Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 159
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by wisteria View Post
    Lulu, I think you nailed one of the reasons. We had good coaches before K. Bubas, Foster...But Duke was never much of a powerhouse. K made Duke basketball. No matter we admit it or not, people expect us as a one-time wonder, except that this is a 30-something year wonder. Meaning, Duke falls when K retires. We might have to wait till that day, the day we still have great teams/ great performance without K, to change people's perception about us.
    Not only that, but K has been the only coach of Duke basketball for most people who are basketball fans today. People just aren't old enough to remember Foster and Bubas 30 (!) years ago. Meanwhile, every one of those other storied programs has changed coaches multiple times. There's not the familiarity that comes from K's continuity.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atlanta Duke View Post
    My original link in this thread was not to "the chick" (amazed you were not sent to a re-education camp at the Gothic Wonderland for that mindset but to The New York Times article that stated as follows:

    Duke lost in the first round last season to Virginia Commonwealth, and this narrow victory was yet another sign that the days of the Blue Devils being college basketball’s pre-eminent men’s program appear to be fading.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/sp...sq=duke&st=nyt

    The NYT article did not state Duke was not a pre-eminent program; it stated Duke was fading as the pre-eminent program - do you disagree?

    To answer your question regarding Carolina, IMO Carolina at its best has been better than Duke at its best on average post-2004 and certainly better this year - being able to recruit competent power players over 6'6" tends to achieve that goal.

    As for adding McRoberts, why not say what if Patterson would have committed or Hansborough would have left last year? In the words of the great basketball coach Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. Recruiting for the front line has not gone as well as it could have the last several years and Duke is experiencing the consequences.
    Oh, The New York Times, that is different. Right. There has been in my time only one "the pre-eminent program" in college basketball and it was not Duke. It was UCLA.

    K has been and is the preeminent coach in college basketball for some time. I expect that he will continue to be.

    Has K fielded teams that were stronger than the current one. Who cares. The same people who went nuts when Bonds was hitting 73 and then went even more nuts when they discovered that he was using (not proven yet, thank you).

    The article was written by a chick who used catty stuff instead of an appreciation for the game, the preeminent coach in the game, and a team that has played remarkable basketball this year, something in my mind and K's (he said so) that makes him extremely gratified and proud win or lose from here on out.

    You think the chick deserves to be called what she pretends to be, a sports writer in the great tradition of NY Sports Writers, sorry, I don't. And, I don't think that the NY Times' track record of late is particularly hallowed in that regard, that is, they seem to in the last few years have fielded a slew of unprincipled wannabes who engage in schlock journalism. You disagree with that? Someone writes an article about one team that played a nice game but lost to a better team and uses it as a platform to bash the better team gets what she gets; in this case it is chick; a chick bringing tabloid journalism, gossip, to the sports pages, where it and she do not belong. If I could have thought of a more perjorative way to put her down, I'd have used it. Sorry, this is the best I could do.

    Your analogy to the Yankees was cute but wrong headed. Duke played great, as in terrific basketball this year which is why I watched. I went to Cornell. I don't watch Duke if they are less than all that. I have been a basketball fan all my life. I was taken with K from before Johnny D. He impresses me. But, he don't play. If his team is not my cup of tea, I hit golf balls or go to the gym. Sadly, my workouts suffered this year. The chick and you think that this was some kind of downfall from greatness by the hallowed Duke program, I think you are nuts (in a kind and gentle way because Duke ain't UCLA, and there is no such animal except among schlock journalists when they want to tear something down).

    In any event, even if Duke was the pre-eminent program, anybody who looks at this year's team and uses it as proof of a drop off in an article knows nothing about the game. Nothing.

    As for Paterson, he didn't chose to go to Duke, so I don't count him. McRob did. IMO, he would still be there if he did not have a terribly flawed back. In my opinion, that means that K and his staff had succeeded in building the pre-eminent team in colleg basketball only to have it foiled by injury. They didn't lose McRob to the pros because of the big bucks. They lost McRob the same way they did last year; to a bad back. Had he played witha bad back for Duke, they are odds on Champs this year. They beat Carolina three times, not once. That is my view, and it is not the same as your lament about the one that got away.

    Carolina lost Lawson to injury; if he had been out for the season, no way Carolina makes a serious run. Duke still can make that run, even though they lost McRob to a career (at Duke at least and maybe forever) ending injury.

    Finally, you and the chick make the unexceptional point that there is greater parity in college basketball today than there was in bygone years. How many times does somebody write about that and build Duke up as a straw man to get torn down before you get tired of it? You know my feelings and thoughts on the matter.

    I hope Duke plays well today. They have earned it. Go Duke!

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    Oh, The New York Times, that is different. Right. There has been in my time only one "the pre-eminent program" in college basketball and it was not Duke. It was UCLA.

    K has been and is the preeminent coach in college basketball for some time. I expect that he will continue to be.

    Has K fielded teams that were stronger than the current one. Who cares. The same people who went nuts when Bonds was hitting 73 and then went even more nuts when they discovered that he was using (not proven yet, thank you).

    The article was written by a chick who used catty stuff instead of an appreciation for the game, the preeminent coach in the game, and a team that has played remarkable basketball this year, something in my mind and K's (he said so) that makes him extremely gratified and proud win or lose from here on out.

    You think the chick deserves to be called what she pretends to be, a sports writer in the great tradition of NY Sports Writers, sorry, I don't. And, I don't think that the NY Times' track record of late is particularly hallowed in that regard, that is, they seem to in the last few years have fielded a slew of unprincipled wannabes who engage in schlock journalism. You disagree with that? Someone writes an article about one team that played a nice game but lost to a better team and uses it as a platform to bash the better team gets what she gets; in this case it is chick; a chick bringing tabloid journalism, gossip, to the sports pages, where it and she do not belong. If I could have thought of a more perjorative way to put her down, I'd have used it. Sorry, this is the best I could do.

    Your analogy to the Yankees was cute but wrong headed. Duke played great, as in terrific basketball this year which is why I watched. I went to Cornell. I don't watch Duke if they are less than all that. I have been a basketball fan all my life. I was taken with K from before Johnny D. He impresses me. But, he don't play. If his team is not my cup of tea, I hit golf balls or go to the gym. Sadly, my workouts suffered this year. The chick and you think that this was some kind of downfall from greatness by the hallowed Duke program, I think you are nuts (in a kind and gentle way because Duke ain't UCLA, and there is no such animal except among schlock journalists when they want to tear something down).

    In any event, even if Duke was the pre-eminent program, anybody who looks at this year's team and uses it as proof of a drop off in an article knows nothing about the game. Nothing.

    As for Paterson, he didn't chose to go to Duke, so I don't count him. McRob did. IMO, he would still be there if he did not have a terribly flawed back. In my opinion, that means that K and his staff had succeeded in building the pre-eminent team in colleg basketball only to have it foiled by injury. They didn't lose McRob to the pros because of the big bucks. They lost McRob the same way they did last year; to a bad back. Had he played witha bad back for Duke, they are odds on Champs this year. They beat Carolina three times, not once. That is my view, and it is not the same as your lament about the one that got away.

    Carolina lost Lawson to injury; if he had been out for the season, no way Carolina makes a serious run. Duke still can make that run, even though they lost McRob to a career (at Duke at least and maybe forever) ending injury.

    Finally, you and the chick make the unexceptional point that there is greater parity in college basketball today than there was in bygone years. How many times does somebody write about that and build Duke up as a straw man to get torn down before you get tired of it? You know my feelings and thoughts on the matter.

    I hope Duke plays well today. They have earned it. Go Duke!
    Thanks for building up straw men and knocking them down rather than respond to my point with such cheap shots as "New York" sportswriters (another word traditionally goes in place of "sportswriters" for that slur, but close enough). You tried to lump me in with "the chick" (if she writes a pro-Duke article does that term get lost for you?) and I never adopted her point of view.

    I of course also hope Duke plays well today and definitely admire the moxie this team has exhibited all year (as opposed to last year's dysfunctional operation that appaently was not unelated to the personality of McBob).

    I was a regular poster here for a number of years but have laid off - these sorts of exchanges remind me why.

    Go Duke!

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    The article was written by a chick who used catty stuff instead of an appreciation for the game, the preeminent coach in the game, and a team that has played remarkable basketball this year, something in my mind and K's (he said so) that makes him extremely gratified and proud win or lose from here on out.

    You think the chick deserves to be called what she pretends to be, a sports writer in the great tradition of NY Sports Writers, sorry, I don't. ury.

    Finally, you and the chick make the unexceptional point that there is greater parity in college basketball today than there was in bygone years.
    Referring to the female writer as "chick" really cheapens your argument, especially when it's done three times in a single post.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Lulu View Post
    I think the big difference in the public's perception of Duke, compared to UCLA, KY, UNC..., is that those programs go beyond the coach, while Coach K IS the Duke program.
    So as goes Coach K, as goes Duke to an extent.
    Originally Posted by wisteria
    Lulu, I think you nailed one of the reasons. We had good coaches before K. Bubas, Foster...But Duke was never much of a powerhouse.
    Guys, Duke has been playing basketball since 1906 and is the fourth-winningest program of all time. It didn't all just happen since 1980. While obviously Coach K is the greatest coach in the school's history, Duke basketball was among the nation's top ten or twenty programs before he arrived, and will be after he's gone. It's unlikely we (or anyone else) will have the same level of consistent excellence, and we may not be the consensus number one program in the nation -- but I suspect at least one of the other guys in suits on the current Duke bench will one day lead Duke to one or more national championships.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Two miles south of Cameron
    Quote Originally Posted by mapei View Post
    Not only that, but K has been the only coach of Duke basketball for most people who are basketball fans today. People just aren't old enough to remember Foster and Bubas 30 (!) years ago. Meanwhile, every one of those other storied programs has changed coaches multiple times. There's not the familiarity that comes from K's continuity.
    There was an article in the print version of Blue Planet early in the season that stated this as one of the possible reasons why people "love to hate" Duke - consistency. Every other ACC program (and in fact every other dominant national program) has changed coaches in some cases up to five times during Coach K's 27 year tenure at Duke. Duke has not only had the same coach but has also continued to play in the same storied building rather than building a big new arena. So there's a lot of stability in the program in a variety of ways.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Quote Originally Posted by Lauderdevil View Post
    Guys, Duke has been playing basketball since 1906 and is the fourth-winningest program of all time. It didn't all just happen since 1980. While obviously Coach K is the greatest coach in the school's history, Duke basketball was among the nation's top ten or twenty programs before he arrived, and will be after he's gone. It's unlikely we (or anyone else) will have the same level of consistent excellence, and we may not be the consensus number one program in the nation -- but I suspect at least one of the other guys in suits on the current Duke bench will one day lead Duke to one or more national championships.
    And I believe we only passed one team - St. John's - to move from 5th to 4th in the K era.

    -jk

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    And I believe we only passed one team - St. John's - to move from 5th to 4th in the K era.

    -jk
    I did not realize that and I've been a Duke BBall fan for nearly 40 years! That stat and the fact that we were in 4 final fours between 1963 and 1978 trashes the argument that Duke has no tradition beyond K.

    I'm not sure; however, that one of the other suits on the bench will win a national championship as posted by someone else. I suspect however that Capel/Brey/Battier might win one as the Blue Devil coach.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    breathlessly awaiting her scathing commentary on Uconn's slide into faded glory...

  10. #90

    They aren't what they once were...

    Congrats on a decent year. That is what it was; decent. They won same games, lost some games, but in the end, they didn't do much other than end up in the middle of the pack. And that is ok, because you can not win everything all the time.

    That said, I have noticed a thread on this board regarding an article on ESPN, whose entire jist was that Duke is living off its past glory. Maybe the article felt a little canned, maybe it wasn't the best, but one thing the article was was partially, or maybe fully, accurate. I know you can't bring in all of the best players all of the time, but Duke has brought in a glut of wing players the past few years that all do the same thing, and has brought in limited size. They defend well, but aren't the best rebounding team, which ties directly to size. For a team that relies so heavily on the three point shot, they have a serious amount of players that really shouldn't be shooting threes. They can go into a high school players home and use the names Coach K and Duke and wow them, but if you aren't winning when it matters (ie the NCAA tournament), then you are going to continue to lose out on the best players.

    So reverse course. If you are so insistent on running an offense predicated on the three point shot, go after guys that can shoot it. DeMarcus Nelson might have scored thousands of points in high school, but he was nothing more than a fourth option on a good team in reality, and he couldn't create his own shot if he had to. He missed too many floaters and free throws. Henderson should not be shooting threes; he should drive to the hoop every time he touches the ball, use his mid-range ability (which is among the best Duke has had since Grant Hill) and his overwhelming athleticism. Scheyer does all the little things well, and is one of the smartest players I have seen in a while, but he needs tons of space to get off a three, and even then he isn't as accurate as he should be. Singler should not be a four by any means; imagine him playing the three, posting up smaller players, playing inside and out. He would be tough to handle. But none of the players Duke has (except for Paulus and King, who should have played at least 15 minutes a game all year; no one would ever convince me that he wouldn't have played better than Nelson did in the NCAAs, regardless of any illness anyone had) are right for the type of system the coaches have decided to play right now. Maybe Elliot Williams will come in and be what they need, but my guess is he will be a slightly smaller Nelson/Henderson type of player.

    So why continue to recruit athletic wings? I keep watching the teams that do well in the tournament now, the West Virginias, the Butlers, the so called Mid-Majors, and I ask myself why Duke doesn't target some of the players these teams have. If you are going to rely on the three point shot, go get players that can shoot threes. I have to imagine that if Coach K went to some of these kid's houses and asked them to play for Duke, they would jump at the chance. What is wrong with getting some bangers that are 6-9 and 255 lbs and can't do anything other than rebound and block some shots? Isn't that a better move than getting Lance Thomas, who gets thrown around and makes silly foul after silly foul? I like his energy, but he shouldn't be a starting center on a team that has any real intentions of winning a championship. They need players who are going to hit open threes much more consistently. They need players who won't get out rebounded by 6-2 back up point guards. They need to develop their depth much better, so when their team gets to March, they aren't front rimming threes because of fatigue. I would rather they lose four or five games in the ACC if it meant they had fresher legs in March.

    I love Duke, I have since I was 8. I endured the ridicule of my classmates at The George Washington University when Duke beat us in 2006. I wrote this post not because I am bitter about today's loss. I write from a perspective of someone who wants to see Duke get back to their winning ways. I love all of the players that come in and play for my favorite basketball team. But if Duke is going to get back to where they once were, then they need to do something different, and soon.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    great analysis, agree with everything

    K talking about that 3 at end of shot clock was the difference in game

  12. #92
    Great Post, pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.

  13. #93

    3 at end of shot clock??

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke76 View Post
    great analysis, agree with everything

    K talking about that 3 at end of shot clock was the difference in game
    Difference in the game? I think that's bogus. Sorry, but WVU had momentum well before then, and we were within striking distance afterward. There was plenty of time for K to make adjustments. I am baffled by the lack of adjustments and decision making of the coaching staff.

    K needs to reassess his recruiting and how he manages the psychology of the team. As I've said in many other posts, they can't relax and enjoy the game, and just play hard for each other. They are thinking so much about executing like Swiss watches that they can't relax and just play. Please recruit some inside players and guard with killer instincts.

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    I can easily refute the vast majority of the original post. Maybe I'll get the time tomorrow. Right now, I'm too busy dealing with people whose idea of handling disappointment is to trash the people they supposedly "root for." And by trash, I don't mean say a few nasty things. I mean flat-out destroy them. You guys are lucky that you won't see a lot of those posts.

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke76 View Post
    great analysis, agree with everything

    K talking about that 3 at end of shot clock was the difference in game
    Did he really say that? Oh my goodness, that's troubling.

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    I can easily refute the vast majority of the original post. Maybe I'll get the time tomorrow. Right now, I'm too busy dealing with people whose idea of handling disappointment is to trash the people they supposedly "root for." And by trash, I don't mean say a few nasty things. I mean flat-out destroy them. You guys are lucky that you won't see a lot of those posts.
    Refute it, then. This is the best post I've seen in the DBR in forever. What's wrong with constructive criticism? Come on!

  17. #97
    I can understand from an emotional standpoint that it was a turning point...

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by DukeCO2009 View Post
    Refute it, then. This is the best post I've seen in the DBR in forever. What's wrong with constructive criticism? Come on!
    Nothing is wrong with constructive criticism. That's why, you know, the post is still standing. When I have some time to post a coherent argument, I will. As I said, I'm tending to the flood of trolls and nasty posts from pseudo-fans at the moment.

  19. #99
    I don't post here alot, but I have loved and followed Duke Basketball for about 45 years. That post says what many of us feel but don't want to admit. I love these kids and they played their hearts out, but I knew it was over at the 5 minute mark, if not before. We don't have the Laettner, Hill, Hurley, Battier, Brand, Williams, etc. we would need to mount a 10 point comeback.

    I guess we get spoiled being the best. Next play........

  20. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    little river sc

    my opinion

    well im not going to blast anyone in this post, and i hope it doesnt get deleted for anything negative i have to say. first im not a duke grad, im a life long duke fan and until a couple of years ago, a durham resident. i was a duke fan when willie hodge,tate armstrong, and such were at duke, and i remember being rediculed by carolina fans for wearing my duke shirts and hats to school.

    k has been by far the best thing to ever happen to duke in my lifetime, but i have seen a pattern for almost 6 straight seasons that really concerns me as a duke fan. and i can almost go down the list of coaches, who in my opinion outcoached k in the ncca tourney. 02 mike davis, i will not count 03 and 04, 2003 we lost williams,boozer and dunleavey sp? in 2004 in the final four, i thought we lost to a team that had better talent(uconn), in 2005 it was tom izzo, in 2006 it was john brady, in 2007 it was the coach from vcu and today it was bob huggins, who outcoached k, plain and simple in my opinion.

    in all the years listed above, my opinion, we had better talent than the team we lost to, so why is k being outcoached?? who out there thought duke should have been up by more than 5 at halftime?? i thought duke really outplayed wva in the first half, but was only up 5, and we didnt adjust to the adjustments that wva made at halftime.

    im not a duke insider, dont claim to be, but i would love to hear from everyone on what is the answer? i know 28-6 is a great season and i dont want to take anything away from that, but i would gladly give up a few of the wins in the regular season, to be more competitive in the ncaa tourney.

Similar Threads

  1. Duke ROTC People (Old or Current)
    By dukepsy1963 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-29-2008, 03:54 PM
  2. Who is your favorite CURRENT Duke player?
    By ArtVandelay in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 02-15-2008, 12:21 AM
  3. Story on Oldest Living Major Leaguer (and Duke MBB player)
    By Mudge in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 04:24 PM
  4. Living in Bermuda
    By EarlJam in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 06:10 PM

Posting Permissions

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