Duke's "go-to guy"?

[Bluedawg]

Interesting question brough up in today's Chronicle

The Blue Devils have not orchestrated a successful buzzer-beater or made crucial free throws with the game in the balance. On one occasion, they have had to defend a shot in the final seconds, and we all remember how that turned out-Pittsburgh guard Levance Fields nailed a step-back 3-pointer over the outstretched arms of Dave McClure.

And so two questions remain about this squad in close games: Does it have the mettle to win and does it have the ability to execute?

Who is the "go to" guy?

[Classof06]

That Chronicle excerpt from Bluedawg is why, even as a student, I never read the student columns about our team. I didn't realize we had to have a buzzer-beater this year to be considered a good team. As far as Levance Fields goes, if that's the shot Pitt needed to beat us then so be it. They were 2-15 from 3-point land before Fields hit that shot. I ain't losin sleep over that. And this team definitely has the mettle to win. They came back from two consecutive 9-point halftime defecits; one on the road and one at home. End of discussion.

I don't think Duke necessarily has a go-to-guy, rather go-to-guys. Demarcus, Gerald, Kyle and Greg have all shown the ability to to hit crucial shots and score on crucial possessions in crucial games. Last time I checked, 4 > 1.

If Duke only had one "go to guy", I'd be willing to bet we'd have more than 2 losses right now.

[Cameron]

If we need a three-ball or a 15 foot jumper to ice/win the game, I want Greg or Kyle taking it. I trust both, and believe they have the cold-blooded instinct to step up and make it more times than not.

I would have said Jon earlier in the season, but he has been very, very erratic as of late. I'm sure he'll pop back up again, though.

[Classof06]

As I've said before, this team's greatest asset is that it's a different guy every night; I truly believe that should be Duke's slogan this year. You can't key in on just one Duke player because we have at least 4 or 5 that can drop 20 on you in any given game.

[Cameron]

Then again, Classof06's answer is even better.

I couldn't agree more.

[Duvall]

Duke has hit crucial free throws late on several occasions to seal tough wins - at Maryland, at UNC, against Marquette. Since Duke has the luxury of having two solid ballhandlers that shoot ~85% from the free throw line, those games didn't have to be won on the last possession.

As for defense, the one time Duke needed to defend a last second shot, they forced a sub-30% 3-Point shooter to take a contested fallaway three-pointer.

It went in. Sometimes that happens.

[2535Miles]

I think one of the great things about this team is that we have multiple "go-to guys". It really boils down to the situation where facing, and what kinds of match-ups we have on the floor. Perhaps then our guy is Coach K. He has gotten the most of out of these guys and has done a remarkable job coaching to the TEAM'S strengths.

I love this team.

[SMO]

As I've said before, this team's greatest asset is that it's a different guy every night; I truly believe that should be Duke's slogan this year. You can't key in on just one Duke player because we have at least 4 or 5 that can drop 20 on you in any given game.

I am becoming very frustrated reading a variety of sportswriters and fans trying to force fit Duke into a preconceived model for basketball success which must include a low post scorer and "go-to" guy without exception. Accordingly, Duke must be flawed because they don't have a Hansbrough, nor do they have a Stephen Curry. Instead, they have 6-7 guys that could put up 20+ points on any given night. Wouldn't it be tougher to play a team with more guys that can beat you than 1-2?

Guess not. It just doesn't fit the model.

[SMO]

Oh, and of course don't forget the Redick years, especially 2006 when the knock on Duke was that if JJ had a bad night they would lose. Duke was just too dependant on one guy. That team included both must-have elements, the "go-to" guy and the low post scorer, yet there was still criticism of that team as flawed as well. Just proves that sportswriters and analysts can come up with a "weakness" on any team given enough time.

[FerryFor50]

I am becoming very frustrated reading a variety of sportswriters and fans trying to force fit Duke into a preconceived model for basketball success which must include a low post scorer and "go-to" guy without exception. Accordingly, Duke must be flawed because they don't have a Hansbrough, nor do they have a Stephen Curry. Instead, they have 6-7 guys that could put up 20+ points on any given night. Wouldn't it be tougher to play a team with more guys that can beat you than 1-2?

Guess not. It just doesn't fit the model.

But wouldn't it be nice to have a go-to guy?

Duke's never won a championship without one.

[FerryFor50]

Oh, and of course don't forget the Redick years, especially 2006 when the knock on Duke was that if JJ had a bad night they would lose. Duke was just too dependant on one guy. That team included both must-have elements, the "go-to" guy and the low post scorer, yet there was still criticism of that team as flawed as well. Just proves that sportswriters and analysts can come up with a "weakness" on any team given enough time.

This is true. But they didn't have the depth they do now (or when they had championship teams). A go-to guy would be icing on the cake. Demarcus tries to be that guy sometimes, but it doesn't always work out for the best of the team.

[SMO]

But wouldn't it be nice to have a go-to guy?

Duke's never won a championship without one.

Who was the go-to guy in 2001? J Wil, Dunleavy, Boozer? Didn't that team have more than one?

[FerryFor50]

Who was the go-to guy in 2001? J Wil, Dunleavy, Boozer? Didn't that team have more than one?

J-Will, by far.

But that team was ridiculous. I don't know how they didn't win more championships.

[Channing]

Who was the go-to guy in 2001? J Wil, Dunleavy, Boozer? Didn't that team have more than one?

Dont forget Battier (Dont EVER forget Battier), or Nate James (who was instrumental in both the regular season and ACC tourney wins over UMD)

As for this team - I think the go to go is determined when matchups are established at that point in the game. If Kyle is being guarded by someone bigger and slower than him (like Oates in the BC game - I think that was Kyle), he can be the go to guy. If Gerald is being guarded by a guy that he can take off the bounce and elevate over - he is the go to guy. If Demarcus is being guarded by a guy he can drive by and muscle to the hoop - he is the go to guy and so on and so forth.

[Classof06]

Oh, and of course don't forget the Redick years, especially 2006 when the knock on Duke was that if JJ had a bad night they would lose. Duke was just too dependant on one guy. That team included both must-have elements, the "go-to" guy and the low post scorer, yet there was still criticism of that team as flawed as well. Just proves that sportswriters and analysts can come up with a "weakness" on any team given enough time.

I agree. throughout my years at Duke, those teams relied way too heavily on JJ. Shelden was basically a guaranteed double-double but there were games where even when Shelden played great, we'd lose if JJ didn't have a good game.

It's no coincidence that the only year JJ made the Final four was the year he had another star on the perimeter in Luol Deng. Not that the addition of Deng was the only factor but it was a major one.

[ugadevil]

J-Will, by far.

By far?! As Steven said, don't EVER forget Battier. The 2001 team was Shane Battier's, no doubt about it. The team would want Shane to have it at the end of the game because they believed he wouldn't let them lose. The 2002 team, that's a different story where Jason Williams was the go-to guy.

[Johnboy]

Our championship teams have always has two or three "go to guys" - look up in the Cameron rafters - do you see any NCAA champions up there without one or more teammates?

1991: Laettner and Hurley in the rafters (McCaffrey's 16 points in the finals didn't hurt either).
1992: Laettner, Hurley and G. Hill in the rafters.
2001: Battier, Williams in the rafters.

I will grant you that not all of these guys were necessarily THE "go to" guy in any particular NCAA championship season, but they all had made BIG plays, and some of their teammates had big games when they weren't up to snuff (I'm thinking Duhon/Dunleavy stepping up for Williams (foul problems) vs. Arizona and Laettner* (7 turnovers) vs. Michigan).

*bad first half - he finished with 19 pts, 7 rebounds for the game

This year, I think we have at least three: Nelson, Paulus and Singler, though I'm happy for Scheyer to be taking BIG free throws or G throwing down jumpshots and dunks. That's been the fun part of this team.

[SMO]

By far?! As Steven said, don't EVER forget Battier. The 2001 team was Shane Battier's, no doubt about it. The team would want Shane to have it at the end of the game because they believed he wouldn't let them lose. The 2002 team, that's a different story where Jason Williams was the go-to guy.

I omitted Battier but you're exactly right. 4 guys minimum that could be considered go-to based on the situation in 2001. I think it's all about who you're playing and who is hot.

[FerryFor50]

By far?! As Steven said, don't EVER forget Battier. The 2001 team was Shane Battier's, no doubt about it. The team would want Shane to have it at the end of the game because they believed he wouldn't let them lose. The 2002 team, that's a different story where Jason Williams was the go-to guy.

I didn't forget about Battier.

I still think J-Will was the true "go to" guy on those teams. That doesn't discount the others' importance.

[Johnboy]

I didn't forget about Battier.

I still think J-Will was the true "go to" guy on those teams. That doesn't discount the others' importance.

Well, until you sent him to the free throw line.

I think you will find the consensus here to be that if you must pick ONE go-to guy from that team, it would be Shane. As I said, though, every NCAA Champion we've had at Duke has had two or more "go-to" players. The same might even be said of all our runners-up, though I can think of a couple teams that had one truly dominant "go-to" player and excellent role players surrounding them (1988 and 1994 in particular).