2011 Jordan Brand Classic

[MaxAMillion]

I think McAdoo will fit perfectly in the UNC system. He will be the perfect energy player off the bench. Rivers is obviously talented but I think he needs direction (both in his game and emotionally). I think K will do wonders for Rivers game.

[sagegrouse]

I think McAdoo will fit perfectly in the UNC system. He will be the perfect energy player off the bench. Rivers is obviously talented but I think he needs direction (both in his game and emotionally). I think K will do wonders for Rivers game.

Did anyone else see this quote from Doc in the NY Times article linked on the Front Page? Maybe we should affix it to every post that promises immediate stardom for a Duke recruit?

"It seems to amuse Rivers that Austin is already pegged as a high lottery pick for the 2012 draft.

“'I just tell him that he’s a really good high school basketball player right now,' his father said. 'But that’s all he is.'”

sagegrouse

[gumbomoop]

Michael: I really watched for him on the court, but never knew his number and never saw the back of his jersey. There were so many that fit his description, that I didn't really see him play specifically. Wish the announcers had been better about indicating who was substituted in. He scored 10 and people say he played well, but I never heard one word about him come out of an announcers mouth during game time.

I can easily understand why S2 had trouble seeing Gbinije, as Jay Bilas and Jimmy Dykes - both solid color commentators in other contexts - were perilously close to Dickie V territory last night in their inability to focus on the game, on specific plays, all [as opposed to a select few] players, subtle moves [as opposed to diaper dandy dunkeroos]. Had I had the power to fire Jay and Jimmy on the spot - and the power to transport either myself or any of dozens of observant DBR posters to the spot to take over the commentary - I'd have done so. In short, bluntly and fervently stated, Jay and Jimmy sucked, big time, last eve. I usually enjoy their expertise, but last night, no good. I trust Jay will regain his equilibrium, and soon. Jimmy, too.

As to the actual substance of Michael Gbinije's play, I'll take my comments over to the Gbinije thread, since, clearly, Jay and Jimmy implied - by their sins [I use the word advisedly] of omission - that Gbinije "didn't belong." Jump in the bloody lake, you two. Come up for air when you remember how to do your job.

[COYS]

I have heard the hype surrounding Austin and watched him in seveal games. At first, I kind of expected the second coming of Pistol Pete Maravich. Now, I have a better feel for his capabilities on the offensive end, but since little defense has been played, I will have to await some real competitive game time situations for that/

Austin:

He has an excellent handle, a really ankle breaking crossover, can shoot from outside, get by people and can score around the basket or draw contact and hit his foul shots. Otherwise, he is as nearly complete an offensive player as you will see coming out of high school. Her is also quite agile as seen by one of his incredible putbacks last night, but he isn't super quick like John Wall.

He does have some areas to improve. His release on his outside shot is not smooth and therefore I expect him to be an inconsistent shooter from 3, unless he addresses that. He likes to face up with a defender and either use a screen or just set up a crossover. He will no doubt draw the best long and quick defender from the opponent and he may be picked fairly often as he was last night. He is likely to be taking a significant percentage of shots next season, so I hope that he will learn to play off the ball, so that the rest of the team doesn't stand and watch Austin. Maybe he has been told that he is a star often enough that he feels he needs to live up to the billing. That bounce off the backboard to himself was the kind of play that would have a coach scratching their head.

I am not trying to be negative about Austin, just realistic about what he brings to the table. All kids learn as they come into Div I ball, and Austin will get stronger and be in a position to use his skills and learn what works and doesn't.

Michael:

I really watched for him on the court, but never knew his number and never saw the back of his jersey. There were so many that fit his description, that I didn't really see him play specifically. Wish the announcers had been better about indicating who was substituted in. He scored 10 and people say he played well, but I never heard one word about him come out of an announcers mouth during game time.

Just a word about McAdoo. That kid had a heck of a game. He was one of the most impressive kids on the floor last night. Hairston didn't impress at all.

Gbinije was number 5 for the east. He had a solid game and was oh so close to finishing two spectacular plays that would've put him in the highlight reel (he missed an almost-incredible put back jam off the back iron that, even though he missed it, displayed some impressive hops and lost the handle on a few acrobatic forays to the rim amid the trees). When he wasn't pressing and instead let the game come to him, he was at his best, including a nice breakaway jam and a smooth three off of an assist from Austin. You can only glean so much from an all star game, of course, but the reports on Mike seem to be accurate. His movements are generally smooth as silk and he seems to be good at a lot of things. He's got a pretty good handle, a smooth shooting stroke, good passing instincts, and solid athleticism. While his actual size will play a big role in determining what positions he can guard, I don't doubt his coach that he could cover opposing 1's, 2's, and 3's. He seems like a guy who, if he can adapt to Duke defense quickly, could earn some PT as a long wing defender who can hit the open jumper and sneak in for an offensive rebound from the wing. He could also play a huge role in the full-court press. He also seems pretty strong for a wing player, which should help his transition to college ball. I almost never pencil freshman into the starting lineup or anything, but it wouldn't surprise me if Mike ended up making the regular rotation next year . . . especially if his defensive versatility proves to be an asset.

As for Austin, he didn't have his best shooting night, but the East's offense actually functioned more efficiently when he played point guard instead of Teague. He spent a lot of the night playing off the ball, but when he did bring the ball up, he consistently looked to set teammates up. He also did a good job running the break (except for that ill-advised only-in-an-all-star-game attempt at an alley-oop to himself off the glass). He would have had more assists if a few of his passes hadn't been fumbled. He also wasn't afraid to go for rebounds in the paint, even though he had a few nice boards knocked out of his hands. His offensive skillset is very advanced. I think that strength will be the biggest issue for him in terms of adjustment to college as he will be bumped and bullied like he never has, before. Luckily, he's got the guile, agility, and creativity to get off his shots even when the opposing defender is stronger or taller. He's so elusive with the ball that I'd think K and the staff will help translate some of that agility to his movements off the ball, as well. While he will probably have the ball in his hands most of the time, I think we'll see him move around quite a bit more than he has in the all star games when he's off the ball at Duke.

[Gthoma2a]

Why even rank teams then, if the regular season is just practice. Just have a random draw for the tourney. Ultimately, VCU and Butler, are just like the rest- losers. Why would you celebrate a Final Four team? Losers are losers- doesn't matter when they went out- the teams did not accomplish anything all year and could not get it done.

Final Four means you were one of the last 4 teams left in the entire country. That is why you celebrate a Final Four. When you are down to there, the ones who are left have done some pretty impressive things. That's why. It is also success in the tournament. You could go undefeated through the regular season, but without a high level of success in the tournament, you won't be remembered by any fanbase other than your own. I am sorry, but the regular season hasn't won anyone a real championship in the opinion of the general population.

As to the feelings on who should start, I don't care who starts, but I get tired of hearing, "Austin can start, no other freshman will. You have to have years to play in K's system. All of our players are better than any freshman could be." For one thing, Austin hasn't played a college game, so he shouldn't get a pass from competing. Second, how do you know that Andre will be a better 3 than Michael automatically? How do you know that Seth will play the point better than Quinn automatically? How do you know that Deandre, should we get him, wouldn't be a great fit at a 4 for next year's team (he could be a 3, he could be any number of things, but I certainly don't see why we wouldn't be able to play some 4 like Kyle with his athleticism/overall game)? My point has always been that people throwing around absolutes like that don't know a thing yet. K will decide, so why say that a player is, "going to take a couple of years before he can make an impact for this program"? I don't need any of these guys to start, but there is no reason to say, before they ever get to step on the court, that we know who they are next to our players. We will see how they play next year, and I like to think highly of who we are bringing in. My reasoning is that most of the guys we are bringing back are good players who have been the role players up until now, so they are auditioning to be impact guys too. Last Year's team was a combo of Kyle, Nolan, and Kyrie's team with different guys stepping up in different ways at different times. No player is untouchable yet.

[Devilsfan]

I also noticed that Bilas was so updated on the top 9-10 players he seemed not to have done his homework on the rest of the squad, unlike a Dukie who has also earned a law degree and tries to a fault not to be a homer.

[TaiAdmiral]

Hi everybody,

We drove down to Charlotte (through a couple of tornadoes) yesterday to check out the JBC. Here's a recap from us, and an interview with Mike G/Austin: http://www.crazie-talk.com/2011/04/1...brand-classic/

[NSDukeFan]

Final Four means you were one of the last 4 teams left in the entire country. That is why you celebrate a Final Four. When you are down to there, the ones who are left have done some pretty impressive things. That's why. It is also success in the tournament.

I agree that reaching a final four is a great accomplishment and should be celebrated and is more of an achievement than a regular season championship or even an ACC championship, in my mind. But, there are only four teams that get there and sometimes they are not the best teams. As others have pointed out, don't discount a team because of one game in the tournament. It is blatantly unfair.

You could go undefeated through the regular season, but without a high level of success in the tournament, you won't be remembered by any fanbase other than your own. I am sorry, but the regular season hasn't won anyone a real championship in the opinion of the general population.

You're right that a great regular season doesn't count as a championship, but I certainly remember UNLV in 1991, Georgetown's great team that lost to Villanova, Kansas last year, OSU this year, Syracuse in 1987 (though I was a fan of them then), Kansas with Pierce and Lafrentz, Temple with Mark Macon, St. Joe's with Jameer Nelson and Delonte West, Stanford who entered the tourney with one loss? etc. as very good or great teams that didn't win a championship. I believe there are many other posters on this board (maybe they don't count as the general population) who remember some of the great regular seasons both from Duke and other schools. I am pretty sure there aren't any teams that have gone through the regular season undefeated that have been forgotten.

As to the feelings on who should start, I don't care who starts, but I get tired of hearing, "Austin can start, no other freshman will. You have to have years to play in K's system. All of our players are better than any freshman could be." For one thing, Austin hasn't played a college game, so he shouldn't get a pass from competing. Second, how do you know that Andre will be a better 3 than Michael automatically? How do you know that Seth will play the point better than Quinn automatically? How do you know that Deandre, should we get him, wouldn't be a great fit at a 4 for next year's team (he could be a 3, he could be any number of things, but I certainly don't see why we wouldn't be able to play some 4 like Kyle with his athleticism/overall game)? My point has always been that people throwing around absolutes like that don't know a thing yet. K will decide, so why say that a player is, "going to take a couple of years before he can make an impact for this program"? I don't need any of these guys to start, but there is no reason to say, before they ever get to step on the court, that we know who they are next to our players. We will see how they play next year, and I like to think highly of who we are bringing in. My reasoning is that most of the guys we are bringing back are good players who have been the role players up until now, so they are auditioning to be impact guys too. Last Year's team was a combo of Kyle, Nolan, and Kyrie's team with different guys stepping up in different ways at different times. No player is untouchable yet.

I agree that nobody knows yet who will start and how much everyone will play and those are things that the coaching staff will decide. Some people, however have been following the team for a few years and based on what has happened in the past may have a better idea of what may occur in the future. You can say all you want that these freshmen are very talented and will likely start, but sometimes it may be a good idea to look at history to get a basis for what may happen in the future. As many have pointed out, recruits that are not in the top 5 in the country don't typically start for Duke, unless there is a shortage at their position. Also, a 15th ranked recruit who is now a junior tends to play more than a 20th ranked freshman. Again, nobody knows for sure what will happen, but some people like to look at other information when making their points, rather than stating an unwavering opinion based on ...opinion.

I am looking forward to the competition for minutes next year as I have no idea who will eventually play how much. I also expect this very talented incoming class to make a big impact at Duke. I am just not sure it will be this year more so than the very talented and highly ranked Junior class of Mason, Ryan, Andre and I will include Seth, all of whom have shown the ability to compete very well at this level and will likely continue to improve.

[COYS]

Gbinije was number 5 for the east. He had a solid game and was oh so close to finishing two spectacular plays that would've put him in the highlight reel (he missed an almost-incredible put back jam off the back iron that, even though he missed it, displayed some impressive hops and lost the handle on a few acrobatic forays to the rim amid the trees). When he wasn't pressing and instead let the game come to him, he was at his best, including a nice breakaway jam and a smooth three off of an assist from Austin. You can only glean so much from an all star game, of course, but the reports on Mike seem to be accurate. His movements are generally smooth as silk and he seems to be good at a lot of things. He's got a pretty good handle, a smooth shooting stroke, good passing instincts, and solid athleticism. While his actual size will play a big role in determining what positions he can guard, I don't doubt his coach that he could cover opposing 1's, 2's, and 3's. He seems like a guy who, if he can adapt to Duke defense quickly, could earn some PT as a long wing defender who can hit the open jumper and sneak in for an offensive rebound from the wing. He could also play a huge role in the full-court press. He also seems pretty strong for a wing player, which should help his transition to college ball. I almost never pencil freshman into the starting lineup or anything, but it wouldn't surprise me if Mike ended up making the regular rotation next year . . . especially if his defensive versatility proves to be an asset.

As for Austin, he didn't have his best shooting night, but the East's offense actually functioned more efficiently when he played point guard instead of Teague. He spent a lot of the night playing off the ball, but when he did bring the ball up, he consistently looked to set teammates up. He also did a good job running the break (except for that ill-advised only-in-an-all-star-game attempt at an alley-oop to himself off the glass). He would have had more assists if a few of his passes hadn't been fumbled. He also wasn't afraid to go for rebounds in the paint, even though he had a few nice boards knocked out of his hands. His offensive skillset is very advanced. I think that strength will be the biggest issue for him in terms of adjustment to college as he will be bumped and bullied like he never has, before. Luckily, he's got the guile, agility, and creativity to get off his shots even when the opposing defender is stronger or taller. He's so elusive with the ball that I'd think K and the staff will help translate some of that agility to his movements off the ball, as well. While he will probably have the ball in his hands most of the time, I think we'll see him move around quite a bit more than he has in the all star games when he's off the ball at Duke.

One more point on Austin that I should've added in my original post was that he twice stole the West's inbound pass after an East made basket. Both steals were really slick and showed extremely quick hands and feet as well as awareness. Under K's tutelage, I bet Austin's defense will improve to the point that opposing teams are going to really fear the quick hands of Rivers and Curry.

[dukelifer]

Final Four means you were one of the last 4 teams left in the entire country. That is why you celebrate a Final Four. When you are down to there, the ones who are left have done some pretty impressive things. That's why. It is also success in the tournament. You could go undefeated through the regular season, but without a high level of success in the tournament, you won't be remembered by any fanbase other than your own. I am sorry, but the regular season hasn't won anyone a real championship in the opinion of the general population.

As to the feelings on who should start, I don't care who starts, but I get tired of hearing, "Austin can start, no other freshman will. You have to have years to play in K's system. All of our players are better than any freshman could be." For one thing, Austin hasn't played a college game, so he shouldn't get a pass from competing. Second, how do you know that Andre will be a better 3 than Michael automatically? How do you know that Seth will play the point better than Quinn automatically? How do you know that Deandre, should we get him, wouldn't be a great fit at a 4 for next year's team (he could be a 3, he could be any number of things, but I certainly don't see why we wouldn't be able to play some 4 like Kyle with his athleticism/overall game)? My point has always been that people throwing around absolutes like that don't know a thing yet. K will decide, so why say that a player is, "going to take a couple of years before he can make an impact for this program"? I don't need any of these guys to start, but there is no reason to say, before they ever get to step on the court, that we know who they are next to our players. We will see how they play next year, and I like to think highly of who we are bringing in. My reasoning is that most of the guys we are bringing back are good players who have been the role players up until now, so they are auditioning to be impact guys too. Last Year's team was a combo of Kyle, Nolan, and Kyrie's team with different guys stepping up in different ways at different times. No player is untouchable yet.

To quote your previous post "Go undefeated, but lose in the tournament, and a team is an anecdote, not a champion." 3 Final Four teams lose in the tournament- they are all anecdotes and not champions by your definition. Why do YOU celebrate them but not other teams that lose before the FF- despite having great regular seasons. I don't understand your logic.

Also- you say that "You could go undefeated through the regular season, but without a high level of success in the tournament, you won't be remembered by any fanbase other than your own. " Really? Who defines high level of success? Is it based on how you do in the post season given your seed which is based on the regular season performance which you argue is just practice and meaningless. Or is high level of success only getting to a FF- although not wining the NC delegates you to anecdote status. Also do you really believe that no one outside UNLV remembers UNLV in 1991? No one outside KY remembers KY and their game against Duke in 1992? No one remembers Northern Iowa and their win against Kansas?

[Gthoma2a]

To quote your previous post "Go undefeated, but lose in the tournament, and a team is an anecdote, not a champion." 3 Final Four teams lose in the tournament- they are all anecdotes and not champions by your definition. Why do YOU celebrate them but not other teams that lose before the FF- despite having great regular seasons. I don't understand your logic.

Also- you say that "You could go undefeated through the regular season, but without a high level of success in the tournament, you won't be remembered by any fanbase other than your own. " Really? Who defines high level of success? Is it based on how you do in the post season given your seed which is based on the regular season performance which you argue is just practice and meaningless. Or is high level of success only getting to a FF- although not wining the NC delegates you to anecdote status. Also do you really believe that no one outside UNLV remembers UNLV in 1991? No one outside KY remembers KY and their game against Duke in 1992? No one remembers Northern Iowa and their win against Kansas?

You don't get a banner for a regular season championship. You get one for a Final Four. That is where my point of view is based. If you don't get a banner for your performance, you didn't make a huge mark on more than memories.

[El_Diablo]

You don't get a banner for a regular season championship. You get one for a Final Four. That is where my point of view is based. If you don't get a banner for your performance, you didn't make a huge mark on more than memories.

Well, a team can give itself a banner for whatever it wants to, whether it's a regular-season championship or a Sweet Sixteen appearance. Please stop hijacking this thread.

[arnie]

I can easily understand why S2 had trouble seeing Gbinije, as Jay Bilas and Jimmy Dykes - both solid color commentators in other contexts - were perilously close to Dickie V territory last night in their inability to focus on the game, on specific plays, all [as opposed to a select few] players, subtle moves [as opposed to diaper dandy dunkeroos]. Had I had the power to fire Jay and Jimmy on the spot - and the power to transport either myself or any of dozens of observant DBR posters to the spot to take over the commentary - I'd have done so. In short, bluntly and fervently stated, Jay and Jimmy sucked, big time, last eve. I usually enjoy their expertise, but last night, no good. I trust Jay will regain his equilibrium, and soon. Jimmy, too.

As to the actual substance of Michael Gbinije's play, I'll take my comments over to the Gbinije thread, since, clearly, Jay and Jimmy implied - by their sins [I use the word advisedly] of omission - that Gbinije "didn't belong." Jump in the bloody lake, you two. Come up for air when you remember how to do your job.

Though G looked very capable last night. And I wholeheartedly agree with you, Bilas loves hearing himself talk and does a very poor job with game announcing. At one point, Dykes said Carolina won the ACC last year and Bilas just kept talking through that statement.

[COYS]

Though G looked very capable last night. And I wholeheartedly agree with you, Bilas loves hearing himself talk and does a very poor job with game announcing. At one point, Dykes said Carolina won the ACC last year and Bilas just kept talking through that statement.

If only it were limited to on-air slip-ups. I also saw it mentioned in an article on ESPN.com (I can't remember which article it was at the moment) which said that UNC would be able to build off a team that won the ACC in 2011. Not only is this not true, but no one seems to remember that UNC was not just beaten, but blown out by Duke in the final. Man, I hate that the last game of the season colors most people's view of the rest of the season so much. We really had a great team this year. If not for a bad half against Zona . . . oh well.

[Duke: A Dynasty]

If only it were limited to on-air slip-ups. I also saw it mentioned in an article on ESPN.com (I can't remember which article it was at the moment) which said that UNC would be able to build off a team that won the ACC in 2011. Not only is this not true, but no one seems to remember that UNC was not just beaten, but blown out by Duke in the final. Man, I hate that the last game of the season colors most people's view of the rest of the season so much. We really had a great team this year. If not for a bad half against Zona . . . oh well.

Well I did not hear it so im not sure the context it was being used with but most people consider the regular season champs to be the ones who are ACC Kings not the tournament..

[Duvall]

Well I did not hear it so im not sure the context it was being used with but most people consider the regular season champs to be the ones who are ACC Kings not the tournament..

Those people are wrong - not as a matter of opinion, but fact.

[SupaDave]

Those people are wrong - not as a matter of opinion, but fact.

What Duvall said...

You might get some t-shirts for winning the ACC regular season title - that's it besides a small nod in the record books.

[COYS]

Well I did not hear it so im not sure the context it was being used with but most people consider the regular season champs to be the ones who are ACC Kings not the tournament..

Yeah, I'm not sure when this came to be the case. It certainly wasn't the case in 2004 when the Twerps came back to upset Duke. I remember how that boosted their seed and the media kept on referring to how they were rewarded for being conference champs.

Even if I concede that a short, single elimination tournament is not the best way to determine the conference champion, it is silly to say that the holes were kings of the ACC this past year. In all ACC games, including games in the tournament, UNC was 16-3 and Duke was 16-3. Duke wins the tie-breaker with a 2-1 edge in head to head matchups including the dismantling of UNC in the ACC tournament final.

[Duke: A Dynasty]

Yeah, I'm not sure when this came to be the case. It certainly wasn't the case in 2004 when the Twerps came back to upset Duke. I remember how that boosted their seed and the media kept on referring to how they were rewarded for being conference champs.

Even if I concede that a short, single elimination tournament is not the best way to determine the conference champion, it is silly to say that the holes were kings of the ACC this past year. In all ACC games, including games in the tournament, UNC was 16-3 and Duke was 16-3. Duke wins the tie-breaker with a 2-1 edge in head to head matchups including the dismantling of UNC in the ACC tournament final.

I agree the reason I hear people say it is because the seaason is more telling of who is good than the tournament is. Tournament requires a little bit of luck and the season is more telling. But like I said I agree with you

[Faison1]

How come I'm not hearing anything about Quincy Miller in any of these All-Star Events?