Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 399
  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    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.
    Fair point. That certainly was a factor in our below-standard defense this past season. And Michael arguably could have helped with this sort of flexibility next season. But I would argue that Tyler, Andre, and (hopefully) Rasheed and Alex would all be able to handle a switch (to anything but a center for the first three and probably a PG for Alex) for a possession at a time. I wouldn't want the small wings guarding any big man for long stretches, but any of those four guys ought to be able to at least adequately handle the switch on most pick-and-rolls.

  2. #202
    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.
    As a coach you are definitely right but it stands a good chance of having an influence in recruiting. I think highly recruited transfers out feed into a negative perception. Whether the perception is valid or not is somewhat of a moot point as it is out there and at times needs to be overcome.

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Quote Originally Posted by azzefkram View Post
    As a coach you are definitely right but it stands a good chance of having an influence in recruiting. I think highly recruited transfers out feed into a negative perception. Whether the perception is valid or not is somewhat of a moot point as it is out there and at times needs to be overcome.
    but all of the major programs have them, so how would this make any difference relative to others?

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by azzefkram View Post
    As a coach you are definitely right but it stands a good chance of having an influence in recruiting. I think highly recruited transfers out feed into a negative perception. Whether the perception is valid or not is somewhat of a moot point as it is out there and at times needs to be overcome.
    But almost all the big programs have a lot of transfers out. Hard to see how Michael's departure could be any more negative for Duke than the plethora of recent UNC departures, for example.

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    An important thing to remember about playing for K: it's a team sport and players must work together (cf, "fist"), and without rigid structure imposed on offense or defense.

    A player should know where his four teammates are. And where all five opponents are. And anticipate where the play is headed. And do all this without using a lot of set plays, but rather creating and adapting as each possession develops. It's tricky and subtle and very hard to learn. We struggled with this all year on D, and now and then on O.

    Communication and awareness are vital. Calling - and hearing - a switch vs. hedge being the most obvious one on D; miss on that and someone's left really open for an easy shot. Anticipating where a player will be on O without a diagrammed play - Irving was a savant <sigh>. Seeing the entirety of the game flow, being ready to help on D, using screens to free a good shooter, calling screens to protect your teammates, finding the open big in the lane. All require broader awareness. Zoubs had amazing awareness down the stretch. He knew where his teammates were on an offensive rebound and could get the ball to an open one before the other team could begin to react. And his teammates were equally ready to catch and shoot: a team working together. This year, Kelly seemed to see the whole game better than anyone else, and we really missed it when he was out. And I think Andre often struggled to see the whole game, then would get out of position, miss an assignment, and sit.

    Under K, freakish athleticism isn't necessary: just look back to our recent alarmingly unathletic team. Many of our NBA alums aren't there because of athleticism, either, but because they truly understand the whole game. Some are still there - and productive - well past their athletic prime. Still, a freakish athlete will excel under K as long as he buys into K's whole game concept. We're at our best when we have athletic players that understand the whole game. When forced to make a choice, though, K generally prefers understanding the game to athleticism.

    G seemed to have a hard time adapting to this broader game K requires, and K made the choice not to play him - even though we really missed having an athletic wing. I suspect G will do quite well on a team that learns a series of sets and executes them well, where there is a lot of structure. UNC is a prime example of a set-driven team that can execute. Well, they are until JJ recognizes a potential game winning play just as it starts and breaks it up before it can develop. JJ couldn't have recognized that play without seeing the whole game. That stop was sweet, and why K insists on communication and awareness, and being more fluid and unpredictable. It's not easy, but when a team plays together, it works beautifully.

    -jk

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    But almost all the big programs have a lot of transfers out. Hard to see how Michael's departure could be any more negative for Duke than the plethora of recent UNC departures, for example.
    I don't think this impacts recruiting at all. Every kid coming to Duke knows he will have to compete for playing time; that there are already good players here; and that there will be good players coming in behind him. Most kids think they have the chops to make the floor. Some do immediately; some grow into it; some never get a whole lot of time. That's true for us, as it is for most major programs (with the exception of Calipari's one-and-done-load-the-next-round model).

    I was looking forward to seeing {g} play for us, but understand that he needs to do what he feels is best for him. I wish him the best of luck going forward and will always thank him for his contributions to this team -- whether they were on the floor, in practice, or in the locker room.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    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.
    Light Bulb! Great post. It had irked me all season that our switches on defense seemed to often create those mismatch opportunities you mentioned. I couldn't really put my finger on it until I read your post. It's interesting that you bring this up because a while ago I looked at our championship and near championship teams and noticed that we didn't have a lot of PF/C or PG/SG but a ton of WF. Last years roster and this year's upcoming will have 5 PG/SG seeing significant minutes.

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by azzefkram View Post
    As a coach you are definitely right but it stands a good chance of having an influence in recruiting. I think highly recruited transfers out feed into a negative perception. Whether the perception is valid or not is somewhat of a moot point as it is out there and at times needs to be overcome.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    But almost all the big programs have a lot of transfers out. Hard to see how Michael's departure could be any more negative for Duke than the plethora of recent UNC departures, for example.
    I agree with Kedsy and others, and would also like to add that, whether or not Gbinije's departure has a negative influence on our program's perceptions, Coach K has already been recruiting against the rising tide of negativity for over a decade now. Yet over that span he has still been one of the best recruiters in the game.

    K knows what his pitch is; and for any negativity that gets spewed in the direction of his recruits, he knows how to counter it. Inevitably, some recruits will buy into the negative hype, while others won't -- and those are the kids that K is after.

  9. #209
    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). 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.
    Well, sure, some of the guys "can" play multiple positions. The question is whether they should be playing multiple positions or, to be more accurate, whether they can do so well. In particular, I'm looking for guys that play on the wing, both shoot and rebound, and guard multiple positions, particularly when we switch screens. I would be very surprised if Rasheed plays anything other than the 2 or possibly the "3" in a 3-guard lineup, but I've never heard anyone say he can play PG, and I wouldn't think as a frosh that he'll have the size/strength to really hang at the 3 against superior teams. To say that Tyler is anything other than a PG is exalting form over substance. Sure, he guarded Barnes this year, but I think that illustrates the desperation of the situation -- we had so few quality defenders that we had to stick a 6'1" guy on the 6'8" Barnes. As for Ryan and Mason, yeah, I guess they technically can play both, but realistically Mason will probably only play the five and Ryan the 4, with possible back-up minutes at the 5 depending on how ready Marshall is.

    As for your line-up combos:
    Big -- Rasheed/Andre/Alex/Ryan/Mason --> sorry, don't see Sheed playing the PG position
    Small and Quick -- Quinn/Seth/Rasheed/Alex/Mason --> agree this is small and I hope that it's quick (I haven't seen Sheed or Murphy play enough to know, really). But I worry about Sheed's ability to guard the 3 based on his size/age, as noted above.
    3 guards -- Quinn/Seth/Andre/Ryan/Mason --> I'd say there's a decent chance this is our starting lineup next year, which is essentially guards and bigs, which was my point.
    Traditional -- Quinn/Seth/Alex/Ryan/Mason --> I hope that Quinn and Murphy improve enough for this to be our starting lineup next year.
    Shooting -- Seth/Rasheed/Andre/Alex/Ryan --> Fair that this is a good shooting lineup, although I don't know much about Murphy's reputation as a shooter, and I'm thinking we've probably seen the last of the Seth Curry as PG experiment. If we weren't going to use it last year, I'd be surprised if K goes back to it next year.
    Defensive -- Tyler/Rasheed/Alex/Ryan/Mason --> This is the one that I take most umbrage with. What is the basis for assuming that Rasheed and Murphy will be above-average defenders? Neither of them have played a minute of DI basketball yet. And to put Ryan in our prime defensive lineup is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say? He's not bad at rotating and taking help-side charges and is a pretty good shot-blocker, but I don't think that D is necessarily his forte.

  10. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    (with the exception of Calipari's one-and-done-load-the-next-round model)
    Kentucky has had transfers recently (Stacey Poole springs to mind). So even Calipari isn't immune.

  11. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    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.
    This. CDu, you stole some of my thunder from my subsequent post, which I guess I was still typing when you posted this response. No plagiarism was intended. Good post.

  12. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    But almost all the big programs have a lot of transfers out. Hard to see how Michael's departure could be any more negative for Duke than the plethora of recent UNC departures, for example.
    You're right that it happens at all the big programs but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact. It sucks but negative recruiting exists. I think Coach K and his staff are exceptionally upstanding individuals and I would be completely shocked if any of them engaged in such a practice. Other programs, on the other hand, well let's just say I don't have the same level of confidence there.

  13. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by ArtVandelay View Post
    I would be very surprised if Rasheed plays anything other than the 2 or possibly the "3" in a 3-guard lineup, but I've never heard anyone say he can play PG...
    After Rasheed played PG for most of a recent high school all-star game, he was quoted as saying Coach K asked him to work on playing point in preparation for the coming season. Don't know how well he'll do, but I bet we see him stealing a few minutes a game at PG next season.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArtVandelay View Post
    As for Ryan and Mason, yeah, I guess they technically can play both, but realistically Mason will probably only play the five and Ryan the 4, with possible back-up minutes at the 5 depending on how ready Marshall is.
    Ryan played some C this past season, on a team that had both Mason and Miles. I remember him guarding Sullinger and doing a creditable job. Personally, I think Ryan can guard most college centers better than he can guard quicker college PFs. I expect Ryan to pick up at least 5 minutes a game at C next season, maybe as many as 10.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArtVandelay View Post
    Big -- Rasheed/Andre/Alex/Ryan/Mason --> sorry, don't see Sheed playing the PG position
    Well, you might be right, but if Coach K asked Rasheed to get prepared to play some PG, my guess is you also might be wrong. Having said that, I doubt we'll see this particular lineup very often, if at all, but I like that Coach K will have that club in his bag.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArtVandelay View Post
    But I worry about Sheed's ability to guard the 3 based on his size/age, as noted above.
    That's a valid concern. We'll have to wait and see if he's capable there.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArtVandelay View Post
    Fair that this is a good shooting lineup, although I don't know much about Murphy's reputation as a shooter, and I'm thinking we've probably seen the last of the Seth Curry as PG experiment. If we weren't going to use it last year, I'd be surprised if K goes back to it next year.
    In a lineup containing Rasheed, Seth, Andre, and Ryan, I'm not sure it matters how well Alex can shoot from the outside. As far as Seth at PG is concerned, while he stopped being our primary PG in early December this past season, he still played several minutes at PG in almost every game. I suspect that trend will continue.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArtVandelay View Post
    Defensive -- Tyler/Rasheed/Alex/Ryan/Mason --> This is the one that I take most umbrage with. What is the basis for assuming that Rasheed and Murphy will be above-average defenders? Neither of them have played a minute of DI basketball yet. And to put Ryan in our prime defensive lineup is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say? He's not bad at rotating and taking help-side charges and is a pretty good shot-blocker, but I don't think that D is necessarily his forte.
    My basis for assuming Rasheed is a plus defender is his well-reported reputation as a plus defender (at least in high school). My basis for Alex is that Coach K has said he's a potential four-year starter and it's hard to imagine him making such a statement if Alex wasn't pretty good on D. Also, assuming Rasheed actually is a good defender, and that Tyler continues his hard-nosed off-ball D, Alex's size alone makes him a defensive asset unless he has very slow lateral footspeed and, again, if that was the case I doubt Coach K would have made such glowing comments about Alex. As far as Ryan is concerned, I think he's a better defender than most on this board seem to believe. Even if I'm wrong about that, if Rasheed, Tyler, Alex, and Mason perform as well defensively as I hope they will, then Ryan's help-side shot-blocking and charge-taking is all we'll really need from him in that lineup.

  14. #214
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Fair point. That certainly was a factor in our below-standard defense this past season. And Michael arguably could have helped with this sort of flexibility next season. But I would argue that Tyler, Andre, and (hopefully) Rasheed and Alex would all be able to handle a switch (to anything but a center for the first three and probably a PG for Alex) for a possession at a time. I wouldn't want the small wings guarding any big man for long stretches, but any of those four guys ought to be able to at least adequately handle the switch on most pick-and-rolls.
    I don't think Sulaimon, Dawkins, or Thornton would function well in a switch against most PF on any sort of regular basis. I do think each could function on a switch against most PG, SG, and most SF. They wouldn't be ideal at all of those spots, but they could handle it. Murphy is the one guy with the size and athleticism to not be a complete fish out of water in a switch onto any position (though I agree I wouldn't really want to see him often on a C or PG).

    And I certainly don't mean to suggest that Gbinije would certainly have addressed this issue. But he's one of the few guys who could conceivably address it. It's one of the reasons that I like Coach K's efforts in going after Hood, Parker, and Randle next year and Wiggins the year after (or next year if he reclassifies) especially now that we know Gbinije is transferring.

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I don't think Sulaimon, Dawkins, or Thornton would function well in a switch against most PF on any sort of regular basis. I do think each could function on a switch against most PG, SG, and most SF. They wouldn't be ideal at all of those spots, but they could handle it. Murphy is the one guy with the size and athleticism to not be a complete fish out of water in a switch onto any position (though I agree I wouldn't really want to see him often on a C or PG).

    And I certainly don't mean to suggest that Gbinije would certainly have addressed this issue. But he's one of the few guys who could conceivably address it. It's one of the reasons that I like Coach K's efforts in going after Hood, Parker, and Randle next year and Wiggins the year after (or next year if he reclassifies) especially now that we know Gbinije is transferring.
    That all makes sense. I wouldn't argue that we're in great shape on all those switches. I do think we'll be in better shape than we were this past season.

  16. #216
    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.
    Add me to the list of folks that feels the article on the DBR front page is unnecessarily negative. Gbinijie barely played this year, so it seems highly presumptuous and/or speculative to claim that he was a poor defender. (Unless the author was privy to Duke's practices last year, which I doubt.)

    Furthermore, Gbinijie has not been impugning Duke in the media regarding his decision to go elsewhere; there's no need for DBR to take the low road by doing the opposite.

    The article reminds me of the "See ya" title that popped up after Austin decided to go pro. A bit too negative regarding a former player, IMO. These kids make big sacrifices during the time they are here, however short that time may be.

  17. #217

    We don't know for a fact that it was Mike's defensive prowess that limited play

    Hi,

    I think we should let the kid go without reading too much into why he left, now that we know it wasn't anything "bad" he did or that he didn't get along with the coaching staff. I didn't read anywhere where Coach K said, "If only Mike had played better defense he would have been on the floor more." We can garner that is probably what happened, but we don't know. Maybe he was playing d just fine, but not passing enough on O? Maybe the coaches didn't like something else about his game and wanted him to work on it and voila on the pine he road? However, I have another explanation. Coach K seems to always pick an 8 maybe 9 man rotation and if you aren't a part of it, wait until next year or an injury. I just think Mike might have been odd man out, he was a freshman, he didn't want to risk being odd man out again and he transferred. Again, this is just my take on all of it, it could be that the coaches felt his D was sub-standard, but I haven't read that. Then again, I haven't read every post and article on the situation. I tend to focus on kids who are still here or coming here. Good luck Mike, as long as it isn't when you are playing Duke!

    GO DUKE!

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    After Rasheed played PG for most of a recent high school all-star game, he was quoted as saying Coach K asked him to work on playing point in preparation for the coming season. Don't know how well he'll do, but I bet we see him stealing a few minutes a game at PG next season.



    Ryan played some C this past season, on a team that had both Mason and Miles. I remember him guarding Sullinger and doing a creditable job. Personally, I think Ryan can guard most college centers better than he can guard quicker college PFs. I expect Ryan to pick up at least 5 minutes a game at C next season, maybe as many as 10.



    Well, you might be right, but if Coach K asked Rasheed to get prepared to play some PG, my guess is you also might be wrong. Having said that, I doubt we'll see this particular lineup very often, if at all, but I like that Coach K will have that club in his bag.



    That's a valid concern. We'll have to wait and see if he's capable there.



    In a lineup containing Rasheed, Seth, Andre, and Ryan, I'm not sure it matters how well Alex can shoot from the outside. As far as Seth at PG is concerned, while he stopped being our primary PG in early December this past season, he still played several minutes at PG in almost every game. I suspect that trend will continue.



    My basis for assuming Rasheed is a plus defender is his well-reported reputation as a plus defender (at least in high school). My basis for Alex is that Coach K has said he's a potential four-year starter and it's hard to imagine him making such a statement if Alex wasn't pretty good on D. Also, assuming Rasheed actually is a good defender, and that Tyler continues his hard-nosed off-ball D, Alex's size alone makes him a defensive asset unless he has very slow lateral footspeed and, again, if that was the case I doubt Coach K would have made such glowing comments about Alex. As far as Ryan is concerned, I think he's a better defender than most on this board seem to believe. Even if I'm wrong about that, if Rasheed, Tyler, Alex, and Mason perform as well defensively as I hope they will, then Ryan's help-side shot-blocking and charge-taking is all we'll really need from him in that lineup.
    I wasn't aware of Coach K's comments regarding Rasheed and the PG position, so I stand corrected on that. That said, we certainly will have to see when the rubber hits the road next year. I suppose it's possible that both Curry and Rasheed CAN play PG next year, but I think we agree that the best case scenario is a healthy and productive Quinn starting and logging starter minutes at the PG next year.

    As for your point about Ryan's defense, I agree that he's probably better off guarding a 5, which is actually my point. I don't love the idea of him guarding a 4, particularly one like, say, McAdoo. He's really a "big" in terms of body type and agility, except with a more perimeter-oriented offensive skillset.

    Between Seth's lack of size at the 2, Dawkins' lack of size and occasional lapses at the 3, and Kelly's lack of quickness at the 4, there is quite a lot of potential for problems on the defensive side. Plus we lack that wing offensive punch (particularly sans Rivers) -- someone who can play a mid-range game, attack the basket, get some points on the offensive glass, etc. I thought an improved Silent G could help address both of those problems, which is why i was lamenting his loss. Hopefully Murphy fills that niche on both sides of the ball, but there is a lot more pressure on him to perform now, IMO.

  19. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by ArtVandelay View Post
    I wasn't aware of Coach K's comments regarding Rasheed and the PG position, so I stand corrected on that. That said, we certainly will have to see when the rubber hits the road next year. I suppose it's possible that both Curry and Rasheed CAN play PG next year, but I think we agree that the best case scenario is a healthy and productive Quinn starting and logging starter minutes at the PG next year.

    As for your point about Ryan's defense, I agree that he's probably better off guarding a 5, which is actually my point. I don't love the idea of him guarding a 4, particularly one like, say, McAdoo. He's really a "big" in terms of body type and agility, except with a more perimeter-oriented offensive skillset.

    Between Seth's lack of size at the 2, Dawkins' lack of size and occasional lapses at the 3, and Kelly's lack of quickness at the 4, there is quite a lot of potential for problems on the defensive side. Plus we lack that wing offensive punch (particularly sans Rivers) -- someone who can play a mid-range game, attack the basket, get some points on the offensive glass, etc. I thought an improved Silent G could help address both of those problems, which is why i was lamenting his loss. Hopefully Murphy fills that niche on both sides of the ball, but there is a lot more pressure on him to perform now, IMO.
    I agree that Michael could possibly have helped our versatility next season. I also acknowledge that my arguments rely on two unproven players (Rasheed and Alex) providing the versatility that was largely missing from the 2011-12 Duke team. I look forward to seeing if they can pull it off.

  20. #220
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I don't think Sulaimon, Dawkins, or Thornton would function well in a switch against most PF on any sort of regular basis. I do think each could function on a switch against most PG, SG, and most SF. They wouldn't be ideal at all of those spots, but they could handle it. Murphy is the one guy with the size and athleticism to not be a complete fish out of water in a switch onto any position (though I agree I wouldn't really want to see him often on a C or PG).

    And I certainly don't mean to suggest that Gbinije would certainly have addressed this issue. But he's one of the few guys who could conceivably address it. It's one of the reasons that I like Coach K's efforts in going after Hood, Parker, and Randle next year and Wiggins the year after (or next year if he reclassifies) especially now that we know Gbinije is transferring.
    One of the things that made the 2010 Champs so special defensively was that Singler and Thomas were both essentially 3/4 combos. Both could switch onto any player on the court with a reasonable degree of success, except for Ty Lawson the year before. Also, Scheyer was big enough to switch onto players at multiple positions and Nolan was an A+ on the ball defender by then. Each of those factors contributed to the success of the whole team and made everyone better. Once Zoubek started hedging well and eating up space inside, the whole thing worked. The defensive chemistry was amazingly good.

    We did not get there this past year. Our perimeter guys got broken down off the dribble at every position and were under-sized across the board. Our bigger guys were not quick enough to guard well away from the basket and they were good leapers, but not second-leapers or space eaters. I'm not exactly sure how well this past year's team communicated, but I cannot imagine it was up to par historically at Duke.

    Sulaimon may be the Nolan-style defender we're lacking, so I'm really looking forward to that.

    I think the loss of Gbinije would have hurt more if Alex Murphy was not projected to get a solid amount of minutes at the 3. If we run more, we'll miss Gbinije more. We shall see.

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
  •