Welcome to Duke, Javin Delaurier!!

[BD80]

Also Lance and Amile were both top 20 (or close to that) recruits while Javin is at #40. ...

Wait until the rankings refresh, and Javin gets his Duke bump

[brlftz]

side note re the whole "alarmingly unathletic" comment. I sometimes feel like i'm the only duke fan that watched that game and was alarmed as well. I can't remember how close it was at the end, but the way I remember it we looked slooooow and earthbound, and got our butts kicked. am I recalling that wrong? I've never held that comment against gottlieb, since at the time I thought he was right.

[duke blue brewcrew]

Nit to pick. I'm pretty sure Thomas never committed to Rutgers.

Duke's primary power forward target in that recruiting class was Brandan Wright and Duke thought they had him locked up. But he picked UNC instead and signed with them in the fall. Duke had looked at Thomas earlier and turned up the heat that spring. But Thomas did indeed take his time. Louisville was probably his second choice, so yes, he was well thought of.

And probably a bit overrated by the recruitniks, as sometimes happens with the last guy(s) standing, especially if major powers are after them. But Thomas only averaged around 14 ppg as a high-school senior and about half that many rebounds per game. He was never a stat stuffer. Duke got about what they expected from him, which was a strong defender and contributor to championship-level teams.

As always, I humbly accept your corrections Jim My point remains though, Lance was a heart player, glue guy and played that role incredibly well. However, for his first 3 years, anytime Duke had the ball, I found myself quoting that famous line from Necessary Roughness, "DON'T THROW IT TO STONE HANDS!"

[tbyers11]

side note re the whole "alarmingly unathletic" comment. I sometimes feel like i'm the only duke fan that watched that game and was alarmed as well. I can't remember how close it was at the end, but the way I remember it we looked slooooow and earthbound, and got our butts kicked. am I recalling that wrong? I've never held that comment against gottlieb, since at the time I thought he was right.

Yes, I think you are remembering it slightly wrong. Gottlieb made those comments at halftime of a Nov 2009 preseason NIT game against Arizona State. Link here.

I remember ASU looking awful and we didn't look much better in the first half so yes we didn't look like world beaters at the time Gottlieb uttered the famous phrase. Research shows that we were only up 34-30 at half.

However, we went on to win 64-53 and beat a very athletic UConn in the final 68-59 two nights later.

[yancem]

I was not nervous when Lance was on the floor before his senior year. He had some turnovers but did lots of good things offensively as well. He couldn't have been a most of the time starter for a teams that won 115 games by only being a very good defensive player. He contributed offensively as well.
I am very excited that Javin will be coming to Duke (as I am when any top recruit makes that decision) and I will be cheering for him this year before he even starts at Duke. But, I think some on the board (this is not directed solely at the above post) get shiny new recruitatosis and forget that Duke has had excellent players before. I can guarantee you that LT had a great mixtape when he was in high school, had no trouble scoring in high school and was far more athletic than most of the players he went up against. Playing top level division 1 basketball at Duke is a whole different ball game. Wasn't Amile the leading scorer in some of his AAU tournaments? I am looking forward to seeing Javin play and hope he has a great career at Duke (I am also excited that he is likely to be around for a few years). I don't think we can say at this point that his floor is as a most of the time starter for 30 win teams who wins a national championship like Lance or Amile. They are and were very good players for Duke.
I don't want to knock people's enthusiasm for Javin as much as want to defend Lance and Amile, two players I have loved watching play.

Billy King says hi.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Yes, I think you are remembering it slightly wrong. Gottlieb made those comments at halftime of a Nov 2009 preseason NIT game against Arizona State. Link here.

I remember ASU looking awful and we didn't look much better in the first half so yes we didn't look like world beaters at the time Gottlieb uttered the famous phrase. Research shows that we were only up 34-30 at half.

However, we went on to win 64-53 and beat a very athletic UConn in the final 68-59 two nights later.

The funny thing is that team wasn't athletic. "Alarmingly unathletic" is indeed an insult, but calling that team "unathletic" is pretty accurate. Of our starting five of Scheyer, Singler, Zoubek, Smith, and Thomas, only Singler, Smith, and Thomas can be considered at least somewhat athletic. Scheyer and Zoubs weren't athletic, and that's perfectly fine, because Scheyer didn't turn the ball over and Zoubek was one of the best offensive rebounders in the country (they added a lot of other value as well). Plus, both were competent defenders. I feel Singler had average athleticism for a college 3. Thomas was decently athletic but he had zero ups for a 6'8". I know Kedsy and I disagree on Thomas's athleticism, and I would never use the word "athletic" to describe Thomas. Smith, IMO, was the most athletic starter on that team. He was deceptively quick, had ups, and very agile. He certainly had above-average athleticism in college, but he was athletically subpar in the NBA (which led to his short stay in the league).

On the bench, MP1 and MP2 are crazy athletic, and they did combine for 30 min a game. And whilst they were an important part of the team, it's face to say that our 5 starters were by far the most important 5 players.

I think it's safe to say that no one on the starting 5 would ever be called "athletic" on a NBA scale. And I think that's why I really loved that team moreso than most teams: they somehow won AS a team with players who perfectly understood their roles. I can't think of a Duke team where everyone bought into their roles as much as this team did. Hell, there wasn't a lottery pick on this team! That's pretty amazing.

[ChillinDuke]

The funny thing is that team wasn't athletic. "Alarmingly unathletic" is indeed an insult, but calling that team "unathletic" is pretty accurate. Of our starting five of Scheyer, Singler, Zoubek, Smith, and Thomas, only Singler, Smith, and Thomas can be considered at least somewhat athletic. Scheyer and Zoubs weren't athletic, and that's perfectly fine, because Scheyer didn't turn the ball over and Zoubek was one of the best offensive rebounders in the country (they added a lot of other value as well). Plus, both were competent defenders. I feel Singler had average athleticism for a college 3. Thomas was decently athletic but he had zero ups for a 6'8". I know Kedsy and I disagree on Thomas's athleticism, and I would never use the word "athletic" to describe Thomas. Smith, IMO, was the most athletic starter on that team. He was deceptively quick, had ups, and very agile. He certainly had above-average athleticism in college, but he was athletically subpar in the NBA (which led to his short stay in the league).

On the bench, MP1 and MP2 are crazy athletic, and they did combine for 30 min a game. And whilst they were an important part of the team, it's face to say that our 5 starters were by far the most important 5 players.

I think it's safe to say that no one on the starting 5 would ever be called "athletic" on a NBA scale. And I think that's why I really loved that team moreso than most teams: they somehow won AS a team with players who perfectly understood their roles. I can't think of a Duke team where everyone bought into their roles as much as this team did. Hell, there wasn't a lottery pick on this team! That's pretty amazing.

I agree with you, FDD.

To my eye the difference of opinion on calling someone "athletic" is one of denominator. Some people consider athleticism relative to your average Joe that you eat at the diner with. Based on that denominator, someone like Jon Scheyer is certainly in the top X% in terms of athleticism. But you and I appear to look at it relative to people playing college hoops. Based on that denominator, I agree that Jon Scheyer is not what I would call "athletic."

Sorry for the quick sidenote.

- Chillin

ETA: Oh, and welcome, Javin!!!

[gumbomoop]

My opinion here is possibly a minority of one. I think Scheyer's athleticism was much underrated. He made 3 of the most "athletic" -- and I guess unappreciated -- plays I've seen: (1) the going-out-of-bounds-flat-on-the-money-jump-pass to David McClure to beat Clemson; (2) the going way-out-of-bounds-behind-the-back-save-pass v. Texas; (3) a bobbling spin shot, right-handed from the left side, hard-banked in from below the rim on the road (can't remember opponent) his senior year. The last was unimportant to the result, but an intuitive shot requiring physical skills way beyond ordinary. At some point I need to try to track that one down, to watch it and see if I remember it correctly. I'm pretty sure it happened with 7:32 left in the second half.

Not to trying to do the impossible and persuade anyone that Scheyer's athleticism is underappreciated, but it is. I would entertain the notion that Scheyer combined solid-enough athleticism so that, when combined with an unusual, intuitive court sense, he made terrifically athletic plays on occasion.

[brlftz]

Yes, I think you are remembering it slightly wrong. Gottlieb made those comments at halftime of a Nov 2009 preseason NIT game against Arizona State. Link here.

I remember ASU looking awful and we didn't look much better in the first half so yes we didn't look like world beaters at the time Gottlieb uttered the famous phrase. Research shows that we were only up 34-30 at half.

However, we went on to win 64-53 and beat a very athletic UConn in the final 68-59 two nights later.

ahh, thanks for looking that up. my perception of how bad we looked playing a team we probably didn't expect to struggle against is what lasted, not the actual details. I definitely remember at the time feeling like Gottlieb was saying what I was at least fearing deep down.

[sagegrouse]

I agree with you, FDD.

To my eye the difference of opinion on calling someone "athletic" is one of denominator. Some people consider athleticism relative to your average Joe that you eat at the diner with. Based on that denominator, someone like Jon Scheyer is certainly in the top X% in terms of athleticism. But you and I appear to look at it relative to people playing college hoops. Based on that denominator, I agree that Jon Scheyer is not what I would call "athletic."

Sorry for the quick sidenote.

- Chillin

ETA: Oh, and welcome, Javin!!!

Let me put it differently. Jon Scheyer is the most unathletic person ever to score 20 points in 41 seconds. Of course, he also may be the most athletic person to do so.

You guys are tending to equate being "athletic" with running fast and jumping high. This is not track and field and coordination and vision are more important than running and jumping.

[ChillinDuke]

Let me put it differently. Jon Scheyer is the most unathletic person ever to score 20 points in 41 seconds. Of course, he also may be the most athletic person to do so.

You guys are tending to equate being "athletic" with running fast and jumping high. This is not track and field and coordination and vision are more important than running and jumping.

I agree with you in spirit. But we're talking about basketball, and the terminology of those who "speak" basketball generally associates the term "athletic" with running fast and jumping high. Every industry has its own terminology; fighting the status quo is something you can absolutely do if you choose. I choose to subscribe to it and not fight it.

Again, as an example, some people consider darts a sport. As such, an argument could be made for professional dart players to be considered athletic. I wouldn't subscribe to it, but the argument could be made.

This is all to say that I completely agree that coordination and vision are very important attributes for a basketball player. 100% agreement. That doesn't change the presumed fact that most pundits, fans, casual observers, and even coaches wouldn't use the term "athletic" to describe someone whose primary basketball advantages are those attributes.

- Chillin

ETA: "Athleticism" =/= winning.

[jimsumner]

Why wouldn't hand-eye co-ordination be considered an athletic variable? Why wouldn't balance be considered an athletic variable? Or vision? All are important at high-level basketball.

I've used Casey Sanders as an example. As a run-jump athlete, he was pretty darn good. But he had trouble catching passes, holding on to rebounds or maintaining his balance in traffic.

Was he a great athlete? A good athlete?

And I remember Scheyer's ability to get into traffic, weave, spin, maintain balance and control and finish with positive results.

It seems to me that is athleticism.

[Pghdukie]

Scheyer wasn't a Liability on defense either.

[phaedrus]

Why wouldn't hand-eye co-ordination be considered an athletic variable? Why wouldn't balance be considered an athletic variable? Or vision? All are important at high-level basketball.

I've used Casey Sanders as an example. As a run-jump athlete, he was pretty darn good. But he had trouble catching passes, holding on to rebounds or maintaining his balance in traffic.

Was he a great athlete? A good athlete?

And I remember Scheyer's ability to get into traffic, weave, spin, maintain balance and control and finish with positive results.

It seems to me that is athleticism.

Why not three-point shooting ability? Passing? Handle? If every basketball skill or attribute is an athletic variable, then all similarly talented basketball players are similarly athletic.

[Olympic Fan]

The funny thing is that team wasn't athletic. "Alarmingly unathletic" is indeed an insult, but calling that team "unathletic" is pretty accurate. Of our starting five of Scheyer, Singler, Zoubek, Smith, and Thomas, only Singler, Smith, and Thomas can be considered at least somewhat athletic. Scheyer and Zoubs weren't athletic, and that's perfectly fine, because Scheyer didn't turn the ball over and Zoubek was one of the best offensive rebounders in the country (they added a lot of other value as well). Plus, both were competent defenders. I feel Singler had average athleticism for a college 3. Thomas was decently athletic but he had zero ups for a 6'8". I know Kedsy and I disagree on Thomas's athleticism, and I would never use the word "athletic" to describe Thomas. Smith, IMO, was the most athletic starter on that team. He was deceptively quick, had ups, and very agile. He certainly had above-average athleticism in college, but he was athletically subpar in the NBA (which led to his short stay in the league).

On the bench, MP1 and MP2 are crazy athletic, and they did combine for 30 min a game. And whilst they were an important part of the team, it's face to say that our 5 starters were by far the most important 5 players.

Well, at the time Gottlieb made his remarks (at halftime of the Duke-Arizona State game), Zoubek was a role player (he played just 13 minutes of that game ... most of it late after the issue was decided). The starting center that night was Miles Plumlee, who was -- as you admit -- "crazy athletic". MP2 was still out with a broken wrist, but a knowledgeable college commentator -- which Gottlieb was not -- would have known Mason -- also "crazy athletic" was due to return and factored that into his comment.

Still, the point is that Duke's starting frontcourt that night -- that Gottlieb described as "alarmingly unathletic" was Miles Plumlee, Kyle Singler and Lance Thomas ... funny that such an unathletic trio would play multiple years in the NBA. We'll have to disagree about Thomas' athleticism -- he did not have huge hops, but he combined above average quickness and strength. Singler is another story -- Gottlieb was always underrating him -- before the NCAA Baylor game, he suggested that Duke's biggest weakness was Singler's defense -- when, in fact, down the stretch that season, Singler was a shutdown defender on the wing, whose defense was a key factor in Duke's NCAA title run (ask Gordon Hayward -- 2-11 against Singler).

Frankly, I remember Gottlieb's "alarmingly unathletic" comment as directed against Duke's frontcourt ... even if I remember it wrong, it's hard to argue that the backcourt of Scheyer and Nolan Smith was unathletic. It was, in fact, an idiotic comment that earned the contempt that it deserved.

[ChillinDuke]

Why wouldn't hand-eye co-ordination be considered an athletic variable? Why wouldn't balance be considered an athletic variable? Or vision? All are important at high-level basketball.

I've used Casey Sanders as an example. As a run-jump athlete, he was pretty darn good. But he had trouble catching passes, holding on to rebounds or maintaining his balance in traffic.

Was he a great athlete? A good athlete?

And I remember Scheyer's ability to get into traffic, weave, spin, maintain balance and control and finish with positive results.

It seems to me that is athleticism.

Agree in spirit.

I think you (or I) would have a hard time getting a majority of any sample size to agree at face, unfortunately. Actually, if you could anywhere, maybe it would be on this Board.

When I played basketball in high school, I had excellent hand-eye coordination. Decent balance. And superb vision.

But I was 5'6" 160. If you put me in a line-up (prison style; not basketball), I doubt anyone would have ever assumed I was a good "athlete". I certainly didn't consider myself one. And I probably would have laughed at anyone calling me one.

But I could play ball. They chose me to play varsity in 9th grade. One of only two ninth graders chosen.

The term "athlete" is in the eye of the beholder. I think people get peeved at the perceived negativity of not deeming one of our players a good "athlete" as opposed to staying open minded to the fact that most people (for a variety of reasons) don't take the time to consider an "athlete" in terms of balance and hand-eye coordination.

Jon Scheyer was one heck of a (college) basketball player. Period. My or anyone else's view on his "athleticism" doesn't change that fact. And I would bet, if faced with the choice, Jon himself would prefer to be labeled the former rather than the latter.

Cheers,
- Chillin

[sagegrouse]

Why not three-point shooting ability? Passing? Handle? If every basketball skill or attribute is an athletic variable, then all similarly talented basketball players are similarly athletic.

Hand-eye coordination and the timing it implies are the essence of basketball and far more important than running and jumping. However, when everyone has good-to-excellent hand-eye coordination, running and jumping become much more important.

But to prolong the argument, I would say that running and jumping per se are less important than size and strength -- that's when everyone has equal hand-eye coordination.

I would say that "passing" and "handle" are skills that are the products of hand-eye coordination and a hell-of-a-lot of practice.

Now, is it personally objectionable to me that when someone is called "athletic" in basketball, it's a shorthand for running and jumping? Not really, but then when players are dismissed as being unathletic, that is ridiculous when they are, in fact, really good players who don't jump so high.

[jimsumner]

Why not three-point shooting ability? Passing? Handle? If every basketball skill or attribute is an athletic variable, then all similarly talented basketball players are similarly athletic.

Nature versus nurture. Some things are more genetically encoded than others. Some people are born with better hand-eye coordination than others the same way some people are born with better leaping ability than others. This natural ability can be enhanced but only to an extent.

When I was 20, no amount of training would have enabled me to run a 10-second 100-yard dash or turn me into a world-class jumper. I simply didn't have the DNA for it.

By the same token, no amount of work would have turned me into a world-class gymnast. I simply did not have the natural gifts for it.

So, was I athletically deficient in the first instance but not the second?

If 3-point shooting can be taught, then why doesn't everyone do it well? Why doesn't everyone pass well?

Practice and competent coaching/teaching certainly are necessary to maximize these skills in those who possess the natural ability. But not everyone has that natural ability and many of those natural abilities can be termed part of an athletic spectrum.

Let me throw another wrinkle in here. People who follow golf argue that some golfers are better athletes than other golfers. But golfers don't have to run fast or jump high. Is Jordan Spieth a better athlete than me? Darn tooting. But how so, if we don't include other variables as athletic?

I just think defining athleticism as nothing more than running short distances and jumping straight up is limiting.

[brevity]

There are many pointless questions in sports, but here are the Top 3:

1. Is [insert NFL player, usually white] an elite quarterback?*
2. Is [insert anyone, usually in hoops] athletic?
3. Is [popular pastime, usually golf] a sport?

Each is annoying for the same reason: everyone has a different answer, and almost everyone thinks their personal opinion should be universal. (That's also the problem with Internet comments.)

This is every conversation about athleticism summed up in a few lines.

Q: Is Jon Scheyer athletic?
A1: He's more athletic than me, so yes.
A2: He's less athletic than LeBron, so no.

So, is athleticism worth discussing at all? Sure, but be specific about the skills the player has that inform your decision. And be prepared to have no one agree with you.

* This is the worst because media outlets, especially ESPN, waste the most time trying to build a definitive master list.

[elvis14]

Interesting discussion about athleticism. I see it this way, athletes (at any level) generally have two things going for them, athleticism and skill. Some guys max out one or the other. Some guys have lots of some and a good bit of the other. Some guys like LeBron or Kobe pretty much max out both. A guy like Jon Scheyer had a very high skill level and an OK level of athleticism. I think of Tyus Jones the same way. As I've gotten older, my athleticism has decreased but my skill level has actually increased.

So when someone says to me that a player is a great athlete. That's cool, it usually means that they are high on the athleticism scale. Now that same player may be somewhat low on the skill scale (and might find themselves on the bench behind a less athletic and more skilled player). Of course there's some overlap between the athletic scale and the skill scale. One other thing that comes into play with basketball, in particular, is size. Generally size gives a player an advantage. A bigger player generally needs less on both scales to succeed. If you have a SF, for example, who's 6'8" tall and another who's 6'5" tall and they are even on both the athleticism and skill scales, most of the time the 6'8" guy will be better.

Just my $.02