Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 95
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    Quote Originally Posted by Edouble View Post
    I don't know, was he leaps and bounds better? I know he was better, and I also know that your stat lines don't tell the whole story. Is there a "missed lay-up from 2 inches" category, or a "couldn't catch the ball standing alone under the basket" category? Are factors like "scares the other team's players" or a "makes the other team's players laugh" appropriate to include? Landlord's got his jersey in the rafters and was better than Casey Sanders, a 4-year project player, from day 1.
    I mean, this is an incredible arguement. You've got memories that are colored in your own mind, and you're using those to make points about the difference between players. Let's get back to the actual issue.

    Will the court reporter please read back the testimony...


    Quote Originally Posted by Edouble View Post
    Shelden was better than Casey Sanders when he stepped on campus.
    Direct quote my friend. My point would be that the stats don't necessarily support the arguement that Shel was "better" than Casey when he stpped on campus. Shelden may have been more talented than Sanders when he stepped on campus, but was he a better college player? I don't know. And yes, I certainley understand intangibles, but I also don't see a stat that reflects 4 years in the Duke system, the experience of winning a national championship and being a key player in that run by stepping up your game at a time when your team needed you. Those are all things that Sanders had over Shel when he first stepped on campus. I believe their similar outputs over the course of Shel's first season and Casey's last would reflect this point. Furthermore, don't mistake Shelden as a senior with Shelden as a freshman. Shel as a frosh was a good, but not great player.

    The larger point, however, is that a lot of Duke fans seem to think that a player has to come in and make some huge impact as a freshman. Yeah, Loul Deng had a great freshman year... did you see who was around him? And he was probably the biggest impact freshman that we've had in the last 15 years. So I think he's the exception to the rule. You just don't get that many guys who are monsters / impact guys in thier first year. Here or anywhere else, so my point would be that instead of marking some kid coming in as the savior, have a little patience and let them develop. And before you write off guys who are in thier formative years and signal a death knell for the program, just wait and see what happens... I'm almost positive that our staff has more experience with player development than you or I do.

  2. #62
    Depends completely on how you define "one and done".

    If it's a kid that has the talent to jump to the NBA after one year, but is willing to commit fully to the program and to being a student athlete during the time he spends at Duke, absolutely. Realistically right now, going after most talented player means you are taking this risk--if Kyle Singler had put on some muscle before arriving at Duke and averaged 25ppg this season, he'd be gone.

    If it's a kid that's in "NBA or bust" mode (as was reportedly the case with Humphries) and views his year in college simply as a way to show off for scouts, then no. No way.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    Quote Originally Posted by Chitowndevil View Post
    Depends completely on how you define "one and done".

    If it's a kid that has the talent to jump to the NBA after one year, but is willing to commit fully to the program and to being a student athlete during the time he spends at Duke, absolutely. Realistically right now, going after most talented player means you are taking this risk--if Kyle Singler had put on some muscle before arriving at Duke and averaged 25ppg this season, he'd be gone.

    If it's a kid that's in "NBA or bust" mode (as was reportedly the case with Humphries) and views his year in college simply as a way to show off for scouts, then no. No way.

    Well put. I suppose that you're right in that there's no real assurance that someone like Kyle (or in retrospect Luol) will stay. But there are certianley kids like Hump who already have one foot out the door. I agree that those guys shouldn't even be bothered with.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    Well put. I suppose that you're right in that there's no real assurance that someone like Kyle (or in retrospect Luol) will stay. But there are certianley kids like Hump who already have one foot out the door. I agree that those guys shouldn't even be bothered with.
    Right on. I think that this is really where the argument is. Do we recruit guys like Beasley, Mayo, who essentially would be heading to the NBA but for the age limit, or do we focus on guys who we THINK would stay more than a year. Recruiting is not a perfect science, and as we saw, Deng shocked everyone, but I'd rather us pursue the type of player we are recruiting, then recruit guys who absolutely know that Duke will be a temporary stopover for a year

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    You just don't get that many guys who are monsters / impact guys in thier first year.
    My friend, were you watching college basketball this year?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    Quote Originally Posted by Edouble View Post
    My friend, were you watching college basketball this year?
    Yep. I sure was. How many true impact freshman would you say there were? 10? And I'm not talking about Singler and Hickson-esque guys who had solid Frosh campaigns, because we've got one of those. I'm talking game changing players who can put a team on thier back. Here's my list:

    Beasley, Mayo, Love, Bayless, Blair, Green, Gordon, Ogilvy

    That's about it. These guys aren't a dime a dozen, nor does each of these schools have a continual stream of players of this caliber. USC, K-State, Vandy and Pitt have not had these types of talents in a long while. Nor, do I think, they expect to have a once-in-a-decade talent every season. Those types of guys are few and far between, and to think that we can just pluck those guys from the sky is shortsighted and hubristic.

    Here's the thing, of the 16 teams left in the NCAA tournament, how many of them have one of these super-stud game changing impact freshman? UCLA has Love, but they've been to the Final Four for 2 years, so the question really is will he put them over the top (and FTR, I don't think he's one and done)? As for the other 15 team, what do they have in common? Oh that's right, upperclassmen who have been there before and are leaders. Guys not worried about thier stats and point totals.
    Last edited by MulletMan; 03-27-2008 at 02:49 PM. Reason: spellin'

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maryland

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by dyedwab View Post
    Do we recruit guys ... who essentially would be heading to the NBA but for the age limit, or do we focus on guys who we THINK would stay more than a year.
    It's not just whether they're willing to stay more than a year but whether they're capable of staying four years and graduating. Duke shouldn't recruit semiliterate hulks with 85 IQs even if they're keen to stay for four years.

    The administration should discreetly specify SAT and GPA cut-offs for scholarship athletes, and the cut-offs should be high enough to exclude anyone who couldn't meet graduation requirements without cheating.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    I mean, this is an incredible arguement. You've got memories that are colored in your own mind, and you're using those to make points about the difference between players. Let's get back to the actual issue.

    Will the court reporter please read back the testimony...




    Direct quote my friend. My point would be that the stats don't necessarily support the arguement that Shel was "better" than Casey when he stpped on campus. Shelden may have been more talented than Sanders when he stepped on campus, but was he a better college player? I don't know. And yes, I certainley understand intangibles, but I also don't see a stat that reflects 4 years in the Duke system, the experience of winning a national championship and being a key player in that run by stepping up your game at a time when your team needed you. Those are all things that Sanders had over Shel when he first stepped on campus. I believe their similar outputs over the course of Shel's first season and Casey's last would reflect this point. Furthermore, don't mistake Shelden as a senior with Shelden as a freshman. Shel as a frosh was a good, but not great player.

    The larger point, however, is that a lot of Duke fans seem to think that a player has to come in and make some huge impact as a freshman. Yeah, Loul Deng had a great freshman year... did you see who was around him? And he was probably the biggest impact freshman that we've had in the last 15 years. So I think he's the exception to the rule. You just don't get that many guys who are monsters / impact guys in thier first year. Here or anywhere else, so my point would be that instead of marking some kid coming in as the savior, have a little patience and let them develop. And before you write off guys who are in thier formative years and signal a death knell for the program, just wait and see what happens... I'm almost positive that our staff has more experience with player development than you or I do.
    I disagree with you here. Shelden was most certainly a better player when he stepped onto Duke's campus. He was a better high school player AND better prepared to play in college. Casey was completely uncoordinated coming out of high school. He was fast and could jump, but couldn't handle ANY contact. Shelden, on the other hand, was definitely raw offensively, but he capable of handling consistent minutes and was a solid rebounder and defender.

    Both players developed substantially over their four years. Shelden improved from a raw, rugged rebounder/defender to being one of the best all-around post players in the country. Casey improved from being completely unusable to being about what Shelden was as a freshman.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I disagree with you here. Shelden was most certainly a better player when he stepped onto Duke's campus. He was a better high school player AND better prepared to play in college. Casey was completely uncoordinated coming out of high school. He was fast and could jump, but couldn't handle ANY contact. Shelden, on the other hand, was definitely raw offensively, but he capable of handling consistent minutes and was a solid rebounder and defender.

    Both players developed substantially over their four years. Shelden improved from a raw, rugged rebounder/defender to being one of the best all-around post players in the country. Casey improved from being completely unusable to being about what Shelden was as a freshman.
    Exactly! At the time Shel started, they were about the same.

    I suppose that I read the "Shelden was better than Casey when he stepped on campus" to read "Shelden, as a wet behind the ears freshman, was better than Casey Sanders when he (Shelden) stepped on campus in the fall of 2002". Like, he was better that very day compared to Casey on that very day, not Casey as a freshman.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    Really? Was he leaps and bounds better when he stepped on campus?

    Here are two stat lines from the 2002-2003 Duke Blue Devils... tell me which one belongs to Casey and which belongs to Shel

    PPG, RPG, Blks, Stls, MPG, Fouls
    8.2, 5.9, 52, 23, 19.2, 102
    4.6, 5.4, 54, 17, 17.8, 102

    Yeah... there was such a clear difference between the two.
    I'd say there was a clear difference. The freshman Shelden was clearly better than the senior Sanders. He averaged nearly double the points while matching him in pretty much every other category.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    I suppose that I read the "Shelden was better than Casey when he stepped on campus" to read "Shelden, as a wet behind the ears freshman, was better than Casey Sanders when he (Shelden) stepped on campus in the fall of 2002". Like, he was better that very day compared to Casey on that very day, not Casey as a freshman.
    Even in your interpretation (which could be the correct one), I'd say Shelden was better. He matched Casey in every category, and nearly doubled Casey's scoring average.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Didn't we recruit the possible one-and-done Eric Gordon, but lost out? Were we not recruit possible one-and-done Kevin Love for a little while before their was a mutual loss of interest?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Even in your interpretation (which could be the correct one), I'd say Shelden was better. He matched Casey in every category, and nearly doubled Casey's scoring average.
    He scored about 3 more PPG. However, as argued above, there were different intangibles that go along with each player at the particular time, and to say that Shel as a freshman was CLEARLY the better player for that team at that time is, as I originally stated, not really true.

    Yes, he was clearly the better talent, but there's a reason why they averaged nearly the same amount of playing time over the course of the season, isn't there? Or is the coaching staff in the habit of playing guys who shouldn't be in the game?

    (In all actuality, this arguement has moved way off base from the original point, which, I believe, was, that one and doners are unique talents, and not all freshman are neccesarily better than the incumbant that plays thier position simply because they are a highly rated recruit.)

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    Exactly! At the time Shel started, they were about the same.

    I suppose that I read the "Shelden was better than Casey when he stepped on campus" to read "Shelden, as a wet behind the ears freshman, was better than Casey Sanders when he (Shelden) stepped on campus in the fall of 2002". Like, he was better that very day compared to Casey on that very day, not Casey as a freshman.
    As I said in another post, Casey as a senior was close to what Shelden was as a freshman. But I still would say that Shelden was better as a freshman than Casey as a senior. Casey was still very awkward and virtually useless offensively. Shelden was certainly rough around the edges, but could score a little bit in the paint. Shelden could do all the things Casey could do, but he added to that the ability to score some.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    Quote Originally Posted by hedgehog View Post
    Didn't we recruit the possible one-and-done Eric Gordon, but lost out? Were we not recruit possible one-and-done Kevin Love for a little while before their was a mutual loss of interest?
    I guess that would depend on your defenition of "recruit". I mean, guys get differing levels of attention and commitment from the staff, right?

    Love made his own bed.

    Gordon, I can't recall.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    Yep. I sure was. How many true impact freshman would you say there were? 10? And I'm not talking about Singler and Hickson-esque guys who had solid Frosh campaigns, because we've got one of those. I'm talking game changing players who can put a team on thier back. Here's my list:

    Beasley, Mayo, Love, Bayless, Blair, Green, Gordon, Ogilvy
    You include Greene but not Harden, Singler, Patterson, Griffin, and Rose? How was he better than any of these guys, let alone all five?

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    He scored about 3 more PPG. However, as argued above, there were different intangibles that go along with each player at the particular time, and to say that Shel as a freshman was CLEARLY the better player for that team at that time is, as I originally stated, not really true.

    Yes, he was clearly the better talent, but there's a reason why they averaged nearly the same amount of playing time over the course of the season, isn't there? Or is the coaching staff in the habit of playing guys who shouldn't be in the game?

    (In all actuality, this arguement has moved way off base from the original point, which, I believe, was, that one and doners are unique talents, and not all freshman are neccesarily better than the incumbant that plays thier position simply because they are a highly rated recruit.)
    Not to nitpick, but I'm going to nitpick. He averaged closer to four more points per game. And when one guy averages only 4.6 points per game, a 3.6 point per game difference is very significant. Shelden was, in my opinion, CLEARLY the better player. He could do everything that Casey did, and he could also score a bit. Casey still had zero offensive game. Shelden didn't have much, but he had some. Thus, equal in everything and significantly better in one thing means clearly better.

    Why did Coach K play Casey about as much as Shelden? My guess is lack of options and the fact that Shelden wasn't ready to be a 30+ minutes guy. And The difference between Shelden and Casey wasn't so huge that Casey didn't merit time. Both committed a lot of fouls, so both had to play. Hence both averaged less than 20mpg (along with Shav and the Vath, who got 13.5 mpg each).

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    Yep. I sure was. How many true impact freshman would you say there were? 10? And I'm not talking about Singler and Hickson-esque guys who had solid Frosh campaigns, because we've got one of those. I'm talking game changing players who can put a team on thier back. Here's my list:

    Beasley, Mayo, Love, Bayless, Blair, Green, Gordon, Ogilvy

    That's about it. These guys aren't a dime a dozen, nor does each of these schools have a continual stream of players of this caliber. USC, K-State, Vandy and Pitt have not had these types of talents in a long while. Nor, do I think, they expect to have a once-in-a-decade talent every season. Those types of guys are few and far between, and to think that we can just pluck those guys from the sky is shortsighted and hubristic.

    Here's the thing, of the 16 teams left in the NCAA tournament, how many of them have one of these super-stud game changing impact freshman? UCLA has Love, but they've been to the Final Four for 2 years, so the question really is will he put them over the top (and FTR, I don't think he's one and done)? As for the other 15 team, what do they have in common? Oh that's right, upperclassmen who have been there before and are leaders. Guys not worried about thier stats and point totals.
    You forgot Derrick Rose, among others.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Not for nothing, but Casey never gets credit for a nice finish to his career. In a close loss to a really good Kansas team to close his career, Casey went 28 minutes, grabbed seven boards and blocked five shots. Come to think of it, I'd love Casey Sanders with this current group.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO.
    Quote Originally Posted by wumhenry View Post
    It's not just whether they're willing to stay more than a year but whether they're capable of staying four years and graduating. Duke shouldn't recruit semiliterate hulks with 85 IQs even if they're keen to stay for four years.

    The administration should discreetly specify SAT and GPA cut-offs for scholarship athletes, and the cut-offs should be high enough to exclude anyone who couldn't meet graduation requirements without cheating.
    I absolutely agree with the first part of this. The key question to ask is whether or not the recruit can succeed at Duke. But, I strongly disagree with the second point about enforcing a strict SAT/GPA cutoff. There is a player who played at Duke this decade who I doubt would've met this criteria (I won't name the player because I think it's irrelevant). But, through interactions that I had with him (interviews on several occasions) I can say that he was the most insightful and intelligent Duke basketball player that I interacted with in my four years. Further, after seeing his performance on the court, I was not at all surprised that he succeeded in the classroom. I think Coach K is an excellent character judge and should be trusted to recruit players that he is confident will succeed at Duke.

    I'll also go back to my original point--Duke has in the past gone after likely one-and-done players. A previous post noted shock that Deng left after one year. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I never thought he'd be there for more than a year.

Similar Threads

  1. Duke players in the Final Four
    By MIKESJ73 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-29-2008, 05:46 PM
  2. International Duke Players
    By EarlJam in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 03:12 PM
  3. Nation's top FB recruit to visit Duke
    By Mike Corey in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 01-04-2008, 11:21 AM
  4. To Duke BB players everywhere!
    By dukemomLA in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-13-2007, 12:17 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
  •