Good post. Why do you think Roy is only given credit for recruiting?? Or, maybe I should ask, if he is only given credit for recruiting, why does that viewpoint even exist?
Schools/Programs/Coaches with successful programs draw the top players... end of story.
So, if a coach is good at "recruiting", it isn't because he has a silver tongue or is an accomplished wordsmith, it's because he runs a successful program and top players WANT to be part of it.
If a program has a less than stellar record, has limited exposure on the national scene, etc. no matter how good the coach is at talking to potential recruits they WILL NOT get the best out there.
So, saying that a coach is only good at recruiting is nonsense at best. Recruiting and RECORD go hand in hand.
You can not separate the two it is impossible ... thinking otherwise just shows a tremendous lack of understanding about how the process works.
I seriously doubt any team coached by K is going to come up short when it comes to practicing sound defensive fundamentals. Now if you want to say the execution was poor then fine, I'll accept that, but only to a certain degree. At certain times we'll come up against teams that have better players at certain positions, which enable them to exploit those advantages.
I love bashing Ol Roy. It is a hobby of mine. However I have to say this year he has done a pretty good job. I still would not put him in the same class as K, but then again I don't think there are any in Coach K's class.
Roy is a tremendous recruiter, but he does have the advantage of coaching two of the top 5 programs in NCAA history so it wasn't like he walked into programs that needed to start from scratch. Even when he took over UNC the talent was there.
I have some issues with his personality, thin skin, "aw shucks" routine, and foot in mouth disease. The stunt of pulling his players off the court while leaving the walkons is a classic Roy like move. But he wins tons of games.
I also don't think he is very adept at making in-game adjustments (Kansas beat down in 2008) or mid-season adjustments when things are going South (2010 for example).
Having said all that I have a son who played HS basketball. He was good, but not good enough to play ACC level. However if he had the chance to go and play for Roy, I would give him my blessing, because I do think he is basically a good guy deep down and cares for his players. I cant say the same about many other coaches, like Calipari, Chalhoun, Pitino, and others.
I agree. It seems maybe seeing the light (or darkness) at the end of the tunnel has propelled Miles into fully embracing the leadership of this team, both on the court and off. Don't know how much difference it will make, but it can't possibly hurt--and I'm glad for Miles that he is seizing the day.
Right, the execution was poor, when the execution is proper most times you can blunt the better players and in fact that is the main weapon to use against superior atheletes on both the offensive and defensive ends...case in point is the Princeton offense used by inferior athletic teams...built on precision and timing and quite often very effective and a winning solution...not advocating that offense just using as an example.
I think K would admit and has in so many words said we have played poor defensively in our losses and even in some of our wins. They may be practicing sound fundamentals but it is not carrying over to the games. It's not fair to fault them for their lack of athleticism...they can't do anything about that but their lapse of fundamentals is inexcusable at this level.
Sometimes we just have a bad game. Our guards aren't always going to shoot that poorly, and the other team isn't always going to shoot that well. I hate that it was Carolina that smoked us on our home floor, but, it happens. We'll bounce back.
I am curious when you say, " we will bounce back". It is the end of the season. Where will we, " bounce back" ? In your heart of hearts do you mean we will ," bounce back", to win the ACC tournament ? " Bounce back", to make the Final Four; to win the NCAA tournament? " Bounce back", for next year?
There really is so little time to ," bounce back" as everything now is a one and done situation...The ACC tourney, the NCAA tourney.
I have said this before , I would not be surprised if Duke does not survive the first weekend of the NCAA tournament. I think that Coach K has done a stupendous job this year and based on its rankings, in my opinion I think that Duke is quite overrated.
I think our guards just aren't accustomed to boxing out their man. Most teams don't send five guys to the offensive boards. UNC did, and gambled that it wouldn't lead to any fast breaks by us. That was a smart coaching move, as they figured we wouldn't want to get into an up-and-down game with them, and aside from that our fast break execution has been pretty awful all year. So you have guards who aren't really thinking about blocking out, plus they're guarding someone with 3-6 inches on them... it's a recipe for disaster.
Of all of our guards I think Austin does the best job with rebounding. However, most of his boards are from drifting under the basket and picking up loose balls. He doesn't really box his man out, per se. Anyways, I hope and expect that this will be addressed moving forward.
Ol Roy could have been the best AAU coach on the planet. Assemble five of the finest BB playas on the planet, practice includes multiple 17s, roll the ball out and let your thorobreds run and gun. They are truly "overwhelming", or in other words if they don't win it all something's wrong. You determine what.
How long does a "bounce back" take? Can one "bounce back" by Friday, which is the only game currently on our calendar? Does it require Duke winning the ACC tournament for you, in your expertise, to credit the team with adequately bouncing back? Or, if we perform so badly as to not win the ACC tournament, do we have to make the final four or win the NCAA tournament for you to give a thumbs up to our team having finally "bounced back"?
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to hope the team will bounce back with a good performance against VT/Clemson. They may or may not be able to win the ACC tournament, but they could actually play quite well and still lose to a very good FSU or an extremely good UNC team on Saturday or Sunday.
Good luck in your quest to be able to tell us all how brilliant you are in your basketball prognostication abilities. If Duke does, indeed lose in the first weekend of the NCAA tournament, I fully hope to see a thread started by you entitled, "See, I was right, we were quite overrated", and I will post on there my heartfelt congratulations and recognition that, yes, you sir, called it.
Then why bother playing the games?? Did they achieve this status in your mind because they beat us big time? Anything can happen and I feel like there are 4 teams that could win it all.
Many times it's about match-ups , how individual players are feeling on any given day/ night, even bad calls and no calls can affect a games outcome especially when so many games are won by 3 points or less.
Tell ya what. UNC beat us as badly as they did for one reason. It wasn't that we are not athletic enough... that's hog wash.
What caused our embarrassing defeat was our young guys could not handle the pressure and the hype... period. They were tight and nervous the entire first half. Rivers played the whole first half of the game with a "deer in the headlights" look about him. NOT knocking him, he's a FRESHMAN and I don't believe he ever felt that kind of pressure before. I don't know if ANY Freshman ever has until they get on such a stage.
So, IF you are trying to suggest that if UNC does not win it all that they have failed collectively or individually, I think you are mistaken.
They very well COULD win it all but I'll wait, watch the games and see if another team steps up and plays the game of the season... it's entirely possible and again, it's THE reason the games are played.
Well... my glass is always more than half full. "Bounce back"... I think winning the ACCT is a definite "bounce back". Getting to the Final Four is even more of a "bounce back". Winning the NC... well, that is the definition of "bounce back".
DUKE had a very good season so far. Imagine, if 2 of the 3 ACC losses were to GaTech and NCState, instead of FSU and unc (meaning sweeping both FSU and unc). Maybe still tied for ACC regular season (if FSU and/or unc find another win), but I don't think many here would be as "down" as they are now if that happened. I think the overwhelming loss to unc is just "hard to take", especially the last game of the regular season, and giving unc the outright regular season title.
But remember... there is MORE TO COME!!! GO DUKE!!!
A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
---Roger Ebert
Some questions cannot be answered
Who’s gonna bury who
We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
---Over the Rhine
Well, let's examine your assertion a bit, shall we. First off, I despise the term "athletic" when applied to college hoops because I believe it has become a sort of Swiss army knife code word for all sorts of things. Second, our "young" guys are not, collectively, very much younger than UNC's players. Google it: UNC starts Barnes and Marshall, both sophomores. Extremely good sophomores, but still second-year players. Bullock is also a sophomore. Henson is a junior, Zeller a senior. So I make that 3 sophomores, a junior, and a senior. And none of these fifth-year senior/transfer/Tyler Hansblow 21 when I started college shenanigans either. OK, who do we start? A freshman, a sophomore, 2 juniors, and a senior (or a third junior if Mason starts). I'll admit that Cook's injury probably limited our options in the backcourt, but I doubt Coach K would EVER consistently start 2 freshmen at guard anyways.
Add it all up, we're not a younger (starting) team than UNC, but this crap has been perpetuated by the sports media this whole season. Even Coach K has had a hand in this nonsense. Of course, I would also accept the premise too if I were in Coach K's shoes. It allows you to poor mouth and steers the conversation away from the real story. UNC's players aren't older; they're just better. Again, run the numbers: look at how highly rated Barnes, Henson, Marshall, and Zeller were coming out of high school. I'm sure Barnes, Henson, Bullock, and Marshall were all top 20, and I believe Zeller was as well. It's sobering when you look this stuff up: ESPN had Bullock at 18, Zeller at 7th, Henson at 6th, and we all know the "Harrison Barnes story." Heck, even McAdoo off the bench was 6th according to ESPN. I realize that some of you will just turn this into another "ESPN anti-Duke conspiracy." Whatever. I think they generally attach the numerical ratings before the players commit to a school.
Now look at Duke: okay Rivers and Mason Plumlee were both top 10 recruits, according to ESPN. Kelly was 17. Miles was 47. I'm pretty sure Dawkins, Seth Curry, and Tyler Thornton weren't top 50, although Dawkins might have been close. Quinn Cook came in at 38. Believe me, I'm not trying to "grade" our players or criticize them. I'm just saying if you apply a consistent, objective talent yardstick here, UNC should be destroying us every time we play. While we're bringing in a top 10 recruit every year or two, ol' Deputy Dawg over there in Chapel Hill is bringing in waves of them every year. Freshman or not, you sure as h*ll can't blame Austin Rivers. I mean he won the first game in large part by himself. He's a lonely top 10 recruit out there playing against a whole team of them.
If you look at it in terms of career minutes played, UNC is a much more experienced team than us. Here are the numbers I pulled off of ESPN:
Miles 2061
Seth 1857
Ryan 1773
Austin 1021
Tyler 960
(Mason 2299)
Henson 2496
Zeller 2473
Barnes 1958
Marshall 1930
Bullock 1129
Our most experienced guy, Miles, has never needed to be a leader until this year. And Barnes has played almost as many minutes as him. In fact, none of our guys have had to be leaders, because our leaders graduated last year. Our most talented guy is a freshman. Meanwhile, UNC's best players are also the most experienced.
As far as talent levels, these things go in cycles. Last year we had more talent than them, at least until Kyrie went down. We also had more experience. Next year, if Henson and Barnes leave as expected in addition to Zeller, and if Austin and/or Mason were to come back, we'd have the advantage again. That's what makes the rivalry so great. And even in a "down" year we're still pretty good.
My point was that we did not handle the pressure and hype... period... and we did not. We were tight and extremely nervous the first half. We settled down and played well in the second half for the most part.
Why is Deputy Dawg able to bring in so many highly rated players?? Doesn't Coach K want to bring in waves of top 10 players every year?? What's the problem??
I was not blaming Austin Rivers for anything. I was just stating that he had a "deer in the headlights" look about him the entire first half and I think his nerves got the best of him and that's understandable.
Also, I didn't say we were " a younger team " , I said our young guys didn't handle the pressure well and in the first half, they didn't.
This is not the first time this year Duke has played poorly. Duke has played poorly against teams who were not as good as the Duke players too. I don't think N.C. loss was due to them just being much better than Duke, and Rivers certainly didn't play like a one man team, in fact, Miles had a better game than Rivers.
I have been following Duke basketball for 30 years now. The thing that I have always loved about Duke basketball is you always know what you are going to get. A 110% , intelligent, leaving it all out on the court effort. 5 guys who think the name on the front of the jersey is more important than the name on the back.Win or lose, they do everything they are supposed to do and they never beat themselves. If anybody loses the game on the free throw line, it won't be Duke.Players that took prode in DEFENSE first.
This team just doesn't have these attributes. They play hard some nights and not so hard other nights. Some nights they hit their free throws pretty well and some nights they don't. They are conveniently good, not consistently good. They are becoming what everybody else is.