Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 196
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but isn't defensive rebounding harder in zone compared to m2m because it's harder to find a body to box out? I would have to think that any dip in our defensive rebounding compared to previous years has to be somewhat related to our extensive use of zone over m2m this season.
    Defensive rebounding IS more difficult in zone. But we are actually a BETTER defensive rebounding team this year than usual. We have always been a bad box-out team.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    What are you talking about? The 1991 Duke team won every game by 100 points, never turned the ball over and never missed a shot.
    You're thinking of 1992 -- and that team got huge leads and then just clowned around for the rest of the game.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK View Post
    Perhaps I do have a high bar, I spend more time on political forums...and I'm really glad you mentioned that St Johns game in Dec of 1991. That was when the 91-92 team peaked...the first 30 minutes of that game, when they were up 60 something to 30 something. The announcers were going crazy. This was the very experienced defending champions as you know...and they started the season in peak form.

    They were just so good that they managed to win the NCAA title even while peaking four months earlier. Their run to the 92 title was far tougher over all than their 91 run, including of course the Laettner game.
    Welcome to the Board. Two days. I disagree with your characterization of the run-to-the-title being easier for Duke in 1991 than in 1992. Well, to start with, we lost seven games in 1991 and got blown out by 22 by UNC in the ACC tournament. Moreover, the win over UNLV was close to miraculous.

    In 1992 we lost two games, one at Wake with Hurley out and another at UNC by a couple of points. We roared through the ACC tournament. We had "the shot" -- but that was against a Kentucky team that was playing out of its mind. We had a clear lead against Indiana in the NCAA semis until the Hoosiers rallied in the last couple of minutes. Then we beat Michigan by 20 -- the biggest positive margin we have ever had in an NCAA final.

    BTW, you and AtlDuke72 are looking at different sides of the coin with respect to the St. John's game in December 1991. You stressed the huge lead against a highly ranked team --AtlDuke72 emphasized the way we gave away 20 points of the lead by just clowning our way through the last ten minutes.

    Kindly,
    Sage
    'BTW, I was there in 1963 when #4 Duke beat #6 West Virginia with Rod Thorn by 40 points, 111-71. I don't think we let up on the gas!'
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by freshmanjs View Post
    I'm not sure why this is one narrative or the other -- it can be both. The question (to me) is *why* do those weaknesses manifest sometimes and not other times. The reason could have to do with concentration, focus, or effort. It is certainly possible to have a weakness that you can overcome with great focus and discipline, but resurface with any let up in focus.
    Are we sure that this Duke team is uniquely inconsistent, though? I just think unless you're a great team, or unless you're playing a completely inept opponent (Pitt), your warts will usually show over the course of 40 minutes (but not necessarily all 40 minutes). I also think fans very easily grab onto the comforting explanations of focus, effort, or discipline. I mean, how many times over the years have we seen Wheat come on here after a UNC loss and bemoan that UNC had just played unfocused? I think plenty.

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    What are you talking about? The 1991 Duke team won every game by 100 points, never turned the ball over and never missed a shot.
    Much like 2010. That team of juniors and seniors never made a mistake or misstep- not like Freshman.

  6. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK View Post
    Frankly, I don't see I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing...I see some comments of concern, and a big part of the Tech game looked a lot like the beginning of the second half of the Carolina game. I think it's fair to say we would like that thing tightened up. That's not I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing.
    ....
    I'm with you. And yes, I would have been happy with the final score before the game started because I appreciate how hard it is to win ACC road games. So again yes, I'm appreciative of the win. But that still doesn't make me blind to how our offense - except for the first 2 minutes- really stalled in the 2nd half. In the final 10 minutes we had trouble even getting a shot off, going 2 for 9 I believe, and hadonly 1 assist and 4 turnovers. I know we were playing a slow down game but there is no reason for that to keep us from getting off good shots. But we ended up forcing up a lot of bad shots (while Grayson passed up a few good ones) in the second half and it didn't go well. Fortunately our rebounding and excellent free throw shooting saved us.

    So yes I agree that building up the big lead in the first half was great and getting the win was great. That doesn't invalidate the concerns some of us have about how we have closed out this game and other games recently.

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Matches View Post
    That does seem to be the standard around here these days. We just won by double digits on the road against an ACC team that is not Pitt without our best player, but that’s somehow bad because at some point in the game the other team went on a run.

    We took our foot off the gas, guys. It happens. I’d love to see us put together 40 great minutes every time out but that’s not a realistic expectation. I am sensitive to the idea that we have been prone to lapses this year, and I agree that maintaining mental focus is a work in progress for this team, but if we’re going to have lapses let’s have them when we’re up by 26.

    Anyway I thought we played well up until that point. The zone looked more active to me although I wonder if it is exacerbating our defensive rebounding problems by confusing box-out assignments. Happy to see Grayson be more aggressive - yes there were more shots than usual available for him but the lane wasn’t any less clogged than it ever is. We still played two bigs almost the whole game.
    I think part of the reason people complain is that we have yet to really blow anyone (of any consequence) out. Pitt twice and Wake once are the only games that come close and those are two bad teams. It is easier to look past letting off the gas or having to claw back from a deficit against an overmatched team if you can look to dominant performances, but in our case getting down early or getting up and letting teams back into the game has been almost universal. We have dominant stretches but have yet to have a dominant game (against a decent P5 opponent). I think that is where the complaints come from.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    I think part of the reason people complain is that we have yet to really blow anyone (of any consequence) out. Pitt twice and Wake once are the only games that come close and those are two bad teams. It is easier to look past letting off the gas or having to claw back from a deficit against an overmatched team if you can look to dominant performances, but in our case getting down early or getting up and letting teams back into the game has been almost universal. We have dominant stretches but have yet to have a dominant game (against a decent P5 opponent). I think that is where the complaints come from.
    Granted they were shorthanded, but we beat Notre Dame by 22.
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    Granted they were shorthanded, but we beat Notre Dame by 22.
    But that's just it...Notre Dame was BAD when they were shorthanded (and it's the only game this year that would even be in the discussion). It's kind of a sliding scale (when the discussion is about reaction the focus is on perception, not metrics). Notre Dame was a solid beating of a bad opponent. Basically, perception-wise, the worse the opponent the larger the margin needs to be to "satisfy the masses" and the Notre Dame game is probably just this side of that line (big enough to be good, but so big as to burn it into memory).

    An extreme example would be our 50+ point win against GT last year. Indiana/VT might be examples from 2015-16. Unsurprisingly in 2014-15 there were a ton: Wake Forest, Notre Dame, along with possibly BC and Clemson. Some of those margins are similar to Notre Dame this year and may have been bad teams, so what's the difference? Again, perception drives reaction and beating a bad team feels better than beating a team that is short-handed.

    I think that at least partly explains some of the reaction we're getting.

  10. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Welcome to the Board. Two days. I disagree with your characterization of the run-to-the-title being easier for Duke in 1991 than in 1992. Well, to start with, we lost seven games in 1991 and got blown out by 22 by UNC in the ACC tournament. Moreover, the win over UNLV was close to miraculous.

    '
    Sage, to clarify, I meant the NCAA tournament run over all was easier in 91 - not the season - the six games of the tournament. Yes, the UNLV game was tight as heck in 91 in the semis, but I"m talking total body of work over six games...

    In 1991, but Duke rolled through the first 4 rounds very easily, and then in the finals, even exhausted mentally and physically from UNLV, always kept control against Kansas.

    There was nothing like the testy Seton Hall game in the 92 Sweet 16 and certainly nothing like the Kentucky game in the Regional Final in 92.

    In 92, they trailed Indiana badly, rallied, took the lead, then almost lost the lead, in the semis. The final game against the Fab 5 was close until the last 6-7 minutes, when Duke looked like the team of December January again, which was by far the best team in the country.

    Again, overall, the six game run in 1991 was far more comfortable than the six game run in 92. Over all...

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    Oh god. No offense to Matt (we could definitely use him on this defensive-challenged team!), but this is a stat I do not miss.
    And take away the fantasy island performance against the Zags, and what would that number have been????

  12. #152

    You gonna question the cred, really? Based on what again???

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    To be fair, AtlDuke72 has been here eleven years longer than you...
    So are we judging cred by time on this board? Dude, I've been a fan over 50 years. I started very young being very much a fan. But I was too young to live through the Vic Bubas success or football success during those years...just old enough to start caring when the losing really kicked in.

    I stayed a Duke fan through loss after loss after loss in both football and basketball for many years before Coach Spurrier and Coach K gave me something to smile about. Much of that time I was also a sports writer and broadcaster, when people paid me for my opinions.

    Look, I am very impressed by this board, and sorry I didn't find it until now. But I will not let my length of time on this board dictate my credibility. I was a Duke fan long before this board existed, long before the internet existed, and odds are I've been around Duke sports longer than the majority of posters here, purely based on demographics.

    I'll not question anyone's cred here, but I'm not playing this noob game on my cred either.
    Last edited by HereBeforeCoachK; 02-12-2018 at 08:59 PM. Reason: typos

  13. #153
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK View Post
    And take away the fantasy island performance against the Zags, and what would that number have been????
    Wrong season. Plus, Matt's offensive outburst in the Elite 8 game vs Gonzaga had more to do with banging home a bunch threes rather than an exhibition of finishing around the basket.

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Wrong season. Plus, Matt's offensive outburst in the Elite 8 game vs Gonzaga had more to do with banging home a bunch threes rather than an exhibition of finishing around the basket.
    Oh yes, it was almost all threes...against the Zags. Out of body experience stuff.

  15. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK View Post
    And take away the fantasy island performance against the Zags, and what would that number have been????
    Matt Jones was 2-3 on shots from the rim that game so...almost the exact same percentage (<40%). Not sure exactly what you're going for with that comment, but Matt was terrible - terrible - terrible going to the bucket that year. His 4-7 3PT that game is what kept us afloat against Gonzaga, not shots at the rim.

    ETA: Dang, Troublemaker beat me there.

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    Granted they were shorthanded, but we beat Notre Dame by 22.
    If tonight's Matt Farrell (1-12 3PT and 3-18FG overall) showed up when we played Notre Dame we might have won by 30, not 22. He's been much better than that this season but wow, talk about a clunker of a game shooting.

  17. #157
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK View Post
    Oh yes, it was almost all threes...against the Zags. Out of body experience stuff.
    Nope. Matt was a career 37% shooter from three, and he had 6 other games during his career in which he hit as many threes (four) as he hit against Gonzaga.

    Quote Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK View Post
    Look, I am very impressed by this board, and sorry I didn't find it until now.
    Oh, I think we both know this isn't true.

    But, look, you've not really said anything objectionable so far during this current run, imo. Continue to be a good poster, yes? That's all anyone asks of "newbies."

  18. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Nope. Matt was a career 37% shooter from three, and he had 6 other games during his career in which he hit as many threes (four) as he hit against Gonzaga.



    Oh, I think we both know this isn't true.

    But, look, you've not really said anything objectionable so far during this current run, imo. Continue to be a good poster, yes? That's all anyone asks of "newbies."
    I'll run you head to head with Duke trivia, FB and BB, any day. I may not beat you, but you'll know I know my stuff when it's over.

  19. #159
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Besides having some of the most knowledgeable basketball fans around, this board also boasts some of the BIGGEST egos as well.

    Carry on gentlemen with your testosterone challenge.

  20. #160
    Carry on gentlemen with your testosterone challenge.

    Right....I better go and take my pill

Similar Threads

  1. MBB: Duke 82, Va Tech 58 Post-Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 01-12-2016, 02:46 PM
  2. MBB: Duke 72, Ga Tech 66 Post-Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 02-05-2015, 06:13 PM
  3. MBB: Duke 66, Va Tech 48 Post-Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 02-27-2014, 11:58 AM
  4. Duke MBB v. Ga Tech Post-Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-15-2008, 08:50 AM
  5. Duke MBB v GA Tech post-game thread
    By throatybeard in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 09:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •