The Most Perplexing Thing About the End of the Season to Me
I think for most of us it was an earlier than expected end to what for the most part was a great season for Duke, one in which the team exceeded some expectations we had at the beginning, and then failed to meet the fairly reasonable expectations we had at the end of the season based on how the team played during the course of the season (after the UNC win, it was not unreasonable to think this team could win the ACC tournament and reach the final four or at least the elite 8).
However, I think we all knew that Duke had weaknesses that had yet to be exposed, in large part due to the masterful job K did in sculpting this team around the skills and weapons he had. Ultimately those weaknesses were exposed and unfortunately they were the key things you need to have IMO to make a deep ncaa tourney run:
1. frontcourt size/rebounding
2. athletic point guard who can create scoring opportunities by penetration and or passing and who can defend against those. (For all of Paulus's heart, toughness, leadership and outside shooting, this is simply a weakness we had trouble overcoming against NCAA caliber teams. The teams that beat us - Miami, Wake, Clemson, Pitt, UNC and the teams that almost did, NCSU, Marquette, Belmont, Davidson - exploited that.)
3. balanced scoring - ability to score from outside the arc and in the paint
I think the fourth key is three point shooting - offense and defense. Obviously at points during the season we were outstanding on both sides of the three point equation. Unfortunately on Saturday we were not.
Given all of the above, I am not shocked we didn't survive past the first weekend of the NCAA, although I admit it is tough to stomach how a team with so much talent - 8 McD's is a LOT of talent - could struggle against a 15 seed (illnesses or not). What does shock me about the end of the season (and by the end I mean the last 10 games or so) is this:
20 games into the season, many of us were talking/posting about how this team played with so much heart, frequently looked like the stronger, fresher and more determined team in the second half and in tight games made winning plays and won the type of games that we didn't win last year.
I'm talking about the type of play you need to win a NCAA championship - last five minutes of the game down 2 or up 3, down 4 or up 5 - those kinds of situations. These are the kinds of situations that UCLA has excelled in all year (last five minutes against Texas A&M is a perfect example). It's UNC's play down the stretch against Clemson in the ACC championship game. Or against us in the regular season finale. Kansas's against Texas in the Big 12 championship game. Pitt's against us in NYC.
How did all that turn seemingly on a dime at the end of the season? We made furious comebacks against Miami and NCSU but we just didn't have IT the last 10 games of the year. The last five minutes of the UNC game at Cameron epitomize what I saw as the difference in the team at the end of the year. WHY? What changed? I don't know but this is what I find so perplexing. At halftime against WVU we were up 5. The first half of the season we owned the second half of games. What happened at the end of the year? I am sure some people will say fatigue. Some people will say that Singler was the cornerstone of the team and when his play sagged so did ours. But there has to be more to it. Other players got better as the season hit the homestretch - Zoubek, Scheyer and Paulus played better in the second half (not that Paulus and Scheyer didn't play well in the first half, they just continued to improve). Henderson was outstanding in the NCAA tournament.
I am curious what others' opinions are because there was a noticeable loss of second half and end of game toughness that I can't find any obvious explanation for.
[Sorry for the long post]
Singler is IRON
I STILL GOT IT! -- Ryan Kelly, March 2, 2013