Optimist Thread

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I don't particularly want to give any credibility to the "pessimist thread" that just started, but if it does continue to exist, I'd like to do my part to make sure that thread dies, while this thread remains at the top.

I still maintain that this Duke team, playing with all cylinders firing, could beat any team in the country. Every year we've been told by experts, coaches, etc, that defense takes longer to learn than offense. Duke is already an offensive juggernaut, and I imagine that they will gel defensively in plenty of time for the ACC tournament.

In addition - Miami is a much better team than their record suggests. Their ACC losses are to quality opponents - UVA was taken to overtime and they were up by more than 15 against Notre Dame in the 2nd half on Notre Dame's home floor...and it took a remarkable stretch of 3pt shooting by Notre Dame to get back and and win. Dukes loss to Miami was a tough pill to swallow, but Miami is a good team and they are dangerous.

I'm also thinking that Matt Jones' haircut is going to have a monumental impact on his jump shot. I think eliminating a little bit of hair will add some elevation and speed to his jump, which is just what he needs to hit his jumpers. His new-found aerodynamicism should also enable him to go up stronger and turn blocked layups into monstrous dunks. I'm hoping Plumlee the Youngest's new hairstyle will have a similar impact on Marshall's hook shot.

Imitation is the sincerest form of crab.

Let's just keep the optimist thread more active than the pessimist thread.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Hrm... this thread is proving more difficult to keep active than I had hoped. Anyone want to find a silver-lining in this week's developments?

- Team rallies around K?
- Team sees the consequences of..?
- More minutes for non-one-and-dones?

We're drowning in pessimism here; someone throw me a line.

Go Duke!

[MChambers]

Hrm... this thread is proving more difficult to keep active than I had hoped. Anyone want to find a silver-lining in this week's developments?

- Team rallies around K?
- Team sees the consequences of..?
- More minutes for non-one-and-dones?

We're drowning in pessimism here; someone throw me a line.

Go Duke!

I really rooted for Rasheed, but the team did not do as well when he was on the court, to my surprise. So it may be that Duke will be better without him. Of course, I felt he had a lot of potential, so the team's ceiling may have dropped some.

Also, if whatever he did to merit dismissal affected the play or mood of his teammates, Duke may improve.

Finally, maybe this team now drops the burden of high expectations, and becomes an underdog.

This is all rank speculation of course, but of the type that is permitted here.

[Kedsy]

I really rooted for Rasheed, but the team did not do as well when he was on the court, to my surprise. So it may be that Duke will be better without him. Of course, I felt he had a lot of potential, so the team's ceiling may have dropped some.

Also, if whatever he did to merit dismissal affected the play or mood of his teammates, Duke may improve.

Finally, maybe this team now drops the burden of high expectations, and becomes an underdog.

This is all rank speculation of course, but of the type that is permitted here.

Yeah, according to our stickied plus/minus thread (which does not yet include the Notre Dame game), Rasheed had the worst plus/minus per 40 on the team (including our two walk ons). Not saying that has a great deal of meaning, but it's over 20 games so it might mean something.

I feel bad about the whole Rasheed situation, and I worry about our outside shooting, but my overall outlook for the team hasn't changed all that much since the news. I don't think our ceiling is any lower, really.

[CDu]

Yeah, according to our stickied plus/minus thread (which does not yet include the Notre Dame game), Rasheed had the worst plus/minus per 40 on the team (including our two walk ons). Not saying that has a great deal of meaning, but it's over 20 games so it might mean something.

I feel bad about the whole Rasheed situation, and I worry about our outside shooting, but my overall outlook for the team hasn't changed all that much since the news. I don't think our ceiling is any lower, really.

I am going to say that it probably still means nothing, even if it were over the whole season (at least in terms of assessing whether Sulaimon was helping or hurting the team).

Agree with you on the rest though. Sad to lose him, hope it helps him get himself together (whatever the issue is/was), but I don't think it changes things much with regard to the team. We'll still be reliant on T. Jones, Cook, Winslow, Jefferson, and Okafor to play well. It'll put more pressure on M. Jones to play consistently well (I do like how he has played the last couple of games). But (even though I don't think we can make causal claims based on his +/-) the +/- do at least suggest clearly that the team wasn't reliant on him on the floor to win games (at least not consistently so).

[MChambers]

I am going to say that it probably still means nothing, even if it were over the whole season (at least in terms of assessing whether Sulaimon was helping or hurting the team).

Agree with you on the rest though. Sad to lose him, hope it helps him get himself together (whatever the issue is/was), but I don't think it changes things much with regard to the team. We'll still be reliant on T. Jones, Cook, Winslow, Jefferson, and Okafor to play well. It'll put more pressure on M. Jones to play consistently well (I do like how he has played the last couple of games). But (even though I don't think we can make causal claims based on his +/-) the +/- do at least suggest clearly that the team wasn't reliant on him on the floor to win games (at least not consistently so).

I generally agree with you and Kedsy that it doesn't change the team's outlook much, but injuries and foul trouble are now a bigger concern than they were. If T. Jones or Cook were to be out for any length of time, we'd be down to one primary ballhandler.

[peterjswift]

I generally agree with you and Kedsy that it doesn't change the team's outlook much, but injuries and foul trouble are now a bigger concern than they were. If T. Jones or Cook were to be out for any length of time, we'd be down to one primary ballhandler.

MChambers: Excuse me. I think you might be in the wrong thread. Unless you're saying how great it would be to have one ball handler because there's less pressure and questions about roles so that a player can excel?

However - to stay ON TOPIC - I just mentioned in the pre-game thread for the UVA game that the pressure on Duke is a lot less than the pressure on UVA, and as challenging as it is for K and his coaching staff to respond to these changes, I have to think the UVA coaching staff is probably more freaked out with having no idea what is coming for them. In addition - there's no unbeaten record on the line for Duke. I think there's a great chance Duke is going to come out loose and with a chip on their shoulder. I welcome the underdog and spoiler role.

[MChambers]

MChambers: Excuse me. I think you might be in the wrong thread. Unless you're saying how great it would be to have one ball handler because there's less pressure and questions about roles so that a player can excel?

You're right, of course. My only excuse is that I was optimistic in this thread before I was pessimistic!

[sammy3469]

I am going to say that it probably still means nothing, even if it were over the whole season (at least in terms of assessing whether Sulaimon was helping or hurting the team).

Agree with you on the rest though. Sad to lose him, hope it helps him get himself together (whatever the issue is/was), but I don't think it changes things much with regard to the team. We'll still be reliant on T. Jones, Cook, Winslow, Jefferson, and Okafor to play well. It'll put more pressure on M. Jones to play consistently well (I do like how he has played the last couple of games). But (even though I don't think we can make causal claims based on his +/-) the +/- do at least suggest clearly that the team wasn't reliant on him on the floor to win games (at least not consistently so).

FWIW, I do think there is something to the +/- for him. Yes he was a good 3 point shooter, but when he handled the ball, he frequently either turned it over or put up a bad contested shot that resulted in bad floor spacing for the team and then bad transition defense. It doesn't take many of those to impact a close game.

Granted the major issue has been defense in general (or more accurately guarding the pick and roll), but free/easier baskets his drives were creating for other team weren't helping either. It's entirely possible that taking away those easy opportunities for the other team allows the team to settle in better on offense and defense.

It'll also force Jones and Cook to be more assertive with the ball when Okafor is off the floor. If they get to the FT line at the same rate as 'Sheed that's almost another point a game they'd pick up.

[peterjswift]

You're right, of course. My only excuse is that I was optimistic in this thread before I was pessimistic!

I'm very optimistic that your attitude will change soon. Probably on Saturday around 9:00PM.

[CDu]

I generally agree with you and Kedsy that it doesn't change the team's outlook much, but injuries and foul trouble are now a bigger concern than they were. If T. Jones or Cook were to be out for any length of time, we'd be down to one primary ballhandler.

Very true. Our ceiling is a bit lower now, as Sulaimon was arguably one of our most talented players. And our floor is definitely lower, as an injury or significant foul trouble suddenly puts us in a really bad spot. But I don't think we were going to hit our ceiling with Sulaimon anyway, and I doubt (or at least hope we won't) we'll threaten our floor.

[CDu]

FWIW, I do think there is something to the +/- for him. Yes he was a good 3 point shooter, but when he handled the ball, he frequently either turned it over or put up a bad contested shot that resulted in bad floor spacing for the team and then bad transition defense. It doesn't take many of those to impact a close game.

Granted the major issue has been defense in general (or more accurately guarding the pick and roll), but free/easier baskets his drives were creating for other team weren't helping either. It's entirely possible that taking away those easy opportunities for the other team allows the team to settle in better on offense and defense.

It'll also force Jones and Cook to be more assertive with the ball when Okafor is off the floor. If they get to the FT line at the same rate as 'Sheed that's almost another point a game they'd pick up.

It is certainly possible that he had a big impact on the +/-. But there is just so much "randomness" that goes into how teams score and give up points that I don't think even a season's worth of +/- is enough to say so with any confidence.

[Clay Feet POF]

Ok This forces us to :

1) More Zone ( Save energy, less fouls, better communication, Keep Winslow in longer, more Grayson, and more twin towers.) Maybe throw in a little 1-3-1 with Matt or Winslow at the point disrupting the passing lanes and starting our fast breaks.

2) Have more playing time for Grayson and maybe he settles into his shooting touch and the same for Matt Jones

3) Develop more aggressive offensive player, especially Oakafor. I think Winslow is our only true aggressive offensive player. Maybe Quinn, and Tyus sometimes.

4) Expand Marshalls minutes playing with Oakafor and without, there is an offensive game in him. I still remember that great hook shot it made, the improvement in his free throws and his percentage of 3’s made.

5) Have Jefferson take theses open looks in side the key until they start falling.

6) No matter how this games end, all the players will be on an accelerated development pace, which will bode well in the Big Dance.

[Kedsy]

Ok This forces us to :

1) More Zone ( Save energy, less fouls, better communication, Keep Winslow in longer, more Grayson, and more twin towers.) Maybe throw in a little 1-3-1 with Matt or Winslow at the point disrupting the passing lanes and starting our fast breaks.

2) Have more playing time for Grayson and maybe he settles into his shooting touch and the same for Matt Jones

3) Develop more aggressive offensive player, especially Oakafor. I think Winslow is our only true aggressive offensive player. Maybe Quinn, and Tyus sometimes.

4) Expand Marshalls minutes playing with Oakafor and without, there is an offensive game in him. I still remember that great hook shot it made, the improvement in his free throws and his percentage of 3’s made.

5) Have Jefferson take theses open looks in side the key until they start falling.

6) No matter how this games end, all the players will be on an accelerated development pace, which will bode well in the Big Dance.

I suppose most of these things are possibilities, but I don't think we'll be "forced" to do any of them. Admittedly, it's a little weird to have just 8 scholarship players, but my guess is it affects practice more than games. We rarely played more than 8 guys in a non-blowout before this. This just means we don't have an end-of-the-bench that doesn't get into the games (or possibly just Grayson at the end of the bench).

[Clay Feet POF]

I suppose most of these things are possibilities, but I don't think we'll be "forced" to do any of them. Admittedly, it's a little weird to have just 8 scholarship players, but my guess is it affects practice more than games. We rarely played more than 8 guys in a non-blowout before this. This just means we don't have an end-of-the-bench that doesn't get into the games (or possibly just Grayson at the end of the bench).

What do you see our chances of winning this game (40-30%) if we employ the same defensive pattern as we have this season.

If "Forced" is too strong a word what is one that is more accurate to describe a reaction to our recent events?

[jv001]

I suppose most of these things are possibilities, but I don't think we'll be "forced" to do any of them. Admittedly, it's a little weird to have just 8 scholarship players, but my guess is it affects practice more than games. We rarely played more than 8 guys in a non-blowout before this. This just means we don't have an end-of-the-bench that doesn't get into the games (or possibly just Grayson at the end of the bench).

I agree that if affects practice. I wonder if Jon Scheyer can join, MPIII, Matt Jones, Obi and Grayson for scrimmages. Maybe a chance to call on a Duke alum. Calling Grant, Jay W, or Christian. GoDuke!

[Wander]

I agree that if affects practice. I wonder if Jon Scheyer can join, MPIII, Matt Jones, Obi and Grayson for scrimmages. Maybe a chance to call on a Duke alum. Calling Grant, Jay W, or Christian. GoDuke!

It's probably wiser to use a walk-on to complete the 10-man practices, to get them a little bit of experience. Just in case.

[jv001]

It's probably wiser to use a walk-on to complete the 10-man practices, to get them a little bit of experience. Just in case.

Yeh, could keep Christian from pulling a hamstring when he shoots a 3. GoDuke!

[Edouble]

I agree that if affects practice. I wonder if Jon Scheyer can join, MPIII, Matt Jones, Obi and Grayson for scrimmages. Maybe a chance to call on a Duke alum. Calling Grant, Jay W, or Christian. GoDuke!

Jay can wear his Carolina shorts!

[Kedsy]

What do you see our chances of winning this game (40-30%) if we employ the same defensive pattern as we have this season.

If "Forced" is too strong a word what is one that is more accurate to describe a reaction to our recent events?

I'm sure I could figure out the probability of us winning the game, using Pomeroy or some other computer model, but I don't see the point, and I would never just make up a percentage chance based on my own opinion, because there's clearly little or no value in that.

As far as finding a word to "describe a reaction to our recent events," how about, "I don't think we need any 'reaction' that we didn't already need." (Which I get is 12 words, rather than one.)

Beating Virginia was going to be tough no matter what. If we'd made a couple more layups and/or free throws against Notre Dame and held on to win that game, I doubt you'd even be asking these questions, but it would still have been tough to win in Charlottesville against this year's Virginia team. That hasn't changed, and I don't think we should be "forced" (or any similar word) to make changes that we wouldn't have had to make if we'd beaten Notre Dame.

And since the Notre Dame game, we lost a very talented player, who in my opinion didn't always fully utilize that talent on the court. He will be replaced by other very talented players, who may or may not be as talented as he is and may or may not fully utilize their own talent. But whether or not whoever-picks-up-Rasheed's-minutes will be as effective as Rasheed would have been, I don't think the difference will be so earth-shattering that we'll be forced to do anything different or need to make major changes.

Obviously that's just my opinion. I understand yours may vary. Also, this is the optimism thread.