Page 178 of 179 FirstFirst ... 78128168176177178179 LastLast
Results 3,541 to 3,560 of 3573
  1. #3541
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoCrazy84 View Post

    If the staff is still recruiting Shabazz then that tells you how they feel about his talent. I think Shabazz is considered a much better player than Gbinije coming out of high school.
    He's a better prospect than either Gbinije or Murphy - both of whom were very good prospects. He's the #1 player in his class, and if you can get the #1 player in a class, you get him and worry about the rest later. No offense to either Gbinije or Murphy (both of whom are very talented players and players that I'd be happy to have manning the SF spot next year), but you don't turn down a shot at the #1 recruit in the nation for a guy who is a top 10-15 (Murphy if he'd been in this year's class) or top 25-30 (Gbinije) talent.

    We're in a good spot in that we have Dawkins, Gbinije, and Murphy ready in the event we don't get Muhammad. But it'd be really nice to add Muhammad to the mix.

  2. #3542
    [QUOTE=ChicagoCrazy84;560480]
    Quote Originally Posted by THE FUTURE View Post
    I love Murphy's game, I feel like he is Mike Dunleavy, only stronger.
    I'm sorry, what? Mike Dunleavy scored 9.1 points in 24.1 minutes per game as a freshman. It's difficult to understate the impact he had on a team-- dude was effectively the entire bench, but did it remarkably well by subbing in for PF/SF/SG and even PG in a pinch. His ineffectiveness in the early rounds of the tournament (largely due to contracting mono late in the season) was, in opinion, the clincher in losing to Florida. To contrast, Andre Dawkins is scoring 8.5 points in 22.2 minutes per game as a junior. Seth Curry averaged 9 points on 25 minutes per game last year.

    Do you seriously think, with the hole we have at small forward, that if we had a stronger version of Mike Dunleavy, we wouldn't be playing him in every game instead of redshirting him????

  3. #3543
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    He's a better prospect than either Gbinije or Murphy - both of whom were very good prospects. He's the #1 player in his class, and if you can get the #1 player in a class, you get him and worry about the rest later. No offense to either Gbinije or Murphy (both of whom are very talented players and players that I'd be happy to have manning the SF spot next year), but you don't turn down a shot at the #1 recruit in the nation for a guy who is a top 10-15 (Murphy if he'd been in this year's class) or top 25-30 (Gbinije) talent.

    We're in a good spot in that we have Dawkins, Gbinije, and Murphy ready in the event we don't get Muhammad. But it'd be really nice to add Muhammad to the mix.
    I complete agree. Plus, there is something to be said for claiming victory in such a highly contested and thoroughly publicized recruitment. It's not just about the role Shabazz might play next year. It is also about other ways in which it could affect the program and future recruitment. Although many would argue that our success recruiting Kyrie and Austin hasn't yet paid such dividends, I think besting Cal and Kentucky for the services of Shabazz would be impressive. Perhaps we would then claim the "cool" program title that appears to be held, for some crazy reason, by KY.

  4. #3544
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by turnandburn55 View Post
    I'm sorry, what? Mike Dunleavy scored 9.1 points in 24.1 minutes per game as a freshman. It's difficult to understate the impact he had on a team-- dude was effectively the entire bench, but did it remarkably well by subbing in for PF/SF/SG and even PG in a pinch. His ineffectiveness in the early rounds of the tournament (largely due to contracting mono late in the season) was, in opinion, the clincher in losing to Florida. To contrast, Andre Dawkins is scoring 8.5 points in 22.2 minutes per game as a junior. Seth Curry averaged 9 points on 25 minutes per game last year.

    Do you seriously think, with the hole we have at small forward, that if we had a stronger version of Mike Dunleavy, we wouldn't be playing him in every game instead of redshirting him????
    Yeah, that's a VERY aggressive assessment of Murphy. Dunleavy was essentially a SG who happened to be 6'9". He could shoot the 3 very well and he could score off the dribble. He was a matchup nightmare. What little I've seen of Murphy doesn't suggest he's nearly as polished offensively as Dunleavy, though he may be physically stronger than Dunleavy was as a freshman (not setting the bar too high). I'm happy to have Murphy, but I don't think it's fair to him to expect "Dunleavy plus" from him.

    Though I think the clincher in losing to Florida was Jason Williams taking a rushed 3 in transition, with the lead, with about 3-4 minutes to go that would have put us up by (I think) 9. Had we run some clock there and maybe converted a better look, I think we might have gotten the win. But he missed, and UF went down and scored quickly, and took the momentum with them all the way to the win.

  5. #3545
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Though I think the clincher in losing to Florida was Jason Williams taking a rushed 3 in transition, with the lead, with about 3-4 minutes to go that would have put us up by (I think) 9. Had we run some clock there and maybe converted a better look, I think we might have gotten the win. But he missed, and UF went down and scored quickly, and took the momentum with them all the way to the win.
    I remember the exact shot you're talking about. I was thinking-- whoa, J-Dub just wants to put this away. You could tell from his body language, he'd had enough. Dude was exhausted, and rightfully so, since Billy Donovan's strategy the entire game was to mass-substitute and wear us down. K tried to bring Dunleavy off the bench to initiate the offense, but I remember at least once or twice that just straight-up dribbled into traps and turned the ball over-- Mikey D just wasn't himself. I think if we'd had a useful Dunleavy the whole game to give our starters more of a break, we'd have won.

    Fortunately for us, we brought in a recruit at exactly the right position the next year who proved to be a difference-maker at PG

  6. #3546
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by dukedoc View Post
    I complete agree. Plus, there is something to be said for claiming victory in such a highly contested and thoroughly publicized recruitment. It's not just about the role Shabazz might play next year. It is also about other ways in which it could affect the program and future recruitment. Although many would argue that our success recruiting Kyrie and Austin hasn't yet paid such dividends, I think besting Cal and Kentucky for the services of Shabazz would be impressive. Perhaps we would then claim the "cool" program title that appears to be held, for some crazy reason, by KY.
    While I agree that getting a third #1, probable one-and-done recruit in three years would only help our credibility on the trail, at this point nothing is going to make us the "cool" program in the eyes of today's kids again. Unless they think that something like, I don't know, winning is the coolest thing. Imagine that. But Duke is not viewed as cool -- we're viewed fairly or unfairly as the establishment, the private, the traditional, old money, button-downed, controlled. And yes, the white.

    To me, one of the great benefits of getting Shabazz, besides his being an outstanding player and by all accounts a terrific kid with a good head on his shoulders, is the type of lineups his presence would allow us to play. In particular, if he was to play the 2, he's a long, strong, rangy, physically mature guy who could not only take it strong to the bucket and finish, but more importantly, play the type of aggressive, pressure defense with the long arms and long body that we would love to play. If he played the 3, he could do the same from that position, but perhaps allow Mike G to earn minutes alongside him at the 2. How great would it be to have a 6'7" 2-guard with shooting range and defensive instincts (assuming he develops both of those) to alternate with Curry and Sulaimon and Dawkins at the 2?

    Pretty great, that's how great.

  7. #3547
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    To me, one of the great benefits of getting Shabazz, besides his being an outstanding player and by all accounts a terrific kid with a good head on his shoulders, is the type of lineups his presence would allow us to play. In particular, if he was to play the 2, he's a long, strong, rangy, physically mature guy who could not only take it strong to the bucket and finish, but more importantly, play the type of aggressive, pressure defense with the long arms and long body that we would love to play. If he played the 3, he could do the same from that position, but perhaps allow Mike G to earn minutes alongside him at the 2. How great would it be to have a 6'7" 2-guard with shooting range and defensive instincts (assuming he develops both of those) to alternate with Curry and Sulaimon and Dawkins at the 2?
    In theory, sure, but not with our roster and Duke's typically guard-centric line-ups. We'll have a senior Curry, a senior Dawkins, a junior Thornton, and Cook, Sulaimon, and possibly Rivers. I doubt the scenario you're envisioning would ever occur for any meaningful stretch of a game.

  8. #3548
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    In theory, sure, but not with our roster and Duke's typically guard-centric line-ups. We'll have a senior Curry, a senior Dawkins, a junior Thornton, and Cook, Sulaimon, and possibly Rivers. I doubt the scenario you're envisioning would ever occur for any meaningful stretch of a game.
    Well, I hope I'm wrong but I don't envision Austin coming back. That's first. Second, as I posted in another thread, I think Dawkins' role is going to be much reduced next year. Again, could be wrong, but that's my feeling. I also think it not unlikely that Cook is going to take over at the point, with TT as his backup.

    That would mean in my scenario we would have Curry and Sulaimon as more pure 2's (with Andre behind them) and Muhammad and Gbinije as swing 2-3's, with Murphy as a swing 3-4. Lots of versatility for sure. But I don't see why there wouldn't be scenarios in which we would want two long, rangy, smooth two-way players like Mike and Shabazz on the floor at the same time, assuming (especially Mike) they're up to it. A lineup like that would really be able to apply pressure at both ends, the way I think K would like to do it.

  9. #3549
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    While I agree that getting a third #1, probable one-and-done recruit in three years would only help our credibility on the trail, at this point nothing is going to make us the "cool" program in the eyes of today's kids again. Unless they think that something like, I don't know, winning is the coolest thing. Imagine that. But Duke is not viewed as cool -- we're viewed fairly or unfairly as the establishment, the private, the traditional, old money, button-downed, controlled. And yes, the white.

    To me, one of the great benefits of getting Shabazz, besides his being an outstanding player and by all accounts a terrific kid with a good head on his shoulders, is the type of lineups his presence would allow us to play. In particular, if he was to play the 2, he's a long, strong, rangy, physically mature guy who could not only take it strong to the bucket and finish, but more importantly, play the type of aggressive, pressure defense with the long arms and long body that we would love to play. If he played the 3, he could do the same from that position, but perhaps allow Mike G to earn minutes alongside him at the 2. How great would it be to have a 6'7" 2-guard with shooting range and defensive instincts (assuming he develops both of those) to alternate with Curry and Sulaimon and Dawkins at the 2?

    Pretty great, that's how great.
    Your description of the way our program is perceived is exactly right--conservative, old-fashioned, white-collar with a blue-collar work ethic, etc. We will NEVER be the 'in' or 'cool' program. That distinction will always be reserved for big state schools like Kentucky, UConn, Ohio State, Arizona, and, yes, UNC. However, I think there will continue to be at least two or three outstanding high school basketball players every year who buy into what Duke is selling. That's really all we need.

  10. #3550
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nashville
    I don't know, we were pretty cool in the 90's. Your image pretty much reflects your personnel and style of play, and we've had a lot of finesse/halfcourt teams with non-freak athlete white guys lately. Doesn't mean it'll last forever.

    [Ducks]

  11. #3551
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven43 View Post
    Your description of the way our program is perceived is exactly right--conservative, old-fashioned, white-collar with a blue-collar work ethic, etc. We will NEVER be the 'in' or 'cool' program. That distinction will always be reserved for big state schools like Kentucky, UConn, Ohio State, Arizona, and, yes, UNC. However, I think there will continue to be at least two or three outstanding high school basketball players every year who buy into what Duke is selling. That's really all we need.
    I think the perception of our program (and most programs) is tied largely to the perception of our head coach. If Capel or Amaker or Calipari, for example, were our head coach, we would move a bit more towards the "cool" end of the spectrum. The exceptions that jump to mind are UNC, Kentucky, Kansas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg_Newton View Post
    I don't know, we were pretty cool in the 90's. Your image pretty much reflects your personnel and style of play, and we've had a lot of finesse/halfcourt teams with non-freak athlete white guys lately. Doesn't mean it'll last forever.

    [Ducks]
    Sorry, but we were pretty cool in 1999, and possibly 2001. That's it.
    Last edited by gam7; 03-13-2012 at 02:00 AM.
    "I don't like them when they are eating my azaleas or rhododendrons or pansies." - Coach K

  12. #3552
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by gam7 View Post
    I think the perception of our program (and most programs) is tied largely to the perception of our head coach. If Capel or Amaker or Calipari, for example, were our head coach, we would move a bit more towards the "cool" end of the spectrum. The exceptions that jump to mind are UNC, Kentucky, Kansas.



    Sorry, but we were pretty cool in 1999, and possibly 2001. That's it.
    Slight disagreement....2002 was filled with Rock Stars. We just didn't complete.

    Also, was it 2004 with Duhon, Redick, Ewing, Deng, and Shelden? That was pretty cool.

    I'd say it was run from 1997 through 2004.

  13. #3553
    Join Date
    Dec 2009

    Younger staff

    I thought the younger, former player route as coaches, would net a different image for us as a program. Their success or failure in landing the "big-fishes," will be an indicator. Let's face it; discipline can only take you so far. We've got to get more diversified talent. That's all there is to it.

  14. #3554
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lewisville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildcat View Post
    I thought the younger, former player route as coaches, would net a different image for us as a program. Their success or failure in landing the "big-fishes," will be an indicator. Let's face it; discipline can only take you so far. We've got to get more diversified talent. That's all there is to it.
    Yeah, this string of ACC Championships, 30-win seasons, national top-10 rankings, and recent National Championship is just not cutting it?

  15. #3555
    Join Date
    Dec 2009

    Evidently not

    If it were cutting it; there wouldn't be so much talk about it.

  16. #3556
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by roywhite View Post
    Yeah, this string of ACC Championships, 30-win seasons, national top-10 rankings, and recent National Championship is just not cutting it?
    We need more Olek Czyz. If we had had him (or someone like him), we'd have probably already won a national championship since 2009...

  17. #3557
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildcat View Post
    If it were cutting it; there wouldn't be so much talk about it.
    Yeah, you're right. All this talk on these boards, and there's absolutely no support or positive comments about the team or any of its players or the coaching staff. Oy.

  18. #3558
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildcat View Post
    If it were cutting it; there wouldn't be so much talk about it.
    I dunno -
    Sometimes I think that for K's mental health hes just going to pull a "surprise" retirement and ride off into the sunset.
    I mean really, if nothing he does is ever good enough for us, why bother.. I mean hes already married; Does he need additional grief from the fan base after all hes accomplished? Absolutely not! I don't think that's going to happen, but IF it did. I'd totally get it.

    People clamor for excellence, shining examples in their sports dynasties... but when you actually give it to them they are oblivious or ungrateful.

    Personally, I'd like to see K at Duke long enough for him to be appreciated and for Duke to seem "cool" again.
    Kinda like a sports parallel of George Burns career

  19. #3559
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by gam7 View Post
    I think the perception of our program (and most programs) is tied largely to the perception of our head coach. If Capel or Amaker or Calipari, for example, were our head coach, we would move a bit more towards the "cool" end of the spectrum. The exceptions that jump to mind are UNC, Kentucky, Kansas.

    Sorry, but we were pretty cool in 1999, and possibly 2001. That's it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Faison1 View Post
    Slight disagreement....2002 was filled with Rock Stars. We just didn't complete.

    Also, was it 2004 with Duhon, Redick, Ewing, Deng, and Shelden? That was pretty cool.

    I'd say it was run from 1997 through 2004.
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg_Newton View Post
    I don't know, we were pretty cool in the 90's. Your image pretty much reflects your personnel and style of play, and we've had a lot of finesse/halfcourt teams with non-freak athlete white guys lately. Doesn't mean it'll last forever.

    [Ducks]
    I am actually amazed at how many people tell me they hate Duke because we have "annoying white guys" on the team. I'm not sure why race matters, but it does. The same people that tell me this - Unc fans mostly - dont seem to realize the annoying white guys at the end of their bench. I guess since Duke's white guys play, we're not cool and we're annoying.

    Who knows. Just keep winning and let the haters feel stupid.

  20. #3560
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mount, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    I am actually amazed at how many people tell me they hate Duke because we have "annoying white guys" on the team. I'm not sure why race matters, but it does. The same people that tell me this - Unc fans mostly - dont seem to realize the annoying white guys at the end of their bench. I guess since Duke's white guys play, we're not cool and we're annoying.

    Who knows. Just keep winning and let the haters feel stupid.
    In my experience the people who say that are always white...But my own opinion is they (UNC fans mostly) HATE Duke because the Devils actually compete against them year in and year out. But it doesn't sound good to say we hate you because your as good as we are.

Similar Threads

  1. 2017 Basketball Recruiting Thread
    By Henderson in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4965
    Last Post: 12-06-2017, 04:02 PM
  2. 2015 Basketball Recruiting Thread
    By dukedoc in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2934
    Last Post: 09-11-2015, 11:57 AM
  3. 2014 Basketball Recruiting thread
    By jnastasi in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3585
    Last Post: 10-24-2014, 10:00 PM
  4. 2012 Olympics Basketball Thread: The non-USA Teams
    By awhom111 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 07-27-2012, 01:51 PM
  5. New 2012 Recruiting Thread
    By Newton_14 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 467
    Last Post: 05-14-2012, 01:50 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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