MBB: Duke 91, Vermont 90 Post-Game Thread

[Goduke2010]

Let's view last night's game from the proper perspective. It was a 91-90 win as opposed to the 74-47 beatdown, which Clemson administered to us back in Feb 2009, at Littlejohn. All of you remember that game don't you? You know, the one where the team quit and Coach K had harsh words for that team similar to the words he spoke last night. That team finished the year 30-7, and won the ACC Tournament.

Last night wasn't a once in a lifetime event, heck in 2010, we even had two stinkers in one season and we saw how that year turned out.

Previous beat downs could be ascribed to tactical problems - poor execution, lack of effort, poor shooting night.

The last two games are much more serious in that they entail major issues with our overall approach / strategy to winning basketball games. I look at the last two games as indictments of the coaching staff, not the players. If the staff - through Coach K - is not willing/able to make major adjustments to their strategy, we'll continue to see embarrassments like the last two games.

It's much harder to change a strategy than improve tactics. Given the new strategy may fly in the face of how Coach K believes both sides of the court should operate, it's an open question whether he's willing/able to make such dramatic changes which many of us believe are necessary. I'm confident that he is, because more than anything else he wants to win.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Totally different thought about the game (no harping on the defense, leadership, communication, etc. )...

Had Hood made both free throws, would Vermont actually have been better off? They might have liked to shoot the 3 for the win - a shot they likely could have fired off faster than the baseline floater. I actually think we benefited from being up just one and VT pushing for the 2pt shot

Moot point but an interesting mind twister to consider.

[ChillinDuke]

I'm as pissed as the next guy about our performance.

But much of this discussion is going too far based on one or two games. Remember when we thought Andre was relegated to mop up minutes? That was based on a similar one- or two-game span. And it's already clearly an off base assessment.

Our defense played bad. Real bad. But let's try again. And let's give the team a chance before we start claiming this is a real, legitimate issue the likes of which have never before been seen on a Duke team.

Louisville played terribly on Sunday. UNC lost to Belmont at home. UK was down at the half to Cleveland State. Michigan looks like trash. The list goes on and on. Everyone's got issues.

We played like poop. I get it. But to claim definitively that this is not an outlier performance has no reasonable basis in my opinion. Yet.

We have a lot of games to go.

- "Chill"in

[flyingdutchdevil]

I'm as pissed as the next guy about our performance.

But much of this discussion is going too far based on one or two games. Remember when we thought Andre was relegated to mop up minutes? That was based on a similar one- or two-game span. And it's already clearly an off base assessment.

Our defense played bad. Real bad. But let's try again. And let's give the team a chance before we start claiming this is a real, legitimate issue the likes of which have never before been seen on a Duke team.

Louisville played terribly on Sunday. UNC lost to Belmont at home. UK was down at the half to Cleveland State. Michigan looks like trash. The list goes on and on. Everyone's got issues.

We played like poop. I get it. But to claim definitively that this is not an outlier performance has no reasonable basis in my opinion. Yet.

We have a lot of games to go.

- "Chill"in

I agree with most of what you are saying. We probably are going too far. But, right now, defense is a legitimate issue. I have never seen a Duke team play defense this bad, whether it's the first game of the season or the last. I mean, there is really no excuse for what happened against Vermont.

Do I think defense is a legitimate issue? I do. The season is young, and the team will undoubtedly improve. But enough that we can be considered a contender? That, for me, is the ultimate question.

[greybeard]

Tex Winter, the originator of the Triangle and at Jackson's side throughout the Chicago/LA runs, was asked what new rules he would like to see implemented to make the offensive game easier on the eyes, less a pushing and shoving match than half court basketball had become. Winter answered, just enforce the rules that exist.

Bobby Knight was the first to introduce a major assault on the half court game that began what became a sea change. Even before there was a three line, Knight had his guys playing in your chest defense once each offensive player crossed half court. You wanted to take a step, you had to fight for it. I think that that applied to breathing as well. Leaning all over, pushing inside players became accepted, as did pushing up into an exterior players chest and staying there, with any maneuver in the half court by anyone on offense being physically contested. I don't know how the rules are written and the extent to which they might differ on this point from college to the pros, but Tex said something to the effect, the rules say that when there is contact between an offensive player and a defensive player there is a foul against someone.

My point, the talent that is out there in the world of basketball is astounding; the high-end physical training that makes exceptional athletes even more exceptionable is available to everyone, coaching tools and men talented in the craft of coaching are available to everyone.

You let the dogs hunt, you are bound to have the one thing that usually distinguishes the bigs from the littles count for less--that would be depth.

It might be that zone defenses will proliferate, but does that mean how K choses to play, a man with a variety of zone principles, will turn out to be less effective in producing wins than a zone with man principles might be? Who knows. Right now he, K, seems to be about making sure his guys get real good at playing in front of people, handling screens on and off the ball in a variety of ways, organizing against the dribble drive in a variety of ways, as straight to a man as can be, but undoubtedly with zone principles. Having players trained to be able to stand on an island and defend, to take responsibility and get the job done, can't hurt Duke's chances this season.

Syracuse, last night, had all they could do to hold on against Minnesota. Syracuse plays a pretty good zone. The game is about ending up with more points than the other guy at the end, and how the score goes down the stretch will often will determine outcomes. Duke is doing well on that score right now. Will Duke have more trouble handling Syracuse's defense than the other way around, and will however that question is answered on the floor prove to be outcome determinative, we will have to wait. For now, if everybody plays zone, than playing against Duke in all likelihood will present challenges that players are unfamiliar with addressing as a team; that couldn't hurt.

I didn't see the Vermont game, but the game against East Carolina. Call me crazy, but I thought that EC is a damn good team that played good enough to beat any top tier team. And, scoring 91 points, I'm betting, will win you just about every game you play. It one the last one for Duke. Who's up next.

[CDu]

Syracuse, last night, had all they could do to hold on against Minnesota. Syracuse plays a pretty good zone. The game is about ending up with more points than the other guy at the end, and how the score goes down the stretch will often will determine outcomes. Duke is doing well on that score right now. Will Duke have more trouble handling Syracuse's defense than the other way around, and will however that question is answered on the floor prove to be outcome determinative, we will have to wait. For now, if everybody plays zone, than playing against Duke in all likelihood will present challenges that players are unfamiliar with addressing as a team; that couldn't hurt.

Syracuse held Minnesota to 67 points, and that was driven by 3pt shooting (Minnesota hit over 40% on 3s) and offensive rebounds (12 of them). They forced 19 turnovers. That doesn't sound like the rules changes gave Syracuse trouble. The only reason that game was close was because Syracuse couldn't shoot. Their zone defense did just fine.

Conversely, we gave up 90 points to a team that had topped 70 just once before, had just lost to Wagner, and lost to Bryant and Providence by more than 20. Granted, I don't think the rules changes were the reason we gave up 90 to Vermont. But to compare our defense to Syracuse's just isn't sound logic.

For reference, Syracuse is #15 nationally in defense according to Ken Pomeroy's stats. We are #177 defensively.