Pat Forde on Duke

[blazindw]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=3740803&sportCat=ncb

A pretty good article that's linked as the cover story on ESPN.com right now. The gist of Forde's article: Carolina's challenge will come from us.

[davekay1971]

It's a good article, but I kind of felt like, "Yeah...thanks for catching up." Carolina's a very good team, but the way they've been anointed as unbeatable is kind of wierd. This is essentially the same team that had some losses and near-losses last year before getting absolutely smoked by Kansas. They were good last year...very good...but weren't in a class of their own by any stretch of the imagination. Lawson is probably the key - he looks much improved and could be the difference-maker that puts them over the top. So, no doubt that UNC is a very legit contender for the national championship, but there are others. UConn looks good. We look good. If they develop well over the season, Oklahoma could take out UNC - imagine Blake Griffin working on Tyler Hansbrough. UNC right now is probably the best team in the country - but not by a mile, and maybe not at all by March.

[CDu]

It's a good article, but I kind of felt like, "Yeah...thanks for catching up." Carolina's a very good team, but the way they've been anointed as unbeatable is kind of wierd. This is essentially the same team that had some losses and near-losses last year before getting absolutely smoked by Kansas. They were good last year...very good...but weren't in a class of their own by any stretch of the imagination. Lawson is probably the key - he looks much improved and could be the difference-maker that puts them over the top. So, no doubt that UNC is a very legit contender for the national championship, but there are others. UConn looks good. We look good. If they develop well over the season, Oklahoma could take out UNC - imagine Blake Griffin working on Tyler Hansbrough. UNC right now is probably the best team in the country - but not by a mile, and maybe not at all by March.

I can understand the UNC love. They are the same team as last year, except that they are DEEPER. They've added another solid big man in Davis. They've upgraded their backup PG/SG and added another perimeter threat and good defender in Frasor. And Lawson is healthy again. Meanwhile, all of the other elite teams from last year got substantially weaker due to graduation/NBA defection. UNC is more talented, while the other elites from last year are less talented. There are good teams out there this year, but none have the interior depth and perimeter talent of UNC. It makes sense to me to talk about UNC. They CAN be beaten, but they have to be the heavy favorite.

As for Duke, there were questions. We looked weak at the end of last year, and that's the taste people had in their mouths. We also hadn't really done anything yet this season to erase that memory. We had lost our best defender and one of our best offensive players in Nelson. And we still had questions at PG (could Paulus defend? could Smith really run the point?). There were some legitimate reasons for doubt. This game helped to erase some of that doubt, although it must be noted that Purdue is a pretty good matchup for us (they don't kill you at PG and they don't have an interior presence). But winning big on the road was a nice statement in our biggest game so far.

[killerleft]

UNC School of Journalism = Carolina Fever!

[TwoDukeTattoos]

Great read, if you're a Dukie. :)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=3740803&sportCat=ncb

[davekay1971]

I can understand the UNC love. They are the same team as last year, except that they are DEEPER. They've added another solid big man in Davis. They've upgraded their backup PG/SG and added another perimeter threat and good defender in Frasor. And Lawson is healthy again. Meanwhile, all of the other elite teams from last year got substantially weaker due to graduation/NBA defection. UNC is more talented, while the other elites from last year are less talented. There are good teams out there this year, but none have the interior depth and perimeter talent of UNC. It makes sense to me to talk about UNC. They CAN be beaten, but they have to be the heavy favorite.

All very true, especially if the perception is that only KU, UCLA, Memphis, and that ilk had a chance against them last year. But they very nearly lost to Va Tech in the ACC tournament, nearly lost to Clemson at home (albeit they were injured), and lost to Duke and Maryland...they were not unbeatable last year. Davis is a good addition, but not likely to be a huge game-changer. Lawson being healthy is huge. And no one knew how well Thompson would develop...so I get that they're number 1 in the polls. I wouldn't pick anyone over them at this point. I just wonder at the title of "prohibitive" favorite given to them. That is the exact title they were given at the start of the NCAA tournament last season...and we remember how that turned out. In my mind, a "prohibitive favorite" should be a team that is, without question, far better than anyone else...and even then, it rarely pans out (see UNLV 1992/New England Patriots 2007). I simply don't think Carolina is in a class of its own this year.

[Skitzle]

As an interesting side note to the Duke can beat Carolina idea that we all know is true....

GP has never beaten UNC at Cameron.... has he?

[Classof06]

This game helped to erase some of that doubt, although it must be noted that Purdue is a pretty good matchup for us (they don't kill you at PG and they don't have an interior presence). But winning big on the road was a nice statement in our biggest game so far.

I agree. I'm very happy with the way we played last night and it was an impressive outing but Purdue is a great matchup for Duke. They're a jump-shooting team that has more trouble rebounding than we do. While I do think Purdue is a good team, better than they showed last night, Duke's not going to face very many teams like that going forward.

That being said, I could've told you we'd be Carolina's biggest challenge before the season started. Nothing has changed, as far as I'm concerned.

[hurleyfor3]

As an interesting side note to the Duke can beat Carolina idea that we all know is true....

GP has never beaten UNC at Cameron.... has he?

Nope. Or put another way, Hansjesus is undefeated on our floor.

[KyDevilinIL]

I dunno, folks. Like most of us, I was pleased as punch last night. But I can't shake the thought that we're still a distant second, third or fourth behind Carolina right now. Assuming my dream that UNC's chemistry implodes and they all start hating each other doesn't become reality, I think we'll have to play out of our minds in order to beat them on one of their good nights. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[CDu]

All very true, especially if the perception is that only KU, UCLA, Memphis, and that ilk had a chance against them last year. But they very nearly lost to Va Tech in the ACC tournament, nearly lost to Clemson at home (albeit they were injured), and lost to Duke and Maryland...they were not unbeatable last year. Davis is a good addition, but not likely to be a huge game-changer. Lawson being healthy is huge. And no one knew how well Thompson would develop...so I get that they're number 1 in the polls. I wouldn't pick anyone over them at this point. I just wonder at the title of "prohibitive" favorite given to them. That is the exact title they were given at the start of the NCAA tournament last season...and we remember how that turned out. In my mind, a "prohibitive favorite" should be a team that is, without question, far better than anyone else...and even then, it rarely pans out (see UNLV 1992/New England Patriots 2007). I simply don't think Carolina is in a class of its own this year.

Duke beat UNC last year with Nelson and with UNC without Lawson or Frasor. We played them very tight at home with Nelson and with UNC having an unhealthy Lawson and no Frasor. That makes a big difference. As for the other games, everyone has random bad games (especially when injured), and Maryland is notorious for big game performances from time to time.

Again, UNC was unquestionably one of the four or five best teams in college basketball. They got unquestionably better, while the other top five teams got unquestionably worse. There were other teams that gave UNC trouble last year - none of them got unquestionably better, while most of them got unquestionably worse. And none of those teams was really on UNC's level last year to begin with.

I think the love for UNC as the unquestioned #1 this year is completely understandable. Going into the season, I'd say there wasn't a team I'd put money on to beat them. There were teams, that, if things played out correctly, could beat them (like Duke and UConn). But they'd be considerable underdogs. Adding a healthy Lawson is huge, and adding Frasor is big. Davis isn't a game changer, but he helps replace the loss of Stepheson. And at the beginning of the season, before Zeller went down, UNC looked even deeper than they do now, which is already deeper and more potent than last year.

[davekay1971]

Again, UNC was unquestionably one of the four or five best teams in college basketball. They got unquestionably better, while the other top five teams got unquestionably worse.

True...but one team that gave them trouble last year got significantly better. That would be us.

BTW, I have to say that (1) a health Frasor probably doesn't do a lot for UNC unless Lawson gets injured again...he's a nice player, but that's about it; (2) the additions/improvements to Duke, particularly Smith's improvement, more than make up for Nelson graduating; (3) Zeller didn't show me that he was going to make any kind of significant contribution this year.

I'm not saying that UNC didn't deserve to be preseason number 1. In fact, I specifically stated that I would make them number 1 right now, as I would have in the preseason. My only point is that UNC has been crowned by the media as the shoo-in for the championship, and I didn't see anything in them last year that makes me think they are the prohibitive favorite to win the title. I think other teams, specifically us, UConn, and Oklahoma, and probably other teams as they develop over the season, can match up with UNC and have a legitimate shot at competing for the title.

[CDu]

True...but one team that gave them trouble last year got significantly better. That would be us.

I'd say that was HIGHLY debatable, as we lost Nelson and replaced him with a freshman who may not be ready. And again, I don't think we were as close to UNC as our performance suggested, as we faded down the stretch and they played us without Lawson. They improved on paper much more than we did this offseason.


BTW, I have to say that (1) a health Frasor probably doesn't do a lot for UNC unless Lawson gets injured again...he's a nice player, but that's about it; (2) the additions/improvements to Duke, particularly Smith's improvement, more than make up for Nelson graduating; (3) Zeller didn't show me that he was going to make any kind of significant contribution this year.

I disagree here. Frasor adds a quality backup PG to rest Lawson (Roy likes to run, run, run, which can be tiring) and another dependable outside shooter (to stretch the defense away from Hansbrough) and a solid defender. He's certainly no star, but he's a big step up from Thomas. Also, the improvements for Duke shouldn't be expected to be any more significant than the improvements by UNC's returning players. And Zeller had an 18 point game in the opener. He wasn't great, but he added a fourth big man as insurance for their big three.


I'm not saying that UNC didn't deserve to be preseason number 1. In fact, I specifically stated that I would make them number 1 right now, as I would have in the preseason. My only point is that UNC has been crowned by the media as the shoo-in for the championship, and I didn't see anything in them last year that makes me think they are the prohibitive favorite to win the title. I think other teams, specifically us, UConn, and Oklahoma, and probably other teams as they develop over the season, can match up with UNC and have a legitimate shot at competing for the title.

I think there's every reason to suggest they are the heavy favorite. Oklahoma has one awesome player and two solid other players. After that, they're nowhere near UNC in terms of talent. UNC has more depth (and better depth), and they have a slightly less talented guy as their best player. Oklahoma could MAYBE beat UNC, but they'd be heavy underdogs. If UNC got Griffin in foul trouble, it'd be a blowout. If Oklahoma got Hansbrough in foul trouble, it'd still be a really good game. Similarly, UConn is a nice team with solid post play and a good PG. But they are only six deep, and UNC would wear them down. And again, if UNC got Thabeet in foul trouble, it's a blowout, whereas if UConn got Hansbrough in foul trouble (which is really unlikely because Thabeet isn't an offensive presence), it'd still be a really good game. I think Gonzaga MIGHT give UNC trouble, but again, it'd be a big upset. And as for Duke, we have the depth, but the question remains whether we can handle Hansbrough inside AND contain a healthy Lawson. And prior to the season, there was really no reason to logically think we'd gained any ground on UNC.

[slower]

I think there's every reason to suggest they are the heavy favorite. Oklahoma has one awesome player and two solid other players. After that, they're nowhere near UNC in terms of talent. UNC has more depth (and better depth), and they have a slightly less talented guy as their best player. Oklahoma could MAYBE beat UNC, but they'd be heavy underdogs. If UNC got Griffin in foul trouble, it'd be a blowout. If Oklahoma got Hansbrough in foul trouble, it'd still be a really good game. Similarly, UConn is a nice team with solid post play and a good PG. But they are only six deep, and UNC would wear them down. And again, if UNC got Thabeet in foul trouble, it's a blowout, whereas if UConn got Hansbrough in foul trouble (which is really unlikely because Thabeet isn't an offensive presence), it'd still be a really good game. I think Gonzaga MIGHT give UNC trouble, but again, it'd be a big upset. And as for Duke, we have the depth, but the question remains whether we can handle Hansbrough inside AND contain a healthy Lawson. And prior to the season, there was really no reason to logically think we'd gained any ground on UNC.

Anybody seen Pitt play this year? They seem like the kind of team that could beat the Holes, if the wind is blowing in the right direction.

[Atldukie79]

UNC deserved and deserves the #1 ranking. They are good. They are better than last year. The X factor in assessing any team is how much improvement will be demonstrated by the returning players. Focusing on known losses to programs (D Nelson) is easier to assess than trying to project in preseason how the returnees will do. The argument that all the other top teams got worse because of losses is only half the assessment. Teams can lose critical components and get better.

I am sure people thought Duke would be worse in '94 after losing Hurley and T Hill. But Grant Hill was tremendously better and proved capable of carrying a team. Perhaps that is what Singler will do, for example.

We are a much improved team. UNC is an improved team. It is an open question whether our collective improvement exceeds UNC's.

That's why this is so fun:)

[COYS]

"guard Jon Scheyer is an underrated athlete (ask Moore, whom he locked up much of the night)"

I love this quote. Glad Forde has caught onto this. Scheyer may not be a freak of nature type of athlete, but he uses absolutely no energy in wasted motion, moves his feet as smoothly as anyone, and has the smarts to go with his cool movements. Honestly, i think that if he could elevate and dunk over people, he'd be regarded as one of the better athletes in the nation. Personally, though, I don't mind his athletic ability remaining under the radar. It will allow him to sneak up on more players like he did on Moore.

[Billy Dat]

Here's some new Forde Duke commentary from today's version of his Minutes column, I am sure we'll see a lot of this until we make another regional final:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4858570
"Duke (12). Why the Blue Devils can't win it: We've seen this movie before. Duke blazes impressively out of the gates, is confronted by its limitations (size, depth or athleticism) in the latter third of the regular season, then hits the wall in March. The Devils haven't won more than two games in an NCAA tournament since 2004, despite having No. 1 seeds twice and No. 2 seeds twice as well.

This is yet another good Duke team, with yet another set of apparent flaws. The big men (the young Plumlee brothers, Lance Thomas, Brian Zoubek) are still nothing special. The leading men, Jon Scheyer and Kyle Singler, are still overworked. (Scheyer hasn't played fewer than 36 minutes in a game since December, and Singler has gone the full 40 in each of Duke's last two games.)

The Minutes will believe Duke might have a chance to win it all when it sees the Blue Devils actually advance past the Sweet 16 for the first time since Chris Duhon was in uniform."

[KyDevilinIL]

Here's some new Forde Duke commentary from today's version of his Minutes column, I am sure we'll see a lot of this until we make another regional final:

And such a critique of our chances remain valid until we do just that.

[jv001]

Here's some new Forde Duke commentary from today's version of his Minutes column, I am sure we'll see a lot of this until we make another regional final:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4858570
"Duke (12). Why the Blue Devils can't win it: We've seen this movie before. Duke blazes impressively out of the gates, is confronted by its limitations (size, depth or athleticism) in the latter third of the regular season, then hits the wall in March. The Devils haven't won more than two games in an NCAA tournament since 2004, despite having No. 1 seeds twice and No. 2 seeds twice as well.

This is yet another good Duke team, with yet another set of apparent flaws. The big men (the young Plumlee brothers, Lance Thomas, Brian Zoubek) are still nothing special. The leading men, Jon Scheyer and Kyle Singler, are still overworked. (Scheyer hasn't played fewer than 36 minutes in a game since December, and Singler has gone the full 40 in each of Duke's last two games.)

The Minutes will believe Duke might have a chance to win it all when it sees the Blue Devils actually advance past the Sweet 16 for the first time since Chris Duhon was in uniform."

I may not agree with Forde about advancing past the Sweet 16 but I can't fault him for feeling that way. We all have an opinion and entitled to that opinion. There are a lot of questions left to be answered on this edition of the Blue Devils. Mason, Miles, Dre and Kelly still have some time left to get better. But we need to see some steady improvement from one or two of them to be in the elite group of teams that can win it all. I think Mason will get it sooner rather than later. Go Duke!

[Kedsy]

Here's some new Forde Duke commentary from today's version of his Minutes column, I am sure we'll see a lot of this until we make another regional final:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4858570
"Duke (12). Why the Blue Devils can't win it: We've seen this movie before. Duke blazes impressively out of the gates, is confronted by its limitations (size, depth or athleticism) in the latter third of the regular season, then hits the wall in March. The Devils haven't won more than two games in an NCAA tournament since 2004, despite having No. 1 seeds twice and No. 2 seeds twice as well.

This is yet another good Duke team, with yet another set of apparent flaws. The big men (the young Plumlee brothers, Lance Thomas, Brian Zoubek) are still nothing special. The leading men, Jon Scheyer and Kyle Singler, are still overworked. (Scheyer hasn't played fewer than 36 minutes in a game since December, and Singler has gone the full 40 in each of Duke's last two games.)

The Minutes will believe Duke might have a chance to win it all when it sees the Blue Devils actually advance past the Sweet 16 for the first time since Chris Duhon was in uniform."

With these sorts of arguments, Pat Forde could be a poster on this Board.

[Lord Ash]

With these sorts of arguments, Pat Forde could be a poster on this Board.

DBR does have a fairly bright group of posters, it is true, comparable to professionals who have spent a lifetime studying the sport. Very nice of you to say.

[Duvall]

DBR does have a fairly bright group of posters, it is true, comparable to professionals who have spent a lifetime studying the sport.

What does this have to do with Pat Forde?

[Lord Ash]

What does this have to do with Pat Forde?

Heh heh heh, touche!

[SCMatt33]

I don't think that anyone in the country has a shot at winning the title, until I see who the Elite 8 are. Then I will give those teams a chance at winning the title.

Even better, I think that the team who wins the championship game has the best shot at winning the title.

I agree that Duke's March performance has been a disturbing trend (0 wins against teams within 3 seed lines of Duke since '01), but that's some crappy logic he uses.

[CrazieDUMB]

I don't think that anyone in the country has a shot at winning the title, until I see who the Elite 8 are. Then I will give those teams a chance at winning the title.

So the teams that make the elite 8 are the most likely to win a title. Way to go out on a limb there.

BTW, why does it seem like Duke is the only team for which previous tournament performance makes any difference? Last I checked Kentucky didn't go to the final four last year either, that didn't stop Pat from gushing over them. Also, Forde is the kind of opportunist that relishes in the country's hatred for Duke. I believe once he said he'd most want to attend a Duke UNC game in Cameron...wearing light blue.

[SCMatt33]

So the teams that make the elite 8 are the most likely to win a title. Way to go out on a limb there.

BTW, why does it seem like Duke is the only team for which previous tournament performance makes any difference? Last I checked Kentucky didn't go to the final four last year either, that didn't stop Pat from gushing over them. Also, Forde is the kind of opportunist that relishes in the country's hatred for Duke. I believe once he said he'd most want to attend a Duke UNC game in Cameron...wearing light blue.

I'm assuming you we're joining in on my sarcasm about Forde's flawed logic, but just in case someone else is as dumb as Forde and doesn't get it, big sarcasm alert there.

On your other point, I think that it's less about Duke's past tournament performances than the similarity to the blueprint that produced said results. This is the fourth year in a row that Duke has had neither a dominant force up front or multiple players in the back court with NBA athleticism. What Forde and many others see is a similar product to what has been put onto the court for the past several years, and they don't expect different results.

[InSpades]

My thought of the day after reading this article:

If Kentucky (heaven forbid) wins the national championship this year. Would it be out of line to have the team they beat in the championship game and the team they beat in the Final Four play a game later that week? You know... just in case...

[Mcluhan]

Seems like a more than fair analysis. He basically hones in on the issues we spend most of our time discussing here: production outside of the Big 3, the inconsistency of the frontcourt 4, and minutes. And like him, I think most of our concerns around these issues stem from our experience the last several years.

Who here disagrees with him, and thinks that we don't have to improve on at least 2 out of 3 of these points to be true contenders?

[Kedsy]

Who here disagrees with him, and thinks that we don't have to improve on at least 2 out of 3 of these points to be true contenders?

Based on, like, a bzillion other threads, I'd say several people disagree.

[trinity92]

Mom always said "If everyone tells you you're drunk, even though you feel sober, go lay down."

Rather than bristling at (and dismissing) the ever-growing chorus of observers identifying our frontcourt production and overreliance on the big three as weaknesses we must overcome before we are an elite team, perhaps we should accept the criticism as well-founded. It isn't particularly logical to tend to dismiss a view in direct proportion to the number of times it is voiced, yet I see that impulse here at DBR-- as more and more observers identify the same problems with our team, year after year, the criticism is turned into a sticky thread and dismissed as the sad misinformed product of either Duke Hate or lazy journalism. To read a lot of posts here, especially those pooh-pooing the Pat Forde article or those in the same vein, our frontcourt is stellar, we should be able to play 3 on 5 (on offense) and win consistently and the Kool-Aid is actually being drunk by all those naysayers, not us.

This doesn't mean I don't love this team. Actually, I think we can go quite far with this squad. However, we should read the criticism and see what we can learn from it before we dismiss it out of hand.

[Udaman]

Trinity - thanks for saying this. I agree 100%. This board often seems to brush off any criticism as Duke hating...when in fact a ton of true professionals (and by that, I mean people who get paid to report on sports) are pointing out that this is a trend, and one that has indeed hurt us the past few years.

And I agree with them. I think the fact that Scheyer and Singler played all 40 minutes in a game we won by 13 and had a 7 point or more lead for THE LAST 15:28 and a 9 point or more lead for THE LAST 9:29 - is stunningly dumb. Yep - stunningly dumb. I don't get it. It's almost like Coach K is doing it on purpose, just to thumb his nose at his critics.

But just like in prior years - now when our bench players go in, they act and seemed panicked. They are no longer tested. Dawkins is a worse player now than he was in November, and that doesn't make sense to me (and there have been players like that every year for the past 5-6 years). It would not surprise me at all if Dawkins were to transfer at the end of this year, especially with the guard play coming in next year.

Does this mean I don't like this team? Of course not. Does it mean I don't think they have a chance to win it all? Nope - I actually do. But...I think they would have a much better chance to win it all if Scheyer, Singler and Smith weren't playing as many minutes as they are right now - because I do think they will get tired near the end, and that teams with good guard play and depth will have an advantage over us come the NCAA tourney - if only because they won't be as tired as our guys. And the last 6 years have shown that to be true.

[InSpades]

And the last 6 years have shown that to be true.


Do you think we lost to Villanova last year because we were tired? Or maybe they were just the better team that night?

I swear to god if I gave some of you a coin and you flipped it 5 times and it came up heads all 5 times you'd tell me the coin was broken and you needed a replacement. That we needed to re-think how we make coins. Obviously whatever we were doing to make coins was not working at all.

[roywhite]

Does this mean I don't like this team? Of course not. Does it mean I don't think they have a chance to win it all? Nope - I actually do. But...I think they would have a much better chance to win it all if Scheyer, Singler and Smith weren't playing as many minutes as they are right now - because I do think they will get tired near the end, and that teams with good guard play and depth will have an advantage over us come the NCAA tourney - if only because they won't be as tired as our guys. And the last 6 years have shown that to be true.

At the risk of being redundant, I'll again repeat the other side: :)

1. This is not a deep team, especially on the perimeter; we have 9 scholarship players; 3 are freshmen and Dawkins is the only non-starter under 6'10".
2. The freshmen are not playing consistently well at this point. However, that's not a huge surprise nor is it unusual, since midway through the conference season has often been a low point in freshman development (the intensity of the league play sets them back, the season seems long, and their confidence is low).
3. In addition to normal freshman problems, there are special circumstances for the development of Mason (injury and recovery) and Andre (family tragedy, ankle tweak, and he missed the summer period also due to his enrollment story).
4. The S-S-S trio is playing well overall and the team is playing well overall.
5. The concept of investing time for development based on playing less prepared players in conference games is not necessarily a sound idea, and it certainly is not one of Coach K's tactics.
6. The idea that having key players play a few minutes less (3 to 5 minutes less?) in some games = a better, more rested team at tournament time; I don't believe that's true and I don't think it can be proven.
7. The theory that certain "sports pros" have a pessimistic view of our postseason potential is not especially persuasive. Some don't even seem to watch our games, and some are predisposed to rip Duke for their own reasons.
8. Coach K is the best in the business, and has a very capable staff. They have a good handle on how best to guide the team through the season and into the postseason.

my .02

[airowe]

At the risk of being redundant, I'll again repeat the other side: :)

1. This is not a deep team, especially on the perimeter; we have 9 scholarship players; 3 are freshmen and Dawkins is the only non-starter under 6'10".
2. The freshmen are not playing consistently well at this point. However, that's not a huge surprise nor is it unusual, since midway through the conference season has often been a low point in freshman development (the intensity of the league play sets them back, the season seems long, and their confidence is low).
3. In addition to normal freshman problems, there are special circumstances for the development of Mason (injury and recovery) and Andre (family tragedy, ankle tweak, and he missed the summer period also due to his enrollment story).
4. The S-S-S trio is playing well overall and the team is playing well overall.
5. The concept of investing time for development based on playing less prepared players in conference games is not necessarily a sound idea, and it certainly is not one of Coach K's tactics.
6. The idea that having key players play a few minutes less (3 to 5 minutes less?) in some games = a better, more rested team at tournament time; I don't believe that's true and I don't think it can be proven.
7. The theory that certain "sports pros" have a pessimistic view of our postseason potential is not especially persuasive. Some don't even seem to watch our games, and some are predisposed to rip Duke for their own reasons.
8. Coach K is the best in the business, and has a very capable staff. They have a good handle on how best to guide the team through the season and into the postseason.

my .02

I'll add to this that in the Clemson game, almost every single one of our possessions took 10 seconds to WALK the ball across the half court line and many more of slow moving halfcourt stallball.


In the blowouts you referenced, Duke often kicked stallball in at around the four or five minute mark with many of our possessions consisting of four corners style taking the air out of the ball passing around at the halfcourt line and going hard for a few seconds at the end of the shot clock.

[SilkyJ]

I agree that Duke's March performance has been a disturbing trend (0 wins against teams within 3 seed lines of Duke since '01), but that's some crappy logic he uses.

I don't think its crappy logic. He sees some similar flaws in this current year's team as other recent teams and so he expects similar results in March.


Seems like a more than fair analysis. He basically hones in on the issues we spend most of our time discussing here: production outside of the Big 3, the inconsistency of the frontcourt 4, and minutes. And like him, I think most of our concerns around these issues stem from our experience the last several years.

Who here disagrees with him, and thinks that we don't have to improve on at least 2 out of 3 of these points to be true contenders?

I'm with ya, and Pat in this case, except for the minutes thing. That can be taken care of elsewhere....



6. The idea that having key players play a few minutes less (3 to 5 minutes less?) in some games = a better, more rested team at tournament time; I don't believe that's true and I don't think it can be proven.


I agree. You deal with that by lightening up practices. Playing an extra 10 minutes per week (5 minutes/game x 2 games/week) even if its hard fought, is not going to tire you out if you manage practices appropriately and if you are in good shape. Super, Scintillating, and Sensational are all upperclassmen so they know how to manage their bodies and conditioning for a lengthy season. Moreover, they should be in great shape to begin with having known they would be playing this many minutes coming into the season. I just ain't buying this part.

[slower]

It would not surprise me at all if Dawkins were to transfer at the end of this year, especially with the guard play coming in next year.

I guess this is what happens when you beat your head against the wall too vigorously. Seriously, man, you don't need to jump in the lifeboat quite yet.

[Kedsy]

I think the fact that Scheyer and Singler played all 40 minutes in a game we won by 13 and had a 7 point or more lead for THE LAST 15:28 and a 9 point or more lead for THE LAST 9:29 - is stunningly dumb. Yep - stunningly dumb. I don't get it. It's almost like Coach K is doing it on purpose, just to thumb his nose at his critics.

Did you watch the Clemson game? Was there even one moment before the last 30 seconds when you weren't thinking Clemson could score 10 points in a minute if we weren't careful?

I understand the argument that we don't need to play our top three in the last 5 minutes of 20 point games (although I don't think playing them will in any way tire them out in future games and I don't think the garbage time will develop the subs all that much). But, whoa, the Clemson game is a terrible example for your point, especially since you use such strong rhetoric.

[NSDukeFan]

Trinity - thanks for saying this. I agree 100%. This board often seems to brush off any criticism as Duke hating...when in fact a ton of true professionals (and by that, I mean people who get paid to report on sports) are pointing out that this is a trend, and one that has indeed hurt us the past few years.

This board is made up of many Duke fans, many of whom have done an outstanding job of using facts, where possible, and credible explanations, in other cases, to refute many of the points of criticism that are brought up in this article by someone who does not solely focus on Duke basketball. This is part of the reason that I enjoy this board. I find many of the posters to be quite knowledgeable about basketball and because they are focused on Duke, they do not make generalizations and assumptions about the program that someone who is covering all of the NCAA might. I don't think "the Board" necessarily brushes off any criticism as Duke hating, but there are many posters that may be tired of hearing similar criticisms based on unproven assumptions that have already been well refuted. That's why if I want to hear the best information about Duke basketball, I come to sites devoted to it. Yes, it has the potential to be more biased (but as a fan, I guess so am I), but also much more informative than a passing reference in an article by a professional responsible for covering the whole country and who may or may not have watched many of the games the team has played.


And I agree with them. I think the fact that Scheyer and Singler played all 40 minutes in a game we won by 13 and had a 7 point or more lead for THE LAST 15:28 and a 9 point or more lead for THE LAST 9:29 - is stunningly dumb. Yep - stunningly dumb. I don't get it. It's almost like Coach K is doing it on purpose, just to thumb his nose at his critics.


I think when you call a hall of fame coach stunningly dumb for not substituting the way you would like, in an extremely important game, against a very good pressing team, in a tough environment that resulted in our first road win of the year, you may want to provide some data showing how a team can't lose against a pressing Clemson team when up 9 points with 9&1/2 minutes left, or how a 7 point lead with 15 & 1/2 minutes left is a guaranteed victory. I believe coach K is trying on purpose to give his team the best chance to win and fortunately in the biggest game of the year, the team came through with flying colors. Maybe hevis thumbing his nose at anyone who would call him stunningly dumb after a huge victory.

[SCMatt33]

I don't think its crappy logic. He sees some similar flaws in this current year's team as other recent teams and so he expects similar results in March.

I worded that poorly. I thought that the crappy logic comes in saying that will believe Duke can win the title if we make the Elite 8. He basically says that if we lose early we can't win, and if we get into the late rounds, we can. He makes no actual prediction and puts himself in a spot where he can't be wrong. If he wants to make a prediction, he needs to say that either Duke can win, or they can't. That's why I was joking about in the first part.

[crimsonandblue]

My thought of the day after reading this article:

If Kentucky (heaven forbid) wins the national championship this year. Would it be out of line to have the team they beat in the championship game and the team they beat in the Final Four play a game later that week? You know... just in case...

Out of line? The Calipari +1 is just responsible thinking. Someone needs to be in position to capture the memorabilia market for these vacated championships and final fours. But what would they call the game? The Vacate-In Game?

At the very least, CBS should have a backup One Final Moment with Kentucky players and coaches redacted (not cut, just colored over with a "Vacated" stamp).

[Duvall]

Mom always said "If everyone tells you you're drunk, even though you feel sober, go lay down."

Rather than bristling at (and dismissing) the ever-growing chorus of observers identifying our frontcourt production and overreliance on the big three as weaknesses we must overcome before we are an elite team, perhaps we should accept the criticism as well-founded. It isn't particularly logical to tend to dismiss a view in direct proportion to the number of times it is voiced, yet I see that impulse here at DBR-- as more and more observers identify the same problems with our team, year after year, the criticism is turned into a sticky thread and dismissed as the sad misinformed product of either Duke Hate or lazy journalism.

Even when it *is* lazy journalism?

Look, it's perfectly fine to criticize this year's team based on its play this year. But lumping it together with past teams with different problems and different rosters is the kind of sloppy thinking you see from mediocre columnists that spend nine months of the year watching football before banging out the occasional column about college hoops.

I mean, take the 2008 squad - a lot of the familiar names on that team, and a disappointing finish to the season. But while that team had some of the same players that are on on this year's team, it didn't have the same problems. That team had balanced scoring, with five guys averaging more than 11 ppg, and decent depth, with no player logging more than 31 minutes per game.

What that team lacked was post defense and rebounding. Which, interestingly enough, Duke enjoys this year. This year's squad is a solid rebounding team - its offensive rebounding stats are not elite - and it has repeatedly faced NBA-bound big men without disaster. So while the names may be the same, the games are quite different. But to a lazy dope like Pat Forde, it's all of a piece.

[flyingdutchdevil]

What? A prominent college basketball journalist criticised Duke and now DBR is in an uproar? Say it ain't so...

I love Duke basketball and enjoy DBR a lot, but you guys flip out every time someone says something remoting negative about Duke. This team isn't perfect, and Forde does bring up some valid points (at least in my mind - probably not yours)

[J_C_Steel]

Duke will hear these criticisms until they put another team in the Final Four. While it may not be entirely fair to judge the 2009-10 team based on prior teams, the truth is that the '09-10 squad is very similar to the '08-09 squad that got blown out in the tourney. Sure, Duke has better frontcourt depth and rebounding this season, but the backcourt is thin.

I'll be rooting for this team the whole year. I really will. But I'm thinking Sweet 16 or perhaps Elite 8 is the likely ceiling for this crew.

[SilkyJ]

I worded that poorly. I thought that the crappy logic comes in saying that will believe Duke can win the title if we make the Elite 8. He basically says that if we lose early we can't win, and if we get into the late rounds, we can. He makes no actual prediction and puts himself in a spot where he can't be wrong. If he wants to make a prediction, he needs to say that either Duke can win, or they can't. That's why I was joking about in the first part.

Got it. I shoulda figured that out given what most of your post said...my bad.


What? A prominent college basketball journalist criticised Duke and now DBR is in an uproar? Say it ain't so...

I love Duke basketball and enjoy DBR a lot, but you guys flip out every time someone says something remoting negative about Duke. This team isn't perfect, and Forde does bring up some valid points (at least in my mind - probably not yours)

YOU GUYS?! What do you mean YOU GUYS?!

Seriously though, I think if you read the whole thread you'd see that a good number of people have A) already said what you have (i.e. don't flip out over what one dude says) or B) agree with Pat to some degree. So I would hardly generalize the DBR community as a whole as being in an uproar over this.

[mo.st.dukie]

Duke will hear these criticisms until they put another team in the Final Four. While it may not be entirely fair to judge the 2009-10 team based on prior teams, the truth is that the '09-10 squad is very similar to the '08-09 squad that got blown out in the tourney. Sure, Duke has better frontcourt depth and rebounding this season, but the backcourt is thin.

Our backcourt was very thin back in 04 too with Duhon, Redick, Ewing, and Dockery. The key, they were very good. Our backcourt players this year are Scheyer, Smith, Singler, and Dawkins/Kelly (we do need one of those two to emerge as a 10mpg guy) and guess what, our 3 starters are the highest scoring backcourt trio in all of college basketball.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Got it. I shoulda figured that out given what most of your post said...my bad.



YOU GUYS?! What do you mean YOU GUYS?!

Seriously though, I think if you read the whole thread you'd see that a good number of people have A) already said what you have (i.e. don't flip out over what one dude says) or B) agree with Pat to some degree. So I would hardly generalize the DBR community as a whole as being in an uproar over this.

I would have to say that more than half of the responses on this thread are in complete or more than partial disagreement (>50%) with Forde. And, for the record, the DBR community doesn't take criticism well. Yes - I am generalizing. So sue me. Are you actually going to say that this community takes criticism well? DBR is a lot of things - extremely smart, passionate, well-spoken - but, IMO, the ability to take criticism is not one of them.

[airowe]

Our backcourt was very thin back in 04 too with Duhon, Redick, Ewing, and Dockery. The key, they were very good. Our backcourt players this year are Scheyer, Smith, Singler, and Dawkins/Kelly (we do need one of those two to emerge as a 10mpg guy) and guess what, our 3 starters are the highest scoring backcourt trio in all of college basketball.

Sorry to hijack here, but do you really consider Kelly a part of the backcourt?

[Kedsy]

Duke will hear these criticisms until they put another team in the Final Four. While it may not be entirely fair to judge the 2009-10 team based on prior teams, the truth is that the '09-10 squad is very similar to the '08-09 squad that got blown out in the tourney. Sure, Duke has better frontcourt depth and rebounding this season, but the backcourt is thin.

Well, accepting your assessment as accurate, in what way is this team very similar to last year's team. Last year's team was not thin in the backcourt -- quite the contrary, it was thin in the frontcourt. This year's team is the opposite.

And this year's team is even more different from the 2007-08 version, where we played Kyle at center. Weather or not you think Duke will go far this year, I agree with Duvall that predicting this year's team's finish based on the past five seasons is sloppy journalism.

[pfrduke]

I would have to say that more than half of the responses on this thread are in complete or more than partial disagreement (>50%) with Forde. And, for the record, the DBR community doesn't take criticism well. Yes - I am generalizing. So sue me. Are you actually going to say that this community takes criticism well? DBR is a lot of things - extremely smart, passionate, well-spoken - but, IMO, the ability to take criticism is not one of them.

I agree that we as a community tend to be defensive of the basketball program and the individuals involved in it. As fans, that shouldn't really be surprising. Also, in the community's collective defense, much of the criticism recently has come in one (or more) of four forms:

1) "I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but . . ."
2) "Duke can't/will never win a championship as long as [generalization]"
3) "Zoubek/Thomas stink and should play less"
4) "If you don't agree with my criticism of the team, you're just an apologist with blue-tinted glasses"

None of the above are particularly reasoned and all have very combative or defeatist tones. Essentially, they are comments almost designed to prompt a defensive response.

I think there are plenty of people willing to engage in discussion about our strengths and weaknesses. But disagreement with a point of view doesn't necessarily equal an inability to accept criticism. Duvall's point above about why Forde may be wrong in his brief assessment is illustrative - this team looks nothing like the 2008 team, so why should that season's results be a proxy for this season's? Forde certainly identified issues with the team - we aren't terribly deep in the backcourt, our frontcourt is not an offensive juggernaut, etc. But those issues don't necessarily mean we should be presumptively disqualified from national title consideration before the games get played. And they certainly don't mean that should be our treatment because of what the past 4 or 5 Duke teams, many of which had dramatically different makeups and issues than this team, have done.

[Kedsy]

But...I think they would have a much better chance to win it all if Scheyer, Singler and Smith weren't playing as many minutes as they are right now - because I do think they will get tired near the end, and that teams with good guard play and depth will have an advantage over us come the NCAA tourney - if only because they won't be as tired as our guys. And the last 6 years have shown that to be true.

Well, putting aside that 6 years ago we were in the Final Four, this is what irks me about this sort of argument: as far as I can tell there are only three pieces of evidence to support what you have stated as an ironclad fact.

(1) In 2008, a freshman Kyle Singler -- who was forced to play in the post and routinely defend guys who were several inches taller and 50 pounds heavier -- wore down at the end of the season.

(2) In 2006, a double-teamed (and sometimes triple-teamed) JJ Redick shot very poorly in his last game.

(3) We have lost fairly early in the NCAAT in each of the past five seasons.

The problem is there is absolutely nothing linking #3 to fatigue. Lots of teams have failed to go past the Sweet 16 in each of the last five years who weren't tired at all. It doesn't logically follow.

And if you take away #3, then there are bunches and bunches of reasons that might explain #1 and #2 that are MUCH more likely than the possibility that our starters might play too many minutes during the regular season.

So, to me, the minutes argument boils down to people are surprised and/or upset we haven't made the Final Four since 2004 and want something to blame it on.

[SCMatt33]

FWIW, Forde did a chat on ESPN and answered quite a few questions about the Duke issue from his article. He seems pretty consistent in his viewpoint and must have been absolutely bombarded with Duke questions based on how many he chose to answer.

tim (dallas)
Pat, just so we can put this puppy to rest, will you simply state:"I'm Pat Forde and I dislike Duke, unequivocally, and have no plans to change my mind."That's all we need to hear from you, Pat, that way, we won't have to read any more of your ridiculously biased musings...You hate Duke, its OK, we're fine with it.
Pat Forde (3:35 PM)
Tim: Sorry, I don't hate Duke. You don't have to hate Duke to be wary of what the Blue Devils will do in March. Look at the track record.

Matt (Kent, WA)
"Look at the track record"? You mean three national championships in the last 20 years or the most final fours and NCAA tournament wins in the last 20 years?
Pat Forde
(3:38 PM)
Matt: I mean the four losses in the Sweet Sixteen or earlier as a No. 1 or No. 2 seed in the past five years. And the loss to a No. 11 seed in the other year. Find me the last time Duke lived up to its seeding.

Matt (Richmond)
Oh so when it comes to Duke Pat only the last 5 years matter, so does that apply to all programs becasue it seems you only apply it to Duke?
Pat Forde(3:43 PM)
Matt: Dude, it certainly applies to what this time might do this year. Just as the past five years is more illustrative of, say, what Indiana might do than winning the 1987 national championship.

Jay (Clemson, SC)
Can Clemson stilll turn it around and finish in the top three of the ACC?
Pat Forde(3:45 PM)
Jay: Yes, because that league looks pretty wide open for a chance. Think Duke is the best team in the ACC, but after that it's a tossup.

Tom D. (Austin, TX)
I have seen the players and I agree, but you just dismissed Duke based on history. How about a little consistency?
Pat Forde
(3:46 PM)
Tom: Duke is still playing with pretty much the same hand as it did the past two years, when it flopped in the tourney.

[WiJoe]

It's almost a waste of time "chatting" with guys like forde because THEY will ALWAYS decide whether to bother with your remark AND have the last word.

[Atlanta Duke]

Look again at the headline on the ESPN.com homepage for Forde's article

"Ten teams have a great shot to win it all in March. BYU is one of them. Duke is not. Say what?! Allow Pat Forde to explain."

The success of Internet columnists is measured by page hits. Did mentioning BYU in the headline as a dark horse drive page hits? I doubt it.

Did mentioning Duke as a team that cannot win it all prompt both Duke fans and Duke haters to read the article? You betcha.

Forde could just as easily have said in the headline defending champ and pre-season top 10 pick Carolina is not one of the 10 teams which have a great shot to win it all. Forde and his headline writer took the anti-Duke hook because Carolina's much greater success than Duke since 2005 still does not prompt the animosity directed Duke's way and consequent page hits for any anti-Duke slam.

Mission accomplished by Forde - his observations on Duke (which include both the usual stereotypes and some fact based opinions) drove people to his chat and have prompted this thread that only increases page hits to his article.

[BD80]

My thought of the day after reading this article:

If Kentucky (heaven forbid) wins the national championship this year. Would it be out of line to have the team they beat in the championship game and the team they beat in the Final Four play a game later that week? You know... just in case...

SSShhhhhh! kerlina is planning to sneak in and have the Helms foundation designate the heels the champions if a Ky championship is vacated.


Mom always said "If everyone tells you you're drunk, even though you feel sober, go lay down."

Rather than bristling at (and dismissing) the ever-growing chorus of observers identifying our frontcourt production and overreliance on the big three as weaknesses we must overcome before we are an elite team, perhaps we should accept the criticism as well-founded. ...

So we should accept the suggestions on IC, because they are numerous and consistent? They may not be anatomically feasible, but they are plentiful.

BTW, if your mom is accustomed to being told "you're drunk," you might look elsewhere for advice.

[CDu]

"Tom: Duke is still playing with pretty much the same hand as it did the past two years, when it flopped in the tourney."

(from Forde)

I don't have a problem with Forde being unconvinced about our Final Four chances, but I do have a real problem with this quote from Forde. This team is very different from the last two Duke teams. It may or may not be better prepared for the NCAA tournament, but it is very different.

The 2008 team was very small. We rotated five guards/wings (Paulus, Smith, Scheyer, Henderson, Nelson) along with Singler, Thomas, and Zoubek/McClure. We were a fairly small team that lacked a playmaking PG (maybe we should have gone with Scheyer even back then?) and size inside, but had a deep supply of guards/wings/forwards.

The 2009 team looked a lot like the 2008 team, but Henderson/Smith/Williams replaced Nelson/Henderson/Smith, and we moved Paulus to the bench. But again we were a small team without a playmaking PG.

Unlike the previous teams (which had a lot of guards and smaller forwards), this year's team has a ton of size but lacks guard depth. Also, we have better on-ball guard play this year as Smith and Scheyer have been much better players this year than last year.

It's just lazy to say that this year's team is "still playing with pretty much the same hand as it did the last two years."

[Stray Gator]

I would have to say that more than half of the responses on this thread are in complete or more than partial disagreement (>50%) with Forde. And, for the record, the DBR community doesn't take criticism well. Yes - I am generalizing. So sue me. Are you actually going to say that this community takes criticism well? DBR is a lot of things - extremely smart, passionate, well-spoken - but, IMO, the ability to take criticism is not one of them.

As a devotee of Gator football and Duke basketball, I spend a considerable amount of time perusing message boards maintained and inhabited by fans of other teams. Undoubtedly, some of the regular participants here at the DBR Board tend to become "impatient" in response to the seemingly incessant stream of posted messages that recycle the same criticisms--a tradition aptly mocked by Throatybeard's Handy Pocket Reference that provides shorthand codes for common, recurring complaints about the Duke basketball program. But if you find the level of sensitivity to and intolerance of criticism here on the DBR Board to be excessive, I suggest you take a stroll down the street and check out the "hospitality" of the UNC, Maryland, and Kentucky message boards, among others.

[Kedsy]

Tom D. (Austin, TX)
I have seen the players and I agree, but you just dismissed Duke based on history. How about a little consistency?
Pat Forde
(3:46 PM)
Tom: Duke is still playing with pretty much the same hand as it did the past two years, when it flopped in the tourney.

Well, as CDu points out, this team's style of play is nothing like the past two years (especially two years ago). The personnel isn't even all that similar. In fact, only four players played significant roles on all three teams (only one starter, although you probably ought to count Jon as a starter in 2008 even though he didn't really start). And Nolan played less than 15 minutes a game in 2007-08 and I can't imagine anyone who has watched games in both seasons would argue that he is the same player, so frankly he shouldn't count. Basically what I think Mr. Forde is saying is Duke can't win when their core is the "alarmingly unathletic" Jon, Kyle, and Lance.

But even if I'm wrong about his intent, and even if the past three teams were exactly the "same hand," his comments still don't make sense. There are plenty of examples with plenty of teams, but one of the most telling is Duke back in 1983-84 and 1984-85. Duke lost in the 2nd round both years. The next year (1985-86), they returned 7 of their 8 man rotation, and added only one freshman who played more than a few minutes. Did that mean they were doomed to lose in the 2nd round again or did it mean they were poised to go far because the core of the team had been together so long? Most commentators believe that a core of experienced players means the team has a better chance to succeed in the post-season. I'm sure Mr. Forde would say that about most teams. But for some reason in Duke's case he says having the same core is a bad thing.

[SCMatt33]

Look again at the headline on the ESPN.com homepage for Forde's article

"Ten teams have a great shot to win it all in March. BYU is one of them. Duke is not. Say what?! Allow Pat Forde to explain."

There's no way Forde wrote that. Probably some low level guy who works on the web site. Forde titled his article "Minutes: 10 teams that can win it all"

He mentions in the body of the article that he sees 9 "solid" candidates, 1 "flier" (BYU), and 1 blueblood left out (Duke). It was somebody else's job to hype it up.

[Wander]

The 2009 team looked a lot like the 2008 team, but Henderson/Smith/Williams replaced Nelson/Henderson/Smith, and we moved Paulus to the bench. But again we were a small team without a playmaking PG.


I mostly agree with you, but I'm not sure that this team is THAT different from the 2009 team, after K made the Scheyer to PG switch, of course. I do think it's a little different of course, and I even think it's better, but I see more similarities than not.

It's still a team that largely uses the same players, has an offense that is very efficient but IMO overly reliant on Scheyer, Singler, and an athletic shooting guard. Still doesn't turn the ball over much, has really good offensive rebounding, mediocre defensive rebounding, and good shooting. The X-factor is of course the Plumlees, who will make the team look really different if they get more involved in the offense and get more minutes (I'm not interested in discussing the why here, whether you believe it be a poor coaching decision or that they just aren't ready).

But yeah, saying BYU or Georgetown has a better chance to win the national title than Duke is a bit silly.

[DevilHorns]

We have given journalists and Duke-neutrals and Duke-haters every reason to categorize us as choke-artists when it comes to tourney time given our runs the past 4 years. The reason why other teams aren't seen this way is because we have consistently been over-seeded compared to where we end up. Teams like Kentucky who didn't make the tourney last year don't have this problem since they weren't even invited!

My opinion: Pat Forde has every right to conjure up ideas about how this team is like team's from the past, and that this team will end on the same sad beat. I think he believes Duke to be over-ranked throughout the regular season and come tourney-time, a team that plays the strength of schedule card far to well, and a team that struggles away from the cameron crazies push. This is not completely unfounded. The only way to combat this is a great showing this year. If someone calls you out, you have to simply put up or shut up. Let him say what he wants. I want our team to talk on the floor. Here's to a deep run this year.

[Atlanta Duke]

There's no way Forde wrote that. Probably some low level guy who works on the web site. Forde titled his article "Minutes: 10 teams that can win it all"

He mentions in the body of the article that he sees 9 "solid" candidates, 1 "flier" (BYU), and 1 blueblood left out (Duke). It was somebody else's job to hype it up.

"Forde and his headline writer took the anti-Duke hook because Carolina's much greater success than Duke since 2005 still does not prompt the animosity directed Duke's way and consequent page hits for any anti-Duke slam."

Lots of bluebloods out there (UCLA, Carolina, UConn) Forde could have selected as not having a chance to win - he went with Duke because anti-Duke still sells and, as I stated, his headline writer ran with Forde's intent to trash Duke as a big part of the piece.

[pfrduke]

"Forde and his headline writer took the anti-Duke hook because Carolina's much greater success than Duke since 2005 still does not prompt the animosity directed Duke's way and consequent page hits for any anti-Duke slam."

Lots of bluebloods out there (UCLA, Carolina, UConn) Forde could have selected as not having a chance to win - he went with Duke because anti-Duke still sells and, as I stated, his headline writer ran with Forde's intent to trash Duke as a big part of the piece.

Or he went with Duke because, unlike UCLA and Carolina and UCONN, Duke is currently in the top 10 of polls, as well as the top 10 of pretty much every (if not actually every) computer ranking. Thus, leaving out a team that pretty much everyone agrees, right now, is one of the top 10 teams in college basketball from a list of the 10 teams that can win is, perhaps, a surprising omission. Put another way, no one would be at all surprised to open that article and see Forde dismiss the national title chances of UNC, UCLA, or UCONN.

People really need to dial down their bias-sensitivity meter.

[CDu]

I mostly agree with you, but I'm not sure that this team is THAT different from the 2009 team, after K made the Scheyer to PG switch, of course. I do think it's a little different of course, and I even think it's better, but I see more similarities than not.

It's still a team that largely uses the same players, has an offense that is very efficient but IMO overly reliant on Scheyer, Singler, and an athletic shooting guard. Still doesn't turn the ball over much, has really good offensive rebounding, mediocre defensive rebounding, and good shooting. The X-factor is of course the Plumlees, who will make the team look really different if they get more involved in the offense and get more minutes (I'm not interested in discussing the why here, whether you believe it be a poor coaching decision or that they just aren't ready).

But yeah, saying BYU or Georgetown has a better chance to win the national title than Duke is a bit silly.

I disagree. This team is still very different than last year's team after the lineup switch. That team played Scheyer, Henderson, and two of Paulus/Smith/Williams rotating at the three wing spots (with Henderson playing some at the 4). In the frontcourt, we rotated three/four smaller guys (Singler, Thomas, McClure, Henderson) with Zoubek. This year, we take out three smaller players (Henderson, McClure, and Williams) and replace them with Dawkins and two bigs (basically, the Plumlees - with Miles getting a LOT more PT than last year).

We're MUCH bigger, and less quick/athletic this year than at any point last year. We rarely if ever had two post players last year (Singler played the 4/5, but he was a perimeter player offensively even then). This year, we play almost exclusively with two post players. Are we still reliant on the same offensive players (with Smith replacing Henderson)? Sure. But it's not all about scoring. The makeup of the team (in terms of matchup capabilities on both ends of the court) is very very different.

[KyDevilinIL]

Good heavens. Pat Forde has never, and will never, play an actual role in the crowning of a national champion. Surely we all understand that much.

[Kedsy]

Good heavens. Pat Forde has never, and will never, play an actual role in the crowning of a national champion. Surely we all understand that much.

Yeah, but it's not really Pat Forde we're talking about. The sensitivity arises because some people don't enjoy having to hear the same unsupported nonsense spouted by "experts" who should know better and even our own fans, both on and off this Board.

But as someone else said, the only true way to stop the talk is to win in the tournament.

[Atlanta Duke]

Or he went with Duke because, unlike UCLA and Carolina and UCONN, Duke is currently in the top 10 of polls, as well as the top 10 of pretty much every (if not actually every) computer ranking. Thus, leaving out a team that pretty much everyone agrees, right now, is one of the top 10 teams in college basketball from a list of the 10 teams that can win is, perhaps, a surprising omission. Put another way, no one would be at all surprised to open that article and see Forde dismiss the national title chances of UNC, UCLA, or UCONN.

People really need to dial down their bias-sensitivity meter.

It's a cheap shot non-story that is intended to do little more than drive page hits (or in the case of sports talk radio ratings) like so much of the tripe on sports web sites these days - Forde writing on Duke not winning the national championship this year is about as insightful as observing OJ is not going to make bail and find the real killer this year

[Duvall]

I've changed my mind. Forde is right; no team that loses to N.C. State can possibly do anything in the postseason.

[Exiled_Devil]

Or he went with Duke because, unlike UCLA and Carolina and UCONN, Duke is currently in the top 10 of polls, as well as the top 10 of pretty much every (if not actually every) computer ranking. Thus, leaving out a team that pretty much everyone agrees, right now, is one of the top 10 teams in college basketball from a list of the 10 teams that can win is, perhaps, a surprising omission. Put another way, no one would be at all surprised to open that article and see Forde dismiss the national title chances of UNC, UCLA, or UCONN.

People really need to dial down their bias-sensitivity meter.

I think that is the big deal here - using RPI, we are top 5. Also, he didn't list Duke's record against RPI ranked opponents like he did for hte rest:

Top 50: 6-2
Top 100: 9-3

The only team with more games against the top 100 is the Cuse. Who I think is one of the top contenders this year.

[devildownunder]

Yeah, but it's not really Pat Forde we're talking about. The sensitivity arises because some people don't enjoy having to hear the same unsupported nonsense spouted by "experts" who should know better and even our own fans, both on and off this Board.

But as someone else said, the only true way to stop the talk is to win in the tournament.

which isn't going to happen this year, unless things change drastically. His criticisms, while exaggerated, aren't way off base.

My problem w/Forde's statement isn't what he said, it's that he picked us seemingly at random. He could've picked any premier program that wasn't fielding an all-time great team but he picked us. And I say seemingly at random because, really, his audience is the kind of fan who tunes in during the second weekend of March and wants to be able to pretend he actually knows what he's talking about. Nobody has a more recognizable brand name than Duke right now, so for his readership it probably really is news that Duke is a longshot to win it all this year. Ninety-nine percent of this forum's readership really has no business reading his stuff. I got sucked in by the headline mentioning Duke. I'll have to be more careful in the future.

[roywhite]

which isn't going to happen this year, unless things change drastically. His criticisms, while exaggerated, aren't way off base.

.

Sorry, I really don't see the reason for pessimism. Duke is ranked #7, has played against a high level of competition, is ranked very well in Sagarin, RPI, etc., and has room for improvement. Additionally, there is not a dominant team on the landscape. If we're a longshot, so is most everybody else.

[uh_no]

Good heavens. Pat Forde has never, and will never, play an actual role in the crowning of a national champion. Surely we all understand that much.

good thing nat'l championships aren't decided the old way...a-la Helms committee

[devildownunder]

Sorry, I really don't see the reason for pessimism. Duke is ranked #7, has played against a high level of competition, is ranked very well in Sagarin, RPI, etc., and has room for improvement. Additionally, there is not a dominant team on the landscape. If we're a longshot, so is most everybody else.

Sorry, I do not consider is pessimism to say that this team is not a realistic national championship contender. You may like our chances for a national championship better than I do. that's wonderful.

I think this is a good team with a real shot at the elite 8 and an outside shot at the final four, which I'm excited about. If some x factors kick in, the ceiling is even higher -- which is great!

But when I start thinking about realistic prospects to win it all, I think there are some things working heavily against us. I won't get into a list here, you can find them on numerous threads on this site.

[NSDukeFan]

Sorry, I do not consider is pessimism to say that this team is not a realistic national championship contender. You may like our chances for a national championship better than I do. that's wonderful.

I think this is a good team with a real shot at the elite 8 and an outside shot at the final four, which I'm excited about. If some x factors kick in, the ceiling is even higher -- which is great!

But when I start thinking about realistic prospects to win it all, I think there are some things working heavily against us. I won't get into a list here, you can find them on numerous threads on this site.

The good news if you claim Duke can't win the championship this year is that you will most likely be proven right and can look back at how smart you were. Betting people would always pick the field vs. an individual team. Even when Tiger is at his peak in golf, it is always smart to pick the field as you have a better chance of being correct. But, in college basketball this year, there is no clear top team, but a lot of good teams with a chance to win on a given day, depending on match-ups, injuries, and how teams play in a given game. Duke is one of those teams.
I don't think many people would claim with great confidence that Duke will win the championship this year. I do think there are many who might suggest that Duke has about as good a chance of making it to the final four and beyond as just about any other team. No matter how far we make it in the one-and-done tournament at the end of the year, we have a very good team this year that is still improving and it should be an exciting ride.

[NYDukie]

What? A prominent college basketball journalist criticised Duke and now DBR is in an uproar? Say it ain't so...

I love Duke basketball and enjoy DBR a lot, but you guys flip out every time someone says something remoting negative about Duke. This team isn't perfect, and Forde does bring up some valid points (at least in my mind - probably not yours)

I agree 100%. In reading the article Forde states that “We've seen this movie before. Duke blazes impressively out of the gates, is confronted by its limitations (size, depth or athleticism) in the latter third of the regular season, and then hits the wall in March. The Devils haven't won more than two games in an NCAA tournament since 2004, despite having No. 1 seeds twice and No. 2 seeds twice as well.” What Forde is stating, is that some limitation combo of size, depth or athleticism has led to the teams demise. I don’t think he is off base here. I know the truth sometimes hurt and it’s proven by how much we have brought these points up on the board the past two years or so, especially. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Take a look at the teams since 2004’s Final 4 team.

2004-2005, 27-6, #1 seed in South, lost Sweet 16 to Mich. State #5 – top rotation of Ewing, Redick, Dockery, Shav and Sheldon with Nelson and Melchionni. Team lacks depth and size up front after top two big men and depth overall is questionable. This may be the most athletic team of this era in question. Three players average over 34 minutes with JJ at 37 mpg. Enters February 16-1 and fades to 11-5 down the stretch.

2005-2006, 32-4, overall #1 seed, South region, lost Sweet 16 to LSU #4 – top rotation of Paulus, Redick, Nelson, McRoberts and Sheldon with Dockery and Melchionni. Depth is major concern and lack of frontcourt depth after top two big men. Three players average over 32 mpg with JJ again at 37 mpg. Backcourt lacks quickness and athleticism outside of Dockery. LSU's top athleticism was a major key to loss (see their defenders play of JJ all game long). Lost last two games of regular season which can be seen as a blip on the radar or foreshadowing to Sweet 16 flop.

2006-2007, 22-11, #6 seed (argued as over seeded by some) in West, lost to #6 VCU in 1st Rd – top rotation of Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, Henderson, McRoberts, McClure and Thomas with four players over 32 mpg. Depth is a concern and lack of quality size upfront as Thomas is frosh and Zoubs minutes are limited. Lack of athleticism in backcourt is a key all season and exposed late in season as team fades from 18-3 in early February and goes 4-8 down the stretch. In team’s defense, it is extremely young and lacks chemistry.

2007-2008, 28-6, #2 seed in West, lost 2nd Rd to #7 WVU – top rotation of Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, Nelson, Singler with Thomas, Smith, Zoubs and McClure. This and 2009 team are deepest of any teams of this Duke era in question. They do lack size in starting lineup and athleticism overall outside of Nelson and Henderson who are those only above average. Smith is still only a frosh and could not be counted on regularly. Team was 22-1 as of mid February and faded to 6-5 in lost to WVU in tourney.

2008-2009, 30-7, #2 seed in East, blown out by Nova #3 in Sweet 16 – top rotation of Scheyer, Henderson, Smith, Singler, Thomas with Paulus, Williams, Zoubs and McClure. There are only two players over 30 mpg and each are at 32 mpg. Size and athleticism up front is biggest question mark even with MP1 in the fold as Zoubs and Thomas are inconsistent. Backcourt depth is fine but susceptible to quick PGs and guards in general, see Nova flameout. Team was 18-1 late January and went 12-6 to wrap up the season, mediocre at best. Some pieces are in place compared to past two seasons but lacked some quality quickness and quality size at key spots in lineup.

As for this years team, they are out of the gate similar to past years and have the Big 3 averaging 34 + mpg. Depth in the backcourt is an issue as is the ability to matchup against athletic backcourts. However, this is deepest the team has been up front with size with the players having decent to above average abilities as seen in their great rebounding and above average defense (NC State the lone exception). Whereas the past teams had many different combos that affected the teams play, this year’s problem seems to lie around the backcourt regarding depth and the ability to matchup against quick, effective PGs. Given the strength of both Jon and Nolan, this weakness is mitigated to some extent which gives me more comfort than past years. However, it would be encouraging to see the team finish relatively strong with an 8-3 to 9-2 finish to the regular season and getting to the ACC final. Matchups will be key come tourney time, but like some have said, until the team gets to the Elite 8, the naysayers will continue to have the ammo to argue against Duke.

Finally, with regards to Forde’s comments, it is hard to argue against him and what he said. I know some, if not many will counter this in some manner. I know we are all defensive of the team but the facts don’t lie the past 5 seasons with regards to various weaknesses and patterns regarding these Duke teams that will hang over this current group, deserved or not. Bottom line, I so much want this team to succeed. They are better than the past Duke teams (Better than the JJ teams b/c of overall team balance, depth in the backcourt to me being the lone issue) and a truly enjoyable group to watch. They deserve better and I hope things go their way and make the Final 4.

[Udaman]

[QUOTE=Kedsy;355917]Well, putting aside that 6 years ago we were in the Final Four, this is what irks me about this sort of argument: as far as I can tell there are only three pieces of evidence to support what you have stated as an ironclad fact.

(1) In 2008, a freshman Kyle Singler -- who was forced to play in the post and routinely defend guys who were several inches taller and 50 pounds heavier -- wore down at the end of the season.

You are proving my point exactly. He wore down. Why did he wear down? You gave the answer - he played a ton of minutes. Why? Because Coach K did not use the size on his bench. Go look at the stats that year. Singler played 972 minutes, or an average of 29 minutes per game. While Lance Thomas played 593 minutes, Nolan Smith 500, Zoubek played 262 minutes and McClure played 268 minutes.

(2) In 2006, a double-teamed (and sometimes triple-teamed) JJ Redick shot very poorly in his last game.

Say what? JJ in every single year of his career went ice cold in the tourney...and a ton of people on this board were saying it was because he was playing far too many minutes. Even JJ said this. Before his senior year, there was a quote from him that said something like, "this year will be different, we finally have a lot of depth, and so I won't have to play as many minutes. We'll be fresh down the stretch." And THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Again, a ton of us on the board were beyond frustrated when once again a deep team on paper turned into a very thin team come January, Feb and March.

(3) We have lost fairly early in the NCAAT in each of the past five seasons.

The problem is there is absolutely nothing linking #3 to fatigue. Lots of teams have failed to go past the Sweet 16 in each of the last five years who weren't tired at all. It doesn't logically follow.

And if you take away #3, then there are bunches and bunches of reasons that might explain #1 and #2 that are MUCH more likely than the possibility that our starters might play too many minutes during the regular season.

Look, I'm not arguing that it is only fatigue that has caused us to lose early in the tourney. I think much of it is due to the fact that we have become such a target, and teams get so pumped up to play us, that we never get a gimme game. There is no slipping by to the next round for us come the tourney, because we are the team everyone wants to beat. We are the Russian hockey team. We are the Yankees. They hate us, and their coaches use the same speach Herb used on the USA kids (this is our time, their time is done).

But - fatigue does matter, because on paper we are better than many of the teams we have lost to. Belmont almost beat us two years ago because at the end we were spent (especially Singler). W. Virginia ran us off the course in the 2nd half. Nova last year made us look like we were running in sand while they had skates on. Yes, partly because they were quicker than we were, but also because we were tired.

The numbers speak for themselves. Over the past 5 years, if you look at our last 10 games played (including the tournament), here is our shooting percentage for those 10 games versus our percentage on the season:

2009: 41.2% versus 44.4%
2008: 43.2% versus 46.3%
2007: 46.2% versus 46.9%
2006: 43.3% versus 48.7%
2005: 40.0% versus 44.5%

2005 was JJ's Junior Year, and the first time, really, that this board and its posters started saying - "Are guys, namely JJ, are getting tired down the stretch, why don't we play our bench more," and it was after this season that JJ made the comment above that basically said the same thing.

For four of the past 5 years our shooting has gotten much worse down the stretch. It's not just because we are tired because our starters are playing too many minutes and we aren't using our bench...but that is a factor, if you ask me.

[Indoor66]

[QUOTE=Kedsy;355917]Well, putting aside that 6 years ago we were in the Final Four, this is what irks me about this sort of argument: as far as I can tell there are only three pieces of evidence to support what you have stated as an ironclad fact.

(1) In 2008, a freshman Kyle Singler -- who was forced to play in the post and routinely defend guys who were several inches taller and 50 pounds heavier -- wore down at the end of the season.

You are proving my point exactly. He wore down. Why did he wear down? You gave the answer - he played a ton of minutes. Why? Because Coach K did not use the size on his bench. Go look at the stats that year. Singler played 972 minutes, or an average of 29 minutes per game. While Lance Thomas played 593 minutes, Nolan Smith 500, Zoubek played 262 minutes and McClure played 268 minutes.

(2) In 2006, a double-teamed (and sometimes triple-teamed) JJ Redick shot very poorly in his last game.

Say what? JJ in every single year of his career went ice cold in the tourney...and a ton of people on this board were saying it was because he was playing far too many minutes. Even JJ said this. Before his senior year, there was a quote from him that said something like, "this year will be different, we finally have a lot of depth, and so I won't have to play as many minutes. We'll be fresh down the stretch." And THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Again, a ton of us on the board were beyond frustrated when once again a deep team on paper turned into a very thin team come January, Feb and March.

(3) We have lost fairly early in the NCAAT in each of the past five seasons.

The problem is there is absolutely nothing linking #3 to fatigue. Lots of teams have failed to go past the Sweet 16 in each of the last five years who weren't tired at all. It doesn't logically follow.

And if you take away #3, then there are bunches and bunches of reasons that might explain #1 and #2 that are MUCH more likely than the possibility that our starters might play too many minutes during the regular season.

Look, I'm not arguing that it is only fatigue that has caused us to lose early in the tourney. I think much of it is due to the fact that we have become such a target, and teams get so pumped up to play us, that we never get a gimme game. There is no slipping by to the next round for us come the tourney, because we are the team everyone wants to beat. We are the Russian hockey team. We are the Yankees. They hate us, and their coaches use the same speach Herb used on the USA kids (this is our time, their time is done).

But - fatigue does matter, because on paper we are better than many of the teams we have lost to. Belmont almost beat us two years ago because at the end we were spent (especially Singler). W. Virginia ran us off the course in the 2nd half. Nova last year made us look like we were running in sand while they had skates on. Yes, partly because they were quicker than we were, but also because we were tired.

The numbers speak for themselves. Over the past 5 years, if you look at our last 10 games played (including the tournament), here is our shooting percentage for those 10 games versus our percentage on the season:

2009: 41.2% versus 44.4%
2008: 43.2% versus 46.3%
2007: 46.2% versus 46.9%
2006: 43.3% versus 48.7%
2005: 40.0% versus 44.5%

2005 was JJ's Junior Year, and the first time, really, that this board and its posters started saying - "Are guys, namely JJ, are getting tired down the stretch, why don't we play our bench more," and it was after this season that JJ made the comment above that basically said the same thing.

For four of the past 5 years our shooting has gotten much worse down the stretch. It's not just because we are tired because our starters are playing too many minutes and we aren't using our bench...but that is a factor, if you ask me.

One might also factor into the equation the reality that the late games in the season tend to have higher stakes and be against better teams. That can really affect performance and outcome.

[roywhite]

Finally, with regards to Forde’s comments, it is hard to argue against him and what he said. I know some, if not many will counter this in some manner. I know we are all defensive of the team but the facts don’t lie the past 5 seasons with regards to various weaknesses and patterns regarding these Duke teams that will hang over this current group, deserved or not. Bottom line, I so much want this team to succeed. They are better than the past Duke teams (Better than the JJ teams b/c of overall team balance, depth in the backcourt to me being the lone issue) and a truly enjoyable group to watch. They deserve better and I hope things go their way and make the Final 4.

What is the relevance of the performance of a Duke team, in say 2006, to this team? Does Nolan Smith shoot poorly in the tournament because JJ Redick did? Or are Forde and the poster trying to say there is a major defect in the way the coaches prepare the team?

Perhaps lessons can be learned from the 2008-09 team, since many members are still playing for Duke. Last year's team was good, but this year's team has more size and experience with significant improvement from Nolan Smith and Jon Scheyer. Last year's team won two games in the tournament, and ran into a very good Villanova team. Perhaps this year's team can do better than that.

The "Duke early exit in the NCAA tournament" is just a quick and easy theme for writers like Forde, and for some reason, a topic that some on this board like to wallow in.

Buck up, folks; this is a very good team and lots of fun to follow for the remainder of the regular season and into the tournament. No reason to fear the storms of March.

[Kedsy]

I agree 100%. In reading the article Forde states that “We've seen this movie before. Duke blazes impressively out of the gates, is confronted by its limitations (size, depth or athleticism) in the latter third of the regular season, and then hits the wall in March. The Devils haven't won more than two games in an NCAA tournament since 2004, despite having No. 1 seeds twice and No. 2 seeds twice as well.” What Forde is stating, is that some limitation combo of size, depth or athleticism has led to the teams demise. I don’t think he is off base here. I know the truth sometimes hurt and it’s proven by how much we have brought these points up on the board the past two years or so, especially. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Take a look at the teams since 2004’s Final 4 team.

Your analysis of the various teams is pretty much accurate, but the problem I have with such analysis, and Forde's "analysis" even more so, is history goes further back than five years. Consider:

1987-88: Team started 15-2 but then cooled down. Lost 3 of 4 going into the ACC tourney. Precursor of things to come?

1988-89: Team blazing to begin season, winning first 13 games. Faded to 11-7 down the stretch going into the NCAA tournament.

1989-90: Team hot again early, going 18-3. Faded again to 6-5 after losing four of their last six going into the NCAA tournament.

1990-91: Team started 15-3. Won just 4 of their last 7 games going into NCAA tourney.

I don't have time to analyze the rotations of each of these teams to point out the limitations, but I could, e.g., in 1987-88 we had nothing close to a true center, had a complete offensive liability in Billy King, and had a PG who couldn't break anybody down off the bounce. Etc., etc.

Of course the difference is we went to the Final Four in each of those four years. Which is really the only difference between those four years and all the years since 2004 (except 2006-07).

It was the same movie; just had a different ending. Walked and talked like a duck, but turned out to be a swan.

[jv001]

Your analysis of the various teams is pretty much accurate, but the problem I have with such analysis, and Forde's "analysis" even more so, is history goes further back than five years. Consider:

1987-88: Team started 15-2 but then cooled down. Lost 3 of 4 going into the ACC tourney. Precursor of things to come?

1988-89: Team blazing to begin season, winning first 13 games. Faded to 11-7 down the stretch going into the NCAA tournament.

1989-90: Team hot again early, going 18-3. Faded again to 6-5 after losing four of their last six going into the NCAA tournament.

1990-91: Team started 15-3. Won just 4 of their last 7 games going into NCAA tourney.

I don't have time to analyze the rotations of each of these teams to point out the limitations, but I could, e.g., in 1987-88 we had nothing close to a true center, had a complete offensive liability in Billy King, and had a PG who couldn't break anybody down off the bounce. Etc., etc.

Of course the difference is we went to the Final Four in each of those four years. Which is really the only difference between those four years and all the years since 2004 (except 2006-07).

It was the same movie; just had a different ending. Walked and talked like a duck, but turned out to be a swan.

Kedsy good points and correct ones. But even if we went to the FF4 4 times in a row, some fans would not be happy. They would then jump to,why can't Coach K win the big game or Coach K will never win with the way he plays his guys so many minutes. There have been only a few Duke teams that I would consider complete but we have always competed for the most part because of the HOF coach on our bench. Go Duke!

[NYDukie]

What is the relevance of the performance of a Duke team, in say 2006, to this team? Does Nolan Smith shoot poorly in the tournament because JJ Redick did? Or are Forde and the poster trying to say there is a major defect in the way the coaches prepare the team?

The relevence is that even if many of the pieces have changed, the issues of these teams remain similar although the coaching staff may deal with with more so than the players. In either case, each of these teams have had similar problems and this team/coaching staff probably can reference those past seasons for ways to improve this current team. In addition, the reason why the current group has come to Duke is because of its history of excellence. Many posters bring this up and Coach K himself states a Final 4 berth or championships are the goals and anything else is a failure (not his exact words but you can probably infer that is the point). You don't think this team for instance feels the burden of not being to a Final 4 since 2004 and trying to live up to standards set by Ferry, Lattner, Hurley, Hill, Brand, JWill, Battier and JJ? With greatness, be it from the past or not, comes the burden of expectations. Every team of the past 25 years or so is relevent to a current group because the current group aspires to be like those great teams of the past and any disappointment or failure to live up to those expectation by one group in passed on to the following group, deserved or not. Don't you think the team 8 miles down the road feels it too?

Perhaps lessons can be learned from the 2008-09 team, since many members are still playing for Duke. Last year's team was good, but this year's team has more size and experience with significant improvement from Nolan Smith and Jon Scheyer. Last year's team won two games in the tournament, and ran into a very good Villanova team. Perhaps this year's team can do better than that.

I totally agree as that is still fresh in their minds. This is where the coaching comes into play to see where they may have gone wrong in season's past or see what has gone right and try to incorporate it with this team.

The "Duke early exit in the NCAA tournament" is just a quick and easy theme for writers like Forde, and for some reason, a topic that some on this board like to wallow in.

Why is it a easy theme when we as fans/posters like to bring up the point of the 10 Final 4s and 3 national championships Duke as achieved? Many quickly bring up those items when anyone questions Duke. That seems like just as an easy an out by us as fans/posters, too. If we give it, we have to be able to take it! I don't necessarily think we wallow in it. It is the expectations of the program to get to Final 4 and win a championship year in and year out. It starts with Coach K and is the reason why the kids come to Duke and it then flows down to the fanbase who debate it.

Buck up, folks; this is a very good team and lots of fun to follow for the remainder of the regular season and into the tournament. No reason to fear the storms of March.

Again, I agree 100% as I think this team is the best built team to advance deeper in the tourney than those of the past 5 years. No reason to fear the storms of March but there will be some clouds hanging over looking to rain on our parade. Hopefully, the sun breaks through this year.:)

[tbyers11]

Sorry, I do not consider is pessimism to say that this team is not a realistic national championship contender. You may like our chances for a national championship better than I do. that's wonderful.

I think this is a good team with a real shot at the elite 8 and an outside shot at the final four, which I'm excited about. If some x factors kick in, the ceiling is even higher -- which is great!

But when I start thinking about realistic prospects to win it all, I think there are some things working heavily against us. I won't get into a list here, you can find them on numerous threads on this site.

I guess it depends on what you consider a realistic national championship contender. You say that you consider Duke to have a real shot at the elite 8. To me that makes them a realistic national championship contender. In a year with no dominant teams (like UNC 2009 or Florida 2007), I think being a top 8 team, which I consider Duke to be, makes you a realistic contender. I don't consider Duke the odds-on-favorite, (If forced to bet right now, I would take Kansas or Syracuse) but they are in the conversation.

There is still a lot of the regular season left and the matchups determined by the bracket have a lot to say in determining the national champ, but I like Duke's chances more this year than any year since 2005. This is mostly due to improved interior defense and rebounding and the fact that the Plumlees still have a lot of time to progress.

[NYDukie]

Your analysis of the various teams is pretty much accurate, but the problem I have with such analysis, and Forde's "analysis" even more so, is history goes further back than five years. Consider:

1987-88: Team started 15-2 but then cooled down. Lost 3 of 4 going into the ACC tourney. Precursor of things to come?

1988-89: Team blazing to begin season, winning first 13 games. Faded to 11-7 down the stretch going into the NCAA tournament.

1989-90: Team hot again early, going 18-3. Faded again to 6-5 after losing four of their last six going into the NCAA tournament.

1990-91: Team started 15-3. Won just 4 of their last 7 games going into NCAA tourney.

I don't have time to analyze the rotations of each of these teams to point out the limitations, but I could, e.g., in 1987-88 we had nothing close to a true center, had a complete offensive liability in Billy King, and had a PG who couldn't break anybody down off the bounce. Etc., etc.

Of course the difference is we went to the Final Four in each of those four years. Which is really the only difference between those four years and all the years since 2004 (except 2006-07).

It was the same movie; just had a different ending. Walked and talked like a duck, but turned out to be a swan.

Hey, I can't argue that. We can go back and extrapolate all types of info to back up our points. That's the beauty of this board. I can say that we need to look at the past 10 years given the change of college basketball's landscape, especially with HS players not coming and going straight to the league and guys leaving after a year. But because of the failure to live up to expectations the past 5 years or so when compared to the past 25 years, this time frame stands out and is examined closely by many.

[Kedsy]

Hey, I can't argue that. We can go back and extrapolate all types of info to back up our points. That's the beauty of this board. I can say that we need to look at the past 10 years given the change of college basketball's landscape, especially with HS players not coming and going straight to the league and guys leaving after a year. But because of the failure to live up to expectations the past 5 years or so when compared to the past 25 years, this time frame stands out and is examined closely by many.

Interestingly enough, if you take a very close look at the past 25 years (actually 27) it doesn't stand out as much as people think.

A huge part of the perception issue is 2006, but in my mind that was mostly due to a piece of bad luck. I recently detailed this in another thread so I'll abbreviate it here: LSU won their game before Duke by one point against a #12 seed on a last second desperation three-point heave. If they don't make that shot, we're playing #12 Texas A&M and we almost certainly win, and the next game would have been against Texas, who we matched up well with and blew out earlier in the year. So, imagine that we made the Final Four in 2006 and look at the following set of 12 year patterns:

1983 -- DOWN year (11-17)
1984 -- Rebuilding year; #14 in final AP poll but probably overrated; lost first NCAA game.
1985 -- Frustrating year; solid #10 in final AP poll. Lost 2nd game in NCAAT.

and then nine golden years:
1986 -- #1 in final AP poll, NCAA final game
1987 -- #17, lost in Sweet 16 to eventual national champion
1988 -- #5, Final Four
1989 -- #9, Final Four
1990 -- #15, final game
1991 -- #6, national champs
1992 -- #1, national champs
1993 -- #10, upset in 2nd round of NCAAT
1994 -- #6, final game

-------------------------------

1995 -- DOWN year (13-18)
1996 -- Rebuilding year; unranked; lost first NCAA game
1997 -- Frustrating year; #8 in Final AP poll; barely beat Murray State before losing to Providence in 2nd round of NCAAT

and then nine golden years:
1998 -- #3 in Final AP poll; Elite Eight, with only a late game collapse against eventual national champion kept us from the Final Four
1999 -- #1, final game
2000 -- #1, upset in Sweet 16
2001 -- #1, national champion
2002 -- #1, upset in Sweet 16
2003 -- #7, lost in Sweet 16
2004 -- #6, Final Four
2005 -- #3, upset in Sweet 16
2006 -- #1, see above

---------------------------------

2007 -- Down year; not nearly as awful as the previous down years, but still...
2008 -- Rebuilding year; #9 in Final AP poll; barely beat Belmont before losing to West Virginia in 2nd round
2009 -- Frustrating year; #6 in Final AP poll; lost in Sweet 16

and then nine golden years? We can only hope, but this year's team is in the best position to do it than any since 2006 and we have a great recruiting class coming in next year...

Obviously if you look hard enough you can find patterns almost anywhere, but at least the above covers the entirety of K's tenure at Duke and doesn't really leave anything out. And it looks like a pretty solid pattern to me. If you accept 2006 as an "up" year that ended with some bad luck, then the supposed five year negative pattern is not an outlier compared with the previous 22 years but instead becomes a three year recovery cycle that we've seen a couple of times before.

I hope so, anyway.

[NYDukie]

Obviously if you look hard enough you can find patterns almost anywhere, but at least the above covers the entirety of K's tenure at Duke and doesn't really leave anything out. And it looks like a pretty solid pattern to me. If you accept 2006 as an "up" year that ended with some bad luck, then the supposed five year negative pattern is not an outlier compared with the previous 22 years but instead becomes a three year recovery cycle that we've seen a couple of times before.

I hope so, anyway.

Interesting patterns. Personally, I have no real problem with how the teams have performed. Has it been frustrating? To a degree yes, when you see that some of the teams had the ability to go a bit further. However, that is the beauty or heartbreak of the tourney since its a one and done setting. Of the teams you mentioned, the most frustrating to me were the 2002 and 2006 teams because they had championship game ability (1999 at least got to the final game and I can live with it as UCONN and Duke were clearly the elite teams that year). Given the teams of the past few years, I think they performed to what was expected. I thought the 2007-2008 team that lost to WVU wasn't as good as its record and that its play down the stretch implied that they were more a #3 type, if not #4 seed team. Last year just looked bad because of the debacle against Nova. If the game was tight, we may not be having as much debate possibly. I think that game just left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I like this years team. Solidified some weaknesses and I think its just overall, a more "tough" team. It will be an interesting next few weeks to see where this all goes for this Duke edition.

[G man]

It bothers me that this is the same thing we hear every year, but until we make a deep run this is all we will hear. I will say this I am concerned about a flame out from our stars with the amount of mins they are logging. I would take a loss or two now if we got more guys some more experience and rested are studs a little more.

[Coastal Devil]

Until proven otherwise I think his assessment is pretty much right on. I think most of us want to see a longer bench and less time for S, S, and S. I would love to see Mason, Dawkins and Kelly play more and we're not getting consistant Front court play. We're getting better but not consistant yet. The great news is we have another half of the season to improve.

Go Duke!

[sagegrouse]

It bothers me that this is the same thing we hear every year, but until we make a deep run this is all we will hear. I will say this I am concerned about a flame out from our stars with the amount of mins they are logging. I would take a loss or two now if we got more guys some more experience and rested are studs a little more.

There is a reason this is 1(b) on Throatybeard's DBR Manifesto etc. This is the second subtopic listed among more than 160.

I can read your post as meaning that not only you are tired of these comments but also that you agree with them completely. Hey, it's the American way to believe two contradictory things at the same time, as for example, in people worrying about the lack of jobs and, at the same time, complaining about the budget deficit. But I won't go any further.... ;)

By way of explanation on this endless topic, I have heard the coaching staff say two things:

1. We want our best players to be able to play 40 minutes if they have to. Ergo, they must train for it under game conditions.

2. If players are wearing down, we can tell, and we can reduce the practice burden for them -- or for the team as a whole.

What I don't hear the staff say -- but I believe to be true -- is --

3. The coaches believe that, if the players playing only a few minutes did what we wanted them to do on BOTH offense and defense, they would play more than a few minutes.

My sentiment is, like yours, to see Ryan and Andre play more minutes, but it is more -- I recognize -- that I want a preview of the future than that I believe they have really earned more minutes.

sagegrouse

[shoutingncu]

...Last year just looked bad because of the debacle against Nova. If the game was tight, we may not be having as much debate possibly. I think that game just left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I like this years team. Solidified some weaknesses and I think its just overall, a more "tough" team. It will be an interesting next few weeks to see where this all goes for this Duke edition.

Hindsight is 20/20, but last season's Clemson game certainly foreshadowed the 'Nova loss.

If only there were a way to gauge how this year's Duke team would fare against an athletic, pressing team like last year's Clemson...

[rotogod00]

Same critique from Forde in his current ESPN chat:

Q: Duke has been better than what most people expected this year. How far can this team really go in March?
A: I said last week that Duke has no chance of winning the national title, and a Final Four would surprise me as well. Lots of Duke fans didn't like hearing that, but I still see a team that has worked its big three too hard, is undertalented in the post and not very deep. Bad recipe for March.

[gumbomoop]

Same critique from Forde in his current ESPN chat:

Q: Duke has been better than what most people expected this year. How far can this team really go in March?
A: I said last week that Duke has no chance of winning the national title, and a Final Four would surprise me as well. Lots of Duke fans didn't like hearing that, but I still see a team that has worked its big three too hard, is undertalented in the post and not very deep. Bad recipe for March.

I am just curious to see whether one might take Forde's summary analysis here, and by tweeking it a bit [sort of friendly-amendment-style], arrive at a consensus [not unanimity, of course] among DBR posters.

Here goes:
1. Three S - Whether or not it constitutes "working them too hard," they're all very likely to play 36-40 mpg, save only if one of them has foul problems, forcing a bit more extended pine-time in any particular game.
2. Post undertalent - LT, not quite a post guy, must be a consistent force on D, and contribute meaningfully on O sometimes. Of the real bigs, any one of the 3 - MP1, MP2, Z - must play well in each game. As none of those 3 has been consistent, we must hope for intermittent strong play from each. Forde is thus correct - yes? - that we're likely to lose any game in which none of the 3 bigs contributes substantially on either O or D.
3. Bench - Point 2 above implies that our bigs cannot merely give us 15 fouls/game. And Andre must recapture confidence and stroke, as we need a couple of 3s from him most games.

Consensus on this? Or does all this pale compared to the "matchups" issue? Or pale compared to other factors?

[CDu]

I am just curious to see whether one might take Forde's summary analysis here, and by tweeking it a bit [sort of friendly-amendment-style], arrive at a consensus [not unanimity, of course] among DBR posters.

Here goes:
1. Three S - Whether or not it constitutes "working them too hard," they're all very likely to play 36-40 mpg, save only if one of them has foul problems, forcing a bit more extended pine-time in any particular game.
2. Post undertalent - LT, not quite a post guy, must be a consistent force on D, and contribute meaningfully on O sometimes. Of the real bigs, any one of the 3 - MP1, MP2, Z - must play well in each game. As none of those 3 has been consistent, we must hope for intermittent strong play from each. Forde is thus correct - yes? - that we're likely to lose any game in which none of the 3 bigs contributes substantially on either O or D.
3. Bench - Point 2 above implies that our bigs cannot merely give us 15 fouls/game. And Andre must recapture confidence and stroke, as we need a couple of 3s from him most games.

Consensus on this? Or does all this pale compared to the "matchups" issue? Or pale compared to other factors?

I think these are all reasonable keys to success, but I think that right now the biggest issue is the matchup issue. I think that improvements in #2 and #3 can reduce our susceptibility somewhat to those matchups issues. But ultimately we're not going to suddenly become a quick team, and I doubt we're going to suddenly get that much better at defending dribble penetration and/or isolated man-to-man post defense (which are the current matchup issues). So I think to some degree our success will still be heavily dictated by the types of teams we play.

[oldnavy]

I think these are all reasonable keys to success, but I think that right now the biggest issue is the matchup issue. I think that improvements in #2 and #3 can reduce our susceptibility somewhat to those matchups issues. But ultimately we're not going to suddenly become a quick team, and I doubt we're going to suddenly get that much better at defending dribble penetration and/or isolated man-to-man post defense (which are the current matchup issues). So I think to some degree our success will still be heavily dictated by the types of teams we play.

After observing basketball for over 40 years, I have to agree with this statement. A lot of it boils down to the matchups. Unless you have one of those rare, overpowering teams (like we have had), you have to catch a break or two along the way. Teams that seem inferior on paper can be horrible matchups and in a one and done senario, can wreck your season. Heres hoping that we: A) improve on our weaknesses and B) get a good draw and a couple of breaks in the tourny.

[roywhite]

I am just curious to see whether one might take Forde's summary analysis here, and by tweeking it a bit [sort of friendly-amendment-style], arrive at a consensus [not unanimity, of course] among DBR posters.

Here goes:
1. Three S - Whether or not it constitutes "working them too hard," they're all very likely to play 36-40 mpg, save only if one of them has foul problems, forcing a bit more extended pine-time in any particular game.
2. Post undertalent - LT, not quite a post guy, must be a consistent force on D, and contribute meaningfully on O sometimes. Of the real bigs, any one of the 3 - MP1, MP2, Z - must play well in each game. As none of those 3 has been consistent, we must hope for intermittent strong play from each. Forde is thus correct - yes? - that we're likely to lose any game in which none of the 3 bigs contributes substantially on either O or D.
3. Bench - Point 2 above implies that our bigs cannot merely give us 15 fouls/game. And Andre must recapture confidence and stroke, as we need a couple of 3s from him most games.

Consensus on this? Or does all this pale compared to the "matchups" issue? Or pale compared to other factors?

I'm okay with your analysis. What does this get us?

Good chance of regular season and/or ACC tournament championship? Yes, I'd say
Advance to Sweet 16? Almost definitely, I'll say
Advance to Elite 8? Good chance
Final Four? with the improvements you mentioned, 1 chance in 3?

[Hermy-own]

I am just curious to see whether one might take Forde's summary analysis here, and by tweeking it a bit [sort of friendly-amendment-style], arrive at a consensus [not unanimity, of course] among DBR posters.

Here goes:
1. Three S - Whether or not it constitutes "working them too hard," they're all very likely to play 36-40 mpg, save only if one of them has foul problems, forcing a bit more extended pine-time in any particular game.
2. Post undertalent - LT, not quite a post guy, must be a consistent force on D, and contribute meaningfully on O sometimes. Of the real bigs, any one of the 3 - MP1, MP2, Z - must play well in each game. As none of those 3 has been consistent, we must hope for intermittent strong play from each. Forde is thus correct - yes? - that we're likely to lose any game in which none of the 3 bigs contributes substantially on either O or D.
3. Bench - Point 2 above implies that our bigs cannot merely give us 15 fouls/game. And Andre must recapture confidence and stroke, as we need a couple of 3s from him most games.

Consensus on this? Or does all this pale compared to the "matchups" issue? Or pale compared to other factors?

Do we have to assume that LT gets 30 plus minutes per game for the rest of the season? That seems like a worst case scenario - he is our least talented offensive big man by far. He has been exposed plenty while trying to guard opposing big men. If his playing time stays high, it will be because the Plumlee's haven't taken over. All in all, I hope we can go back to the way it was earlier in the year at 20 min per big guy. Just saying that assumption might change. Otherwise, your list looks good.

[Kedsy]

He has been exposed plenty while trying to guard opposing big men.

Just out of curiosity, when do you think Lance has been "exposed"?

[flyingdutchdevil]

I'm okay with your analysis. What does this get us?

Good chance of regular season and/or ACC tournament championship? Yes, I'd say
Advance to Sweet 16? Almost definitely, I'll say
Advance to Elite 8? Good chance
Final Four? with the improvements you mentioned, 1 chance in 3?

Roy, I really like you're optimism. I think we are a good team. We are extremely well coached. Team chemistry is great. But, I hate to say - I just don't think we're that talented. And where we have a huge amount of talent, our players have yet to mature (Dawkins, Plumlee). Smith is probably our most talented player, and quick guards have the ability to take away his penetration which is his bread and butter.

I'd say there is a 1 in 3 we get to the Elite 8. FF is a real long shot. I believe there is a chance, but I'll need to see some major improvement to believe that, and I haven't seen it yet.

[rotogod00]

I'm okay with your analysis. What does this get us?

Good chance of regular season and/or ACC tournament championship? Yes, I'd say
Advance to Sweet 16? Almost definitely, I'll say
Advance to Elite 8? Good chance
Final Four? with the improvements you mentioned, 1 chance in 3?

Unless we starting seeing a significant improvement on the defensive end and/or Singler starts playing the way we thought he'd be playing, personally I'd go with:
Good chance of regular season and/or ACC tournament championship? Yes
Advance to Sweet 16? 60-40
Advance to Elite 8? 1 in 4
Final Four? 1 in 10 (unless we get an extremely lucky bracket of matchups)

[Indoor66]

Unless we starting seeing a significant improvement on the defensive end and/or Singler starts playing the way we thought he'd be playing, personally I'd go with:
Good chance of regular season and/or ACC tournament championship? Yes
Advance to Sweet 16? 60-40
Advance to Elite 8? 1 in 4
Final Four? 1 in 10 (unless we get an extremely lucky bracket of matchups)

I consider the above odds to be incredible. It takes a fine team to be able to be given a 10% chance to reach the final four with about ½ of the season remaining! I like those odds.

[BlueintheFace]

Dear God, let us get a #2 seed and an easy bracket. K thanks.

[ncexnyc]

Do we have to assume that LT gets 30 plus minutes per game for the rest of the season? That seems like a worst case scenario - he is our least talented offensive big man by far. He has been exposed plenty while trying to guard opposing big men. If his playing time stays high, it will be because the Plumlee's haven't taken over. All in all, I hope we can go back to the way it was earlier in the year at 20 min per big guy. Just saying that assumption might change. Otherwise, your list looks good.

I'm sorry, but game in and game out Lance has shown to be our most talented offensive big man. I realize that we constantly talk about Miles and Mason and the high ceiling both of them have, but until that potential is actually realized Lance is the man.

[CLT Devil]

Do we have to assume that LT gets 30 plus minutes per game for the rest of the season? That seems like a worst case scenario - he is our least talented offensive big man by far. He has been exposed plenty while trying to guard opposing big men. If his playing time stays high, it will be because the Plumlee's haven't taken over. All in all, I hope we can go back to the way it was earlier in the year at 20 min per big guy. Just saying that assumption might change. Otherwise, your list looks good.

I couldn't disagree with you more on your LT assessment. So far, he has been our best defensive player, and I would say 'by far.' I feel like when he had to go out of the GTech, NC State and Gtwon games due to fouls their big men really turned it up a notch. I would actually love to see him play more, and think his minutes are down because he usually guards the opposing teams' best player from the 3 to 5. Also, I think Zoubek is the worse offensive player out of the two, but he does got opportunites due to his height.

Lance is also the emotional leader of the team and always, always hustles tp every ball/screen/rebound/front, etc.

Just MHO.

[mkirsh]

Q: Duke has been better than what most people expected this year. How far can this team really go in March?
A: I said last week that Duke has no chance of winning the national title, and a Final Four would surprise me as well. Lots of Duke fans didn't like hearing that, but I still see a team that has worked its big three too hard, is undertalented in the post and not very deep. Bad recipe for March.

If these are his reasons for not liking Duke, why is he so high on Georgetown (he has them on his list of 10 teams that can win it all)? They play 4 players over 32 minutes per game and have less depth than Duke. You can argue that they have "post talent" in Monroe but I don't see him as a true back to the basket player where you can dump it into him and get an easy bucket.

[Kedsy]

I couldn't disagree with you more on your LT assessment. So far, he has been our best defensive player, and I would say 'by far.' I feel like when he had to go out of the GTech, NC State and Gtwon games due to fouls their big men really turned it up a notch. I would actually love to see him play more, and think his minutes are down because he usually guards the opposing teams' best player from the 3 to 5.

I agree that Lance has been our best defensive player. But do you really think his minutes are down? He's averaged 34 minutes per game in our last four games.

Personally, while I have been a vocal supporter of Lance on the Board, I would love for Mason to become strong enough on D to justify taking 7 or 8 of Lance's minutes (getting him up to 17 or 18 while Lance goes down to 26 or 27, maybe two or three more if he can spell Kyle for a few minutes).

[CDu]

I agree that Lance has been our best defensive player. But do you really think his minutes are down? He's averaged 34 minutes per game in our last four games.

Personally, while I have been a vocal supporter of Lance on the Board, I would love for Mason to become strong enough on D to justify taking 7 or 8 of Lance's minutes (getting him up to 17 or 18 while Lance goes down to 26 or 27, maybe two or three more if he can spell Kyle for a few minutes).

Agreed, though I don't really see Mason playing the 3 (way too lacking in quickness for that). But I guess Singler has been playing a bit at the 4 this year, so Mason could take those minutes if he improves. But I do agree that Mason (and Miles) is a big key to the development of this team the rest of the way.

If the Plumlees can get to the point where they can legitimately earn 40-45 mpg on this team, I think that's a good thing. Let's just hope that they can make that progress.

[KyDevilinIL]

I think Mason, especially, might have pushed himself a little too hard to live up to expectations at this point, particularly after his run of solid games a few weeks ago. I also think Miles feeds strongly off how well or not well his brother is doing in a game, and vice versa.

If K can convince Mason to take a deep breath and have fun, I think better play will come sooner than later. I think the ship has sailed in regard to either Plumlee becoming a true force down low this season, but when playing solidly in tandem, there's still plenty of time for them to resume being legitimate and reliable contributors.

[ChrisP]

I think Mason, especially, might have pushed himself a little too hard to live up to expectations at this point, particularly after his run of solid games a few weeks ago. I also think Miles feeds strongly off how well or not well his brother is doing in a game, and vice versa.

If K can convince Mason to take a deep breath and have fun, I think better play will come sooner than later. I think the ship has sailed in regard to either Plumlee becoming a true force down low this season, but when playing solidly in tandem, there's still plenty of time for them to resume being legitimate and reliable contributors.

I agree that Mason might be guilty of just trying too hard but...something that I haven't really seen mentioned at all around here is the fact that he could still be suffering from that NASTY fall in the Wake game. I know he's young and all that but, I'm sorry, that HAD to hurt. I bet he's still got a huge bruise on his hip and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that it's affected his lateral quickness. I got a chance to see the FSU game in Cameron and he looked awful to me. Couldn't seem to defend at all or do much of anything right. I'm betting he's been hurt and we just don't know about it because like some other nearby programs (cough, Carolina, cough), we don't issue a press release every time one of our guys gets a hangnail. I'm hoping that Mason will round back into his earlier season form in the next couple weeks and that we'll be a much tougher out come tourney time.

[shoutingncu]

If these are his reasons for not liking Duke, why is he so high on Georgetown (he has them on his list of 10 teams that can win it all)? They play 4 players over 32 minutes per game and have less depth than Duke. You can argue that they have "post talent" in Monroe but I don't see him as a true back to the basket player where you can dump it into him and get an easy bucket.

Does Georgetown have better balance than Duke? I'm actually asking, as all I know of G'town is what I saw on Saturday, but I'm wondering if that might make the difference in Forde's view.

Both teams have to log heavy minutes for their starters due to lack of depth, but does G'town find itself in the 3 on 5 scenarios many on this board feel Duke does? It's not necessarily the minutes played by Duke's Big Three, but the production from the other two, whoever they may be, that might give a shallow team like G'town the edge on lists like that.

[Kedsy]

Agreed, though I don't really see Mason playing the 3 (way too lacking in quickness for that). But I guess Singler has been playing a bit at the 4 this year, so Mason could take those minutes if he improves. But I do agree that Mason (and Miles) is a big key to the development of this team the rest of the way.

If the Plumlees can get to the point where they can legitimately earn 40-45 mpg on this team, I think that's a good thing. Let's just hope that they can make that progress.

I meant Lance could spell Kyle and Mason could play the 4. I agree we won't see Mason defending 3s at this point, if ever.

[CDu]

If these are his reasons for not liking Duke, why is he so high on Georgetown (he has them on his list of 10 teams that can win it all)? They play 4 players over 32 minutes per game and have less depth than Duke. You can argue that they have "post talent" in Monroe but I don't see him as a true back to the basket player where you can dump it into him and get an easy bucket.

Well, that's just a quick response in a webchat, so I wouldn't necessarily take that as Forde's complete rationale for why he thinks we can't win.

And Georgetown does have better post play right now, with Monroe and Vaughn. And Monroe is more capable (right now at least) of scoring from the post on a regular basis than our guys. He also happens to be gifted away from the rim (which served their purposes against us). Georgetown also has slightly better scoring balance, with four guys averaging double figures. This is especially true now that Dawkins has fallen off the radar a bit and the Plumlees are struggling. If the Plumlees and Dawkins bounce back in February, I suspect that Forde may change his mind.

So by his criteria Georgetown does appear to be more capable (ignoring the fact that they just walloped us). Now, we can certainly debate whether or not his criteria is really reflective of what it takes.

[alteran]

But as someone else said, the only true way to stop the talk is to win in the tournament.

Silly Wabbit. They'll just switch gears from Duke-Can't-Win to Duke-Gets-All-The-Calls.

The only solution is to just tune it out.

If you can manage that trick let me know, it'd do wonders for my blood pressure.

[Billy Dat]

From today's chat
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/31005/ncaa-bb-with-pat-forde

Amy (Jersey)
How far do you think Duke gets this year, considering they only really get production by 3 guys.

Pat Forde (3:36 PM)
Amy: I'd have to see the bracket, but I remain at least a mild Duke doubter based on past performance. Duke has been bounced much earlier than its seeding several years in a row now. I know this team is more experienced and deeper inside, but I'm in show-me mode.
--------------------------

That pretty much says it all...don't it.

[pfrduke]

And we care about continually tracking this because..... ?

[ricks68]

Because we have nothing better to do until the next game.:rolleyes:

ricks

[Billy Dat]

And we care about continually tracking this because..... ?

I like to read everything written about the team, and the links pages never include chat transcripts. I saw this and thought others might be interested, and the thread already existed, so I posted it. I also think it's interesting to watch how the opinion of a national writer like Forde shifts over time as the team evolves. He's gone from completely writing us off because he didn't think we had the goods to doubting us because of our recent failure to play up to our seed. I also think his comment reflects the feeling a lot of us have. Regional Final or Bust!

[sagegrouse]

And we care about continually tracking this because..... ?

I believe your question requires an existential answer. If we are reading this thread about Pat Forde, we have no life. And having no life, what better is there to do?

sagegrouse

[pfrduke]

I believe your question requires an existential answer. If we are reading this thread about Pat Forde, we have no life. And having no life, what better is there to do?

sagegrouse

Touche. ;)

[SCMatt33]

Normally, I don't care enough about a single writer to merit discussion his opinion, but Pat Forde, spent a column talking about how Duke WASN'T one of his ten teams who could win the title. Now (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4994869), they are only one of five, though he is defensive about it. Quite a turnaround.