Cornell post-game thread

[gw67]

Some additional thoughts on last night’s game:

• Nelson and Singler are separating themselves from the rest of the team as the top players. Last night, both were scoring, rebounding, passing and playing good defense. Their play follows several other good games. I enjoy seeing seniors step it up and Nelson certainly played like an All ACC player last night.
• Smith continues to remind me of a young Daniel Ewing. The best part of his game appears to be his offense. He has a good jumper and he is effective driving to the hoop. Based on last night and several other games, I see his defensive play as above average but he is certainly not the shutdown defender that many envisioned. I expect him to develop into an outstanding defensive player but he got lost several times last night on screens. Lastly, he is not an effective passer or playmaker at this stage in his development. In the second half, it appeared that Scheyer took over running the offense for several offensive possessions with Smith moving to the wing.
• It will be interesting to see where King, Thomas and Zoubek land with McClure playing more minutes. It would not surprise me to see McClure playing more and two of these three playing significantly less as the Devils enter the ACC season.

gw67

[Kilby]

What I like about Smith:

1) He pushes the ball better and more consistently than anyone else on the team.
2) When he gets down the floor he can finish.
3) He will not get smoked by the quicker guards that Duke faces.

[Highlander]

Some additional thoughts on last night’s game:
• It will be interesting to see where King, Thomas and Zoubek land with McClure playing more minutes. It would not surprise me to see McClure playing more and two of these three playing significantly less as the Devils enter the ACC season.

gw67

I agree. It is good to have Dave healthy again. However, I worry about a player who is only in the game for defense. Last night Dave only attempted one shot and missed it. He played 14 minutes and had 5 rebounds, zero assists, zero steals, and zero points. I think it will hurt us against stronger opponents if we have someone on the floor who is a liability on offense ore defense, because the other team will exploit that player half the time he is in the game. King is the opposite of McClure, in that his D is mightily suspect, and last night his whole game was off. I wish I could put King's offensive firepower together with Dave's defense. That would be one hell of a player.

[Saratoga2]

I agree. It is good to have Dave healthy again. However, I worry about a player who is only in the game for defense. Last night Dave only attempted one shot and missed it. He played 14 minutes and had 5 rebounds, zero assists, zero steals, and zero points. I think it will hurt us against stronger opponents if we have someone on the floor who is a liability on offense ore defense, because the other team will exploit that player half the time he is in the game. King is the opposite of McClure, in that his D is mightily suspect, and last night his whole game was off. I wish I could put King's offensive firepower together with Dave's defense. That would be one hell of a player.

It would be great if every player on the floor could pose some real offensive threat. Neither Thomas or McClure offer that quality at this time, so the scoring load has to be completely supplied by others. While Zoubek is not as quick as either of them, he can score and rebound and he can clog up the middle. He has problems getting out to the top of the key to defend and then dropping back quickly. I though he represented a much better match against Cornells 7 footer than others that Duke could put on the floor.

[dukechem]

I thought that King's body language when the camera focused on him at the end of the game showed an angry young man, not one who understood why he was sitting.

King seems to be one who expresses a lot of emotion on the court, and people like that often do spectacularly good things (a three from 25 feet to put in the dagger) and spectacularly bad things (like a cross court pass into the cheap seats.)

[dukestheheat]

i did believe that we'd be totally rusty and would need the defibrillators for revival by the coaches and at the half.

anytime you miss time off of the court like we did over the break, it's going to show, and tonight, it did but this should not surprise anyone, imo.

what we saw was normal and expected, and our game versus temple will work better overall, based on what i've seen from this duke team this year.

count it.

dukestheheat.

[evrdukie]

What does this even mean? Especially since you repeated it, you must think you're blowing our minds with this point. If you're saying the Duke game was boring in comparison...well, duh. There is no way a meaningless non-conf game against an Ivy League team is going to match the intensity of an ACC opener between two top-20 teams.

Sorry you had trouble understanding my post. I'll try to do better.

[Cicero]

If the DBR write up on this game says anything about Cornell playing with great passion, I think I'll pluck my eyeballs out and eat them.

they also impressed us with their physical play and their heart. . . . Cornell was having none of that. They came to win and they were nearly in a position to do so.

DBR seems to take the Coach K line on things...most teams we play are "well-coached," play "really hard," and may even have a "special" player.

[Troublemaker]

Sorry you had trouble understanding my post. I'll try to do better.

Try is not enough. You should be a do-er, not a try-er. At least that's what I teach my younglings.

[dw0827]

DBR seems to take the Coach K line on things...most teams we play are "well-coached," play "really hard," and may even have a "special" player.

Actually, I thought Cornell was well-coached and played really hard. They aren't a cupcake by any means.

I completely agree with dukestheheat in that I also expected a very rusty Duke team, firing on half its cylinders, somewhat lethargic, not mentally sharp. Normal and expected, and why we play teams like Cornell and Temple before jumping into the ACC fray. Happens every year . . . except that this break was longer than usual . . . and seemed like a month.

[jimsumner]

"DBR seems to take the Coach K line on things...most teams we play are "well-coached," play "really hard," and may even have a "special" player."

Doesn't mean it's not true. One of the realities of being at Duke's level is that everybody gets up for you; and yes, the same thing applies to the Heels and a few others.

I strongly suspect Cornell had yesterday's game circled on their calendars a long time. I'm pretty sure Duke didn't look at the Cornell game as an opportunity to make a statement on national television before a disbelieving public. The general consensus is that K does a remarkable job in getting his team to play hard as possible as often as possible. But Duke is always going to the be the biggest--or one of the biggest--games on everyone's schedule. And the converse can't be true. Duke can't have 35 biggest games.

Did you notice the final 30 seconds or so yesterday? Cornell emptied its bench, putting in five guys who hadn't otherwise played just so they could someday tell their grandchildren that they played Duke at Cameron Indoor Stadium. In pre-game introductions, it's not at all unusual for opposing players to come over to the Duke bench just to shake K's hand. I doubt whether they do that for Frank Haith or Seth Greenburg.

Sure, there's an intimidation factor that sometimes gives Duke a bump but I think that is more than offset by the adrenaline that everybody gets playing Duke. Opposing teams might be occasionally intimidated by the name on the jersey but nobody ever overlooks Duke, nobody is ever flat against Duke.

And besides, does anyone seriously expect K to open a press conference with "gee, that sure was some lousy coaching by the other team?"

[Classof06]

My theory on Lance Thomas? Lance is 6'8". He needs to play that way. I think maybe it is a confidence thing. Lance needs to play big. He never seems to look for his shot. He is not a threat. Yet, he could be. I watch UNC play and Danny Green and Marcus Ginyard, two players smaller than Lance, seem to play bigger than he does when I watch them play. Lance is one of our big guys - we need him to play that way.

I wasn't able to catch the game last night but is Lance still fighting with that ankle injury? I don't know if he is or not but the bottom line is that this team needs more from him and I'm really starting to get concerned with Lance's lack of production with ACC play on the horizon. He needs to pick it up...quick.

-what was the thing on nolan's arm? it looked like he had a can of dip wrapped on his arm. i have never seen anything like that.

Nolan is one of the few Duke players to have a tattoo on his arm upon arriving at Duke. I don't remember what it was but it was a relatively large tattoo. He's covered it up the past 3-4 games and I'd bet anything it was at Krzyzewski's request. I know a lot of Catholic high schools make their athletes do it. Being from Ohio, I noticed Lebron had to wear one in high school for both football and basketball.

[evrdukie]

Try is not enough. You should be a do-er, not a try-er. At least that's what I teach my younglings.

Jeez, Troublemaker. I believe you misunderstood again. I meant I would try harder to enable you to understand my posts. That effort must necessarily involve both of us and, not least, greater determination on your part toward comprehension.

Let me provide an example. I suggested in my earlier message that a discouraged Duke fan (who had just posted to express dismay at the Duke performance against Cornell) might consider contrasting the then ongoing UNC/Clemson game with the preceding Duke/Cornell game. To help you avoid confusion, I probably should have supplied the further observation that the level of intensity, as well as the level play, was not encouraging for any Duke fan who can anticipate Duke playing either UNC or Clemson in the weeks ahead.

Troublemaker, you can depend on me to do my part to enable you to benefit as fully as possible from my future postings. I'm confident that together we can achieve significant improvment.

[greybeard]

Re: Lance. I'd have to think that the ankle is still something of an issue. Unless he reinjures, it will be less an issue with time, and less an issue when play up and down the court speeds up.

Cornell's bigs are smart and tough. They are not cut, but they are strong, especially lower body strong. They move their feet extremely well for big strong guys, have very good hand/eye coordination, and understand the game. Think Hansborough without the year round work by experts and without the extra tinges of talent that make Hansborough stand out.

I once asked a Doctor friend of mind who is also a world class photographer how good he was as compared to the very best. He answered something like, "People with talent can get 95 percent to the top in a few years with hard work." After that, increments come extremely slowly and even a fraction of a percentage becomes exceedingly meaningful. Those Cornell guys are real good and are precisely the body types that Lance will have the most difficulty with, especially if the game is not fast up and down.

Root for the kid; if his ankle does not hold him back, he will compete very, very well against the guys at UNC you mentioned, especially if the captain of this Duke team keeps leading the way he did last night. Nelson, Henderson, and Scheyer, if they are on their games, will create the opportunities for Lance to be effective. With everyone's support, he'll make plays, big ones! Go Duke!

[Troublemaker]

Jeez, Troublemaker. I believe you misunderstood again. I meant I would try harder to enable you to understand my posts. That effort must necessarily involve both of us and, not least, greater determination on your part toward comprehension.

Let me provide an example. I suggested in my earlier message that a discouraged Duke fan (who had just posted to express dismay at the Duke performance against Cornell) might consider contrasting the then ongoing UNC/Clemson game with the preceding Duke/Cornell game. To help you avoid confusion, I probably should have supplied the further observation that the level of intensity, as well as the level play, was not encouraging for any Duke fan who can anticipate Duke playing either UNC or Clemson in the weeks ahead.

Troublemaker, you can depend on me to do my part to enable you to benefit as fully as possible from my future postings. I'm confident that together we can achieve significant improvment.

Uh, yeah, I really was just making fun of you, dude. I mean, if you really want to be "dismayed" or "depressed" by the comparison of those two games, then be my guest. I happen to think it's a stupid way to think about things since you could just as easily compare the UNC/Nicholls St and Duke/Marquette games and come away feeling jubilant instead of "dismayed"/"depressed" (hahaha). So Duke ends their non-conf slate having crushed 6 out of 7 scrub teams instead of crushing 7 out of 7. Big deal.

[evrdukie]

Uh, yeah, I really was just making fun of you, dude. I mean, if you really want to be "dismayed" or "depressed" by the comparison of those two games, then be my guest. I happen to think it's a stupid way to think about things since you could just as easily compare the UNC/Nicholls St and Duke/Marquette games and come away feeling jubilant instead of "dismayed"/"depressed" (hahaha). So Duke ends their non-conf slate having crushed 6 out of 7 scrub teams instead of crushing 7 out of 7. Big deal.

OK, you got me on substance and I take it all back. But do me a favor. Jettison the "Dude", the quotations sprinkled around your posts and the parenthetical "ha, ha" business. This is a Duke board and your prose style is bringing us down.

[Jumbo]

OK, you got me on substance and I take it all back. But do me a favor. Jettison the "Dude", the quotations sprinkled around your posts and the parenthetical "ha, ha" business. This is a Duke board and your prose style is bringing us down.

... so says the guy who introduces his infallible "elite point guard/elite big man" theory, then refuses to provide any evidence to back it up and ignores counter-claims. I believe any freshman humanities class at Duke teaches students how to support an argument with specific examples. Glass houses.

[evrdukie]

... so says the guy who introduces his infallible "elite point guard/elite big man" theory, then refuses to provide any evidence to back it up and ignores counter-claims. I believe any freshman humanities class at Duke teaches students how to support an argument with specific examples. Glass houses.

Don't taze me, Bro.

I don't know, Jumbo, about your obsession with obtaining evidence that a top tier team needs a top tier point guard and a top tier post player. Your insistence is definitely the mark of a "show me" guy (check out those quotes). And yet I can't help but wonder if anything in your experience seems to you as being, well, self-evident. Limiting ourselves to basketball, for example, would you consider the proposition debatable that you need a ball to have a game? How about a blind referee? Would it seem obvious to you that he'd be challenged as a referee or would you need proof? What about a point guard required to wear handcuffs and leg irons? A self evident handicap or just an unproven theory? Anyway, you get the point. I admire you rigorous standards regarding objective evidence, but I'm frankly worried about how you manage from day to day. By the way, scrap the "glass house" reference. We already have enough half time show cliches larded into these posts without stretching for more.

[Jumbo]

Don't taze me, Bro.

I don't know, Jumbo, about your obsession with obtaining evidence that a top tier team needs a top tier point guard and a top tier post player. Your insistence is definitely the mark of a "show me" guy (check out those quotes). And yet I can't help but wonder if anything in your experience seems to you as being, well, self-evident. Limiting ourselves to basketball, for example, would you consider the proposition debatable that you need a ball to have a game? How about a blind referee? Would it seem obvious to you that he'd be challenged as a referee or would you need proof? What about a point guard required to wear handcuffs and leg irons? A self evident handicap or just an unproven theory? Anyway, you get the point. I admire you rigorous standards regarding objective evidence, but I'm frankly worried about how you manage from day to day. By the way, scrap the "glass house" reference. We already have enough half time show cliches larded into these posts without stretching for more.

Translation: I really have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm going to try to deflect the issue with mindless rambling again.

I'll make it simple for you: How did UConn win the 2004 NCAA title with Taliek Brown at point guard? How did Syracuse win the 2003 NCAA title with Craig Forth at center? How did Michigan State win the 2000 NCAA title with A.J. Granger at center? Let's start with those simple examples before moving on to anything more complex.

[evrdukie]

Translation: I really have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm going to try to deflect the issue with mindless rambling again.

I'll make it simple for you: How did UConn win the 2004 NCAA title with Taliek Brown at point guard? How did Syracuse win the 2003 NCAA title with Craig Forth at center? How did Michigan State win the 2000 NCAA title with A.J. Granger at center? Let's start with those simple examples before moving on to anything more complex.

Jumbo, I believe you already provided the answer earlier today. I'm pretty sure it's in here somewhere (time well spent, by the way):

"A few interesting stats from this game. Taylor King's stellar plus/minus took a big hit, while the small lineup that we expect to see finish games (Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, Henderson, Singler) was far and away Duke's most effective group.

Individuals
Jon Scheyer 66-48 (+18)
Gerald Henderson 71-54 (+17)
Kyle Singler 60-44 (+16)
DeMarcus Nelson 60-48 (+12)
Greg Paulus 49-42 (+7)
Nolan Smith 32-27 (+5)
Brian Zoubek 20-16 (+4)
Lance Thomas 18-17 (+1)
Jordan Davidson 0-0 (0)
David McClure 20-23 (-3)
Taylor King 9-16 (-7)

Per 40 Minutes
Jon Scheyer +24
Gerald Henderson +22.7
Kyle Singler +22.1
Brian Zoubek +16
DeMarcus Nelson +15.5
Greg Paulus +12.2
Nolan Smith +11.1
Lance Thomas +4.4
Jordan Davidson 0
David McClure -8.6
Taylor King -46.7

Lineups
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler (x3) 20-7 (+13)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas 5-0 (+5)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek 9-5 (+4)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Singler (x2) 6-3 (+3)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x2) 11-9 (+2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-McClure 5-3 (+2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Thomas 4-2 (+2)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Singler 1-0 (+1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Thomas 2-2 (0)
Paulus-Davidson-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler 0-0 (0)
Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler 5-6 (-1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Thomas 5-7 (-2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler 3-5 (-2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Thomas 2-4 (-2)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Zoubek 0-2 (-2)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Thomas 0-2 (-2)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-King 3-10 (-7)"