Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 399
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by ACCBBallFan View Post
    Not having Mike hurts Alex's development in practice.
    I'm guessing this is somewhat overstated. While the team might not have anyone with Alex's exact body type to send him against in practice, there is certainly plenty of talent with which to contend. Murphy can hone guard skills against our guard horde and post skills against the likes of Hairston and Ryan. And we might get Jefferson or Hood, rendering the issue moot. Even if we don't, we very likely bring in a wing the following year, so at worst we are talking a single season here. He will find plenty of practice challenges.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Van Nuys, CA

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    You have one of my favorite user names on the board, but I don't agree with you that "we pretty much know what we're getting with next year's team at this point." A quick list of some things we don't know might include:

    1. Will Quinn Cook's knee really heal properly?
    2. If so, will he be able to play the type of ball-hawking defense and move his feet sufficiently to stay in front of his man that will enable him to take over from Thornton as our primary point guard?
    3. Will Thornton improve his ballhandling, shooting, and/or passing, enabling him to actually participate in the offense in a meaningful way and put some pressure on the opposing defense?
    4. What will Rasheed Sulaimon bring to the table in terms of ballhandling, shooting, passing, defense, toughness, and contribution to team chemistry?
    5. Who will emerge as the leader(s) of the team?
    6. Will Seth Curry improve his passing and/or his defense?
    7. Will Andre Dawkins add any elements to his game, such as penetrating with the ball, shooting off the dribble, rebounding, or defense?
    8. Will Andre gain any consistency in his game?
    9. Will he maintain focus and concentration for longer stretches of games?
    10. What will Murphy bring to the table in terms of shooting, ballhandling, passing, rebounding, defense, toughness, and contribution to team chemistry?
    11. Will Murphy be big and strong enough to play the PF position in Duke's scheme, or will he really belong at the 3?
    12. Will Ryan Kelly improve his strength? What about his aggressiveness under the boards?
    13. Will Ryan add any back to the basket moves, as may be needed if he plays the 5 when Mason is out?
    14. Will Mason play with more consistent confidence than he did this past year?
    15. Will Mason play more fluidly when he gets the ball on the blocks?
    16. Will Mason develop a face-up 12-to-15 foot jump shot?
    17. Will Marshall Plumlee be ready to play big boy basketball? What will he be able to contribute? Will he be strong enough inside against mature post players?
    18. Will Josh Hairston (re)gain explosiveness in his legs?
    19. Will Josh learn to use his body (without fouling) to keep taller players out of the lane so as to avoid them playing over the top of him?
    20. Will Josh gain better judgment as to when it is a good time for him to shoot 17 foot jumpshots and when it isn't?

    So there are 20 quick ones that I'd love to know the answers to. I'm sure others have many additional ones. That's part of the fun of watching a team develop is seeing these questions answered as the season goes on. I don't think we know much at all 7 months before the season starts.
    7.,8., & 9.
    After 3 years of Andre Dawkins, he remains an enigma. We all hope he would work on dribbling,penetrating & finishing.He is so one dimensional that he really becomes a liability on the court. Only when he shoots lights out is he a potent force.

  3. #183

    Good Luck G

    Sorry to see you leaving Duke and wish you the best.

    Whatever the reason, you deserve happiness and hope you find it.

    Stay classy and good luck.

  4. #184
    It's unfortunate to see all the sour grapes here, including the DBR article on Silent G transferring.

    There's no need to downplay the kid's talents or supposed lack of intensity just because he is transferring. I heard none of these complaints when we were discussing lineups, next year's prospects, etc.

    It's just sad that people feel the need to make themselves feel better when something bad happens, and losing players of this caliber are definitely bad things.

  5. #185

    simple explanation, with one final puzzle

    I was happy to see in the several links to the home page's "More on Gbinije's Departure" the straightforward explanation provided by Michael's high school coach. Namely, nothing against the school, his teammates, or K. "He just wants to play." And Michael's "just looking for a little bit of a fresh start."

    Although I'm a little disappointed in the [not unexpected] brevity of K's farewell comment, it's pretty standard fare, so no reason to read anything into that, either.

    However, the main page version of why Michael didn't play much does remind me of one final - and for me the essential - puzzle in his season. We are reminded of "the way things are done at Duke," meaning "defense, communication, and trust. A player earns trust in practice by playing hard, communicating and most of all defending."

    Fair enough, and I mean that. For me the really puzzling thing is that I'd have bet anything, based on seeing Michael several times on TV during his senior year and in all-star games, that he'd make his mark on D and trust. I posted a year ago that Michael was one of the only players in one of those all-star games to play any D; and as "proof" I gave 2 specific examples of his hustle and smart D. Further, I thought I saw in Michael just a hint of attitude, that he came into that all-star game with a bit of a chip on his shoulder, ready to prove he belonged. I thought, "This kid is going to be a really valuable player."

    So, I was either way off, or things just never clicked for Michael, once faced with the intensity [Is that it???] of K's system and tutelage. Maybe Michael's hustling D didn't mesh with the actual intricacies with K's defensive principles. Or maybe Michael's apparently very quiet demeanor became a real problem for him in Duke's system, for K has stated repeatedly that active communication is an absolute.

    I want to say, too, that I have been impressed with both the civility and insights provided in this thread by Greg_Newton, jimsumner, Zeb, MCFinARL, dukedoc, and Newton 14. [The rest of you are all great, too...]. Like Greg_Newton, I have found Michael's decision to transfer somewhat unsettling. But the many thoughtful posts have been informative and steadying. Seriously.

    I'm off for a bit of a cry now. Less seriously.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Slackerb View Post
    There's no need to downplay the kid's talents or supposed lack of intensity just because he is transferring. I heard none of these complaints when we were discussing lineups, next year's prospects, etc.
    I read the frontpage article the same way as you. I wish G the best of luck and am disappointed it didn't work out for him at Duke. The speculation as to why he's transferring is completely understandable, but downplaying his talents or intensity (absent some pretty specific evidence) is not really necessary or productive in my mind.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greenville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Slackerb View Post
    It's unfortunate to see all the sour grapes here, including the DBR article on Silent G transferring.

    There's no need to downplay the kid's talents or supposed lack of intensity just because he is transferring. I heard none of these complaints when we were discussing lineups, next year's prospects, etc.

    It's just sad that people feel the need to make themselves feel better when something bad happens, and losing players of this caliber are definitely bad things.
    I was thinking the same thing! Why is there a need to downplay Silent G abilities? The fact is we didn't see enough of him to make a judgment about his basketball capabilities one way or the other, outside of his high school performances. We do know that he is smart and athletic and appeared to be the biggest cheerleader on the bench despite barely playing. He basically played during garbage time and everybody knows that during garbage time the flow is inconsistent because more than likely the outcome of the game has already been determined and players (on both teams) are just trying to get on the stat sheet. I wish Mike G well and wish him all the happiness in the world. I have a funny feeling that he may be a cornerstone to whatever team he decides to join and flourish as a player. Thanks Mike G for always cheering the other guys on despite the limited opportunities you received to contribute!

  8. #188

    Good Luck G

    I think what bothers me about it is G never got a chance. Its frustrating because this team wasnt good on d and losing to Lehigh proved that we needed help.

    I new G wasnt going to stick around after he said he was one and done in the video with mcadoo. He retracted it but usually the first thing out of your mouth is what your thinking. Do I think he was good enough to be one and done, no but I think he could have started on last years Duke team.

    I know Im going to get the question "Who would he have started over?" So I will go ahead and answer it, Seth, Andre, Ryan and Tyler. None of them showed up every game on either end.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueDevilCorvette! View Post
    I was thinking the same thing! Why is there a need to downplay Silent G abilities? The fact is we didn't see enough of him to make a judgment about his basketball capabilities one way or the other, outside of his high school performances. We do know that he is smart and athletic and appeared to be the biggest cheerleader on the bench despite barely playing. He basically played during garbage time and everybody knows that during garbage time the flow is inconsistent because more than likely the outcome of the game has already been determined and players (on both teams) are just trying to get on the stat sheet. I wish Mike G well and wish him all the happiness in the world. I have a funny feeling that he may be a cornerstone to whatever team he decides to join and flourish as a player. Thanks Mike G for always cheering the other guys on despite the limited opportunities you received to contribute!
    I don't think they downplayed his athletic ability. I think they focused on the idea that you make the most out of your chances. It seems that in practice, G might not have put in the work that the coaches wanted to see.

    However, I do take umbrage at the notion that he didn't show much during games. For one, you barely ever saw him in games for meaningful minutes. And when he did go in, I thought that while he looked lost at times, he also looked like he had loads of potential.

    Did he dive for loose balls in games? No... because he was never really in long enough to get the chance.

    What surprised me most is when Kelly got hurt and he didn't sniff the floor. That spoke volumes to me and I really hoped he'd work hard and stick around instead of transfer.

    I personally think he'll be a good player somewhere and we'll likely regret seeing him leave (a la McCaffrey or Olek).

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Quote Originally Posted by dukeballboy88 View Post
    I think what bothers me about it is G never got a chance. Its frustrating because this team wasnt good on d and losing to Lehigh proved that we needed help.

    I new G wasnt going to stick around after he said he was one and done in the video with mcadoo. He retracted it but usually the first thing out of your mouth is what your thinking. Do I think he was good enough to be one and done, no but I think he could have started on last years Duke team.

    I know Im going to get the question "Who would he have started over?" So I will go ahead and answer it, Seth, Andre, Ryan and Tyler. None of them showed up every game on either end.
    So which do you think it is:

    1) coaches were grossly incompetent at identifying that mike g was superior to seth, andre, ryan and tyler this year
    2) coaches were grossly incompetent and forgot that they had mike g on the bench and just forgot to put him in the game
    3) coaches were willfully trying to sabotage mike g and/or the team?

    unless you believe one of those, i don't see how you can make the argument you made above.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Slackerb View Post
    It's unfortunate to see all the sour grapes here, including the DBR article on Silent G transferring.

    There's no need to downplay the kid's talents or supposed lack of intensity just because he is transferring. I heard none of these complaints when we were discussing lineups, next year's prospects, etc.

    It's just sad that people feel the need to make themselves feel better when something bad happens, and losing players of this caliber are definitely bad things.
    Quote Originally Posted by freedevil View Post
    I read the frontpage article the same way as you. I wish G the best of luck and am disappointed it didn't work out for him at Duke. The speculation as to why he's transferring is completely understandable, but downplaying his talents or intensity (absent some pretty specific evidence) is not really necessary or productive in my mind.
    Or maybe it is sad that, rather than engage in the actual debate, some people feel the need to undercut other's positions by projecting an imaginary psychological bias, rather than addressing the very well-formed reasoning presented throughout the thread. I guess some people just cannot accept the fact that others can reasonably disagree.

    (Hehe, see how psychological projection can always be sent in both directions? )

    I'm just trying to illustrate that once you stray away from discussing the actual points that people make in their posts, you get trapped in a very deep rabbit hole of speculative psychology. You claim that people are downplaying Mike G's talents, but by inferring a "sour grapes" mentality where none is present (without accounting for the numerous reasonable points made by others) you are actually downplaying the validity of many poster's opinions. Why not try to tackle some of the actual things people have said? Like, with quotes and stuff.

    (The front page article, for example, made very clear points about defense and production, which seem to have been completely swept away by the phrase "sour grapes.")

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueDevilCorvette! View Post
    I was thinking the same thing! Why is there a need to downplay Silent G abilities? The fact is we didn't see enough of him to make a judgment about his basketball capabilities one way or the other, outside of his high school performances.
    Or maybe the fact that we didn't see much of him is exactly what informs our judgments about his basketball ability: I can reasonably infer that Coach K made his own judgment (from both limited playing time and significant practice time) and I can't think of anything that would give me grounds to disagree -- except, at best, a single throw-away line from a draft-bound player.

    Don't get me wrong, I liked Gbinije A LOT and wish him the best. He seems like a fantastic kid with plenty of talent, and I wish I could have seen him learn, grow, and contribute for four years at Duke. But if he could have lit the world on fire as a freshman or sophomore, he would have.
    Last edited by Jderf; 04-17-2012 at 10:39 AM.

  12. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    You have one of my favorite user names on the board, but I don't agree with you that "we pretty much know what we're getting with next year's team at this point." A quick list of some things we don't know might include:

    1. Will Quinn Cook's knee really heal properly?
    2. If so, will he be able to play the type of ball-hawking defense and move his feet sufficiently to stay in front of his man that will enable him to take over from Thornton as our primary point guard?
    3. Will Thornton improve his ballhandling, shooting, and/or passing, enabling him to actually participate in the offense in a meaningful way and put some pressure on the opposing defense?
    4. What will Rasheed Sulaimon bring to the table in terms of ballhandling, shooting, passing, defense, toughness, and contribution to team chemistry?
    5. Who will emerge as the leader(s) of the team?
    6. Will Seth Curry improve his passing and/or his defense?
    7. Will Andre Dawkins add any elements to his game, such as penetrating with the ball, shooting off the dribble, rebounding, or defense?
    8. Will Andre gain any consistency in his game?
    9. Will he maintain focus and concentration for longer stretches of games?
    10. What will Murphy bring to the table in terms of shooting, ballhandling, passing, rebounding, defense, toughness, and contribution to team chemistry?
    11. Will Murphy be big and strong enough to play the PF position in Duke's scheme, or will he really belong at the 3?
    12. Will Ryan Kelly improve his strength? What about his aggressiveness under the boards?
    13. Will Ryan add any back to the basket moves, as may be needed if he plays the 5 when Mason is out?
    14. Will Mason play with more consistent confidence than he did this past year?
    15. Will Mason play more fluidly when he gets the ball on the blocks?
    16. Will Mason develop a face-up 12-to-15 foot jump shot?
    17. Will Marshall Plumlee be ready to play big boy basketball? What will he be able to contribute? Will he be strong enough inside against mature post players?
    18. Will Josh Hairston (re)gain explosiveness in his legs?
    19. Will Josh learn to use his body (without fouling) to keep taller players out of the lane so as to avoid them playing over the top of him?
    20. Will Josh gain better judgment as to when it is a good time for him to shoot 17 foot jumpshots and when it isn't?

    So there are 20 quick ones that I'd love to know the answers to. I'm sure others have many additional ones. That's part of the fun of watching a team develop is seeing these questions answered as the season goes on. I don't think we know much at all 7 months before the season starts.
    Just to be clear, when I said we know what we're getting, I mainly meant (referring to my prior post) that the team "make-up" and positions are pretty well established. Just like last year, we'll be predominantly guards and bigs, with little in between. We'll have two point guards, three SG (two of whom are primarily long range shooters and one -- Rasheed -- has the rep of a shooter but admittedly is more of a wildcard), three bigs, and two flex 3/4 players, one of whom will likely get limited minutes (Hairston). Murphy is the only real new dimension that will be added to our arsenal next year, hence my initial premise that he is an extremely important player for us. Almost all of the other guys can play pretty much one position. although obviously Dawkins will probably get most minutes as a '3' even though his game is basically that of a 2. My point was that the positional make-up of the team will be very similar to last year.

    I agree players can improve and change the "look and feel" of the team next year, and obviously you've hit on some of the key variables for next year's squad, many of which I agree with. That said, I'll bite on some of your 20 points:

    3 - I would be surprised if this happens. No knock on Tyler, who seems to be a great kid (albeit a bit of a chippy player), and maybe he'll reform his shot this offseason, but he's obviously limited offensively.

    7/8/9 - I think 8 and 9 are basically the same point, and as noted in my prior post, I'm bearish on Dawkins changing his game in any significant way. If he's anything more than an extremely streaky shooter next year, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

    12/13 - This question is basically will Ryan develop an inside game? I think it's a fair question, and I hope we'll see more of it. That said, to the extent he has a pro future, it's in the role he has at Duke -- a pick-and-pop stretch 4. What he really needs to improve is his lateral quickness and rebounding if he wants to realistically be a pro 4. I agree his strength is obviously key.

    14/15/16 - Again, I think this sort of lumps together variations on the question of whether Mason Plumlee can put together the whole package to become a dominant offensive player. I'm particularly bearish that 16 will ever happen. He doesn't really seem to have the touch with the basketball to ever be a consistent jump shooter, although I could be wrong.

    18-20 - 19 and 20 are good, nuanced questions, although I'm wondering what you're driving at on number 18. Is there some injury problem with Josh's legs that I'm missing? From my perspective, the over-arching question is whether Josh Hairston will ever make the leap into a rotation regular as opposed to fringe, spot-duty player. As I see it, unless he (a) gets a lot stronger to allow him to play a small 4, or (b) gets a lot quicker and works on his jump shot to allow him to play the 3, he'll always be a bit of a tweener. Again, no knock on Josh, who plays hard and does seem to love Duke.

    Your other questions are all very good and valid ones. I think 1/2, 5, and 10 are the most pressing questions in my book.

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    I don't think they downplayed his athletic ability. I think they focused on the idea that you make the most out of your chances. It seems that in practice, G might not have put in the work that the coaches wanted to see.

    However, I do take umbrage at the notion that he didn't show much during games. For one, you barely ever saw him in games for meaningful minutes. And when he did go in, I thought that while he looked lost at times, he also looked like he had loads of potential.

    Did he dive for loose balls in games? No... because he was never really in long enough to get the chance.

    What surprised me most is when Kelly got hurt and he didn't sniff the floor. That spoke volumes to me and I really hoped he'd work hard and stick around instead of transfer.

    I personally think he'll be a good player somewhere and we'll likely regret seeing him leave (a la McCaffrey or Olek).
    Yes, but even this is speculation coming from anyone who doesn't regularly watch practice--don't know if that applies to the person who wrote the front page article or not. Yes, there is a Duke system, and yes, it's reasonable to assume that when someone is not getting into games, it's because the Duke system allots that playing time to someone else--because they are better, because they fit what the team needs in that particular game situation, and/or because the coaches liked what they saw from that player in practice. But I'd still argue that a player could, at least in theory, be working very hard in practice but still not show whatever it is that the coaches want to see for him to get on the floor, which might be a particular type of play, or extra hustle in a particular type of situation. So even there, I guess I side with those who thought the front page article was a bit snarkier than it needed to be.

    Edit: having now read Jderf's eloquent post, I acknowledge that snarkiness may be in the eye of the beholder...

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paoli, PA

    Educated guess on Gbinije

    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    I don't think they downplayed his athletic ability. I think they focused on the idea that you make the most out of your chances. It seems that in practice, G might not have put in the work that the coaches wanted to see.

    However, I do take umbrage at the notion that he didn't show much during games. For one, you barely ever saw him in games for meaningful minutes. And when he did go in, I thought that while he looked lost at times, he also looked like he had loads of potential.

    Did he dive for loose balls in games? No... because he was never really in long enough to get the chance.

    What surprised me most is when Kelly got hurt and he didn't sniff the floor. That spoke volumes to me and I really hoped he'd work hard and stick around instead of transfer.

    I personally think he'll be a good player somewhere and we'll likely regret seeing him leave (a la McCaffrey or Olek).
    We have season tickets to Villanova games, and G's physical characteristics resemble those Jay Wright usually favors, so G may endup there. However, he'll ride the pine there, too, if he doesn't learn/play aggressive defense...

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by PaIronDuke View Post
    We have season tickets to Villanova games, and G's physical characteristics resemble those Jay Wright usually favors, so G may endup there. However, he'll ride the pine there, too, if he doesn't learn/play aggressive defense...
    You sure about that? Because Taylor King managed to get into games and I can't remember him playing much D, even at Nova.

  16. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by ArtVandelay View Post
    Almost all of the other guys can play pretty much one position.
    I disagree with this point. I think we will see 7 of our 10 players playing multiple positions this coming season:

    Quinn: PG only
    Seth: SG, PG
    Rasheed: SG, PG, SF (against small teams)
    Tyler: PG, SG, SF (against small teams)
    Andre SF, SG
    Alex: SF, PF
    Ryan: PF, C
    Mason: C, PF
    Josh: PF only
    Marshall: C only

    Having listed it that way, I admit we probably won't see very much of Tyler or Andre at SG, and while Tyler did guard Harrison Barnes a bit this past season I doubt he plays more than a few minutes at SF. But that doesn't matter so much because I think the positional flexibility of newcomers Rasheed and Alex will be key when Coach K inevitably shortens his rotation.

    Rasheed and Alex give us the ability to have a pretty big lineup if we want (e.g., Rasheed/Andre/Alex/Ryan/Mason) or we could also go very small and quick (e.g., Quinn/Seth/Rasheed/Alex/Mason). The Duke three-guard set (e.g., Quinn/Seth/Andre/Ryan/Mason), or a basic traditional lineup (e.g., Quinn/Seth/Alex/Ryan/Mason). We could have an amazing shooting lineup (e.g., Seth/Rasheed/Andre/Alex/Ryan) or a strong defensive lineup (Tyler/Rasheed/Alex/Ryan/Mason). All in the context of an 8-man rotation (assuming Josh and Marshall get squeezed as the season moves toward March). Personally, I think that's plenty of positional flexibility.
    Last edited by Kedsy; 04-17-2012 at 11:07 AM.

  17. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildcat View Post
    Sorry, but i don't think this bodes well for our image; or for the future success of K.
    I was actually with you until you got here. I can't imagine that Michael's transfer will have even one iota of influence on Coach K's future success in any conceivable way.

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I was actually with you until you got here. I can't imagine that Michael's transfer will have even one iota of influence on Coach K's future success in any conceivable way.
    I seem to remember similar sentiments when Taylor King left... And then K won a national championship.

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I disagree with this point. I think we will see 7 of our 10 players playing multiple positions this coming season:

    Quinn: PG only
    Seth: SG, PG
    Rasheed: SG, PG, SF (against small teams)
    Tyler: PG, SG, SF (against small teams)
    Andre SF, SG
    Alex: SF, PF
    Ryan: PF, C
    Mason: C, PF
    Josh: PF only
    Marshall: C only

    Having listed it that way, I admit we probably won't see very much of Tyler or Andre at SG, and while Tyler did guard Harrison Barnes a bit this past season I doubt he plays more than a few minutes at SF. But that doesn't matter so much because I think the positional flexibility of newcomers Rasheed and Alex will be key when Coach K inevitably shortens his rotation.

    Rasheed and Alex give us the ability to have a pretty big lineup if we want (e.g., Rasheed/Andre/Alex/Ryan/Mason) or we could also go very small and quick (e.g., Quinn/Seth/Rasheed/Alex/Mason). Or just a traditional lineup (e.g., Quinn/Seth/Alex/Ryan/Mason). We could have an amazing shooting lineup (e.g., Rasheed/Seth/Andre/Alex/Ryan) or a strong defensive lineup (Tyler/Rasheed/Alex/Ryan/Mason). All in the context of an 8-man rotation (assuming Josh and Marshall get squeezed as the season moves toward March). Personally, I think that's plenty of positional flexibility.
    Mason and Kelly have no business defending quicker PF. They get toasted there. So while Kelly may play some C, he'll mostly play PF. And unless he really improves his quickness, he's going to be a liability there against most PF. I suspect that Mason will not be playing any PF next year by virtue of the composition of the team.

    But I think the argument is really that we don't have a ton of guys who can cover the guard, wing, and forward spots. That's at least what I mean when discussing defensive versatility. If I'm designing a team, I'd like to see the ability to have the SG, SF, and PF switch freely on screens. The PG and C need to be flexible to guard "one-off" positionally, but otherwise need to switch back quickly to the right sized matchup.

    As of now, we have only one guy with that kind of versatility (Murphy). Kelly and Mason can only guard bigs. Cook can only guard PG. Sulaimon will be comfortable against smaller players of any sort. Curry is in a similar boat. Thornton is capable against slower PG and SG and smaller SF, but he's not a great on-ball defender against quickness. Dawkins can theoretically guard SG or SF, but he suffers from lapses in focus. And he can't guard PG or PF.

    The defensive versatility has less to do with lineup composition (in my opinion) and more to do with ability to handle switches on defense. It is much harder to isolate a mismatch if you have 2-3 guys that can guard the middle three positions. If you have a bunch of guys who can only guard bigs and a bunch of guys who can only guard smalls, it is much easier to set up a mismatch opportunity.

  20. #200

    Gbinije transfer

    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    I was happy to see in the several links to the home page's "More on Gbinije's Departure" the straightforward explanation provided by Michael's high school coach. Namely, nothing against the school, his teammates, or K. "He just wants to play." And Michael's "just looking for a little bit of a fresh start."

    Although I'm a little disappointed in the [not unexpected] brevity of K's farewell comment, it's pretty standard fare, so no reason to read anything into that, either.

    However, the main page version of why Michael didn't play much does remind me of one final - and for me the essential - puzzle in his season. We are reminded of "the way things are done at Duke," meaning "defense, communication, and trust. A player earns trust in practice by playing hard, communicating and most of all defending."

    Fair enough, and I mean that. For me the really puzzling thing is that I'd have bet anything, based on seeing Michael several times on TV during his senior year and in all-star games, that he'd make his mark on D and trust. I posted a year ago that Michael was one of the only players in one of those all-star games to play any D; and as "proof" I gave 2 specific examples of his hustle and smart D. Further, I thought I saw in Michael just a hint of attitude, that he came into that all-star game with a bit of a chip on his shoulder, ready to prove he belonged. I thought, "This kid is going to be a really valuable player."

    So, I was either way off, or things just never clicked for Michael, once faced with the intensity [Is that it???] of K's system and tutelage. Maybe Michael's hustling D didn't mesh with the actual intricacies with K's defensive principles. Or maybe Michael's apparently very quiet demeanor became a real problem for him in Duke's system, for K has stated repeatedly that active communication is an absolute.

    I want to say, too, that I have been impressed with both the civility and insights provided in this thread by Greg_Newton, jimsumner, Zeb, MCFinARL, dukedoc, and Newton 14. [The rest of you are all great, too...]. Like Greg_Newton, I have found Michael's decision to transfer somewhat unsettling. But the many thoughtful posts have been informative and steadying. Seriously.

    I'm off for a bit of a cry now. Less seriously.
    Good post. I had similar expectations for Mike after watching him play at last summer's EYBL. He had a smoothness to his game and a willingness to play hard on the defensive end. His shooting stroke looked very good also. Based on those observations and his overall demeanor, I expected his game to transfer well to the next level. Without the benefit of seeing how he performed in team practices, it is difficult to guess why that didn't happen.

Similar Threads

  1. Welcome to Duke Michael Gbinije
    By Owen Meany in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 230
    Last Post: 08-08-2011, 12:22 AM
  2. Gbinije on ESPNU Tonight at 7 PM!
    By airowe in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-17-2010, 02:54 PM
  3. Michael Gbinije
    By duke4life32182 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-16-2010, 09:31 AM

Posting Permissions

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