Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Then perhaps this post was more suitable for those premium sites? I don't think you'll need to convince too many folks here that Jefferson can succeed at Duke.

    Of course, your arguments, while reasonable and accurate, are probably pointless. Irrational arguments (and sports fandom tends to be such a topic) is rarely won with reason.
    Actually, Jim's posts usually provide good solid ammo when debating with my moronic friends. So, his points are especially useful here, IMO.

    However, it would be great to have Jim repost his write-up on one of those sites.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    The "Jefferson will just set screens at Duke" argument is as pervasive as it is stupid. Even one of my good friends, an NC State fan who usually has reasonably good basketball sense and a relatively even-handed view of Duke and Carolina, has been regurgitating this bile. And there's no reasoning with the argument.

    State fan: Jefferson isn't a true low-post player, but really should develop as an athletic 3/4? Please, he's not a guard, so all he'll do is set screens at Duke!

    Me: But Kyle Singler just graduated, he wasn't a guard, and he was a four year focal point of the offense both in the post and on the wing.

    SF: Rubbish! Look at Lance Thomas, he was athletic and all he did was rebound and set screens!

    Me: No, Lance was a key defensive stopper and a great glue-guy. True, his offensive skills never allowed him to become a focus of the offense, but he was really good at a bunch of other things and was a key part of the team. Besides, Lance is one example and there are a ton of counter-examples.

    SF: Well, how about Mason Plumlee? All he did was rebound and set screens!

    Me: No, Mason also scored 11 points per game last season. Besides, he and Jefferson aren't even comparable players. Jefferson's more comparable, body-wise, to guys like Luol Deng, Tony Lang, etc...

    SF: Those guys were a long time ago. Duke doesn't use guys like that anymore. Look at what Gottfried did with CJL this year. Jefferson should look at that.

    Me: Look what K did with Brian Davis, Grant Hill, Tony Lang, Shane Battier, Luol Deng, Kyle Singler, etc etc etc

    SF: Yeah but what about Lance Thomas and Mason Plumlee?

    And on it goes. Like most myths about Duke basketball, it boils down to irrational parroting of trite talking points that are so vapid, baseless, and contrary to simple facts that even politicians would be embarrassed to use them. The only thing I can say for the State fans is that they are deeply, deeply disappointed to lose out on Jefferson. He would have been a big get for them, for a lot of reasons. For this season, he would have been important depth backing up Leslie. For next season, they were hoping he'd develop into a starter at that position. Probably more importantly, however, if they had gotten Jefferson, it would have been humongous for local recruiting bragging, giving them (1) The best recruiting class in the Triangle; (2) one of the best in the nation; (3) a win in direct head-to-head recruiting against one of their top 2 rivals. Still, the hysterical and vicious reactions of many State fans have become embarrassing.
    Brian Zoubek on what was going through his mind walking to the free throw line with 3.6 seconds remaining in the 2010 National Championship game and Duke up by 1: "Fifty percent [of me is] thinking, This is what I've been dreaming of doing my entire life. Fifty percent I'm crapping my pants."

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    The "Jefferson will just set screens at Duke" argument is as pervasive as it is stupid. Even one of my good friends, an NC State fan who usually has reasonably good basketball sense and a relatively even-handed view of Duke and Carolina, has been regurgitating this bile. And there's no reasoning with the argument.

    State fan: Jefferson isn't a true low-post player, but really should develop as an athletic 3/4? Please, he's not a guard, so all he'll do is set screens at Duke!

    Me: But Kyle Singler just graduated, he wasn't a guard, and he was a four year focal point of the offense both in the post and on the wing.

    SF: Rubbish! Look at Lance Thomas, he was athletic and all he did was rebound and set screens!

    Me: No, Lance was a key defensive stopper and a great glue-guy. True, his offensive skills never allowed him to become a focus of the offense, but he was really good at a bunch of other things and was a key part of the team. Besides, Lance is one example and there are a ton of counter-examples.

    SF: Well, how about Mason Plumlee? All he did was rebound and set screens!

    Me: No, Mason also scored 11 points per game last season. Besides, he and Jefferson aren't even comparable players. Jefferson's more comparable, body-wise, to guys like Luol Deng, Tony Lang, etc...

    SF: Those guys were a long time ago. Duke doesn't use guys like that anymore. Look at what Gottfried did with CJL this year. Jefferson should look at that.

    Me: Look what K did with Brian Davis, Grant Hill, Tony Lang, Shane Battier, Luol Deng, Kyle Singler, etc etc etc

    SF: Yeah but what about Lance Thomas and Mason Plumlee?
    Your conversation reminds me of an oldie, but a goodie - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iVKPUNoeI4. Cracks me up everytime!
    Rich
    Cameron Crazies Do Not Storm The Court

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    ... The name Lance Thomas is invoked with some frequency. ... But he has had to learn to speak New Orleansian.

    Kyle Singler ... Second-round draft pick. Played in Europe last season, should be in NBA next season.

    ... Jefferson is listed at anywhere from 6-7 to 6-9. Let's split the difference and call him 6-8. That's not an Elton Brand 6-8, either. ... Screen-setting indeed.
    Lance's new language is called Creole, a rich but difficult language.

    Kyle may be playing overseas, but he is very much on an NBA roster. The Pistons are counting on him for next year or the year after. They are trying to renovate a flawed roster - horrible 5 yr contracts to Ben Gordon & Charlie Villanueva (yeah uCon) - and deciding whether Austin Daye can become what Tayshaun Prince once was - and a pair of undersized Shooting guards in Gordon and Rodney Stuckey, and a dearth of talent in the post (excepting Greg Monroe). Daye flamed out, and either Gordon or Villanueva will be amnestied out (Gordon's contract is worse, but Villanueva is a total waste of space). The Gordon and Villanueva contracts are so bad that, believe it or not, the Pistons are in the luxury tax realm. The Pistons intend to sign Singler to a long term contract - but are balancing his seasoning in Spain, the current roster mess, and the salary cap in doing so.

    Amile's height varies in listings, but his weight seems to be uniformly listed at 190. He is described as "long and lean." Not a recipe for bone crunching picks. It doesn't make sense to recruit him for setting picks.

    However, picks are an integral part of basketball offense, and particularly so in the NBA. Contrary to Miles and Mason Plumlee, and Lance Thomas, Amile seems to have the offensive skill set to thrive in a pick and roll set (I think his jumper will need work to become a true pick and pop weapon - but I see him getting there). Further, Amile's length, athleticism, and basketball IQ would suggest that he would be more effective rolling to the basket for rebounds/follow-ups (beating his man to the rim/ball from the high post pick) than trying to out muscle the other team's power forward for rebounding position. I see Amile thriving in Duke's motion offense from the start, and getting better with time.

  5. #25
    You guys don't get it, do you?

    It's not about being accurate, it's about being easy to articulate and difficult to refute.

    Duke hater: Go to Duke and all you'll do is set screens
    ** nice and simple with a grain of truth

    Duke fan: [insert wall of text that no one, including the person that typed it, really wants to read]
    ** complicated and boring

    State hater: If you can't go to college go to state
    ** nice and simple with a grain of truth (after all, of the major North Carolina universities, we are the easiest to get into)

    State fans: Gobs and gobs of statistics, anecdotes mixed in with some rage, paranoia and hate.

    You can see this applied to politics as well. A good attack is easy to articulate but difficult to rebut. Don't get your panties in a wad.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    You guys don't get it, do you?

    It's not about being accurate, it's about being easy to articulate and difficult to refute.

    Duke hater: Go to Duke and all you'll do is set screens
    ** nice and simple with a grain of truth
    Except there's no grain of truth. Duke has run its offense through combo forwards for three full decades - there's no reason whatsoever to think that would change now.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Class of '94 View Post
    ...The ironic (maybe I should say moronic) thing about all of this is that schools like UCLA and Mich have not produced a lot of successful NBA big men. More specifically, outside of Kevin Love (who's career imo took a megajump when he played for K and Team USA for the World Championships), who has UCLA produced that a decent to successful NBA big man? ......
    Um, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Bill Walton come to mind.


    (I know you're trying to make a point about recent grads, but I just couldn't resist answering a question that suggested that no decent big men have come out of UCLA!)
    Failure is always an option.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Except there's no grain of truth. Duke has run its offense through combo forwards for three full decades - there's no reason whatsoever to think that would change now.
    I remember Grant being referred to as a point-forward.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    And

    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I remember Grant being referred to as a point-forward.
    I remember Tony Kornheiser saying that if Grant had gone to a Big East school they wouldh have told him to gain 50 pounds and learn how to give a foul.

    Amile will do well at Duke. I'm looking forward to a team with more defensive flexibility next year.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    Amile will do well at Duke. I'm looking forward to a team with more defensive flexibility next year.
    This past season I was one who downplayed the concerns of some posters re our small wings. But I was wrong to have responded too narrowly to fears about opposing SFs posting a smaller Duke defender. Other posters had thought more broadly than I about the small-wing issue. After the joy of Maui, the Temple game raised a red flag, showing that big guards with handles might be - and turned out to be thereafter - a real problem.

    Although Quinn has to improve a lot on D, and Tyler has to quit committing what are, in effect, unsmart woofing fouls, the addition of Rasheed, Alex, and Amile does offer the hope, expectation, really, of more effective wing-D, and the ability to get some stops at key moments.

    It's a little surprising that we may actually have a slightly better sense of Amile's and Rasheed's defensive promise than of Alex's. I saw Rasheed 3 or 4 times in various all-star games, one after his junior season, and it was his defense that stood out first. That perception was reinforced in several all-star games this spring.

    It's fair to say that it's still an open question as to whether Amile will prove flexible enough, quickly enough, to guard opposing SFs. I think so, but I saw him only once, so maybe I think so because I hope so.

    As to Alex, what do we [you] know about his D and D-flexibility? Because Alex was supposed to be a high school senior in 2011-'12, he didn't appear in TV all-star games in spring 2011. I caught him only once, and briefly, in that outdoor Elite 24 thing. [Right??] But I don't know that I'd describe that event as "basketball." Then, when he matriculated early, and then decided to redshirt, we caught few glimpses of him, period, this past season. Further, with the expectation that Mason would probably leave, the way Alex was being talked about on EK this past spring, looking toward 2012-'13, wasn't in terms of his D-flexibility on the wing, but whether he could gain enough strength to rebound above his weight against opposing 4s.

    So, any comments on Alex's wing-D-flexibility?

  11. #31
    It is ridiculous for any recruit to say that being great at setting screens won't benefit them and, even, get them to the next level. My Lakers got crushed in game 1 vs the Thunder with screens set by Perkins. I know that it may not seem fun and it won't get you mentioned as the next Dwight Howard on its own, but it is something that is very valuable at the next level. It also doesn't mean that you won't get to score, too. The key to that last part is just having the skills to consistently beat your man on the inside (I don't think it is that we didn't want Zoubek to score 15 a game, but he just didn't develop as a scorer like that; we played to his skills and talents). It just isn't common to have a highly polished big men in college. Mason is getting there, though (he did pretty well against UNC's bigs and made big improvements last year). The biggest reason is that it takes a man's body to execute post moves against other guys your own size. Point guards don't have to have an NBA size body to succeed, but on the inside it is a man's game.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    State hater: If you can't go to college go to state
    ** nice and simple with a grain of truth (after all, of the major North Carolina universities, we are the easiest to get into)
    .
    There's also no grain of truth to this jab at State. State has higher admission standards than any college in the UNC system other than UNC Chapel Hill. In terms of admissions standards, they aren't on the same level as Duke or UNC-CH, but it's not a slack school by any realistic measure, despite the tendency of Duke and UNC-CH alumns to look down our noses at our slightly more blue collar neighbor.

    (in the interest of full disclosure, the two most important women in my life are both State products, are both extremely well educated and driven, and both have had/are having careers that would make any Duke or UNC-CH grad proud...so I'm admittedly a little biased on this point)

    But, as your post correctly points out, in fandom, like politics, a quip or soundbyte is frequently more appealing than an actual look at facts.
    Brian Zoubek on what was going through his mind walking to the free throw line with 3.6 seconds remaining in the 2010 National Championship game and Duke up by 1: "Fifty percent [of me is] thinking, This is what I've been dreaming of doing my entire life. Fifty percent I'm crapping my pants."

  13. #33

    The UCLA factor

    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    Um, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Bill Walton come to mind.


    (I know you're trying to make a point about recent grads, but I just couldn't resist answering a question that suggested that no decent big men have come out of UCLA!)
    Curiously, UCLA has become the NCAA's teflon team. SI publishes an article saying that the program is in trouble, but instead of looking elsewhere, several top recruits go there anyway (spurning Duke in the process). More important, their players usually don't become lottery picks, but they tend to do well in the NBA, which has created the so-called UCLA factor.

    The UCLA factor indicates that while Bruins players don't shine in college, in Westwood they learn the basketball fundamentals that produce long-term success in the NBA. (In other words, they are more ready than players who supposedly spend their time setting screens.) I would say that in reality Howland doesn't know how to use the really talented players that he has, and that this talent only shows up once they get to the NBA, but in a teflon program this doesn't matter.

    The moral to the story is that facts don't matter once perceptions take hold.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...-the-nba-draft

    http://www.bruinsnation.com/2011/6/7...he-ucla-factor

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    There's also no grain of truth to this jab at State. State has higher admission standards than any college in the UNC system other than UNC Chapel Hill.
    I was referring to ACC schools in NC...or tier 1 research univeristies however you want to label it. Wake, Duke, Carolina and State.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by miramar View Post
    The moral to the story is that facts don't matter once perceptions take hold.
    Dead on. People believe what they want to believe.

Similar Threads

  1. Moving Screen
    By Zeke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-15-2012, 05:22 PM
  2. John Hillcoat's setting of Cormac McCarthy's The Road
    By throatybeard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-28-2010, 12:02 AM
  3. OK....new big screen LCD - but a small problem
    By moonpie23 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-17-2008, 01:03 AM
  4. My Screen Name
    By TwoDukeTattoos in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 08:04 PM
  5. Record setting year for Duke football?
    By Bluedawg in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 01:26 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
  •