One and Done debate

[johnb]

... So, the real answer is, Coach K has tough job!

Well, if success is going to be defined as, say, winning at least a dozen NCAA games in the next 5 years, I'd say the Mercer coach has a tougher job than K.

I apologize, I had no idea this was english class.

Plus I am a fan. I am not apart of the team in anyway so I do not use we or our.

It's English, not english, "part," not "apart," and "any way," not "anyway." And you could toss in a comma somewhere in there if you'd like.

If you want to review the hostile grammar comments over a multi-year period, you'll see they are almost always directed at posts that hand out wholesale criticisms of our guys or our team. To my mind, if you're going to pop onto a Duke fan web site and make snarky comments about 20 year old Duke players who are laying it on the line twice a week in a very public forum, you should expect to get flack. And if you are going to summarize a season of defense as, say, "piss poor," then the sloppiness of your own behavior (mis-use of language in a forum that includes only letters and punctuation) strikes me as an irony that warrants feedback.

Underlying that response is a broiling tumult of emotions: we're all disappointed and underwhelmed by our NCAA performance. How in the world do we lose to a team that is so much lower than us on the bball totem poll? There's some entitlement involved, since we've been so good so long and our entire program is made up of blue chip players, coaches, facilities, fans, and notoriety, but it's also just bewilderment. And we fans are trying to figure it out. If, in the midst of our grief, we sense an outsider pop in saying stuff that seems either misinformed or too slapdash in its criticism, they need to at least do some research or write well, or they'll get feedback. At the same time, plenty of us have thought long and hard about the season and agree to some extent with the criticisms of our team defense, the reliance on relatively young players, our decision not to recruit and/or play 7 footers, etc.

But many of us avoid blanket criticisms at least partly because they are inevitably criticisms not just of our players (a couple of whom are currently debating, I hope, whether or not they should stay for another year of Duke and for all we know are reading some of our posts about their strengths and weaknesses) but of Coach K and of our coaching staff--a group that is composed almost entirely of a greatest hits list of former duke favorites.

Anyway, off to the drug store to edit greeting cards for mis-use of me and I...

[CameronBornAndBred]

Here our results, dating back to our 2010 championship team.

2010, three seniors (Thomas, Zoubek, Scheyer), won ACC tourney, Natl Champions. No one & dones.
2011 two seniors (Smith, Singler) offense built around Kyrie Irving, won ACC tourney (w.o Irving), lost in third round (w/ Irving)
2012 One senior (Miles Plumlee) offense built around Austin Rivers, lost Saturday ACC tourney, second round NCAA
2013 three seniors (Kelly, Mason Plumlee, Curry), lost Friday ACC tourney, lost in 4th round NCAA. No one & dones
2014 three seniors (Dawkins, Thornton, Hairston) offense built around J. Parker lost Sunday ACC tourney, lost in 1st round NCAA.

Those are the numbers. Obviously we had good years and bad years, but our best years came without any one & dones on the team. (This is assuming that Parker goes, regardless if he does or not, the offense was built around a freshman.)
Our current seniors spent three of their seasons in offenses built around one player that was not part of the equation the following year. I think that is important to note when people mention each of those guys' assumed lack of improvement.
As far as my own opinion, I always feel better when we have a team that has an offense built on guys that have experience playing together. Next year will be very interesting. We'll have only one senior (Cook) and a team that will be playing in an offense once again built around freshmen, although this time it may be more than one person we have the "so and so freshman to the draft" vigil. That leaves the '16 team with once again not much to build on, and that makes me very worried about our future, even though that team will have potentially three seniors on it.

[gurufrisbee]

I don't like one and dones. I feel like they come to use the college and then discard them and waste numerous opportunities in the process. If you look at Kentucky the last couple years you can see the full gamut run of how well that works. One year in a national championship, the next it's a first round NIT exit. The same kind of wide variety in success of one and dones can be seen other places, including Duke, too.

I will say this. I think the best one-and-dones come in A) clearly better than the college game, B) ready to play defense, and C) ready to fit in the role they are most needed for regarding leadership on the team. (I am mostly thinking about those Kentucky teams here, but I do think it generally applies across the board)

What has Duke had - like five one-and-dones? (It's early, no coffee yet, please forgive if I'm wrong) The ones I'm thinking of are Deng, Rivers, Kyrie, Maggette. Maybe just four (maybe I'm already thinking of Jabari as one). Deng came ready to play defense and he didn't have to lead because the team already had great leadership in JJ and Duhon. Kyrie was way ahead of the college game and got badly derailed by the injury. Maggette didn't have to do that much - he was never even a starter. Rivers was probably the one that fit the categories I laid out the least (they needed leadership and he wasn't one and there was no defense from him) and the team had the least success with him (compared to the other three) and he's struggled the most moving too early to the NBA.

How this all applies to Jabari, I'm not sure. Team wise he is clearly most similar to the spot Rivers was in. Individually he's probably more like Maggette or Deng, both positionally and skill wise and developmentally.

[CameronBornAndBred]

One last thought. Even though I don't like the one and done system, and especially don't like it at Duke, I do love the way Kyrie and Jabari both carried themselves at Duke, on the court, in public, and in the classroom. When they were on the bench, they were great cheerleaders, supportive of those on the court. For that, they will always have my respect and support. I never got any "me first feelings" from them. IF K continues down this path, I can only hope those coming in have the same attitudes.
If they have the attitude of Austin Rivers...I don't want to think about that.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I think you should moderate your adjectives. We're all disappointed, but I'd like to see you say those words to their faces, or better yet, on the basketball court.

You recruit the best players you can get, subject to academic and character standards, of course. End of story.

As I recall we did pretty well with some other one-and-dones like Avery, Maggette, and Deng. I give our post-season experience with Irving a pass due to his injury and the resulting affect on our familiarity with playing with him when he returned (he was not lost all year, btw). Most have done well in the NBA. Obviously Austin has to continue to develop his game to stay in the NBA, and Avery didn't get a second contract, but Maggette and Deng have had long and productive careers, and Kyrie has been a superstar.

So it's not just a one-and-done thing. If you're old enough to remember the 1994-5 and 1995-6 seasons, one and dones had nothing to do with that. The first, Coach K was out after a 9-3 start; they went 3-15 without him. The second season ... ???

Your broader point ... yes, one and done creates chemistry challenges, but they're not a sure road to a disappointing season. In fact we've had nothing but good seasons with one-and-dones. Our post-season success is what has been mixed. But it's not been all bad; I don't see how going for lesser players would change that. Creating the right recipe out of ever-changing ingredients is a challenge to be sure, but it's got to be a greater challenge if you don't get the best players.

The best TEAM wins championships, not the group of best players. Do you think Mercer had better players than Duke? or that Butler was one of the two most talented teams in 2010 or 2011. Or even that Duke 2010 was the most talented team?

Avery was 2 years so he does not count. Neither Maggette nor Deng were the centerpieces of those teams. Certainly if you have great players like Brand, Langdon, S. Williams, or Riddick on a team then you work in a 1 and done and expect to do very well.

But if you have a system that requires communication and teamwork and is hard for a group to get right in one season, then you are going to have trouble basing the team on one and dones. So if you are going to base the team on one and dones, then you need a system that players can get right in one season. We like to knock Cal at KY but he may have it.

You can have a bad season without one and dones so not sure why you mention 95-96, etc.

I think Duke has no choice but to recruit the best players (and its probably easier to try to recruit the best players to Duke than to try to figure out who is really good but not one and done and also wants to play at Duke.) K says he is going to make adjustments. I hope that means some changes that allow a group whose main players are there for one year to play as a TEAM.

SoCal

[JNort]

No I'm not agreeing at all with the OP. I'm saying we need to do a better job of recruiting 3 and 4 year players to mix with our one and done type talent. OP wants no one and dones, I do. We just need a better success rate with our long term players.

Look at Irving class, outside of hime we had the 7th best PF and the 24th best pg. 24th best is not a Duke type of talent and while we could live with the 7th best PF in a class considering there is likely a 1 and done or two which makes him the 5 best option. However the PF just never worked out.

Now back to Rivers class, this class is almost exactly what you would want! #3 C, #7 PG, #7 SF, #11 SF we got a pg and a c plus two versatile wings. Well that would have been awesome and they would all be seniors next year but the two SFs transferred, and the C has shown good promise but has been ravaged by a foot injury.

[weezie]

If they have the attitude of Austin Rivers...I don't want to think about that.

I understand your viewpoint CBAB, but why do we have to keep pounding on Rivers? I'm in the minority of folks who loved Austin's, "Give it to me!" attitude and he did come through for Duke few times, didn't he? Maybe he had a touch of the Laettner in him, who knows for sure, we all see things through a special prism. I'd be willing to bet that even Grant Hill was a bit of a jerk at times.
Might as well bring up McRoberts and give him another run through the gamut. He never caught fire in my book. I couldn't stand his mopiness but then again, I never shared a locker room with him

Such a bummer of a thread, especially this weekend...

[DrChainsaw]

And wonder if the one-and-dones may have a detrimental effect on chemistry.

Consider the hard-working player on the 4 year plan, who all of a sudden finds his playing time diminished, due to the arrival of a new super freshman. I realize that everyone has to earn their PT, but think what that does to the psyche of the older & hopefully more mature player. I wondered if this is what contributed to the success of the platoons - everyone knew they were going to play, had their own "team" and got a little hungry while on the bench.

I also wonder if having to rebuild teams (and chemistry) every year around the new star just doesn't allow for a team to live up to its full potential.

The position of the one-and-done may also play a role in how the rest of the team responds. We saw only a fraction of what Kyrie could do, but when he was on the court, I think he was better at recognizing the talents of the other players on the court and using them to their full potential, as I think a point guard is supposed to do.

Perhaps a a program either needs to fully embrace the one-and-done philosophy and accept the down years, or just look for the players who will hang around to get a diploma.

Just some thoughts escaping the black hole of my depression.

Finally, we make a big deal about how certain players or coaches exemplify Duke "class". I doubt they go around correcting people's grammar.

[CDu]

No I'm not agreeing at all with the OP. I'm saying we need to do a better job of recruiting 3 and 4 year players to mix with our one and done type talent. OP wants no one and dones, I do. We just need a better success rate with our long term players.

Look at Irving class, outside of hime we had the 7th best PF and the 24th best pg. 24th best is not a Duke type of talent and while we could live with the 7th best PF in a class considering there is likely a 1 and done or two which makes him the 5 best option. However the PF just never worked out.

Now back to Rivers class, this class is almost exactly what you would want! #3 C, #7 PG, #7 SF, #11 SF we got a pg and a c plus two versatile wings. Well that would have been awesome and they would all be seniors next year but the two SFs transferred, and the C has shown good promise but has been ravaged by a foot injury.

The problem is that those "three- and four-year" players are hard to identify. Those two SF transferred because they weren't getting playing time. If you are a top-50 recruit, you could start at like 95% of D-1 programs immediately. But not at Duke. At Duke, you're lucky to play 10mpg as a freshman unless you're a top-15 recruit. It's hard to keep guys around long enough for them to be impact seniors if they aren't seeing the floor early in their careers.

We were fortunate with Jefferson last year, but even he got significant minutes as a freshman (due to the injury to Kelly). Ideally, yes, we'd get a "one-and-done" caliber player or two each year along with 2 or 3 solid four-year guys who are ready to contribute as juniors and seniors. And ideally we'd not lose those 3-4 year guys to transfer. But that's just not the era of basketball in which we live. Good players want to play, and they want to play right away. And if they don't see that playing time, they're likely to consider other options.

[JNort]

The problem is that those "three- and four-year" players are hard to identify. Those two SF transferred because they weren't getting playing time. If you are a top-50 recruit, you could start at like 95% of D-1 programs immediately. But not at Duke. At Duke, you're lucky to play 10mpg as a freshman unless you're a top-15 recruit. It's hard to keep guys around long enough for them to be impact seniors if they aren't seeing the floor early in their careers.

We were fortunate with Jefferson last year, but even he got significant minutes as a freshman (due to the injury to Kelly). Ideally, yes, we'd get a "one-and-done" caliber player or two each year along with 2 or 3 solid four-year guys who are ready to contribute as juniors and seniors. And ideally we'd not lose those 3-4 year guys to transfer. But that's just not the era of basketball in which we live. Good players want to play, and they want to play right away. And if they don't see that playing time, they're likely to consider other options.

O I completely agree! Players today all think they are all stars or at least think they deserve to play right away. It seems to get worse ever year. Think this is partially the reason so many on this board want K to stick with line changes or at least a longer bench so those players do get time.

[MarkD83]

Before contributing to this discussion I need to define success vs expectations. Getting to the NCAA tourney is a measure of success. Getting to the acc championship is a measure of success. Doing well in the regular season is required to get a good seed in the. Acc tourney which makes it easier to get to the championship. A good regular season also is a requirement to getting into the NCAA. Great talent makes it easy to have a good to great regular season and in the regular season one bad game does not matter. On the other hand great defense and consistent offense wins acc and NCAA championships. These two things come with experience and team work. Early this year we all saw the signs that this team had trouble with defense and offensive consistency but clearly they had no issue with getting into the ncaas. The balance of great talent that stays around is difficult to manage. But I will take a program that is always in the mix.

[Atlanta Duke]

The NCAA probably is loving how this tournament is going so far after the Kentucky win in 2012 made it appear loading up with one and done talent was the future road to sucess

[Des Esseintes]

The best TEAM wins championships, not the group of best players. Do you think Mercer had better players than Duke? or that Butler was one of the two most talented teams in 2010 or 2011. Or even that Duke 2010 was the most talented team?

Avery was 2 years so he does not count. Neither Maggette nor Deng were the centerpieces of those teams. Certainly if you have great players like Brand, Langdon, S. Williams, or Riddick on a team then you work in a 1 and done and expect to do very well.

But if you have a system that requires communication and teamwork and is hard for a group to get right in one season, then you are going to have trouble basing the team on one and dones. So if you are going to base the team on one and dones, then you need a system that players can get right in one season. We like to knock Cal at KY but he may have it.

You can have a bad season without one and dones so not sure why you mention 95-96, etc.

I think Duke has no choice but to recruit the best players (and its probably easier to try to recruit the best players to Duke than to try to figure out who is really good but not one and done and also wants to play at Duke.) K says he is going to make adjustments. I hope that means some changes that allow a group whose main players are there for one year to play as a TEAM.

SoCal

Somewhere, a dude is typing on a Wichita State message board right now:

"TALENT wins championships, not chemistry. Do you think Kentucky had better leadership than WSU? or that UK had the most veterans in 2012? Or even that the Duke team that won in 2010 didn't have a ton of NBA players? Until the Shockers start recruiting blue chip talent, we won't really have a chance at..."

Narrativenarrrativenarrativenarrative

[Kjeffrey]

At the risk of inviting criticism from some DBR members, I do question the effect that one and dones have had on the Duke program over the past few years. If nothing else, they take up a recruiting spot that is used for only one year and then that class is depleted. Sure the spots can be filled with a transfer or another freshman the next year but it still means that there will not be a complete group who played together for multiple years. Wouldn't Kyrie have been a senior this year? I don't expect a player of his caliber to stay for four years. But how different would things have been if we had recruited a solid four year player instead of him? He was a great kid and I do not mean any disrespect to him but I can't help but wonder about the negative impact of the one and done.
I also wonder about the coaching and I don't mean just Coach K. While the bench is full of former Duke players does that automatically make them great coaches? I heard the other day that another Tobacco Road coach has never lost in the first round. His record is like 24-0. Duke certainly can't say the same, particularly the past three years. I do not believe that Roy is a better coach but facts are facts. He has never lost in the first round and Duke has lost twice in the past three years.
I am not criticizing anyone. Duke has one of the most successful college basketball programs in the country and Coach K's record speaks for itself. But I don't think that means we as fans shouldn't respectfully question some of the past failures.

[dukelifer]

At the risk of inviting criticism from some DBR members, I do question the effect that one and dones have had on the Duke program over the past few years. If nothing else, they take up a recruiting spot that is used for only one year and then that class is depleted. Sure the spots can be filled with a transfer or another freshman the next year but it still means that there will not be a complete group who played together for multiple years. Wouldn't Kyrie have been a senior this year? I don't expect a player of his caliber to stay for four years. But how different would things have been if we had recruited a solid four year player instead of him? He was a great kid and I do not mean any disrespect to him but I can't help but wonder about the negative impact of the one and done.
I also wonder about the coaching and I don't mean just Coach K. While the bench is full of former Duke players does that automatically make them great coaches? I heard the other day that another Tobacco Road coach has never lost in the first round. His record is like 24-0. Duke certainly can't say the same, particularly the past three years. I do not believe that Roy is a better coach but facts are facts. He has never lost in the first round and Duke has lost twice in the past three years.
I am not criticizing anyone. Duke has one of the most successful college basketball programs in the country and Coach K's record speaks for itself. But I don't think that means we as fans shouldn't respectfully question some of the past failures.

I guess it depends on what you call a failure. There was a time when K got to the final four every year and because he did not win it all - he was a failure. There was a time that Duke consistently got into a sweet 16 - and because they did not advance - K was a failure. It is championship or bust - such is life when you have coached the most wins and have the most NC of active coaches.

[Des Esseintes]

If only Duke had less talent. Then we'd never get upset.

[31andcounting]

At the risk of inviting criticism from some DBR members, I do question the effect that one and dones have had on the Duke program over the past few years. If nothing else, they take up a recruiting spot that is used for only one year and then that class is depleted. Sure the spots can be filled with a transfer or another freshman the next year but it still means that there will not be a complete group who played together for multiple years. Wouldn't Kyrie have been a senior this year? I don't expect a player of his caliber to stay for four years. But how different would things have been if we had recruited a solid four year player instead of him? He was a great kid and I do not mean any disrespect to him but I can't help but wonder about the negative impact of the one and done.
I also wonder about the coaching and I don't mean just Coach K. While the bench is full of former Duke players does that automatically make them great coaches? I heard the other day that another Tobacco Road coach has never lost in the first round. His record is like 24-0. Duke certainly can't say the same, particularly the past three years. I do not believe that Roy is a better coach but facts are facts. He has never lost in the first round and Duke has lost twice in the past three years.
I am not criticizing anyone. Duke has one of the most successful college basketball programs in the country and Coach K's record speaks for itself. But I don't think that means we as fans shouldn't respectfully question some of the past failures.

It's certainly true that the market for transfers is increasing as is their role - K has been quoted a bit on that. But I think there probably needs to be a lot of care in using them to solve the leadership problem. True, the prior transfers that K has had have provided excellent leadership. And Hood was awesome this year... but his likely departure doesn't solve the leadership problem, it only increases it because it will leave yet another hole to fill. So maybe K needs to go the "solid" route when picking transfers too. It's a tough issue - if you're looking to fill the team with a transfer or two do you pick the best player flat-out or the one most likely to eventually fill the leadership void?

I don't really blame Hood for leaving, but it does present yet another problem that is similar to the one-and-done issue - in some respects its an even worse problem because we had him in practice for a year (and used up a scholarship) before he ever set foot on the court. It would be interesting to compare, on average, how many years Duke players spend in Duke uniform. With the increased amount of one-and-done's, the increased transfers in, and the increased transfers out, I bet recent teams have had even less "Duke" experience than at first blush.

[Duvall]

At the risk of inviting criticism from some DBR members, I do question the effect that one and dones have had on the Duke program over the past few years. If nothing else, they take up a recruiting spot that is used for only one year and then that class is depleted. Sure the spots can be filled with a transfer or another freshman the next year but it still means that there will not be a complete group who played together for multiple years. Wouldn't Kyrie have been a senior this year? I don't expect a player of his caliber to stay for four years. But how different would things have been if we had recruited a solid four year player instead of him? He was a great kid and I do not mean any disrespect to him but I can't help but wonder about the negative impact of the one and done.

You mean another four-year player in addition to Thornton and Cook? Or another frontcourt player to replace Parker aside from the five Duke is likely to have next year? I don't think this is much of a problem, or at least it's been one Duke has been able to work around.

[31andcounting]

You mean another four-year player in addition to Thornton and Cook? Or another frontcourt player to replace Parker aside from the five Duke is likely to have next year? I don't think this is much of a problem, or at least it's been one Duke has been able to work around.

But it's not just about bringing in more good players - if our recent post-season issues have shown anything it's the importance of experienced players who can play at their best even when the pressure is the highest. Replacing a one-and-done with another one-and-done doesn't help that problem.

[Duvall]

But it's not just about bringing in more good players - if our recent post-season issues have shown anything it's the importance of experienced players who can play at their best even when the pressure is the highest. Replacing a one-and-done with another one-and-done doesn't help that problem.

But any player recruited in place of a one-and-done will be at most a sophomore the following year, so that doesn't really help with the experience problem.

Despite recruiting a few one-and-done players Duke still managed to field a lineup last year with three seniors, and will likely field a lineup next year with a senior and two juniors with numerous career starts. I don't this is a real problem for Duke.