Jabari Parker To Duke!!

[licc85]

Agree completely...having bodies doesn't mean they can actually defend

The same could be said of Julius Randle. I just looked on ESPN, they have him listed at 6'9" 225. Scout.com has him at 6'8" 215. He's literally like maybe an inch taller than Jabari and maybe 5 pounds heavier. I just don't get it. Label a guy a power forward, and he's automatically capable of defending centers? So the "bigger need" on our team is a someone who is less skilled, slower, with shorter arms, and less athletic, but is just slightly larger?

[CDu]

Despite the assertion otherwise (twice), the word "only" appears nowhere in my post. That's just poor reading of what was written.
"And while nobody has actually SAID we should go after Randle and not Parker, what else is to be inferred from repeated statements about Randle filling a bigger need for us or being "a more imporatant get" for Duke??"

The words "what else is to be inferred" seems to clearly suggest that you felt your inference was the only reasonable inference. That's what I inferred from your quote, hence my use of the word "only."

Now, I may be biased here, but it would seem that my inference from your quote makes MUCH more sense than your inference from my quotes:
- There are LOTS of reasonable scenarios in which "one guy fills a bigger need" does not imply "we should go after that guy and not go after the other guy." Especially, since, as we both have stated, we have scholarships available for BOTH. And also especially since I have also stated in multiple places that I want to get BOTH.
- There appears to be only one reasonable way to take your quote, and that is that you don't see another alternative way to read my post and are asking me to provide another alternative.

The rest of your post is irrelevant, because I don't think we actually disagree on most of the hypothetical scenarios.

But to be clear, if we had only one scholarship to offer, we had an equal chance to get both, we had the exact same team needs as we currently do, and both were to decide at the same time, then yes: I'd rather have Randle because he fills a bigger need. But the hypothetical "one scholarship available" situation is almost certainly not going to play out, and it's basically the only scenario in which we'd be in a "go after one guy and not the other" situation. So we get to my point that jumping to your inference makes little sense.

[dcar1985]

The same could be said of Julius Randle. I just looked on ESPN, they have him listed at 6'9" 225. Scout.com has him at 6'8" 215. He's literally like maybe an inch taller than Jabari and maybe 5 pounds heavier. I just don't get it. Label a guy a power forward, and he's automatically capable of defending centers? So the "bigger need" on our team is a someone who is less skilled, slower, with shorter arms, and less athletic, but is just slightly larger?

Yea I've already pretty much said that earlier in this thread...Nothing I've seen from Randle says he can or wants to play the 5 on O or D...He doesn't play the 5 for his AAU squad or at Prestonwood...He's slightly bigger than Jabari, I would argue that he's more athletic though..But besides the fact that hes very physical when going to the cup I really don't see what about his game necessarily fills a "need" at Duke. Having said that I'd love to have him at Duke BUT in the hypothetical "we only have one scholly, who does it go too game?" Give me Parker all day.

[CDu]

Yea I've already pretty much said that earlier in this thread...Nothing I've seen from Randle says he can or wants to play the 5 on O or D...He doesn't play the 5 for his AAU squad or at Prestonwood...He's slightly bigger than Jabari, I would argue that he's more athletic though..But besides the fact that hes very physical when going to the cup I really don't see what about his game necessarily fills a "need" at Duke. Having said that I'd love to have him at Duke BUT in the hypothetical "we only have one scholly, who does it go too game?" Give me Parker all day.

If he really can't play the 5, then I would agree. Parker would be the better option when looking at a 3/4 player. My entire rationale for saying he fills more of a need is that, for a year, he could be a 4/5 player. But if he's really "just" a 4, then my opinion would lean back toward Parker in that hypothetical "one scholly" situation. I am basing my "need" argument on the fact that he is bigger, more physical, and more athletic. As such, he would seem more capable of handling a part-time (i.e., 10-15 mpg) role at the 5 in addition to being the primary 4 man. But yes, if he can't play the 5, then the calculus changes.

The one constant being that it would be great to get either or both.

[Li_Duke]

Both Parker and Randle have been somewhat fluid in their committment time-lines. But it does seem quite possible that Parker will sign this fall, while Randle waits until spring 2013.

Randle might make more sense than Parker. Might not. But Duke cannot possibly take the gamble of backing off Parker and hoping for Randle. Duke loves Parker and he is the highest priority. They feel the same way about Randle. But if Parker is ready to go, then you go.

No offense to Murphy or Hairston or Jefferson but Parker appears to be at another level. Some have described Parker as a "luxury" recruit for Duke. That's like saying Kobe Bryant was a luxury recruit in 1996 because Duke already had Chris Carrawell, Mike Chappell and Ricky Price, all pretty good college wings.

Jabari Parker has the potential to be at that level. Pull out all the stops.

Going back to your early analogy, that year we had Trajan Langdon, Ricky Price, Chris Carrawell, Mike Chappell, and Nate James (highest rated of the 3 recruits) - as promising a group of 2-4s as we have now. And we had as big a dearth of big men then as we do now (Greg Newton, Taymon Domzalski). I think we would still have taken Kobe even if it was mutually exclusive with taking whoever was the best big man back then (Jermaine O'Neal?).

I'd love to get Parker and Randle both, but if we can only get one - I'd rather have Parker over Randle (and get a guy like Nichols). I'm also happy getting whomever commits first.

[ChillinDuke]

If he really can't play the 5, then I would agree. Parker would be the better option when looking at a 3/4 player. My entire rationale for saying he fills more of a need is that, for a year, he could be a 4/5 player. But if he's really "just" a 4, then my opinion would lean back toward Parker in that hypothetical "one scholly" situation. I am basing my "need" argument on the fact that he is bigger, more physical, and more athletic. As such, he would seem more capable of handling a part-time (i.e., 10-15 mpg) role at the 5 in addition to being the primary 4 man. But yes, if he can't play the 5, then the calculus changes.

The one constant being that it would be great to get either or both.

Does the calculus change if Parker can play/guard the 5?

Not trying to gang up on you, but I think this is the crux of what others are saying. Neither Parker nor Randle is really a 5 and neither has evidenced his likelihood of becoming/playing a 5. So why is Randle the bigger "need"? Your view seems to stem from Randle being/playing the 5 which has not been brought to my attention to this point in his recruitment.

Note: I don't like forcing a player into a number.

- Chillin

[jimsumner]

Going back to your early analogy, that year we had Trajan Langdon, Ricky Price, Chris Carrawell, Mike Chappell, and Nate James (highest rated of the 3 recruits) - as promising a group of 2-4s as we have now. And we had as big a dearth of big men then as we do now (Greg Newton, Taymon Domzalski). I think we would still have taken Kobe even if it was mutually exclusive with taking whoever was the best big man back then (Jermaine O'Neal?).

I'd love to get Parker and Randle both, but if we can only get one - I'd rather have Parker over Randle (and get a guy like Nichols). I'm also happy getting whomever commits first.

As an aside, Jason Collier was the big guy Duke missed on from that class.

[CDu]

Does the calculus change if Parker can play/guard the 5?

Yes. Do you think Parker can play/guard the 5? I don't. I happen to think that Randle can. You are free to disagree.

Not trying to gang up on you, but I think this is the crux of what others are saying. Neither Parker nor Randle is really a 5 and neither has evidenced his likelihood of becoming/playing a 5. So why is Randle the bigger "need"? Your view seems to stem from Randle being/playing the 5 which has not been brought to my attention to this point in his recruitment.

First, I take no offense to someone disagreeing with me and I take no issue with a good healthy debate. I don't view Randle as a starting 5, or even primarily a 5. I view him as a 4 who can play some 5. My view stems from Randle being more capable of playing the 5 for 10-15 mpg than Parker, and the fact that we have other pretty good options at the 3. Again, that's not to say that Parker wouldn't dramatically upgrade the SF position (or PF position for that matter). Just saying that I think Randle would upgrade the PF position and the backup C position, and that's where the bigger need currently lies.

Note: I don't like forcing a player into a number.

This is not forcing a player into a number. It's noting what positions a player can reasonably defend. In my opinion, the "Coach K doesn't believe in positions" thing has been taken way too far by some on DBR (not saying you're guilty of that). Coach K simply doesn't want players to pigeonhole themselves unnecessarily, but positions DO matter insomuch as he isn't going to put a guy in a position that the player can't defend. For example, Zoubek would never play anywhere but C except on VERY temporary switches. Same for Marshall Plumlee. Conversely, Cook isn't going to be asked to guard C. Nor was Dockery, Irving, Wojo, Hurley, or Smith.

So as I said above, my view stems from the fact that I think Randle is more capable of defending the C position for 10-15 mpg than Parker, and his upgrade in value at PF and backup C is slightly more of a need than Parker's upgrade at SF (where we have pretty good options) and PF. Again, if you disagree with that assessment, that's perfectly fine. What I won't accept is folks who incorrectly take my viewpoint and pigeonhole it as though I'm suggesting we go after Randle and not Parker. I view their roles as separate entities, and I want both of them.

[UrinalCake]

The only way I could see this being an either/or situation where we have to choose one of the two would be

a.) we run out of scholarships and can only offer one of them
b.) the players decide that they don't want to go to the same school because they overlap in skills too much or because they both want to be "the man"
c.) our coaching staff has a limited amount of resources and they would be spread too thin to try and recruit both players, so they have to choose one

I don't see a.) being an issue. It's possible, but we worry about this almost every year and it seldomly comes into play. I also don't see c.) being an issue. No reason we can't pull out all the stops for more than one player, even with Coach K off doing his thing with the National Team right now. So b.) would be the only real reason to not go after Parker in hopes of increasing our chances at landing Randle. And nothing that I've seen would indicate that this is even a consideration for him. So I agree with others that this is a fun debate to have but really not one we have to lose any sleep over.

[CDu]

The only way I could see this being an either/or situation where we have to choose one of the two would be

a.) we run out of scholarships and can only offer one of them
b.) the players decide that they don't want to go to the same school because they overlap in skills too much or because they both want to be "the man"
c.) our coaching staff has a limited amount of resources and they would be spread too thin to try and recruit both players, so they have to choose one

I don't see a.) being an issue. It's possible, but we worry about this almost every year and it seldomly comes into play. I also don't see c.) being an issue. No reason we can't pull out all the stops for more than one player, even with Coach K off doing his thing with the National Team right now. So b.) would be the only real reason to not go after Parker in hopes of increasing our chances at landing Randle. And nothing that I've seen would indicate that this is even a consideration for him. So I agree with others that this is a fun debate to have but really not one we have to lose any sleep over.

Totally agree. Well said.

[ChillinDuke]

My last post and then I'll call it. Promise.

Yes. Do you think Parker can play/guard the 5? I don't. I happen to think that Randle can. You are free to disagree.

As good as Randle can. If not, negligibly worse (his athleticism/length makes up for the 1" or so). My point being neither can/should guard the 5. At least in the sense that Tyler Zeller (or an equivalent 7'-er) is a true 5.

First, I take no offense to someone disagreeing with me and I take no issue with a good healthy debate. I don't view Randle as a starting 5, or even primarily a 5. I view him as a 4 who can play some 5. My view stems from Randle being more capable of playing the 5 for 10-15 mpg than Parker, and the fact that we have other pretty good options at the 3. Again, that's not to say that Parker wouldn't dramatically upgrade the SF position (or PF position for that matter). Just saying that I think Randle would upgrade the PF position and the backup C position, and that's where the bigger need currently lies.

Well said. Again, my view is this is negligible.

This is not forcing a player into a number. It's noting what positions a player can reasonably defend. In my opinion, the "Coach K doesn't believe in positions" thing has been taken way too far by some on DBR (not saying you're guilty of that). Coach K simply doesn't want players to pigeonhole themselves unnecessarily, but positions DO matter insomuch as he isn't going to put a guy in a position that the player can't defend. For example, Zoubek would never play anywhere but C except on VERY temporary switches. Same for Marshall Plumlee. Conversely, Cook isn't going to be asked to guard C. Nor was Dockery, Irving, Wojo, Hurley, or Smith.

I agree with you insofar as Quinn Cook shouldn't guard centers. My point being, again, that we are nitpicking between who can guard 5s when they are about 6'8" / 6'9". This is not Quinn Cook guarding centers. It's a tall 3/4 guarding a 5. Again negligible / unproven difference between the two.

So as I said above, my view stems from the fact that I think Randle is more capable of defending the C position for 10-15 mpg than Parker, and his upgrade in value at PF and backup C is slightly more of a need than Parker's upgrade at SF (where we have pretty good options) and PF. Again, if you disagree with that assessment, that's perfectly fine. What I won't accept is folks who incorrectly take my viewpoint and pigeonhole it as though I'm suggesting we go after Randle and not Parker. I view their roles as separate entities, and I want both of them.

Absolutely. 100%.


- Chillin

[-bdbd]

The only way I could see this being an either/or situation where we have to choose one of the two would be

a.) we run out of scholarships and can only offer one of them
b.) the players decide that they don't want to go to the same school because they overlap in skills too much or because they both want to be "the man"
c.) our coaching staff has a limited amount of resources and they would be spread too thin to try and recruit both players, so they have to choose one

I don't see a.) being an issue. It's possible, but we worry about this almost every year and it seldomly comes into play. I also don't see c.) being an issue. No reason we can't pull out all the stops for more than one player, even with Coach K off doing his thing with the National Team right now. So b.) would be the only real reason to not go after Parker in hopes of increasing our chances at landing Randle. And nothing that I've seen would indicate that this is even a consideration for him. So I agree with others that this is a fun debate to have but really not one we have to lose any sleep over.

Absolutely agree UC. Thanks for summarizing. The point is that, in any realistic universe, if these two kids would have us - we should be so lucky (!) - then Duke will certainly find ways to accommodate both young men. No doubt whatsoever. Which for me, at least, makes the "hypothetical" so incredibly unrealistic as not to merit time discussiong (I'm much more of a mindset to discusss scenarios that actually COULD bear out in some real world eventuality (such as the one I mentioned above where a "lesser" recruit who fills a clear need is ready to commit, the example was a Center like Lee, but a superstar with whom we only have a 20% (?) chance wants to wait until Sping...) I'm sure coaches deal with those situations frequently.

The words "what else is to be inferred" seems to clearly suggest that you felt your inference was the only reasonable inference. That's what I inferred from your quote, hence my use of the word "only."

Now, I may be biased here, but it would seem that my inference from your quote makes MUCH more sense than your inference from my quotes:
- There are LOTS of reasonable scenarios in which "one guy fills a bigger need" does not imply "we should go after that guy and not go after the other guy." Especially, since, as we both have stated, we have scholarships available for BOTH. And also especially since I have also stated in multiple places that I want to get BOTH.
- There appears to be only one reasonable way to take your quote, and that is that you don't see another alternative way to read my post and are asking me to provide another alternative.

The rest of your post is irrelevant, because I don't think we actually disagree on most of the hypothetical scenarios.

Whatever. Please try to have some broader perspective, as you are not the only reader on this board. A post intended for a broader group discussion is not solely aimed at you. So while a post may be "irrelevant" to you and your focus on a single, totally unrealistic "hypothetical," it IS still relevant to everyone else (for whom it was intended).
Contrary to your description, nobody on here ever said anything contrary to the characterization re "one guy fills a bigger need," nor did anybody here state that that statment implies "we should go after that guy and not go after the other guy." What WAS stated was that by ranking one guy above the other, AND by stating that the interior guy was the more important get, AND by proposing a "hypothetical" that we might have to choose between the two of them (and that you would then choose the interior-oriented superstar over the Wing one)... then you ARE, pretty clearly, stating that IN SOME UNIVERSE you would take Randle over Parker. But, again, the point I make is simply THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. The points are not as far apart as I think you want to portray, other than how outlandish the hypothetical is (and hence how worthy of discussion it is/isn't). That's all.



BTW, on the grammar discussion you raise, "what else is to be inferred from X" is often used in literature as a surrogate for "how could you not infer Y from X..." though I can see how someone focused on a literal word-by-word read might misinterpret same. Perhaps I betray some of my English heritage/literary interests...

[CDu]

BTW, on the grammar discussion you raise, "what else is to be inferred from X" is often used in literature as a surrogate for "how could you not infer Y from X..." though I can see how someone focused on a literal word-by-word read might misinterpret same. Perhaps I betray some of my English heritage/literary interests...

Yes, I understand what the phrase means. And "how can you not infer Y from X" is basically the same thing as "Y is the reasonable inference one should take from X." When in fact, in this case, Y is most certainly NOT what most (if not all) were implying with the statement X. Almost everyone I've read in the Randle thread has openly stated that WE WANT BOTH GUYS! If most (if not all) of the folks who have said that they think Randle fills more of a need ALSO want both of these guys, doesn't that also suggest that perhaps your inference (Y) isn't the appropriate inference from the original statement (X)?

So forgive me for using the word "only." There may be a very subtle difference between "only" and what I wrote in the above paragraph. Your inference is absolutely a possible inference, but it is far from the logical extension of X. But there is nothing about X that necessitates Y. And in this case, your inference was not the correct one.

So, how could one NOT infer Y from X? Maybe by simply understanding that (a) there is more than one scholarship, (b) the two play different positions, and (c) there's no evidence that the two are mutually exclusive in any other way? The logical extension of X in this case is "I want Randle a bit more than I want Parker." That's a logically different statement. The only way for that Y to equal your Y would be if there is some reason that the two players are mutually exclusive. And as has been noted numerous times, that's not the case.

As for my "lack of broader perspective", whatever. Your last several posts in this thread are direct replies to my post. So forgive me for thinking that (in this case) your response was intended for me.

[Greg_Newton]

This is not forcing a player into a number. It's noting what positions a player can reasonably defend.

I think it's also worth adding that when we're talking about post players, it's not just defending, it's rebounding. Randle is much stronger, more athletic, and more physical than Jabari, and is a better rebounder; he's not ideally suited for the 5, but is certainly more so than Jabari.

[CDu]

I think it's also worth adding that when we're talking about post players, it's not just defending, it's rebounding. Randle is much stronger, more athletic, and more physical than Jabari, and is a better rebounder; he's not ideally suited for the 5, but is certainly more so than Jabari.

Agreed. I'm certainly willing to at least entertain the possibility that Parker can handle the 5 as well as Randle can. But only if it is in the "neither guy can do it" sense. I think that Randle's advantage in size, strength, athleticism, and physical style make him more capable to handle the backup 5 minutes than Parker. Folks are more than welcome to disagree with that, but I think it's a reasonable argument.

In any case, here's hoping we get both players. If we do, we'll be a HEAVY HEAVY favorite to win yet another ACC title and make yet another Final Four.

[UrinalCake]

According to Duke Hoop Blog, the recruiting service called "24/7 Sports" has Randle ranked ahead of Parker. Parker is #4, which is really surprising. The other services shown (ESPN, Rivals, and Scout) have Parker at 1 and Randle between 2-4.

Also all over the map is Matt Jones, who is ranked anywhere from 26 to 53. Again the 24/7 Sports list seems to be the outlier, the other three all have him between 26 and 33.

[licc85]

According to Duke Hoop Blog, the recruiting service called "24/7 Sports" has Randle ranked ahead of Parker. Parker is #4, which is really surprising. The other services shown (ESPN, Rivals, and Scout) have Parker at 1 and Randle between 2-4.

Also all over the map is Matt Jones, who is ranked anywhere from 26 to 53. Again the 24/7 Sports list seems to be the outlier, the other three all have him between 26 and 33.

I hadn't heard of 24/7 sports until I read that blog post yesterday. If you google it, it's primarily a football recruiting site. I'm not sure how credible their bball scouts are . . . I'm not sure I'm going to take their rankings very seriously . . . Maybe they are ranking how good these bball players would be if they played football?

[Greg_Newton]

I hadn't heard of 24/7 sports until I read that blog post yesterday. If you google it, it's primarily a football recruiting site. I'm not sure how credible their bball scouts are . . . I'm not sure I'm going to take their rankings very seriously . . . Maybe they are ranking how good these bball players would be if they played football?

Jerry Meyer is in charge of their bball scouting, so they should be somewhat credible.

[COYS]

According to Duke Hoop Blog, the recruiting service called "24/7 Sports" has Randle ranked ahead of Parker. Parker is #4, which is really surprising. The other services shown (ESPN, Rivals, and Scout) have Parker at 1 and Randle between 2-4.

Also all over the map is Matt Jones, who is ranked anywhere from 26 to 53. Again the 24/7 Sports list seems to be the outlier, the other three all have him between 26 and 33.

Jabari probably suffers a bit because of his recent injury, whether fair or unfair. His injury combined with Randle's excellent play during the summer circuit probably leaves a lot of scouts with a slightly better impression of Randle. That being said, while being ranked number 1 is nice, any recruit in the top 5 is likely to be an instant impact player. As we all know, Barnes was #1 in 2010 when it was Kyrie who established himself as the clear-cut choice for best recruit out of that class.

[Ichabod Drain]

According to Duke Hoop Blog, the recruiting service called "24/7 Sports" has Randle ranked ahead of Parker. Parker is #4, which is really surprising. The other services shown (ESPN, Rivals, and Scout) have Parker at 1 and Randle between 2-4.

Also all over the map is Matt Jones, who is ranked anywhere from 26 to 53. Again the 24/7 Sports list seems to be the outlier, the other three all have him between 26 and 33.

For another perspective Max Preps, run by CBS sports, has Jabari all the way down at #5. On a bright note though it has Matt Jones at #10. It's pretty impossible to judge credibility of these rankings. Even someone credible like Telep can muff stuff up. It's just interesting to see how they all vary.

http://www.maxpreps.com/news/llDKBon...13-top-100.htm