Rodney Hood Transferring

[budwom]

I really like the comparisons to Mike Chappell. Although their style of play somewhat differs, a rotation of Murphy, Jefferson, possibly Dawkins, and Hood would provide a lot of flexibility at the 3 position and something that we have obviously been lacking.

I have a very good feeling about this upcoming season based solely on the fact that I think we will have better balance that will improve chemistry (read defense). Combined with the fact that much of our current talent is underclassmen it could only take a few pieces to be a legitimate title contender. Throw in Hood, add a Randle or Parker, and with what will by then be an experienced core... you might have something special.

At any rate, I'm always blessed to be a Duke fan. Regardless of where these transfers or freshmen end up it is great to see our program always recruiting and being desired by top level talent. Let's hope Rodney follows his childhood dreams and comes to Duke, sounds like a great fit and great timing both ways.

I wouldn't go too far with the Chappell comparison (and I know you mention some of that): Hood is a far better player. Chappell was a streaky shooter, weak defender, not a rebounder. Hood has a lot more tools...

[Monmouth77]

I wouldn't go too far with the Chappell comparison (and I know you mention some of that): Hood is a far better player. Chappell was a streaky shooter, weak defender, not a rebounder. Hood has a lot more tools...

"Chappell with a lot more tools" sounds like Chris Carrawell to me. That would be awesome.

[wilko]

"Chappell with a lot more tools" sounds like Chris Carrawell to me. That would be awesome.

WOW - I hope your assessment is on track. I do like the thought of C-well pt 2

[watzone]

I wouldn't go too far with the Chappell comparison (and I know you mention some of that): Hood is a far better player. Chappell was a streaky shooter, weak defender, not a rebounder. Hood has a lot more tools...

Body wise and where they play on the court is very similar or what I meant to convey. I saw Hood play several times on the AAU circuit but not once at Mississippi State. He's a good player but not a savior type by any means. Hood is a bit streaky too, or he was. He would have 20 one game and 4 the next. Hood is better but it is tough to draw an accurate comparison to him. He is more of an outside guy than in and that is accurate.

[budwom]

Body wise and where they play on the court is very similar or what I meant to convey. I saw Hood play several times on the AAU circuit but not once at Mississippi State. He's a good player but not a savior type by any means. Hood is a bit streaky too, or he was. He would have 20 one game and 4 the next. Hood is better but it is tough to draw an accurate comparison to him. He is more of an outside guy than in and that is accurate.

Sure, I see the similarity body wise, but not game-wise...Chappell couldn't do a whole lot more than shoot, and he was highly erratic at that. Hood is a proven rebounder and better defender. No savior, but a critical part of
our elongation and athleticism push...having Sulaimon, Jefferson and Hood on the floor at the same time would give us a whole lot of length and very good athleticism.

[Duvall]

Sure, I see the similarity body wise, but not game-wise...Chappell couldn't do a whole lot more than shoot, and he was highly erratic at that. Hood is a proven rebounder and better defender. No savior, but a critical part of
our elongation and athleticism push...having Sulaimon, Jefferson and Hood on the floor at the same time would give us a whole lot of length and very good athleticism.

A Sulaimon/Hood/Murphy/Jefferson/Plumlee lineup with an average height of 6'8"? Could be interesting.

[CameronBornAndBred]

A Sulaimon/Hood/Murphy/Jefferson/Plumlee lineup with an average height of 6'8"? Could be interesting.

Cook, Thornton and Hairston might agree. Obviously by the time Hood could play at least the other guys would have seen the floor during a game, but as of right now none of them have.

[Duvall]

Cook, Thornton and Hairston might agree. Obviously by the time Hood could play at least the other guys would have seen the floor during a game, but as of right now none of them have.

Lineup, not starting lineup. It would be one look that Duke could use when appropriate.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Lineup, not starting lineup. It would be one look that Duke could use when appropriate.

Gotcha...that makes sense. And I agree, it's been a while since we've had that height avg on the floor. (Assuming it's happened, I'm not digging in my memory banks to find out.)

[jimsumner]

Gotcha...that makes sense. And I agree, it's been a while since we've had that height avg on the floor. (Assuming it's happened, I'm not digging in my memory banks to find out.)

Until Boozer's broken foot late in the 2001 season, Duke started 6-9 Boozer, 6-8 Battier, 6-9 Dunleavy and 6-6 James, along with Jason Williams.

That's about as big a starting lineup as I can come up with.

[Greg_Newton]

Sure, I see the similarity body wise, but not game-wise...Chappell couldn't do a whole lot more than shoot, and he was highly erratic at that. Hood is a proven rebounder and better defender. No savior, but a critical part of
our elongation and athleticism push...having Sulaimon, Jefferson and Hood on the floor at the same time would give us a whole lot of length and very good athleticism.

First of all, I swear I posted my Chappell comparison without seeing Watzone's earlier! But obviously, no comparison is perfect or meant to imply that the players are exactly the same. IMO, the similarities lie in their frames, styles of play, and how they move (kind of like how we compare Amile to Jamison style-wise, even though he's obviously nowhere near as good). Rodney is almost identical, physically, to Chappell, and as Mark alluded to, sort of "floats" around the court in the same way Mike did. He doesn't seek out contact or explode to the rim like your prototypical 6'8 slasher, but he's smooth and quick enough to have a guard-oriented game. Quite skilled, if lacking a little assertiveness at times.

So, I don't think the comparison is meant to imply that he'll only be as good as Chappell was, more that he'll hopefully come closer to the player we thought Chappell could be, given his promising skill set. Strikes me as a top-flight complementary player who doesn't need high usage or time with the ball to be a major asset.

Until Boozer's broken foot late in the 2001 season, Duke started 6-9 Boozer, 6-8 Battier, 6-9 Dunleavy and 6-6 James, along with Jason Williams.

That's about as big a starting lineup as I can come up with.

2010 has a slight edge by my count, at 6'7.4" to 6'7". But I think Duvall's would take the cake...

[roywhite]

When Bobby Hurley went down for a few games with a foot injury (what else) during the great 1991-92 season, Grant Hill moved to the point guard slot.

That made the starting lineup
Grant Hill 6'8"
Thomas Hill 6'5"
Brian Davis 6'7"
Tony Lang 6'8"
Christian Laettner 6'11"

Heights are from the goduke.com stats archive, as is this boxscore from the Duke 77 -- LSU 67 game.

[DukieTiger]

First of all, I swear I posted my Chappell comparison without seeing Watzone's earlier! But obviously, no comparison is perfect or meant to imply that the players are exactly the same. IMO, the similarities lie in their frames, styles of play, and how they move (kind of like how we compare Amile to Jamison style-wise, even though he's obviously nowhere near as good). Rodney is almost identical, physically, to Chappell, and as Mark alluded to, sort of "floats" around the court in the same way Mike did. He doesn't seek out contact or explode to the rim like your prototypical 6'8 slasher, but he's smooth and quick enough to have a guard-oriented game. Quite skilled, if lacking a little assertiveness at times.

So, I don't think the comparison is meant to imply that he'll only be as good as Chappell was, more that he'll hopefully come closer to the player we thought Chappell could be, given his promising skill set. Strikes me as a top-flight complementary player who doesn't need high usage or time with the ball to be a major asset.



2010 has a slight edge by my count, at 6'7.4" to 6'7". But I think Duvall's would take the cake...

I know we're speaking of starting lineups here, but that 2010 team was absolutely monstrous.

6'5, 6'3, 6'9, 6'9, 7'1 with 6'4, 6'10, 6'11, 6'11 off the bench. That's an average of over 6'8 for all of the contributors on the team. That has to be one of the highest average heights for a whole team.

However, the 2001 team, the early 90s teams, and the potential lineups that Duke is looking to have in the coming few years all have/had more functional/versatile height (and length!)

That's what excites me about pairing Hood with Sulaimon, Jones, Murphy, Jefferson, Plumlee, and possibly one or more of Ojeley/Wainwright/Hubbs/Randle/Parker/Lee/Nichols. Tons of versatility and length there.

[BD80]

... That's what excites me about pairing Hood with Sulaimon, Jones, Murphy, Jefferson, Plumlee, and possibly one or more of Ojeley/Wainwright/Hubbs/Randle/Parker/Lee/Nichols. Tons of versatility and length there.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me ...

A tall tale?

Heightened expectations ...

Aiming high ...

Dr. F: "Elevate me!"
Inga: "Here? Now?"

Rats, I think the train of thought went over my head.

[Indoor66]

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me ...

A tall tale?

Heightened expectations ...

Aiming high ...

Dr. F: "Elevate me!"
Inga: "Here? Now?"

Rats, I think the train of thought went over my head.

Actually, it is blockhead thinking.

[budwom]

First of all, I swear I posted my Chappell comparison without seeing Watzone's earlier! But obviously, no comparison is perfect or meant to imply that the players are exactly the same. IMO, the similarities lie in their frames, styles of play, and how they move (kind of like how we compare Amile to Jamison style-wise, even though he's obviously nowhere near as good). Rodney is almost identical, physically, to Chappell, and as Mark alluded to, sort of "floats" around the court in the same way Mike did. He doesn't seek out contact or explode to the rim like your prototypical 6'8 slasher, but he's smooth and quick enough to have a guard-oriented game. Quite skilled, if lacking a little assertiveness at times.

So, I don't think the comparison is meant to imply that he'll only be as good as Chappell was, more that he'll hopefully come closer to the player we thought Chappell could be, given his promising skill set. Strikes me as a top-flight complementary player who doesn't need high usage or time with the ball to be a major asset.



2010 has a slight edge by my count, at 6'7.4" to 6'7". But I think Duvall's would take the cake...

I understand your Chappell point. I only sought to differentiate the two because I never liked Chappell's game at all...and I think Hood is a considerably better talent.
If the stats I just checked were accurate, Chappell never averaged more than about 14 minutes/game (at Duke and Mich. State), never averaged more than two rebounds per game,
and was a mediocre free throw shooter. Outside of occasionally hitting some threes, I didn't see anything admirable about his game.

[miramar]

A Sulaimon/Hood/Murphy/Jefferson/Plumlee lineup with an average height of 6'8"? Could be interesting.

Miami will often use a lineup of James, Haslem, Battier/Miller (all 6-8), Bosh (6-11), and Wade (6-4), so that's rounds up to 6-8.

This kind of lineup requires the team to have a number of versatile players, but it has helped get Miami one win away from a championship.

[CDu]

Miami will often use a lineup of James, Haslem, Battier/Miller (all 6-8), Bosh (6-11), and Wade (6-4), so that's rounds up to 6-8.

This kind of lineup requires the team to have a number of versatile players, but it has helped get Miami one win away from a championship.

Yeah, it's not so much about height as it is about athleticism and versatility. Marquette has made a living in recent years by playing 4-5 guys who can switch onto anyone and defend effectively. If we have a SG, SF, and PF who can all defend adequately across numerous positions, it's much harder to create mismatches against us. On the other end, it's that much easier to create mismatches on the opponent.

[jimsumner]

Yeah, it's not so much about height as it is about athleticism and versatility. Marquette has made a living in recent years by playing 4-5 guys who can switch onto anyone and defend effectively. If we have a SG, SF, and PF who can all defend adequately across numerous positions, it's much harder to create mismatches against us. On the other end, it's that much easier to create mismatches on the opponent.

I agree. I'm hoping for that special blend of length, athleticism and versatility that we get with the Grant Hills, Tony Langs, Chris Carrawells and Billy Kings of the world.

Anyone else remember the 1989 Illinois team? Nick Anderson, Kendall Gill, Marcus Liberty, Kenny Battle, Lowell Hamilton. Five guys between 6-4 and 6-8, all could run, jump, handle, defend. This team could fast break, trap and press with the best of them. One of the most entertaining teams ever.

They also made the Final Four, so they were more than just entertaining.

So, that's why guys like Hood are so appealing. Not just height but versatility and mobility.

[gumbomoop]

This seems obvious - unless I'm wrong: K wants to run much more in next few seasons. Depends a lot on [1] Quinn Cook's health, speed, handle, vision, game; [2] athletic wings who can pressure, get steals, run the court, dunk and spot-up-3-bomb; [3] also wings with handle who can rebound and start the break themselves; [4] bigs who can throw outlet pass.

Please vote for one:

[a] obvious
[b] wrong
[c] wrong again