A.J. Granger and Craig Forth were starting centers on teams that recently won NCAA championships. Neither was even in the same zip code as elite centers.
Without putting too fine a point on it, this is known as using an example to refute someone else's point. Folks do it on a regular basis.
There’s always an interesting divergence on this board between what I think of as the cheerleader fans and the critical fans. If the point of the board is to foster boundless approval of everything to do with Duke’s basketball program, there’s nothing wrong with that, if that's what most people want. Even so, it's a little troublesome that some of the moderators believe their role is to serve as censors whose primary responsibility is to ensure that nothing but orthdoxy and uncritical approval of everything to do with the coach and the basketball program is permitted. One aspect of that approach involves a tolerance for, and even encouragement of, intimidation, condescending and nasty remarks and general snarkiness. It would be better if there were room on the board for fans who are interested is seeing Duke’s basketball team do well, but who, for whatever reason, choose to preserve their critical faculties. In other words, there would be room for both faith based posters and the others. Of course, achieving that would mean that the cheerleader fans, including some of the moderators, would have to give up their practice of trying to excommunicate everybody else. The overall quality of the board would be much improved.
It seems to me that one additional point is worth making. Larding several paragraphs of nonsense with basketball jargon, tortured statistics, and sports clichés isn’t the same as providing analysis. Every reader can form his own opinions about such junk, but all the readers shouldn't be pressured to treat such crap as the only legitimate standard for participating in the board.
If this note marks me as an apostate who should be banished from participating, I expect to be able to deal with it. I'm not a basketball expert, just a fan like most of the rest of you. From that perspective, I've very much enjoyed reading many excellent posts by any number of very well informed observers. To all those, my thanks.
I'll just say this:
(1) You've been asked to argue using examples and counterexamples. You've refused and said that your points are "self-evident". How is that promoting critical thinking?
(2) You've been as snarky as anyone, making you a ridiculous hypocrite.
body of your work as a poster. It's simply stunning. I'll let the other posters judge for themselves, but a convincing argument can be made that you are a troll. Some lovely examples:
"No, Troublemaker, you don't understand. You have to do what I say. By the way, I thought you were ending your participation in this particular thread. Anyway, your views are always welcome." -evrdukie, 3/16/07
"Thanks, Troublemaker. Consistency seems to be your long suit. As usual when analysis fails, you can always fall back on insults. As to getting older and inevitably better, which seems to be a fixation of yours, have you wondered at all why many of the Duke players got older and more experienced between last October and this week--and didn't get any better? In fact, were demonstrably worse. Definitely something for you to think about." -evrdukie, 3/17/07
"Sorry to dash your hopes, Troublemaker. It won't be easy, but I'll probably just have to live with your disappointment. Get a good night's sleep and you'll probably feel better in the morning." -evrdukie, 3/17/07
Oddly, after suddenly appearing during Duke's late-season collapse and providing the bulk of your posts after the VCU game, you disappeared until (with two exceptions)... the Pitt game. Hmmm. Since then...
"If we play UNC the way we played tonight, we'll lose by 25 points." -evrdukie, 12/20/07
"Your principal point, which is jaw dropping, is that tonight's game was a good loss. That's preposterous." -evrdukie, 12/20/07
"I've changed my mind. Yes, it was the best loss ever--or at least among the top two or three. I'm glad I was able to see it. And to think, we almost let the loss get away from us!" -evrdukie, 12/20/07
"If you want to be even more depressed, contrast the Duke/Cornell game with the UNC/Clemson game now in progress." -evrduke, 1/6/08
And, of course, there's everything else you've posted in this thread. You're right -- you haven't been condescending, snarky or nasty at all. Gotcha. In reviewing your posts, I'm hard-pressed to find one positive contribution you've made to this board.
More to the point, let's come up with a hypothetical example. Say some poster decides to pronounce some grand theory of basketball. Say he/she decides that you can't be a great team "without an elite PG and an elite big man." Maybe -- just maybe -- it's incumbent on that poster to, I dunno, support that contention? I know that's a revoluationary idea in the art of debate, but if I were to decide that a theory is "self-evident," then watch multiple posters question it, maybe I'd conclude that it might not be as "self-evident" as I originally thought. Maybe I'd take a step back and reconsider my views. Maybe I'd search for examples to support them. And then if some poster completely knocked them down, I wouldn't write something like, "Who in the hell is A.J. Granger? And for that matter, Craig Fark? Does the tick tock sound seem to be coming from inside your head?" -evrdukie, 1/8/07
You know, just hypothetically speaking and all.
Here it is, the "Culture of DBR" thread I referenced earlier: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...ead.php?t=4642
It's a great thread that maybe you should read. Of course, it's not like you're REALLY interested in discussing that subject in good faith. From where I sit, it seems to me that you ran into a dead-end when pushed to give examples substantiating your points, and as a last resort, you decided to play the victim card. For someone who hates cliches, it must suck to be a walking one.
I'm usually a read-only participant as a break from the daily drudgery. But sometimes I interject when someone performs the foot-to-mouth maneuver with extraordinary precision and then obstinately protects ego to the end.
Sure you have a better chance to win it all with both a top tier center and point guard. Certainly you'd have a better shot to win it all with all five positions top tier, two deep. But we have, count 'em, EIGHT Mikie D's. Are you bagging on Duke's recruiting or coaching?
and, yes, i do live in new york but i'm not sure how that has any relevance here.
Getting back to the topic, I would like to throw my $.02 into the ring. I think the real issue, for lack of a better word, is team identity. Everyone has been asking for a deeper rotation the last few years and we seem to have our wish granted this year. The underside to a deep rotation is that it can take players longer to determine their role. Here are some examples that I am seeing right now:
1. Paulus- He was brought in last year as a pure, pass first, point guard. I remember reading DBR gush about how he saw passing lanes that other guards just didnt see. Unfortunately, it turns out that his strength, right now, comes from his outside shooting. He is one of our better, if not best, three point threats. His ability to get in the lane and create shots for others simply isnt there right now. This dilemma leads us to:
2. Henderson and Nelson: Because our point guard is not breaking down defenses, we are relying on our wings to do most of our penetration. In my opinion, this is not a bad thing. We have two devastating wings who can get into the lane. Right now, Nelson is excelling. Henderson is still working on when to pull up, when to go to the rim and when to pass. Again, only 12 games into his second season. It's a learning process.
3. King- 12 games into his college career and he is still struggling with what kind of player is he. Obviously, he can be lights out from anywhere on the court, but sometimes you can see it in his eyes that he has made up his mind to shoot before he even catches the ball. Right now, he is trying to think his way through the game, instead of reacting to it. Again, 12 games as a college player, he will learn his role and he will get his shots.
4. Singler- Our best "big", but is better with the ball in his hands facing the basket. Given that our offense thrives with wing penetration, Singler is sometimes out of position. Plus, if he is facing up, that puts a lot of pressure on Henderson and Nelson to rebound missed shots, which they are doing a pretty decent job.
Again, I think these are identity issues. Scheyer has responded quickly to his role off the bench, but he still seems unsure of when to shoot, when to drive and when to pass. This team will take some time to gel as players get used to each other, know what their shot is, and how to get a teammate his shot.
The other aspect is the speed of the game. We want to play fast, and when our defense is creating turnovers, we have some success. I would say that our lack of a true rebounder slows us down some. The fact that Nelson and Henderson have to rebound makes it harder for us to execute a fast break off a missed shot. Right now our break is inconsistant, but I expect it will get better.
Again, I think becuase of the small number of games which this team has played together, the inconsistency is normal. If these issues have not been worked out by the second half of ACC play, I would be worried.
I am a little wary of interjecting myself in between Jumbo/troublemaker and evrdukie/dukie8 but here goes. At one time, a team may have needed an elite big man plus an elite pg to win the national title although it is not clear from my memory. My perception is that the college game has transformed during the last fifteen years and having an elite big man is desired but not a necessary condition. IMO, having a good pg is still important but it is not necessary that he be an “elite” player (see Blake, Brown, Green and others). There is no strict formula for success although talent is a pretty good start (some have suggested that you need 3 players who will play in the NBA to be a title contender but I don’t know if the data backs this up).
By the way, Brown was a nice player, IMO. He was quick, took care of the ball and got his team into their offense, although my most distinct memory of him is a negative one. Connecticut played Oklahoma in a nationally televised game in the early 2000’s and I believe that Packer was doing the color. Oklahoma was a good team and they had a wonderful college player, Hollis Price, at pg. Brown was very quick and had a nice spin move to get by the opposition. My recollection is that Packer was very complementary about Brown’s ability to break Oklahoma’s press. Well, Brown was quick but Price was quicker. Twice, while at top speed, Brown tried his spin move on Price and both times Price reacted and took a charge in the middle of his chest. They were exceptional defensive plays and it wasn’t even close to being a block per the replays. To this day, I consider those defensive plays by Price to be among the best I’ve seen.
For whatever it's worth, Everdukie, not that I'm unbiased, but I think Cornell beats Clemson. Grey "you don't have to run faster or jump higher, just be there at a different time to beat your man" beard