams that were essentially our caliber last year. Looking at Parrish's list, I don't disagree with the 18 teams ranked ahead of us (UK, IU, Louisville, Kansas, Michigan, Baylor, Syracuse, MSU, SD State, UNC, UF, Memphis, UNLV, Wisconsin, NC State, Gonzaga, Arizona) but I do concede that it's a pretty close call with UNC. I think there are other teams -- Ohio State, VCU, Creighton, K State -- that I would rank ahead of Duke that he has behind us. That's 21 on Parrish's pole alone that I think are pretty clearly in better shape than we are headed into next season. We've got a higher ceiling than several of those teams, but based on the start of the season, I'd expect a loss -- or at least not at all be surprised by a loss -- to any of those teams in November.

    The difference here, I think, comes down to (1) how much weight you are willing to give to Cook, Sheed, Murphy, Gbijinie and Plumlee III; and (2) how much faith you have in the returning core. I've explained why I have concerns about two of the guys in group (1), and I'm not as optimistic about a team built around Curry-Kelly-Plumlee II as the rest of you.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    IU will be a top 5 team. They lose little and bring in a great class.

    MSU will probably be a top 10 team, even losing Draymond Green.

    I think NC State should be the preseason pick frbthe ACC and a top 10ish team.

    UK, if the close in recruiting will be up there again.

    I don't think we're a top 25 team, FWIW, unless we get some surprises in recruiting. We'll probably be ranked because of our name, but I don't think we're actually a top 25 team. Too many questions. Too many limitations.
    You beat me to it. I believe we will be ranked next year, but I'd almost prefer to see how a Duke team would act with a chip on its shoulder either out of the top 25 or at the lower end of the top 25. I think we have all the pieces to be a top 10 team next year but I think the team would respond better pursuing something than a ranking by entitlement.

    -g

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    The presumption that I haven't done this is a little annoying. I have. Y'all disagree, which is fine, but I've looked at those rosters and in some instances, I bet I've seen those teams play more than others here have. Wisconsin, for example, should be and will be ranked ahead of us going into next season. That's been dismissed here largely because they lose Jordan Taylor. Well, they bring back everyone else and they add a recruit who is every bit the impact recruit that Sheed is. UNLV, Gonzaga, San Diego State are all teams people scoff at when looking at these rankings. They all bring back a lot more thn we do on teams that were essentially our caliber last year. Looking at Parrish's list, I don't disagree with the 18 teams ranked ahead of us (UK, IU, Louisville, Kansas, Michigan, Baylor, Syracuse, MSU, SD State, UNC, UF, Memphis, UNLV, Wisconsin, NC State, Gonzaga, Arizona) but I do concede that it's a pretty close call with UNC. I think there are other teams -- Ohio State, VCU, Creighton, K State -- that I would rank ahead of Duke that he has behind us. That's 21 on Parrish's pole alone that I think are pretty clearly in better shape than we are headed into next season. We've got a higher ceiling than several of those teams, but based on the start of the season, I'd expect a loss -- or at least not at all be surprised by a loss -- to any of those teams in November.
    MSU has the following roster: Appling (solid, not better than Curry), Harris (very nice prospect, comparable to Sulaimon), Dawson (talented player, let's see how he recovers from ACL tear), Payne (okay, not as good as Kelly and CERTAINLY not as good as Mason), Nix (big, slow, doesn't rebound much despite his size), Byrd (not much different from Gbinije), Gauna (role player), Tryce (not very good) and a bunch of less talented and less experienced guys than that. I struggle to see how you can look at that team and say its clearly better than our team.

    Kansas has Withey (very good, but not a scorer), Johnson (maybe as good as Curry), Releford (solid defender, limited scorer), McLemore (unproven player, probably comparable to Dawkins), Ellis (unproven freshman), Young (nice backup PF), and a bunch of 3-star recruits. Again, you think that team is clearly ahead of us?

    Syracuse has Brandon Triche (nice player, not a star), CJ Fair (could be really good), James Southerland (think Josh Hairston), DaJuan Coleman (big body, unproven freshman), Michael Carter-Williams (unproven sophomore like Gbinije), Rakeem Christmas (unproven sophomore). That seems like a lot of question marks to me.

    I won't go through all the rest, but those three are why I assume you haven't done the research on what those other teams are losing. It sure seems like you're picturing this year's teams and projecting them onto the floor for next year, when in reality that's just not the case for most of those teams.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    The difference here, I think, comes down to (1) how much weight you are willing to give to Cook, Sheed, Murphy, Gbijinie and Plumlee III; and (2) how much faith you have in the returning core. I've explained why I have concerns about two of the guys in group (1), and I'm not as optimistic about a team built around Curry-Kelly-Plumlee II as the rest of you.
    I think there are other substantial differences: (3) we clearly disagree on the degree of impact of departures from other teams; and (4) we clearly disagree on the degree of questions about the skill sets of the returning players on those other teams.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    MSU has the following roster: Appling (solid, not better than Curry), Harris (very nice prospect, comparable to Sulaimon), Dawson (talented player, let's see how he recovers from ACL tear), Payne (okay, not as good as Kelly and CERTAINLY not as good as Mason), Nix (big, slow, doesn't rebound much despite his size), Byrd (not much different from Gbinije), Gauna (role player), Tryce (not very good) and a bunch of less talented and less experienced guys than that. I struggle to see how you can look at that team and say its clearly better than our team.
    MSU was better than we were this year. They lose Green and Wood. We lose Rivers and Miles. You're understimating where Payne was defensively by the end of the year, FWIW. They add Gary Harris who is a wash with Sheed, Kenny Kaminski and Matt Costello as well. That's a bit of an advantage for us with Murph and MPIII. Still they were better than we were and like us, they lose their best player. Given that they were better than we were by the end of the season, I don't think it's at all crazy to rank them ahead of us. If Dawson's not back at all next year, it's a closer call.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Kansas has Withey (very good, but not a scorer), Johnson (maybe as good as Curry), Releford (solid defender, limited scorer), McLemore (unproven player, probably comparable to Dawkins), Ellis (unproven freshman), Young (nice backup PF), and a bunch of 3-star recruits. Again, you think that team is clearly ahead of us?
    Curry's not as good Johnson. Curry would have taken Connor Teahan's minutes at Kansas, nothing more.

    They return four guys off a team that again was better than ours. They lose more in Robinson and Taylor than we do in Rivers and Plumlee, but they add Ellis and McElmore, and McElmore has been practicing with KU all year -- which as it is with Murphy, should be some boost. You're also underrating some of their other incoming recruits and redshirts, but that's neither here nor there.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Syracuse has Brandon Triche (nice player, not a star), CJ Fair (could be really good), James Southerland (think Josh Hairston), DaJuan Coleman (big body, unproven freshman), Michael Carter-Williams (unproven sophomore like Gbinije), Rakeem Christmas (unproven sophomore). That seems like a lot of question marks to me.
    Whether it's a lot of question marks or not, there's a lot of you not giving Syracuse the benefit of the doubt and giving it to us that colors your analysis. Brandon Triche is a better guard than anyone we've got coming back. Southerland's a better shooter than Hairston with deeper range. Southerland also doesn't struggle to get enough lift to dunk the ball. He was better than Hairston by a good bit last year, and shows more potential and will be more productive with increased minutes. Christmas showed potential in his playing time absent Melo. Coleman's well ranked, which seems to matter for our recruits. Carter-Williams actually got minutes last year, so to think he's got more upside the Gbinijie makes sense, I think. Syracuse brings back a ton of length and looks to be really, really good defensively again. I've got more faith in that than any aspect of our returning game. [/quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    [I won't go through all the rest, but those three are why I assume you haven't done the research on what those other teams are losing. It sure seems like you're picturing this year's teams and projecting them onto the floor for next year, when in reality that's just not the case for most of those teams.

    I think there are other substantial differences: (3) we clearly disagree on the degree of impact of departures from other teams; and (4) we clearly disagree on the degree of questions about the skill sets of the returning players on those other teams.
    Maybe I'm not giving us enough credit, but you are giving us too much, I think. That's where the difference matters most.
    Last edited by Chicago 1995; 04-04-2012 at 02:41 PM. Reason: coding again

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    I don't think there's any way you can say Andre Dawkins is way ahead of either of those guys in development given how inconsistent he is. Dawkins season numbers are almost identical to Bullock's, for what its worth.

    As for Curry, his third team All-ACC honor is nice feather in his cap, but I'm not going to go overboard what what that means. Greg Paulus was once third team All-ACC.



    That's fair.



    The presumption that I haven't done this is a little annoying. I have. Y'all disagree, which is fine, but I've looked at those rosters and in some instances, I bet I've seen those teams play more than others here have. Wisconsin, for example, should be and will be ranked ahead of us going into next season. That's been dismissed here largely because they lose Jordan Taylor. Well, they bring back everyone else and they add a recruit who is every bit the impact recruit that Sheed is. UNLV, Gonzaga, San Diego State are all teams people scoff at when looking at these rankings. They all bring back a lot more thn we do on teams that were essentially our caliber last year. Looking at Parrish's list, I don't disagree with the 18 teams ranked ahead of us (UK, IU, Louisville, Kansas, Michigan, Baylor, Syracuse, MSU, SD State, UNC, UF, Memphis, UNLV, Wisconsin, NC State, Gonzaga, Arizona) but I do concede that it's a pretty close call with UNC. I think there are other teams -- Ohio State, VCU, Creighton, K State -- that I would rank ahead of Duke that he has behind us. That's 21 on Parrish's pole alone that I think are pretty clearly in better shape than we are headed into next season. We've got a higher ceiling than several of those teams, but based on the start of the season, I'd expect a loss -- or at least not at all be surprised by a loss -- to any of those teams in November.

    The difference here, I think, comes down to (1) how much weight you are willing to give to Cook, Sheed, Murphy, Gbijinie and Plumlee III; and (2) how much faith you have in the returning core. I've explained why I have concerns about two of the guys in group (1), and I'm not as optimistic about a team built around Curry-Kelly-Plumlee II as the rest of you.

    VCU, Creighton, and K-State ahead of Duke??? What you're saying just isn't adding up...

    Duke's players will improve and the team will add new talent just like everyone else from this year's top 25. Murphy and Suilamon are major talents who should help this team immediately. Tyler and Ryan improved quite a bit over this past off-season. They, and others, will continue that trend this summer. I feel like you are placing too much stock into how this team finished the season. From November through February Duke was one of the 8 best teams in the country. This team beat Kansas, Michigan, Michigan State head to head and split games with UNC and FSU. They went undefeated on the road in the ACC, and had they beaten UNC in Durham, they probably would have gotten a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament! No offense to Miles and Austin, but it's not like this team lost Shelden Williams and J.J. Redick, or Kyle and Nolan. No one suggested that those teams would not be top 25 teams the following seasons.

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    MSU was better than we were this year. They lose Green and Wood. We lose Rivers and Miles. You're understimating where Payne was defensively by the end of the year, FWIW. They add Gary Harris who is a wash with Sheed, Kenny Kaminski and Matt Costello as well. That's a bit of an advantage for us with Murph and MPIII. Still they were better than we were and like us, they lose their best player. Given that they were better than we were by the end of the season, I don't think it's at all crazy to rank them ahead of us. If Dawson's not back at all next year, it's a closer call.
    They were probably better than we were (we did beat them, remember) by the end of the year. But losing Green changes everything. You're underestimating just how important he was to that team. He made everything go. Losing Wood and Thornton (their two best outside shooters) hurts. We were much deeper than them, and the guy they lost was more important to what they do than the guy we lost. I think you're also underselling the difference between Murphy and Marshall (who were better prospects and are a year older and stronger and more experienced than the MSU incoming guys) and Kaminski and Costello. That's a big edge in our favor. Payne was a very solid defender. He was not a factor offensively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    Curry's not as good Johnson. Curry would have taken Connor Teahan's minutes at Kansas, nothing more.

    They return four guys off a team that again was better than ours. They lose more in Robinson and Taylor than we do in Rivers and Plumlee, but they add Ellis and McElmore, and McElmore has been practicing with KU all year -- which as it is with Murphy, should be some boost. You're also underrating some of their other incoming recruits and redshirts, but that's neither here nor there.
    Johnson was a better defensive player, Curry a better offensive player. I certainly wouldn't say Johnson is clearly superior to Curry. And you overlook the rest of the team as though it suddenly makes Kansas the clearly better team. That's a team that struggled offensively against good teams and loses its only two impact offensive players. I'll gladly take Cook, Thornton, Curry, Sulaimon, Dawkins, Gbinije, and Murphy over Johnson, McLemore, Releford, and the borderline major-conference players they have backing those guys up. And I'll also gladly take Kelly, Hairston, and the Plumlees over Withey, Young, and Ellis.

    As with Green at MSU, you're underrating just how important Taylor and Robinson were to everything Kansas did. McLemore isn't as good as Murphy. Ellis is likely to have less immediate impact than Sulaimon. I don't think I'm underrating their recruits/redshirts all that much. They were 3/4 star recruits. If you're going to discount Marshall Plumlee and our 5-star recruits then I'm going to even further discount Kansas' 3/4 star recruits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    Whether it's a lot of question marks or not, there's a lot of you not giving Syracuse the benefit of the doubt and giving it to us that colors your analysis. Brandon Triche is a better guard than anyone we've got coming back. Southerland's a better shooter than Hairston with deeper range. Southerland also doesn't struggle to get enough lift to dunk the ball. He was better than Hairston by a good bit last year, and shows more potential and will be more productive with increased minutes. Christmas showed potential in his playing time absent Melo. Coleman's well ranked, which seems to matter for our recruits. Carter-Williams actually got minutes last year, so to think he's got more upside the Gbinijie makes sense, I think. Syracuse brings back a ton of length and looks to be really, really good defensively again. I've got more faith in that than any aspect of our returning game.
    I don't even know what that first question means. What am I not giving them the benefit of the doubt on that's coloring my analysis. If there are question marks, there are question marks. They have no proven PG. Triche is no better than Curry (different, but no better). Southerland is no better than Hairston, regardless of shooting range. Christmas showed potential, but he's not as good as Mason. CJ Fair is talented. Can Triche, Fair, and Christmas make up for the lack of a PG? Do they even have more than 2 guards on the roster? Carter-Williams most certainly didn't distinguish himself from Gbinije. They are both very similar question marks. to say he's got more upside is to be guilty of seeing the negatives on one side and ignore them on the other. Gbinije was roughly the same rating out of high school and neither player played substantively in the spring.

    They'll be good defensively. They'll have HUGE questions offensively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    Maybe I'm not giving us enough credit, but you are giving us too much, I think. That's where the difference matters most.
    I think your lack of consideration of how much talent those other teams will lose makes just as much difference as our differences of opinions on our returning talent. Several of your statements suggest "we lost this, they lost this" but it ignores that loss relative to what the team needed. We lost our backup big man (for whom we have two backups) and our leading scorer (but a guy who bogged down the offense and played our deepest position). MSU, Kansas, and Syracuse are losing virtually the entirety of what made them tick this year.

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Raleigh
    This thread should be retitled " Yeah its early but State still looks like they need a hug"

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Columbus OH 614
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    They were probably better than we were (we did beat them, remember) by the end of the year. But losing Green changes everything. You're underestimating just how important he was to that team. He made everything go. Losing Wood and Thornton (their two best outside shooters) hurts. We were much deeper than them, and the guy they lost was more important to what they do than the guy we lost. I think you're also underselling the difference between Murphy and Marshall (who were better prospects and are a year older and stronger and more experienced than the MSU incoming guys) and Kaminski and Costello. That's a big edge in our favor. Payne was a very solid defender. He was not a factor offensively.
    Agree 100%



    Johnson was a better defensive player, Curry a better offensive player. I certainly wouldn't say Johnson is clearly superior to Curry. And you overlook the rest of the team as though it suddenly makes Kansas the clearly better team. That's a team that struggled offensively against good teams and loses its only two impact offensive players. I'll gladly take Cook, Thornton, Curry, Sulaimon, Dawkins, Gbinije, and Murphy over Johnson, McLemore, Releford, and the borderline major-conference players they have backing those guys up. And I'll also gladly take Kelly, Hairston, and the Plumlees over Withey, Young, and Ellis.



    As with Green at MSU, you're underrating just how important Taylor and Robinson were to everything Kansas did. McLemore isn't as good as Murphy. Ellis is likely to have less immediate impact than Sulaimon. I don't think I'm underrating their recruits/redshirts all that much. They were 3/4 star recruits. If you're going to discount Marshall Plumlee and our 5-star recruits then I'm going to even further discount Kansas' 3/4 star recruits.
    FWIW McLemore was ranked higher than Murphy coming out last year...you can't say Alex was ranked top 15 2 years ago in a class he didn't even graduate in..final RSCI rankings have Alex at 49, ESPN around 40


    I don't even know what that first question means. What am I not giving them the benefit of the doubt on that's coloring my analysis. If there are question marks, there are question marks. They have no proven PG. Triche is no better than Curry (different, but no better). Southerland is no better than Hairston, regardless of shooting range. Christmas showed potential, but he's not as good as Mason. CJ Fair is talented. Can Triche, Fair, and Christmas make up for the lack of a PG? Do they even have more than 2 guards on the roster? Carter-Williams most certainly didn't distinguish himself from Gbinije. They are both very similar question marks. to say he's got more upside is to be guilty of seeing the negatives on one side and ignore them on the other. Gbinije was roughly the same rating out of high school and neither player played substantively in the spring.

    They'll be good defensively. They'll have HUGE questions offensively.
    Cuse is losing A LOT! Scoop, Waiters, Joseph, Melo....No way they're better than us next year....Southerland is way better than Josh though c'mon



    I think your lack of consideration of how much talent those other teams will lose makes just as much difference as our differences of opinions on our returning talent. Several of your statements suggest "we lost this, they lost this" but it ignores that loss relative to what the team needed. We lost our backup big man (for whom we have two backups) and our leading scorer (but a guy who bogged down the offense and played our deepest position). MSU, Kansas, and Syracuse are losing virtually the entirety of what made them tick this year.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    MSU, Kansas, and Syracuse are losing virtually the entirety of what made them tick this year.
    And we don't?

    Rivers was the only player on our team that could break down his opponent off the dribble or create his own shot. Losing him is, to us, every bit as big as losing T-Rob or Draymond Green. People here are drastically overrrating our returning backcourt and drastically underrating how much Austin meant to us, I think.

    We disagree, and it's clear we're not going to convince the others. A team built around a returning core of Curry-Dawkins-Kelly-Plumlee-Thornton-Hairston doesn't return anywhere near as much as most here seem to think it does. Four of those six guys wouldn't start for nearly any other school we've discussed. And the two who would aren't good enough to make up for that.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by dcar1985 View Post
    FWIW McLemore was ranked higher than Murphy coming out last year...you can't say Alex was ranked top 15 2 years ago in a class he didn't even graduate in..final RSCI rankings have Alex at 49, ESPN around 40
    That's actually not quite accurate. Go check the final ratings again. Murphy was rated higher than McLemore in all but one of the recruiting sites. The difference was that Hoop Scoops and Prep Stars didn't ever rate Murphy (because he switched classes so late in the game), and that brought down Murphy's average rating. Had Murphy been rated by those guys (assuming he got the same rough estimate that he got from the others), he'd have been 5 spots spots ahead of McLemore at #36 - ahead of Mo Harkless, by the way. So McLemore only rated higher on a technicality.

    And the reason I brought up the top-15 is because I think it's relevant. Compared with the guys who were his peers at the time, he was the #15 recruit. When compared to guys a year more advanced, he was the #36 recruit (again, correcting for the omission of a rating). The scouts do take age and development into account, and only the most elite of prospects aren't penalized by reclassifying.

    In any case, based on the RSCI we have two guys rated higher than McLemore in Gbinije and Murphy, and each has a similar level of college experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by dcar1985 View Post
    Cuse is losing A LOT! Scoop, Waiters, Joseph, Melo....No way they're better than us next year....Southerland is way better than Josh though c'mon
    I don't think Southerland is appreciably better than Hairston. He's gotten slightly more opportunity than Hairston, but that's because Syracuse had fewer guys in front of him. He's definitely not way better than Hairston.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    And we don't?

    Rivers was the only player on our team that could break down his opponent off the dribble or create his own shot. Losing him is, to us, every bit as big as losing T-Rob or Draymond Green. People here are drastically overrrating our returning backcourt and drastically underrating how much Austin meant to us, I think.
    Rivers meant a lot. He also kind of forced our hand a lot, too, by virtue of his limited skill set (great at what he could do, but could only really do one thing - iso). Losing him hurts, and if we try to do exactly what we did last year again we'd be in the kind of trouble you think we'll be in. But we won't. We'll change our style of play to continue to utilize the shooting of Kelly, Curry, Dawkins, and Sulaimon while working to incorporate the skill sets of Cook, Gbinije, Murphy, and (maybe) Zeigler.

    The talent we have coming back is more than the talent that MSU, Kansas, and Syracuse have coming back. All of these teams will have to adapt substantially. We'll just have more good pieces with which to adapt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    We disagree, and it's clear we're not going to convince the others. A team built around a returning core of Curry-Dawkins-Kelly-Plumlee-Thornton-Hairston doesn't return anywhere near as much as most here seem to think it does. Four of those six guys wouldn't start for nearly any other school we've discussed. And the two who would aren't good enough to make up for that.
    You say this as though it's a given that those are going to be the 6 core guys. For all your talking up of other teams' prospects, you ignore that we have an elite guard recruit, an upper-tier forward recruit with a year's experience, another upper-tier wing recruit with a year's experience and better health, and an upper-tier PG who will hopefully finally be fully healthy from his knee problems of last year and also has a year's worth of experience now. Several of those guys (and possibly a transfer) are going to absolutely be in the core - probably moreso than one or more of the guys you list as the core.

    If we aren't top-25 next year, I'll gladly come and acknowledge that I was wrong. But I don't think I'll have to do so.

Similar Threads

  1. Dukies in the NBA 2012
    By juise in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 447
    Last Post: 05-31-2012, 07:39 PM
  2. DBR Bracketology 2012!!
    By blazindw in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-01-2012, 08:49 PM
  3. Bracketology Jan 2012
    By CameronBornAndBred in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-19-2012, 06:03 PM
  4. 2012 Final Four
    By madscavenger in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2011, 09:21 PM
  5. Premature Bracketology
    By Olympic Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-22-2010, 04:23 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
  •