Leadership, not "Who Will Play C", is the real question for 2013-14 season

[CDu]

Well it certainly does not apply to all our Final Four teams. The 1986 team played Jay Bilas (listed at 6'8) at center and the 1989 team played Robert Brickey (listed at 6'5) at center. Even Elton Brand (6'8) was shorter than 6'9, so technically he wouldn't meet your criteria either.

That's an awfully nitpicky response to the statement that "generally" holds (you made the switch to "all'). And it's even more nitpicky to try to exclude Brand. I know you were playing a semantics game, but surely one would qualify Brand as a true college center. And surely one would NOT qualify any of our current guys as college centers save for Plumlee (who doesn't play). And not only that, but the 1999 team had a SECOND big center backing up Brand, and a THIRD big center if needed. We never were without a true college center on that team.

And for reference the 1989 most certainly did not start Brickey at C. They started Abdelnaby/Laettner, with Ferry at PF. Perhaps you meant 1988? Even then, we had Ferry starting at C with Brickey/Smith at PF. So both of those teams met the criteria of having a more-than-capable presence at C.

But putting that aside, what would having someone "listed as a C or PF/C" give us that would mean the difference between having a championship caliber team and not? Post defense? So far, at least, post defense hasn't been our problem, or at least our post defense has been much more effective than our perimeter defense. Defensive rebounding? Well, so far our team's defensive rebounding percentage is 67.3%, about the same as 2010 (67.5%), better than 1999 (65.1%), and significantly better than 2001 (63.9%) and 2004 (62.9%). I don't have numbers from before 1997, but my guess is it compares favorably with most of our other good teams, too. Due to Coach K's defensive system, Duke has never been a great defensive rebounding team. Offensive presence in the post? We have the #1 offense in the country; no matter how much you twist it, the offensive contributions of a big center can't possibly be considered a legitimate issue for us this season.

So unless you can come up with a legitimate reason why a 6'9 (beefy) or 6'10+ (not necessarily beefy) center is a requirement for post-season success, I'm going to disagree that it is.

So far post defense has not been our problem. That's because we've played all of one team with actual size, and in that game we got absolutely killed on the glass. So I don't think you've got a strong case that lacking a big center won't severely hurt our post-season chances. Because the previous poster was absolutely correct: in every Final Four season but 1986, we've had a big guy manning the middle. It's certainly been a consistent theme, and it's certainly not the case this year.

Does that mean we can't make it to the Final Four? No. But I think it makes the sledding MUCH tougher, because when we start facing teams with size, that size limitation is likely to bite us.

[Kedsy]

That's an awfully nitpicky response to the statement that "generally" holds (you made the switch to "all'). And it's even more nitpicky to try to exclude Brand. I know you were playing a semantics game, but surely one would qualify Brand as a true college center. And surely one would NOT qualify any of our current guys as college centers save for Plumlee (who doesn't play). And not only that, but the 1999 team had a SECOND big center backing up Brand, and a THIRD big center if needed. We never were without a true college center on that team.

And for reference the 1989 most certainly did not start Brickey at C. They started Abdelnaby/Laettner, with Ferry at PF. Perhaps you meant 1988? Even then, we had Ferry starting at C with Brickey/Smith at PF. So both of those teams met the criteria of having a more-than-capable presence at C.

Yes, sorry, I meant 1988. But I'm going to disagree with you and say Ferry did not play C that season. Brickey/Smith did.

Also, the OPs statement was that his rule "generally applies to all of our final four teams," so I did not make up the "all." And I didn't exclude Brand; I pointed out that Brand didn't meet his criteria, in an attempt to obliquely point out that "6'9 and beefy or taller than 6'9 and not necessarily beefy" seemed deliberately chosen to exclude the guys currently playing center for us: a 6'9, non-beefy guy, a 6'8 reasonably beefy guy, and a 6'7 beefy guy.

So far post defense has not been our problem. That's because we've played all of one team with actual size, and in that game we got absolutely killed on the glass. So I don't think you've got a strong case that lacking a big center won't severely hurt our post-season chances. Because the previous poster was absolutely correct: in every Final Four season but 1986, we've had a big guy manning the middle. It's certainly been a consistent theme, and it's certainly not the case this year.

Does that mean we can't make it to the Final Four? No. But I think it makes the sledding MUCH tougher, because when we start facing teams with size, that size limitation is likely to bite us.

Well, you and I have been going back and forth on this one for months, and I still disagree with you. If our perimeter defense hadn't broken down in the second half we'd have beaten Kansas handily. It had little (if any) to do with their size advantage.

And saying almost all of our Final Four teams (whether it's 10/11 or 9/11) had a big center still doesn't prove anything in my mind. Eleven is still too small a sample to make any definitive conclusions, and the fact is we almost always have a big center, Final Four or not, including 1995 and 2007 and 2012. How many years haven't we had a big center since 1986? I count 1986, 1987, maybe 1988 (I say yes; you say no), maybe 1997 (after Newton stopped starting), 2008, maybe 2009 (Lance and Z each started about half the games), and this year. That's between 3 and 6 before this season, and one or two of those teams made the Final Four.

Coach K has made 11 Final Fours in the 28 years since (and including) 1986, or 39%. Two out of six is 33% (as is one out of three, if you take all the "maybes" out), really not much different. So I just don't see such a consistent theme.

[CDu]

Yes, sorry, I meant 1988. But I'm going to disagree with you and say Ferry did not play C that season. Brickey/Smith did.

GoDuke.com lists Ferry as a C/F. DukeUpdate lists Ferry as a C. So while you may disagree, logic and all points of reference suggest you are wrong. Without having actual game film, it will be hard to prove. But I'm quite confident that Ferry spent the most time guarding the opposing team's C.

In any case, he was certainly a big body inside defensively. 6'10", 230lb in an era before weight training (guys were generally a lot lighter back then) was pretty darn big. I'd say you're REALLY stretching on this one, Kedsy.

Also, the OPs statement was that his rule "generally applies to all of our final four teams," so I did not make up the "all." And I didn't exclude Brand; I pointed out that Brand didn't meet his criteria, in an attempt to obliquely point out that "6'9 and beefy or taller than 6'9 and not necessarily beefy" seemed deliberately chosen to exclude the guys currently playing center for us: a 6'9, non-beefy guy, a 6'8 reasonably beefy guy, and a 6'7 beefy guy.

You have chosen to emphasize the "all", I chose to emphasize the "generally." Makes a big difference.

And Parker and Hairson are not "beefy." In this era, they aren't skinny, but they aren't beefy. Brand was over 260 lbs at 6'8". Boozer was over 270 at 6'9". That's beefy. Parker and Hairston are, at best, average on the "beefy" scale. And both are undersized height-wise for the C spot. Jefferson is woefully undersized.

Well, you and I have been going back and forth on this one for months, and I still disagree with you. If our perimeter defense hadn't broken down in the second half we'd have beaten Kansas handily. It had little (if any) to do with their size advantage.

And saying almost all of our Final Four teams (whether it's 10/11 or 9/11) had a big center still doesn't prove anything in my mind. Eleven is still too small a sample to make any definitive conclusions, and the fact is we almost always have a big center, Final Four or not, including 1995 and 2007 and 2012. How many years haven't we had a big center since 1986? I count 1986, 1987, maybe 1988 (I say yes; you say no), maybe 1997 (after Newton stopped starting), 2008, maybe 2009 (Lance and Z each started about half the games), and this year. That's between 3 and 6 before this season, and one or two of those teams made the Final Four.

Coach K has made 11 Final Fours in the 28 years since (and including) 1986, or 39%. Two out of six is 33% (as is one out of three, if you take all the "maybes" out), really not much different. So I just don't see such a consistent theme.

Your argument here hinges on your questionable assumption that Ferry was not the C (or even a qualifying big body) in 1987-1988. I firmly submit that he was the C. Adjust the lists accordingly and you have the following breakdown:

With big C: 10 final fours in 24 years (41.7%)
without big C: 1 in 4 (25%)

That's a substantive difference in my opinion. It gets worse if you assume that Bilas (6'8", 225 in an era prior to weight training) was big enough at C. If you toss the extra 20-25 lbs of muscle that the typical big has these days, you get 6'8" 245-250. Much closer than the 235 that Parker pulls down.

In that scenario, it's 11 in 25 with a true C and 0 in 3 without.

Either way, things generally look a good bit better when you have a real big man.

[Indoor66]

You guys can find more damn nits to pick than any group I have ever seen. Have a nice argument about almost nothing.

[Kedsy]

Your argument here hinges on your questionable assumption that Ferry was not the C (or even a qualifying big body) in 1987-1988. I firmly submit that he was the C. Adjust the lists accordingly and you have the following breakdown:

With big C: 10 final fours in 24 years (41.7%)
without big C: 1 in 4 (25%)

That's a substantive difference in my opinion.

I'm not sure how any difference could be substantive when one side of the equation has a denominator of 4. If you take 41.7% of 4, you get 1.67, so the two sides missed out on being identical by less than one Final Four. If we make the Final Four this year (which you may think is a big if, but I think we have a pretty good chance), then 2 in 5 is 40% and it's exactly the same.

Also, if you don't count 1988 as a small-center year, you probably shouldn't count 1987, either, since Ferry started on that team, too. I'm not entirely sure if you did count it, but if you did then the small side goes to 1 in 3, even closer to 40% (because now the big side is 10 of 25).

In addition, I'm not sure I understand your argument that Bilas could be described as a "true center," based on his being 6'8, 235, but Jabari can't, though he's listed at exactly the same height and weight. Whether or not weightlifting was prevalent in 1986.

Anyway, my point is, contrary to the OP's assertion, having a big center is not a requirement for post-season success.

[lotusland]

Is there a cinder block standard for beefiness to reference?

[Fish80]

We need the old lady from the Wendy's commercial to settle this one.

"Where's the beef?"

[MChambers]

I hesitate to "weigh" in on this, without the benefit of cinder blocks, but my memory is that Smith and Brickey were listed as centers, but played that position on offense, while Ferry played wing on offense and guarded the other team's biggest player.

Sorry, Kedsy. I agree with your basic thrust, however.

[kAzE]

Given that we have too much depth to use in our relatively short rotation, I propose that we merge our assets have Plumlee and Ojeleye perform the fusion dance prior to big games:

http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Fusion_Dance

That way, we get Plumlee's size with Ojeleye's strength and athleticism. Everyone welcome our new starting center: Marmi Plojeleye! Seems reasonable to me.

[Kedsy]

I hesitate to "weigh" in on this, without the benefit of cinder blocks, but my memory is that Smith and Brickey were listed as centers, but played that position on offense, while Ferry played wing on offense and guarded the other team's biggest player.

Sorry, Kedsy. I agree with your basic thrust, however.

OK, let's assume you and CDu are right and 1987 and 1988 don't count. And CDu says maybe 1986 doesn't count because Jay Bilas was bigger compared to the average 1986 center than Jabari and Amile are to the modern beast. And in 1997, Greg Newton started 22 games at C (though admittedly not at the end), and in 2009, Brian Zoubek started more games (17) at C than anybody else on the roster. So maybe those years don't count, either.

So the only season we started a center as small as Jabari and Amile was in 2008. And we got knocked out in the 2nd round. Is that supposed to prove something? If we had a big center in 31 of the past 32 seasons, how can anyone think that because we had a big center in all the Final Fours (assuming you count Bilas) means we have to have a big center to make the Final Four? In reality, all the history tells us is we have no precedent. We don't know if we need a big center because we've only been without one once before and not only is that the pinnacle of small sample sizes, that team wasn't nearly as talented as this one. So did they get knocked out early because they lacked size or because they weren't talented enough to overcome a tough opponent? Or was it just a random event that happened once?

This whole conversation started because someone said, "Does anyone really think we don't need both a credible answer at the 5 position and real leadership? (...) No modern era Duke team has won a championship without both." Well, I don't think it, and I'd point out that every Duke team since 1983 to miss the tournament or get knocked out in the round of 64 has also had a big center, and that has just as much validity and predictive power as the observation about nobody winning championships without one.

(And, yes, I saw the part where you said you agree with my main point, so this isn't really directed at you, MChambers.)

[NSDukeFan]

I think the thread should be renamed Communication, not who will play C is the biggest question for 2013-2014 season. Mind you, leadership, in getting the team and it's stars to better communicate defensively, is certainly related.

[CDu]

OK, let's assume you and CDu are right and 1987 and 1988 don't count. And CDu says maybe 1986 doesn't count because Jay Bilas was bigger compared to the average 1986 center than Jabari and Amile are to the modern beast. And in 1997, Greg Newton started 22 games at C (though admittedly not at the end), and in 2009, Brian Zoubek started more games (17) at C than anybody else on the roster. So maybe those years don't count, either.

So the only season we started a center as small as Jabari and Amile was in 2008. And we got knocked out in the 2nd round. Is that supposed to prove something? If we had a big center in 31 of the past 32 seasons, how can anyone think that because we had a big center in all the Final Fours (assuming you count Bilas) means we have to have a big center to make the Final Four? In reality, all the history tells us is we have no precedent. We don't know if we need a big center because we've only been without one once before and not only is that the pinnacle of small sample sizes, that team wasn't nearly as talented as this one. So did they get knocked out early because they lacked size or because they weren't talented enough to overcome a tough opponent? Or was it just a random event that happened once?

This whole conversation started because someone said, "Does anyone really think we don't need both a credible answer at the 5 position and real leadership? (...) No modern era Duke team has won a championship without both." Well, I don't think it, and I'd point out that every Duke team since 1983 to miss the tournament or get knocked out in the round of 64 has also had a big center, and that has just as much validity and predictive power as the observation about nobody winning championships without one.

(And, yes, I saw the part where you said you agree with my main point, so this isn't really directed at you, MChambers.)

We are talking tourney success here, right? So the Newton year and 2007 and 2008 definitely still count as in the tourney we were going small. And if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, count 1986 too.

10 os 24 with a big, 1 of 4 without.

[Newton_14]

I think the thread should be renamed Communication, not who will play C is the biggest question for 2013-2014 season. Mind you, leadership, in getting the team and it's stars to better communicate defensively, is certainly related.

Bingo. We have a winner. This isn't about size, at all. Our defense is not getting torched because of our big men or lack thereof. This is on our guards and wings, and to a lesser degree, our bigs. I was at both the ECU and Vermont games, and I left the building both nights befuddled that the opponents guards had out played our guards. Especially in the ECU game. ECU had 3 guards that played all around better games than any of our guards did. Then the PG from Vermont (Number 12) completely controlled the game. On offense he did what he wanted, when he wanted, getting to every spot on the floor he wanted to get to, and time and time again setting up the two forwards for easy scores.

The Drury game was similar. It starts with our guards getting broken down off the dribble, then, due to lack of communication, and poor rotations with help and recover, the defense totally breaks down. End result is the opponent gets an easy look at the rim or a wide open mid-range jumpshot or 3 point attempt. I still feel it is a copout to blame the new rules. That is a small part of it, but the bigger issue is lack of discipline, lack or moving their feet, and lack of positioning. Add in the fact that guys are hesitant to attempt to take a charge, and they end up not know what to do once they rotate over to help.

The other part is inexperience in Duke's system, and a bunch of new faces trying to learn how to play defense together as a 5 man cohesive unit. K is not going zone, so get it out of your heads. He may do it one or two possessions per half just to change things up, but he is going to play man exclusively. The good news is, because the bulk of the issues are inexperience and learning to play with new teammates, the problems are fixable, and they are fixable this year. They can figure this out. It may take until mid-January, but so what. Most of us agreed that this team would be the opposite of recent teams in that rather than starting out playing their best ball early, they would struggle early (likely losing 2, 3, 4 games, but then get a lot stronger down the stretch. Which is what we want right? Peak at the optimum time vs peaking too early then fading. You can't have it both ways.

They will get a lot of practice time after this Friday to work on Duke vs the next opponent. The guards and wings have to figure out a way to not only improve, but to start forciing turnovers. Due to the make up of the team, we expectied them to force a lot of turnovers. So far that has not happened, but it certainly can.

They have no where to go but up. Agree that this team most resembles the 08 team in terms of size, but this team has much more offensive firepower than 08 did, and I believe their ceiling on defense is higher than the 08 team. They can get to the place they need to be, but it is going to take a lot of hard work, starting with respecting the opponent and playing every possession of every game as hard as they can play.

It is fixable. They can play much better on defense than they are playing right now. They are just going to have to buckle down in the short term and weather the storm until they get enough practice time to address and correct the issues.

[kAzE]

Blaming the new rules is a total cop out. Everybody else is playing with the same rules and 176 teams are playing better defense than we are.

[oldnavy]

Blaming the new rules is a total cop out. Everybody else is playing with the same rules and 176 teams are playing better defense than we are.

Agree. I also will point out that other primary MTM teams have gone to zone on us at least twice, ECU and Vermont. Vermont's coach admitted that he didn't want to go zone, but the scouting report (ECU game) dictated that he do it.

Roy Williams who I have lambasted over the past decade for being absolutely terrible in-game coach for not making adjustments to his scheme even went zone against Louisville. He said in the post game: "I think not just going big but the zone was important for us. As I said in the press conference the other day, we’ve already worked on zone more this year than most years I’ve ever coached. I just think that right now with our limited assets for perimeter players we’re going to have to go big and play in a zone and it’ll help us some.”

Russ Smith: "I think they made a good change in the second half," Jones said. "They clogged the lane and played that high zone so me and Russ couldn't penetrate. That's something we have to learn. I don't think we passed the ball as well was we have all year."

It pains me to say this, but Roy made a very nice in-game adjustment that ultimately led to a huge upset over a top 3 team.

To continue to beat the dead horse, I have to ask, why not try zone a couple of times when the MTM is in total fail mode????

[Kedsy]

To continue to beat the dead horse, I have to ask, why not try zone a couple of times when the MTM is in total fail mode????

Because you have to practice zone to play it, and our limited practice time might be better spent making our bread and butter defense at least adequate.

[Lar77]

I think the thread should be renamed Communication, not who will play C is the biggest question for 2013-2014 season. Mind you, leadership, in getting the team and it's stars to better communicate defensively, is certainly related.

Bravo. Coach K has said it; others have said it. It's not about effort or size or new rules. It's about focus and playing together. It's a new group and they are adjusting, and so we lapse into a lot of one-on-one (or one-on-five) mindset (not selfishness, which is different). This is a coaching issue and it takes time to work through.

[bob blue devil]

Really don't want to interject myself into the Logic Smackdown going on here...

Maybe size isn't an issue for Jabari, Rodney and Amile defending inside, but instincts/experience are? Let's face it,our guards overplay and will get beat (even more so with the rule changes). Having help defense that is effective is crucial to our success.

[freshmanjs]

Agree. I also will point out that other primary MTM teams have gone to zone on us at least twice, ECU and Vermont. Vermont's coach admitted that he didn't want to go zone, but the scouting report (ECU game) dictated that he do it.

Roy Williams who I have lambasted over the past decade for being absolutely terrible in-game coach for not making adjustments to his scheme even went zone against Louisville. He said in the post game: "I think not just going big but the zone was important for us. As I said in the press conference the other day, we’ve already worked on zone more this year than most years I’ve ever coached. I just think that right now with our limited assets for perimeter players we’re going to have to go big and play in a zone and it’ll help us some.”

Russ Smith: "I think they made a good change in the second half," Jones said. "They clogged the lane and played that high zone so me and Russ couldn't penetrate. That's something we have to learn. I don't think we passed the ball as well was we have all year."

It pains me to say this, but Roy made a very nice in-game adjustment that ultimately led to a huge upset over a top 3 team.

To continue to beat the dead horse, I have to ask, why not try zone a couple of times when the MTM is in total fail mode????

we don't have limited perimeter assets or the real option to go big (while still having our best players on the floor). so, we are in pretty much the opposite situation as UNC and Roy's logic wouldn't apply to this Duke team.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I think the thread should be renamed Communication, not who will play C is the biggest question for 2013-2014 season. Mind you, leadership, in getting the team and it's stars to better communicate defensively, is certainly related.

Agree. That's what I was trying to get at by "re-opening" this thread. Amazing to me how quickly the center/size debate took over again.

I think many agree that our offense is pretty good but our defense is sketchy at best right now. Solving our defensive woes will not come from some magical appearance of a big man (unless Marshall perhaps surprises everyone). So, it will come down to great team defense. And I would argue this is particularly true of our perimeter defense. Which will of course require outstanding communication on a continuous basis. And I will argue one last time that great communication cannot/will not be sustained without a couple guys leading by example and holding their teammates accountable at all times.