PDA

View Full Version : MBB: Michigan 81, Duke 73 Post-Game Thread



Pages : [1] 2

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 05:28 PM
Tough loss before exams. Discuss (and show some poise).

77devil
12-06-2008, 05:30 PM
Live by the 3, die by the 3. The team looked like it was taking the game for granted.

bfree
12-06-2008, 05:31 PM
Forget it

KShip21
12-06-2008, 05:31 PM
When was the last posession michigan didn't come away with points? Definitely wasn't inside 5 minutes

Duvall
12-06-2008, 05:32 PM
The team looked like it was taking the game for granted.

What does this even mean? If anything, Duke started pressing and panicking late in the second half.

Look, the 1-3-1 concedes easy 3's to prevent easy 2's. Taking open perimeter shots is the smart move. Sometimes it's not your night.

grossbus
12-06-2008, 05:32 PM
kyle wouldn't have had to struggle so much if someone, anyone, else had shown up. this was a pretty dismal effort all round. thought nolan looked lost and confused in the half court.

throatybeard
12-06-2008, 05:33 PM
He can't play every single minute like that. The loss really isn't a big deal, but seeing Kyle struggle out there makes me really worry. If Kyle is playing 35+ every single game, performances like this are inevitable.

Ah, it's always great to see the "our star player is worn out from playing too many minutes" argument...in the 9th game of the season.

Coballs
12-06-2008, 05:33 PM
Ugly loss with all the features of our recent tourney losses - dying by the 3 (over and over again), no shows from our top players, porous defense (easy layups, backdoors), and out energized. Good performance and great strategy by the Michigan players and coaching staff.

Just one game...but a pretty bad and unexpected regression. Not a good way to go into an 11 day layoff. Very disappointing.

DukeCO2009
12-06-2008, 05:34 PM
I'm not too worried. While the 1-3-1 stiffled us a bit more than it did last time, the only thing that separated us from a win was the fact that we could only manage 21% from three. If we hit three more, which would've put us at 30%, it's a whole new ballgame. We just went cold--not much you can do about that, especially since most of the shots we took were open looks. We'll bounce back.

77devil
12-06-2008, 05:34 PM
What does this even mean? If anything, Duke started pressing and panicking late in the second half.

Look, the 1-3-1 concedes easy 3's to prevent easy 2's. Taking open perimeter shots is the smart move. Sometimes it's not your night.

It means for much of the game Duke made one pass and launched a three point shot rather than running the offense. Duke was 12 for 16 inside the arc in the first half notwithstanding the 1-3-1. Get it now.

BlueDevilBaby
12-06-2008, 05:34 PM
Boy, glad I did not watch that live. Don't have to bother watching it at all. Jeesh!

ForeverBlowingBubbles
12-06-2008, 05:34 PM
I guess this goes along with living and dieing by the 3 - but today I saw a team out there that lacked a single player who could penetrate consistantly, lacked a single player with any kind of dominate 1 on 1 game; not a single one of our players could create their own shot except for a few mid-rangers Scheyer pulled up on,

and so as a result of lacking those things - the only thing we could do to attempt to score was launch the 3.

NYC Duke Fan
12-06-2008, 05:34 PM
We were obviously not the 4th best team in the country. Almost lost to Rhode Island at home ,( who lost to Providence by 2 ), and beaten today.

For all those who posted on the post about who could beat UNC...unless we get better, eliminate Duke from any consideration.....we have very little chance..UNC is heads and shoulders above Duke right now.

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 05:35 PM
he wouldn't have had to struggle so much if someone, anyone, else had shown up. this was a pretty dismal effort all round. thought nolan looked lost and confused in the half court.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, don't you think? Other guys "showed up." Jon showed up. He had something like 16 points, a bunch of steals and assists, and did a solid job on Harris until the final couple of minutes. Gerald showed up. He gave a great effort -- he just fouled a lot. Etc.

Nolan did have a tough game, though. I'll agree about that.

Son of Mojo
12-06-2008, 05:35 PM
Would've liked to have seen a few more calls on M, but we took too many unnecessary 3's (some of them fadeaways....definitely not needed), didn't push the offense, and had really bad defensive lapses. Still, on the whole, we were outplayed--give credit where it's due.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
12-06-2008, 05:35 PM
Great game by Michigan. Not a single Blue Devil was prepared mentally or emotionally for what the Wolverines brought today. This one's on K.

Hope this stings for everyone and keeps us sharp as we prepare going forward. We don't have the talent to beat anyone if we don't play smart and hard.

Next play.

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 05:35 PM
What does this even mean? If anything, Duke started pressing and panicking late in the second half.

Look, the 1-3-1 concedes easy 3's to prevent easy 2's. Taking open perimeter shots is the smart move. Sometimes it's not your night.

It is good to see that someone else understands this. If you miss the easy shots you are given, you will have trouble. It doesn't mean you took the wrong strategy. It just means you weren't on your game that day. Our guys are not professionals. They can have off days. If they had made even a few of those early open looks, this could/should have been a blow out.

We will get some rest and shoot better next game.

I do agree that Singler needs more rest though. These are the games to get the backups more time, especially when everyone is struggling anyway.

Bob Green
12-06-2008, 05:36 PM
We had success attacking the baseline. We didn't have success hitting the corner shot. Michigan played a good game.

jipops
12-06-2008, 05:36 PM
A typical ugly pre-exam game. Usually these are at home but instead it was the second straight road game. Fatigue was obviously an issue. Nobody should be surprised by this outcome but nobody should be freaking out either.

We didn't try to live by the 3, Mich's zone gave it to us and our guys couldn't hit them, plain and simple. Eventually this just deflated our D.

Just need to move on from this one.

dukebluelemur
12-06-2008, 05:36 PM
This is one of the worst losses I can recall. Not because we lost, but because a team full of upper classmen played like freshmen. I'm not sure I can remember a game so devoid of good decisions and smart play...

At one point, before a few last desperation shots fell, we were looking at 3-27 from three, and 22 for 29 from two. While shooting that bad from three should be a good hint that you should look inside, the fact that youre shooting 76% inside the arc would seem to suggest going back there, REGARDLESS of how well or poorly you're shooting from outside.

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 05:36 PM
He can't play every single minute like that. The loss really isn't a big deal, but seeing Kyle struggle out there makes me really worry. If Kyle is playing 35+ every single game, performances like this are inevitable.

So this is why he was missing tons of threes in the first 10 minutes, right? Because he was gassed? Were the other guys gassed, too? Because they missed a lot of threes as well.

Sometimes the ball doesn't go in the basket.

KandG
12-06-2008, 05:37 PM
Games like this make me wish Greg Monroe or Patrick Patterson played for our team.

As good as we were earlier in the week (I can't remember the last time our help defense was so good against an established opponent), we were pretty awful today. Too easy for them to penetrate and find seams in our defense, and even when the defense held, too easy for them to get junk boards for putbacks.

Good learning experience for Zoubek and Nolan, if painful. And yes, Singler is going to hit the wall again toward the end of the season if he has to carry the team this much all year. Some of the other guys will have to lift their games...and I'm confident they will.

bfree
12-06-2008, 05:37 PM
Never mind

Ders24
12-06-2008, 05:38 PM
Wonder how the sports writers who said we could contend for the title will handle this one. Really just hope this isn't a preview of what's to come for ACC season

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 05:38 PM
I'm not too worried. While the 1-3-1 stiffled us a bit more than it did last time, the only thing that separated us from a win was the fact that we could only manage 21% from three. If we hit three more, which would've put us at 30%, it's a whole new ballgame. We just went cold--not much you can do about that, especially since most of the shots we took were open looks. We'll bounce back.

That's how I'll choose to look at it. Yeah, Nolan could've shown more poise. Yeah, the help-side D could've been better. But stuff like that happens. I wonder how much the fact that the team flew into Michigan last night (because of exams) then had to get up for an early afternoon game affected their rhythm?

dw0827
12-06-2008, 05:39 PM
That's a bit of an oversimplification, don't you think? Other guys "showed up." Jon showed up. He had something like 16 points, a bunch of steals and assists, and did a solid job on Harris until the final couple of minutes. Gerald showed up. He gave a great effort -- he just fouled a lot. Etc.

Nolan did have a tough game, though. I'll agree about that.

Jon got back-doored so many times I lost count.

Of course, the help wasn't there either.

Lulu
12-06-2008, 05:39 PM
This was way too similar to our recent tourney losses. Made it that much harder to watch. Actually, it wasn't similar, it was exactly like our recent tourney losses.

dyedwab
12-06-2008, 05:40 PM
....seemed to get in our heads and effect all other aspects of the game. We were playing pretty good D most of the game, and we were rebounding and going after loose balls reasonable well untill the end of the 1st half.

and then it all went south

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 05:40 PM
It means for much of the game Duke made one pass and launched a three point shot rather than running the offense. Duke was 12 for 16 inside the arc in the first half notwithstanding the 1-3-1. Get it now.

An early shot does not mean a bad shot. On many of these shots, we were wide open (in the first half). The only reason you are complaining about them is that the shots were missed. If they were made shots, which they should have been at about 40% rate, we would be ecstatic about our amazing shooting team.

shadowfax336
12-06-2008, 05:40 PM
It would have been very helpful to have a healthy Greg Paulus out there today. It was clear when he was out there that he wasn't the player that made 3rd Team All ACC last year. When Nolan struggled it would have been nice to have somebody who could come in and make something happen towards the end of the game, and it was absolutely unbelievable watching Greg miss and pass up wide open 3s when he was in there. I don't know how much of it is still physical and how much of it is mental/shaking off rust, but having the real Greg Paulus show up would make a sizeable difference for this team, and I believe would have meant a win today

gep
12-06-2008, 05:41 PM
Not a single Blue Devil was prepared mentally or emotionally for what the Wolverines brought today. This one's on K.


I don't know if "this one's on K", but it did seem like Coach K, and even the staff to some extent, seemed very passive on the bench... Reminded me of the game at Wake Forest (was it last year?). There, where Coach K wore a yellow tie in memory of Skip Prosser... he also seemed quite passive...

rthomas
12-06-2008, 05:42 PM
Beilein is a great coach. This is a big win for UM - the second #4 ranked team this year they have knocked off.

Damn you, Beilein!!!

nyr484
12-06-2008, 05:42 PM
I don't think you can just write this game off by saying "we just shot really poorly from 3." Yes, we shot poorly from 3, but we didn't do enough attacking the basket, which translates to our low number of free throws.

Also, Nolan had a couple of awful turnovers in the last 5 minutes of the game. (The one he threw against the backboard and the one he threw directly at 3 Michigan defenders at the top of the key). I think the team just didn't look poised out there for much of the 2nd half.

BUT... it's not the end of the world. This was our 2nd tough road game in a row, and every time we go in somewhere we are getting the other team's best shot. If you don't think that takes a mental toll, then you've never played sports. I'm sure this will turn into a learning experience for them. Duke will be a better team during ACC season because of this.

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 05:43 PM
It means for much of the game Duke made one pass and launched a three point shot rather than running the offense. Duke was 12 for 16 inside the arc in the first half notwithstanding the 1-3-1. Get it now.

First, please watch your tone with the "get it now" stuff, okay? Secondly, that's not what happened at all. Yes, there were a couple of shots launched too quickly. Most of the threes, though, were wide open and came off good ball movement. They didn't go in.
What was your alternative suggestion. "Just shoot twos?" How exactly would you accompish that? There's another team on the court, too. They were playing a junk defense that takes away a lot of Duke's inside-the arc offense (driving lanes, etc.). We tried to post guys early in the second half, through it away a couple of times, saw Zoubek almost fall over shooting a jump hook, etc.
The 1-3-1 gave us a ton of wide-open threes. ANY team would launch those, and good ones will knock them down. Stuff happens every now and then. They didn't go in. That doesn't mean the vast majority of those threes weren't good shots.

sandinmyshoes
12-06-2008, 05:43 PM
More learned from this loss than from a thirty point win over a directional or hyphen school in Cameron.

dyedwab
12-06-2008, 05:45 PM
Most of the threes, though, were wide open and came off good ball movement. They didn't go in.
...
The 1-3-1 gave us a ton of wide-open threes. ANY team would launch those, and good ones will knock them down. Stuff happens every now and then. They didn't go in. That doesn't mean the vast majority of those threes weren't good shots.

and I think this is what got in their heads. Because at the end of the game, we weren't doing anything very well. But the fact that they were taking good, open 3's that didn't go down eventually led to a tentativeness on both ends of the floor.

devildeac
12-06-2008, 05:46 PM
More learned from this loss than from a thirty point win over a directional or hyphen school in Cameron.

Let's hope so.

dukelifer
12-06-2008, 05:46 PM
My concern this whole season has been this team's outside shooting. Duke lacks a great outside shooter. The have some great slashers and playmakers- but no-one has taken on that role. Don't get me wrong- this team can have nights where they hit a lot- but on balance- this is a weakness. This weakness was exploited today. The other problem is that once a team sees Duke's D they can make adjustments. Michigan just played Duke- they knew they could play with them. All this game showed is that Duke is with the rest of the pack. A team that needs to play well to win most nights and most nights they play well. But this team cannot play many B games and win against good teams- it will not happen. They will go back - regroup and figure it out. Not the end of the world but certainly means Duke has work to do before the ACC wars. Xavier will be a huge test for this team.

Kim*
12-06-2008, 05:46 PM
This better be a huge wake-up call to every single one of them.

That's all I feel like saying right now.

BlueintheFace
12-06-2008, 05:47 PM
I don't fault any one player. Nolan really really looked like a young pg tonight... little assertiveness, some bad decisions. G still can't shake the fouling issues. Tough game... fine. The ball just wouldn't go down and we took an awful lot of open threes too.

I do, however, place same blame with Coach for once. We rarely attacked the zone correctly. We didn't exploit the baseline, hardly ever cut the lane when the ball was on the wings (except twice with Kyle), and we hardly ever utilized back screens correctly. This is one of those games where set plays are very helpful and our failure to run them seemed to cost us pretty consistently.

jacone21
12-06-2008, 05:47 PM
First, please watch your tone with the "get it now" stuff, okay? Secondly, that's not what happened at all. Yes, there were a couple of shots launched too quickly. Most of the threes, though, were wide open and came off good ball movement. They didn't go in.
What was your alternative suggestion. "Just shoot twos?" How exactly would you accompish that? There's another team on the court, too. They were playing a junk defense that takes away a lot of Duke's inside-the arc offense (driving lanes, etc.). We tried to post guys early in the second half, through it away a couple of times, saw Zoubek almost fall over shooting a jump hook, etc.
The 1-3-1 gave us a ton of wide-open threes. ANY team would launch those, and good ones will knock them down. Stuff happens every now and then. They didn't go in. That doesn't mean the vast majority of those threes weren't good shots.

Exactly! JJ would've had 37 points today, and we'd be celebrating a victory and talking about how you can't zone Duke.

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 05:47 PM
I guess this goes along with living and dieing by the 3 - but today I saw a team out there that lacked a single player who could penetrate consistantly, lacked a single player with any kind of dominate 1 on 1 game; not a single one of our players could create their own shot except for a few mid-rangers Scheyer pulled up on,

and so as a result of lacking those things - the only thing we could do to attempt to score was launch the 3.

You don't go one-on-one against a 1-3-1 zone. That would be, in a word, pointless. You beat it with good passing and then (hopefully) you knock down a reasonable percentage of the easy, wide-open threes it gives up in the corner.

77devil
12-06-2008, 05:47 PM
First, please watch your tone with the "get it now" stuff, okay? Secondly, that's not what happened at all. Yes, there were a couple of shots launched too quickly. Most of the threes, though, were wide open and came off good ball movement. They didn't go in.
What was your alternative suggestion. "Just shoot twos?" How exactly would you accompish that? There's another team on the court, too. They were playing a junk defense that takes away a lot of Duke's inside-the arc offense (driving lanes, etc.). We tried to post guys early in the second half, through it away a couple of times, saw Zoubek almost fall over shooting a jump hook, etc.
The 1-3-1 gave us a ton of wide-open threes. ANY team would launch those, and good ones will knock them down. Stuff happens every now and then. They didn't go in. That doesn't mean the vast majority of those threes weren't good shots.

The team shot 24-32 inside the arc despite the 1-3-1. Yes, working the ball inside more would have been desirable even with the open looks, particularly after clanking so many throughout.

Coballs
12-06-2008, 05:48 PM
This was way too similar to our recent tourney losses. Made it that much harder to watch. Actually, it wasn't similar, it was exactly like our recent tourney losses.

My thoughts exactly Lulu (see my above post)

91devil
12-06-2008, 05:49 PM
First, please watch your tone with the "get it now" stuff, okay? Secondly, that's not what happened at all. Yes, there were a couple of shots launched too quickly. Most of the threes, though, were wide open and came off good ball movement. They didn't go in.
What was your alternative suggestion. "Just shoot twos?" How exactly would you accompish that? There's another team on the court, too. They were playing a junk defense that takes away a lot of Duke's inside-the arc offense (driving lanes, etc.). We tried to post guys early in the second half, through it away a couple of times, saw Zoubek almost fall over shooting a jump hook, etc.
The 1-3-1 gave us a ton of wide-open threes. ANY team would launch those, and good ones will knock them down. Stuff happens every now and then. They didn't go in. That doesn't mean the vast majority of those threes weren't good shots.

Agreed, many of the misses were fairly wide-open shots. We hit some of them early, we force them out of their pesky zone.

Frankly, I was a little surprised Michigan played ANY M-T-M defense in the second half - we were scoring with great frequency every time they left their zone.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
12-06-2008, 05:49 PM
Would have been really neat to have a floor leader to calm the team down, break down the zone, and make good passes into the post. We remain a real PG away from being a reliably (instead of an intermittently) dominant team. I hope Nolan can find that in his game or that Wall or Knight can fill in that gap. We've got 2 very solid SG's playing very much out of position right now. Many nights we can shoot, score, or defend beyond that limitation, but it's come back to haunt us every year since CDu took his game to the Association.

RelativeWays
12-06-2008, 05:50 PM
This was way too similar to our recent tourney losses. Made it that much harder to watch. Actually, it wasn't similar, it was exactly like our recent tourney losses.


And its a good thing it happens now. When the three 3 doesn't fall, we need a plan b. The 3 has not been falling most of this early season, but we've managed. Now it caught up with us and we suffer a VCU/WVU type loss. Only now, we get another game after, not 8 month break. Lets see what they do next game. For once I'd like to see this Duke team do something it hasn't done since 2001.....come out angry, very very angry.

Bluedog
12-06-2008, 05:50 PM
I think I was more disappointed with our defensive effort than offensive. We weren't stupid on offense. They gave us open 3s, we just couldn't hit them, but I think it was a fine strategy. We shoot hit them, and will hit them. However, on defense, the help defense wasn't so great. We gave them easy backdoor cuts and layups especially in the second half. We did finally start to hit the 3s toward the end of the game, but it was too little, too late. I don't think we underestimated Michigan. We went into a hostile environment, played poor helpside D, and missed a lot of wide open jumpshots that were there for the taking. And we only shot 6 free throws, which is nothing for us, but was just the result of the fact that we took a lot of threes instead of drives.

Nolan had some poor turnovers and our shooters who typically nail threes, were all off (combined 2-19 with Paulus, Scheyer, Singler). I think Coach K will be most upset at the poor D, and the sometimes silly turnovers. Our offensive ball movement looked good to me....the 1-3-1 causes crazy things sometimes, but we should have learned how to attack it by now. I hate to say it, but it did look similar to our NCAA losses in recent years, though...BUT I think shooting a lot of 3s was a good strategy - the vast majority were open, not fadeaway with a guy in your face. They just needed to knock a reasonable number of them down. Needed Paulus to do his best at UNC impression from last year...Not that it was his fault..Just would have been nice.

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 05:50 PM
Jon got back-doored so many times I lost count.

Of course, the help wasn't there either.

I think I counted all of one. There was a dunk late where Thomas went the wrong way on a screen, which opened up the entire left side of the floor for Harris. Technically, he scored on Jon. That doesn't mean it's his fault. The help D was poor and, as Bilas said, Duke was looking to deny threes and was willing to give up a backdoor or two.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 05:51 PM
Why we lost:

1) No inside threat.
2) Poor outside shooting
3) Poor defense
4) No attacking the zone with penetration

Who I'm disappointed at:

1) Nolan Smith: Looked confused. Bad mistakes in 2nd half. Was very passive on offense. Did not create or attack the zone
2) Scheyer: Kept getting beat on defense (yes I know who he was guarding). Still ice cold from outside
3) G Henderson: Very disappointed. This is a game he could have taken over. Where a game where our outside game is ice cold and they are playing a zone... he could have attacked the zone. Overall, I'm pretty disappointed with his overall play this year. Certainly not as good as I had hoped.

Who I was impressed with:

1) Zoubeck and Thomas. I guess overall I don't have much offensive faith in these two. But they showed me something today. By no means All-ACC caliber, but they showed me that they could combine for 10+ points per game. However, I knew when Coach K was using Zoubeck as our primary scorer early in the second half... we were in trouble.


What we need to improve:

1) Nolan Smith and G Henderson need to ATTACK the basket. We can no settle for a jump-shot team.
2) Singler has the skill and size to have his back to the basket. If his shots aren't falling from outside... play in the paint.
3) Thomas and Zoubeck just continue to improve. If they continue to improve, like they have this year, we might have a decent post game by Feb.

Coballs
12-06-2008, 05:51 PM
More learned from this loss than from a thirty point win over a directional or hyphen school in Cameron.

I'll still take the thirty point win over the hyphen school.

JDev
12-06-2008, 05:52 PM
Not much of a mystery as far as today's game. Took 33 threes and made 7 of them. Duke needed to penetrate the zone far more often, 33 is a lot of threes, especially on a day when they are clearly not going down.
Duke's defense also was below where it has been the rest of this year. This game looked like one you would have seen in the last few years, with numerous blow-bys and uncontested lay-ups.
Not catostrophic however. Duke will be fine. Hopefully it turns out to be a good learning experience.

Philadukie
12-06-2008, 05:53 PM
There's some comfort in our 3 point stat line, I guess. Although a few other things did not go well, if we just hit 30%, as someone else said, it changes the game, both in terms of score and psychology/momentum.

To the second point, the psychology (or momentum, whatever you'd like to call it) of a game is a delicate, dynamic force that can change significantly in basketball with four types of plays: 3-point shots, dunks, and-1's, and charges-on-a-make. (This doesn't mean other plays can't change momentum, but I would argue these are the "key" plays).

Anyway, we hit a few more three's in this game and the momentum (and score) would've been different. Going 3-27 (at one point) can be very deflating to the team shooting poorly in many other areas. See: Purdue's clangs everytime they seemed poised to make a run.

Others may disagree, but just trying to find something (somewhat) positive to say, since there's plenty negative others will cover.

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 05:53 PM
I know it sounds too simple, but the fact that our boys were missing those open shots really is the key to the rest of the game. Everyone, including the announcers seems to think there were more opportunities to "go inside," but the reason we didn't go inside was because they were packed in. We couldn't even throw an entry pass down the stretch as they were basically daring us to shoot the corner jumper and we were scared to do it because of the early shooting slump.

I will say there was one other attack point that was missed or not well exploited. The top of the key (where Nolan threw it away late) was open most of the time. Unfortunately, the only guys who went there to receive the ball were big guys who couldn't exploit it. It would have been nice to see Gerald get the ball there and then take two hard dribbles to draw and dump to the baseline or take a pull up short range jumper. As I have said before, I would love to see Gerald post more and try to receive the ball in mid range areas where he doesn't have to handle as much. I think it would increase his scoring output significantly.

Wander
12-06-2008, 05:53 PM
1. Didn't think we took too many bad shots.
2. Coach K is not great at defending the backdoor stuff, I think.
3. Scheyer is neither an awful nor an elite defender.
4. This isn't really so bad as far as losses go. Sucks, but nothing to freak about because we're unlikely to see Michigan's unusual style of play in March (in contrast to the Pitt loss last year, which foreshadowed our troubles a bit).

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 05:53 PM
I think I counted all of one. There was a dunk late where Thomas went the wrong way on a screen, which opened up the entire left side of the floor for Harris. Technically, he scored on Jon. That doesn't mean it's his fault. The help D was poor and, as Bilas said, Duke was looking to deny threes and was willing to give up a backdoor or two.

you need to watch closer. He got back doored at least 2-3 times in the final 5 minutes. Of course he was guarding their best player.

Getting back-doored is not a big problem for our defense since we play such tight man-on-man. You kind of expect. However, there was NO help defense. That's not acceptable.

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 05:54 PM
The team shot 24-32 inside the arc despite the 1-3-1. Yes, working the ball inside more would have been desirable even with the open looks, particularly after clanking so many throughout.

Many of those inside-the-arc shots came when Michigan was in its man-to-man. Duke played much better against the man D. You keep saying "work the ball inside" without acknowledging what Michigan was allowing and conceding. So, please don't tell us that Duke should have worked it inside more. Tell us how that could have been done against the 1-3-1.

dw0827
12-06-2008, 05:55 PM
I think I counted all of one. There was a dunk late where Thomas went the wrong way on a screen, which opened up the entire left side of the floor for Harris. Technically, he scored on Jon. That doesn't mean it's his fault. The help D was poor and, as Bilas said, Duke was looking to deny threes and was willing to give up a backdoor or two.

You counted wrong.

The defensive effort was not there. By that I mean that the communication . . . the help . . . was missing.

I'll start the next thread. Was this a good loss? No. There is no such thing.

Coballs
12-06-2008, 05:56 PM
And its a good thing it happens now. When the three 3 doesn't fall, we need a plan b. The 3 has not been falling most of this early season, but we've managed. Now it caught up with us and we suffer a VCU/WVU type loss. Only now, we get another game after, not 8 month break. Lets see what they do next game. For once I'd like to see this Duke team do something it hasn't done since 2001.....come out angry, very very angry.

The only problem is that this has been Duke's achilles heel for several years now, and in these types of ugly losses we never seem to find Plan B.

gep
12-06-2008, 05:56 PM
Our offensive ball movement looked good to me....the 1-3-1 causes crazy things sometimes, but we should have learned how to attack it by now.

I was pretty sure before this game that Coach K would have made the adjustments to the 1-3-1 after watching UCLA, and the having played Michigan. Unfortunately, the "crazy things" did happen today... the biggest one was that the 3's were not falling... AT ALL...:mad:

freedevil
12-06-2008, 05:58 PM
I agree with this:


The 1-3-1 gave us a ton of wide-open threes. ANY team would launch those, and good ones will knock them down. Stuff happens every now and then. They didn't go in. That doesn't mean the vast majority of those threes weren't good shots.

Sometimes, the team that plays better wins, but...

I do not agree with this:

"Just shoot twos?" How exactly would you accompish that? There's another team on the court, too. They were playing a junk defense that takes away a lot of Duke's inside-the arc offense (driving lanes, etc.). We tried to post guys early in the second half, through it away a couple of times, saw Zoubek almost fall over shooting a jump hook, etc.

At times, Duke was able to exploit this defense - think of Singler's great cut in the second half. In my opinion, Duke just needed more balance and the junk defenses and Michigan's intensity were no excuse for this lack of balance.

Regardless, tough loss. Team will learn from it. We move on.

Kedsy
12-06-2008, 05:59 PM
When was the last posession michigan didn't come away with points? Definitely wasn't inside 5 minutes

Good point -- in my mind this was where we lost the game. If we had managed a stop or two at the end and Kyle had hit his free throws we win the game, even with all the poor 3-point shooting. But instead they scored, easily, every single time.

A little disappointed in G. At the end of the game all of a sudden he wanted the ball, hit a couple threes, etc. Where was he for the first 35 minutes of the game? (And I'm talking offensively; on defense he was his usual high-wire act.)

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 06:00 PM
The only problem is that this has been Duke's achilles heel for several years now, and in these types of ugly losses we never seem to find Plan B.

I hate to say this but we just don't have the type of players who can take over a game. I had hoped Henderson would be the guy, but he isn't. We need John Wall. A guy with his speed would have carved that Michigan zone into pieces.

jipops
12-06-2008, 06:00 PM
I was pretty sure before this game that Coach K would have made the adjustments to the 1-3-1 after watching UCLA, and the having played Michigan. Unfortunately, the "crazy things" did happen today... the biggest one was that the 3's were not falling... AT ALL...:mad:

Yeah, you know how you beat the 1-3-1, hit outside shots. We couldn't do it, why?, fatigue. And given that last road game and the onset of exams, I think it may actually be more mental fatigue. It's really that simple. When shots don't go down the D gets deflated. Happens to everybody.

bfree
12-06-2008, 06:01 PM
Many of those inside-the-arc shots came when Michigan was in its man-to-man. Duke played much better against the man D. You keep saying "work the ball inside" without acknowledging what Michigan was allowing and conceding. So, please don't tell us that Duke should have worked it inside more. Tell us how that could have been done against the 1-3-1.

Jumbo. Your point is well taken. But what do should Duke have done when the 3's were not falling? Everyone who watches basketball sees that teams have good nights and bad nights behind the line. When Duke started out by making 10% from behind the line over the first 12 minutes, was the correct play to take 25 more?

Maybe against a 1-3-1, that's all you can do. But I like to think there are other options, even if I can't think of them.

Saratoga2
12-06-2008, 06:01 PM
Michigan played well and we showed some weaknesses out there, but it is not the end of the earth. It looks like the guys were tight in the first half when they tried unsuccessfully to establish the 3 against the 1-3-1 zone.

We did show spurts of really good pressure defense, however, at the end of the game Michigan was able to drive past the defender (a lot of Manny Harris vs Scheyer) and there was not help to cut off his pafth to the basket.

Yes, Smith made some errant passes in crunch time, but he is still superior to Paulus, who was shooting up bricks again tonight. If Paulus can't provide offense, then he doesn't do much with assists or defense. He needs to recover from his injury and start to hit his shot. Smith also made some excellent plays and his defense is generally good.

Scheyer couldn't stay in front of Harris but no one else would have tonight either. He should have been getting some offside help which just wasn't there. Scheyer did score 16 tonight and found ways to contribute, even though the 3 wouldn't fall until the end.

Henderson got all his points in the second half. He has been starting slowly and also getting into foul trouble. He makes some amazing plays though.

Singler played very hard tonight and gave his all. It is possible that he was getting tired due to the pace of the game. His missed free throws late, which is a sign of being tired. He did kick in 10 points by my scoring.

Zoubek contributed well while he was in. Perhaps he gets tired as he was only in for short stretches at a time. counted 6 points for him.

Thomas made some nice plays and he is a high energy guy. The one thing I notice about him is that he can get overly aggresive and overrun plays putting himself out of position. Am I overstating this?

We didn't get to the foul line much at all during dhe game and it appeared the game was allowed to be physical. No shots at all in the first half and only a few in the second. It was partly due to the lack of penetration and party due to the way the game was called.

It is not the end of the earth that we were beat, but does point out some of the team deficiencies. They will have a lot to work on in the coming days.

RockyMtDevil
12-06-2008, 06:01 PM
it appears we've learned very little about ourselves and this team in the last two years. The losses all have the exact same recipe, easy buckets, poor shooting, panicky last 10 minutes, abslolutely zero coaching changes, no penetration, jacking up shots without running any type of offense, Henderson simply having no impact, etc..

I don't see any killer attitudes out there. This Michigan team will loss at least 12 ball games. It's one thing to lose on a last second shot, but we were toast with 8 minutes to go, and we had no answers.

Just a poor showing all the way around. Obviously we're going to win our fair share of games this year, but we are not an elite team right now, and haven't been in many, many, many years.

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 06:01 PM
1. Didn't think we took too many bad shots.
Agreed.


2. Coach K is not great at defending the backdoor stuff, I think.
I don't think that's fair. Duke always did a good job against Sendek's version of the Princeton offense, for instance. Duke played excellent D against Michigan at MSG. Don't extrapolate too much from one performance.


3. Scheyer is neither an awful nor an elite defender.
Same thing about not extrapolating too much. For most of the game, Scheyer did a fantastic job on Harris, and really denied him the ball on the wing. Sims was killing us, not Harris. Late in the game, Harris scored more. A couple of buckets were in transition, which is not the fault of the guy guarding him. He put a great move on Jon once and hit a leaner. He scored off a backdoor. And he had that play I described elsewhere, where Thomas should have been trapping or hedging, and instead went the wrong way. That's not on Jon. He draws the other team's best perimeter player every game -- that's for a reason.

4. This isn't really so bad as far as losses go. Sucks, but nothing to freak about because we're unlikely to see Michigan's unusual style of play in March (in contrast to the Pitt loss last year, which foreshadowed our troubles a bit).[/quote]

77devil
12-06-2008, 06:02 PM
Many of those inside-the-arc shots came when Michigan was in its man-to-man. Duke played much better against the man D. You keep saying "work the ball inside" without acknowledging what Michigan was allowing and conceding. So, please don't tell us that Duke should have worked it inside more. Tell us how that could have been done against the 1-3-1.

Actually there were plenty of inside shots against the 1-3-1. Bilas described very well how to exploit the gap behind the point man. Duke did it more than once.

Kedsy
12-06-2008, 06:02 PM
For all those who posted on the post about who could beat UNC...unless we get better, eliminate Duke from any consideration.....we have very little chance..UNC is heads and shoulders above Duke right now.

This is ridiculous. How does playing poorly in this game change Duke's chances in a game that won't be played for two months?

And why does everything have to come back to UNC? This is a Duke board.

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 06:03 PM
you need to watch closer. He got back doored at least 2-3 times in the final 5 minutes. Of course he was guarding their best player.

Getting back-doored is not a big problem for our defense since we play such tight man-on-man. You kind of expect. However, there was NO help defense. That's not acceptable.

Well, that's definitely the first time anyone has told me I need to watch games closer. Wish I'd DVR'd the game, but I think you're confusing a couple of plays and who was guarding who. Agreed that the help D was poor, although that's part of the problem -- if you help on the backdoor cuts, you leave open three-point shooters.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 06:03 PM
Team will learn from it. We move on.


I have no doubt this team will learn from it, but i don't they can do anything about it. If you don't have the skill set of players... you just don't have it.

If we are in the NCAA Tournament and we have a bad shooting night again... we lose. We have no inside presence and we have no attacking offense. I will say... we seem to be a pretty good collective rebounding team.

Gunnar Kaufman
12-06-2008, 06:04 PM
Michigan dared us to beat them from the perimeter, and when it became abundantly clear that we weren't up to the challenge, we should have attacked the basket.

We lost this game because we didn't employ the two of the crucial offensive aspects of the most successful Duke teams: penetration and free throw shooting. Largely because we didn't do the former, we couldn't do the latter.

Sure, Michigan's defense was designed to prevent us from doing what we like to do. But when our counterstrategy wasn't working, we just continued plugging away at it.

We shot more threes than we have taken all season, and we had our worst percentage from behind the arc as well. Why we didn't get more aggressive on offense is to Michigan's credit...but only to a certain degree.

Lots to learn from in this game.

Oriole Way
12-06-2008, 06:05 PM
Very discouraging to see the Duke team from the past two seasons rear it's ugly head again. A lot of the 3's were open/good looks, and we just couldn't get them going. But I think you can blame some of the team for not realizing that they were awful shooting the ball today. When you're about 2-20 from 3, you've got to start looking elsewhere and stop hoisting them up. There were a couple of 3's by Singler late in the first half that were way to early in the shotclock and too forced. I think the staff tried to adjust accordingly in the second half, and it worked for a bit as we took a 4-pt lead, but then we started taking 3's again. After that, Nolan has two fatal, ugly turnovers that sealed the deal, but even if we had scored there, it would have been tough to come back. Michigan was the much better team today, and K was outcoached.

At this point, I would rather lose to Xavier than not get a significant increase in minutes for Elliot Williams and Miles Plumlee. K shortens his rotation in every close game, and it will be a detriment to our depth in March. I understand that he played 11 players today, but at least 3 of them (Williams, Plumlee, Pocius) needed double the minutes, and those players needed to play more in the second half, or at least make an appearance.

I refuse to believe that an All-American guard and mobile big man can't make positive contributions with more minutes than they've been getting. I think K needs to give these kids more time on the floor to assert themselves and play through some of their mistakes. We have seen Elliot get the yank after a turnover or missed assignment after 2 minutes WAY too often. How are you going to see if they can contribute in scant minutes, giving them NO margin for error? I understand K sees them in practice every day, and perhaps they're not earning PT in practice. But I doubt that. It's going to be frustrating if Singler collapses in the postseason again because he plays 38 minutes a game. I just think K has no patience for certain players making mistakes, and leans heavily on his starters. I believe this is a flaw in his coaching style, and it could definitely hurt us in March.

Greg Paulus needs to be benched at this point until he gets 100%. He is a liability on the floor right now and he's probably delaying his recovery every time he plays. Give Paulus' minutes to Williams, please.

The past two seasons we didn't have the health or depth to develop much of a bench, although I think we could have done a little better. This season, however, it is going to be unacceptable to have Williams and Plumlee sitting on the bench when we could be developing them. ACC season will be upon us soon, when all the games will be much closer. If K continues to shorten his rotation, I will be extremely disappointed.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 06:06 PM
Well, that's definitely the first time anyone has told me I need to watch games closer. Wish I'd DVR'd the game, but I think you're confusing a couple of plays and who was guarding who. Agreed that the help D was poor, although that's part of the problem -- if you help on the backdoor cuts, you leave open three-point shooters.

sorry, but you must have been on a bathroom break or something. Scheyer got beat several times. but like I said that's expected. The person who played poor interior defense was Lance Thomas. He needs to step up on the help defense.

Devilsfan
12-06-2008, 06:06 PM
First of all, thank goodness it was an away game. Secondly, rare as it is, I think they out coached us. They realized that even though we have a plethera of McDonald's All-Americans we were unable to land a shooter like Rhode Island, Davidson, or we have had in the past. JJ or JWill might have set an NCAA record for 3 point shooting with all the open looks they gave us tonight. Jimmy V week and they played a similar stategy as Jimmy played against a far superior Houston. Shorten the game, make them win with their weakness (in this case outside shooting) and you just might have a chance. Hats off to Michigan as they played a great game with one star and a few walk-ons. Now if it will only happen to that other top ACC team say in March. Michigan got a great coach from West Virginia, thank goodness for Buckeye fans it was in BB and NOT FB.

dukemsu
12-06-2008, 06:06 PM
This game looked bad from the start. Duke coming off a big win. Everyone telling them how great they were. Difficult team to play against in their building. Said difficult team has already played Duke once. You could see this a mile away.

Duke attacked the 1-3-1 the way most do, by bombing away. Oops. But most of those shots were open.

Defense, well, it's the same way skilled teams have attacked Duke throughout the K era-backdoor against the overplays when it's there and hit some jumpers. Not many are built to do this, but it is an old blueprint. I don't want to start the whole Zone debate, but sometimes....no, I'll stop myself.

I think people are underselling how well UM played. UM has to adhere very closely to its system and game plan, as they aren't loaded with individual talent (Sims was excellent today and has been all season). They stuck to exactly what they did best all day. UM is a tournament team and will likely be in 5-7 seed range.

I'm not sure Duke knows what they do best yet. But that's okay. It's only December. Lots of material to use for the staff.

The only thing that really troubles me is the play of G. Something is wrong there. Anyone know what it is? Does G?

dukemsu

heyman25
12-06-2008, 06:06 PM
Henderson had his pocket picked one of the few dribble drives he attempted. He just doesn't get involved enough in the offense. His handle is very vulnerable to steals. I hope the team does okay on exams because this loss will sting.The poor shooting continues and its becoming evident the team does not have a reliable perimeter shooter. They had the open looks. JJ of 2006 would have had 37 points. JJ of today shoots like this Duke team.

buddy
12-06-2008, 06:07 PM
Too many times we made one pass then shot a three. That's great when they go in, but it doesn't make the defense work, and it doesn't get you to the foul line. Hat's off to Michigan. They made us play their game, and they were better at it. We seemed to have no patience. It obviously was possible to get off two point shots. We were 12-15 inside the arc and 2-16 outside the arc in the first half. It looked like at the end of the game we were even afraid to push the ball and force the action. This was a "trap" game, and we fell into it. It will be good if we learn from it. But the team needs to be more unselfish on offense (except maybe Henderson who seems content to float on the perimeter most of the time).

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 06:07 PM
Jumbo. Your point is well taken. But what do should Duke have done when the 3's were not falling? Everyone who watches basketball sees that teams have good nights and bad nights behind the line. When Duke started out by making 10% from behind the line over the first 12 minutes, was the correct play to take 25 more?

Maybe against a 1-3-1, that's all you can do. But I like to think there are other options, even if I can't think of them.

Well, we tried other options. We tried to reverse the ball and dump it into Zoubek. Unfortunately, he's not a particularly adept scorer, so that didn't really work. I might've gone smaller, using Kyle at the five, and tried to find ways to isolate him on the bottom guy in the 1-3-1 (the chaser) who was usually a guard. I might've tried to force the tempo more (even off made baskets), to get better looks before the zone was set. But when you get easy looks, you've got to take 'em and make 'em.

RockyMtDevil
12-06-2008, 06:09 PM
You are dead on, we know what to do but sometimes we just can't do anything about it because we have only two athletes who can break anyone down and make something happen if shots aren't falling.

We are not the number 4 team in the country, if we are, then there are some really bad teams out there.

nyr484
12-06-2008, 06:09 PM
Fact: This is Duke's worst 3 point shooting team in years.
Fact: Until today's game, Duke is averaging less 3 point shots taken than any other Duke team this decade.

What does this mean? We need to attack the basket more. We have not been taking many 3's, and have not been hitting a high percentage, but we have been winning games by attacking the basket and getting to the free throw line (along with hitting an ok percentage of 3's). I'm not saying we shouldn't take open 3's. We should. But, there were at least 5 or 6 possessions today (maybe more) where we settled for contested jumpers. We were not getting to the line, and we lost. Solution to Duke's problems: Take it to the hoop!

Duke79UNLV77
12-06-2008, 06:09 PM
most of the 3's were tempting, but we did settle too much. bilas noted many times how good things happened when we got into the middle of the zone through a slash cut and post or a fake and dribble penetration. too often we just passed around the perimeter. we also didn't push the tempo enough.

we need to accept and work with the fact that singler, scheyer, pocius, e will, hendo, and mcclure are not great 3 point shooters. look at the season and career percentages for everyone of these players. paulus can be a great 3 point shooter but isn't right now.

most of these guys can take some 3's, but are more dangerous attacking. scheyer and singler made good things happen when they drove or cut to the hoop. and, no, mich was not in man defense for most of our great 2-point shooting.

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 06:10 PM
Actually there were plenty of inside shots against the 1-3-1. Bilas described very well how to exploit the gap behind the point man. Duke did it more than once.

There are ways to exploit every defense ... especially if the defense doesn't play well. How about giving Michigan credit for actually preventing Duke from getting in those gaps (which the Wolverines did quite well)?

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 06:10 PM
At this point, I would rather lose to Xavier than not get a significant increase in minutes for Elliot Williams and Miles Plumlee. K shortens his rotation in every close game, and it will be a detriment to our depth in March. I understand that he played 11 players today, but at least 3 of them (Williams, Plumlee, Pocius) needed double the minutes, and those players needed to play more in the second half, or at least make an appearance.

I refuse to believe that an All-American guard and mobile big man can't make positive contributions with more minutes than they've been getting. I think K needs to give these kids more time on the floor to assert themselves and play through some of their mistakes. We have seen Elliot get the yank after a turnover or missed assignment after 2 minutes WAY too often. How are you going to see if they can contribute in scant minutes, giving them NO margin for error? I understand K sees them in practice every day, and perhaps they're not earning PT in practice. But I doubt that. It's going to be frustrating if Singler collapses in the postseason again because he plays 38 minutes a game. I just think K has no patience for certain players making mistakes, and leans heavily on his starters. I believe this is a flaw in his coaching style, and it could definitely hurt us in March.

I have not seen anything very Elliott Williams that would warrant extra playing time. His outside shooting is horrific. He has bad rotation. Unless Singler and Henderson decide to stay after this year... this has to be Duke's year to go very deep in the NCAA Tournament. I have no problems playing our more veteran players this year.

Kedsy
12-06-2008, 06:11 PM
When Duke started out by making 10% from behind the line over the first 12 minutes, was the correct play to take 25 more?

They say that shooters get out of a shooting slump by shooting some more. Unless they were taking bad shots (which I don't think they were) or there was something wrong with their form (which I didn't notice) they should have kept shooting. Making a few would have been nice, of course, but that wasn't your question.

dukemsu
12-06-2008, 06:12 PM
I see the depth conversation creeping its way back in. Not sure a system like Michigan's is one you want to play Williams and Plumlee major minutes against, particularly defensively. Might have seen even more layups.

Just an opinion.

dukemsu

DevilCastDownfromDurham
12-06-2008, 06:12 PM
I don't know if "this one's on K", but it did seem like Coach K, and even the staff to some extent, seemed very passive on the bench... Reminded me of the game at Wake Forest (was it last year?). There, where Coach K wore a yellow tie in memory of Skip Prosser... he also seemed quite passive...

Duke, as team, was not prepared for the zone beyond shooting the 3. I suppose based on the percentages that was all we could be expected to need, but I think other options (G and Nolan collapsing the D and kicking, interior passing from big to big, etc) should have been prepared as well. It's not like the zone was some crazy, last-minute addition for Michigan's gameplan.

More importantly, Duke, as a team, came out with less emotion. That's somewhat understandable given the relative importance of the game for the two teams, but K is paid millions of dollars to be a master motivator. If 1-2 players had come out flat and been flummoxed by a simple zone, I'd blame the kids. Since Duke, as team, was unprepared for the game, I'm blaming the guy who is paid to prepare the team. That's K and the staff.

Maybe egos were running high and guys were reading their press clippings so K decided this would be a "teaching loss." Maybe K just got distracted by other things and didn't have his A-game for this one (he's human too and it's been a looong road for him with Duke and USA). I have no idea. But it was clear that one coach had his team ready to execute at a much higher level than the other today. Next play for K and the staff as well.

ForeverBlowingBubbles
12-06-2008, 06:13 PM
You don't go one-on-one against a 1-3-1 zone. That would be, in a word, pointless. You beat it with good passing and then (hopefully) you knock down a reasonable percentage of the easy, wide-open threes it gives up in the corner.

So it doesn't help if you can beat one man off the dribble and force some of the zone to collapse around that player? That was my point. None of our guards could penetrate past anyone. Scheyer succeeded because he was creative with the ball and able to get some seperation from his man - Smith, Henderson, and Singler looked extremely tenative and not sure what to do with the ball a number of times.

There was much much much more to this poor performance than our simple bad shooting percentage from behind the arc. Notably we failed to find other ways to score.

What are we going to do in the NCAA tournament when we are 3's arn't falling? Lose and just say yeah we were just unlucky (like the last 2 years)...

or would you expect this team to try and adapt and find other ways to put points on the board?

Devilsfan
12-06-2008, 06:13 PM
We can regroup and get ready for Xavier and ACC play. I'm glad it happened on a day when there's good football on the old flat screen.

bfree
12-06-2008, 06:15 PM
I have not seen anything very Elliott Williams that would warrant extra playing time. His outside shooting is horrific. He has bad rotation. Unless Singler and Henderson decide to stay after this year... this has to be Duke's year to go very deep in the NCAA Tournament. I have no problems playing our more veteran players this year.

Are we currently in the NCAA Tournament? And once we are, would you rather have an eight man rotation of upperclassmen or a ten man rotation of upperclassmen and experienced freshman? Even if it guaranteed a couple extra losses before the ACC tournament (which I don't think it necessarily does), I'd really like to see 12-15 minutes per game for Elliot and Miles. With Miles' minutes coming at the expense of Singler's and Elliot's coming at the expense of Scheyer's and McClure's.

Oriole Way
12-06-2008, 06:15 PM
I have not seen anything very Elliott Williams that would warrant extra playing time. His outside shooting is horrific. He has bad rotation. Unless Singler and Henderson decide to stay after this year... this has to be Duke's year to go very deep in the NCAA Tournament. I have no problems playing our more veteran players this year.

His outside shot is the last reason I want him on the floor getting more minutes. The reason he could valuable to this team is his ability to penetrate and slash to the basket. We saw him do it a couple of times in New York against Southern Illinois. I really think he can add a dimension we sorely need, and which we could have used today.

I wouldn't be surprised if Elliot is hesitant to drive because, if he turns the ball over, he knows he will get yanked. That's why I want him getting more minutes and some margin for error, so he will let the game come to him a little more and so that he will be unafraid to make some plays.

ForeverBlowingBubbles
12-06-2008, 06:17 PM
Would have been really neat to have a floor leader to calm the team down, break down the zone, and make good passes into the post. We remain a real PG away from being a reliably (instead of an intermittently) dominant team. I hope Nolan can find that in his game or that Wall or Knight can fill in that gap. We've got 2 very solid SG's playing very much out of position right now. Many nights we can shoot, score, or defend beyond that limitation, but it's come back to haunt us every year since CDu took his game to the Association.

we also are lacking a complete post player (discounting Kyle). The fact we could combine Lance, Zoubek, and McClure to make a nice post player isn't very efficient.

Oriole Way
12-06-2008, 06:17 PM
I see the depth conversation creeping its way back in. Not sure a system like Michigan's is one you want to play Williams and Plumlee major minutes against, particularly defensively. Might have seen even more layups.

Just an opinion.

dukemsu

I disagree. So what if they would have allowed some layups? We would have lost the game either way. The bottom line is that they would have gotten minutes to develop and improve down the line. Experience against good competition is invaluable, as is a more rested Singler.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 06:18 PM
Honestly... who cares if you lose a game in December?

What is very concerning... to all of us... is that we finally see our weakness exposed. We all knew it was there, hoped it wasn't, but now see that it was true.

oh well.

Oriole Way
12-06-2008, 06:19 PM
Are we currently in the NCAA Tournament? And once we are, would you rather have an eight man rotation of upperclassmen or a ten man rotation of upperclassmen and experienced freshman? Even if it guaranteed a couple extra losses before the ACC tournament (which I don't think it necessarily does), I'd really like to see 12-15 minutes per game for Elliot and Miles. With Miles' minutes coming at the expense of Singler's and Elliot's coming at the expense of Scheyer's and McClure's.

Definitely agree. As I pointed out earlier, I would like to see Paulus sit out the next game or two to get completely healthy, and give Williams his minutes.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 06:20 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Elliot is hesitant to drive because, if he turns the ball over, he knows he will get yanked. That's why I want him getting more minutes and some margin for error, so he will let the game come to him a little more and so that he will be unafraid to make some plays.

Stud players don't worry about mistakes. If he worries so much... that's reason enough for me to not play him.

Duke79UNLV77
12-06-2008, 06:21 PM
from jumbo:

"We tried to reverse the ball and dump it into Zoubek. Unfortunately, he's not a particularly adept scorer, so that didn't really work."

Z had 8 points in 14 minutes on 4-6 shooting. most efficient offensive player on the team today. yes, we should still take some 3's, but we settled too much. i mean e will says he really needs to work on his perimeter shot, and even he comes in and jacks 2 up right away. we did pretty well at penetrating the zone when we got away from just passing it around the perimeter. we needed more slash cuts, shot fakes and dribble penetration, and feeds to the post, and we needed to push tempo more.

Devilsfan
12-06-2008, 06:24 PM
I hope we don't play the 1-3-1 against Davidson.

Philadukie
12-06-2008, 06:25 PM
Lots to learn from in this game.

Well, I'm not sure there's much to learn from this game. Again, the point seems pretty simple, but if we shoot just a little better from 3 - in fact, not even good, just better - then the game would be different. Can you really teach that?

Yes, I'll concede there were some other mistakes, but I didn't see collossal mistakes that gave Michigan the game. I'm not sure film from this game will help.

I had a coach once who, after a particularly horrible loss, told us to just forget it. Leave it behind. We're not going to gain anything from re-hashing it. That might be an extreme coaching tactic, but I see this game like that.

Dwelling on this game in film, in practice, and in team discussion may, in fact, have an opposite effect. It could seriously impact confidence and create seeds of doubt.

I would say to the team: the shots didn't fall today. Forget it. Let's move on.

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 06:26 PM
Stud players don't worry about mistakes. If he worries so much... that's reason enough for me to not play him.

Its hard to be a stud on the bench. The one thing no player can overcome is never being on the court.

And really, have you ever played competitive basketball? It is extremely difficult to come off the bench and know that you have to hit your first shot or you will probably be pulled from the game.

And to your above argument, ask Allen Iverson if that is true. He's been a stud his entire life, but now the he is playing fewer minutes and gets pulled at times, his production is way way down. No question that every player can lose confidence when their coach makes it obvious he has no confidence in him.

And Elliot is extremely quick, probably our 2nd or 3rd best ballhandler, jumps out of the gym, and showed a very consistent stroke through his high school career. You are probably right, though, we don't need a player like that. No one does. That's probably why he was hardly recruited by anyone else.

Its ironic that someone would lament our lack of a penetrating guard and at the same time say that we should develop a potential stud sitting on our bench.

Wander
12-06-2008, 06:26 PM
I don't think that's fair. Duke always did a good job against Sendek's version of the Princeton offense, for instance. Duke played excellent D against Michigan at MSG. Don't extrapolate too much from one performance.


I was hesitant to make the comment in the first place, because of the small sample size and all. It's just my intuition that on average Coach K teams don't perform as well against backdoor stuff. We did do well against State though, you're right. Hm.



Same thing about not extrapolating too much. For most of the game, Scheyer did a fantastic job on Harris, and really denied him the ball on the wing. Sims was killing us, not Harris. Late in the game, Harris scored more. A couple of buckets were in transition, which is not the fault of the guy guarding him. He put a great move on Jon once and hit a leaner. He scored off a backdoor. And he had that play I described elsewhere, where Thomas should have been trapping or hedging, and instead went the wrong way. That's not on Jon. He draws the other team's best perimeter player every game -- that's for a reason.


I'm not basing this just off this game, but on the whole season so far. Scheyer was guarding Baron, Moore, and Harris twice. He did an excellent - perfect, really - job on Moore, not as good a job on Baron, and decent but not superb jobs on Harris. I don't think I'm extrapolating too much by calling him a good defender rather than an elite one.

Oriole Way
12-06-2008, 06:27 PM
Stud players don't worry about mistakes. If he worries so much... that's reason enough for me to not play him.

I was just speculating. He needs more minutes is my point.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 06:27 PM
Well, I'm not sure there's much to learn from this game. Again, the point seems pretty simple, but if we shoot just a little better from 3 - in fact, not even good, just better - then the game would be different. Can you really teach that?

Yes, I'll concede there were some other mistakes, but I didn't see collossal mistakes that gave Michigan the game. I'm not sure film from this game will help.

I had a coach once who, after a particularly horrible loss, told us to just forget it. Leave it behind. We're not going to gain anything from re-hashing it. That might be an extreme coaching tactic, but I see this game like that.

Dwelling on this game in film, in practice, and in team discussion may, in fact, have an opposite effect. It could seriously impact confidence and create seeds of doubt.

I would say to the team: the shots didn't fall today. Forget it. Let's move on.


well it's clear that COach K knew what the problem was. We started off the 2nd half dumping to Zoubeck. The problem is Zoubeck is not someone we can rely on. The person that needed to step up was Henderson.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 06:31 PM
Its hard to be a stud on the bench. The one thing no player can overcome is never being on the court.

And really, have you ever played competitive basketball? It is extremely difficult to come off the bench and know that you have to hit your first shot or you will probably be pulled from the game.

And to your above argument, ask Allen Iverson if that is true. He's been a stud his entire life, but now the he is playing fewer minutes and gets pulled at times, his production is way way down. No question that every player can lose confidence when their coach makes it obvious he has no confidence in him.

And Elliot is extremely quick, probably our 2nd or 3rd best ballhandler, jumps out of the gym, and showed a very consistent stroke through his high school career. You are probably right, though, we don't need a player like that. No one does. That's probably why he was hardly recruited by anyone else.

Its ironic that someone would lament our lack of a penetrating guard and at the same time say that we should develop a potential stud sitting on our bench.

Sorry but you either got it or you don't. Was Singler scared last year? How about Elton Brand? Deng? JJ? Granted Elliott Williams may develop into an excellent player, but it's not going to be this year.

To use Iverson as an example is crazy. He's near the twillight of his career. The amount of physical abuse Iverson put his body through during his NBA career is amazing. Surprised his body hasn't already broken down.

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 06:32 PM
well it's clear that COach K knew what the problem was. We started off the 2nd half dumping to Zoubeck. The problem is Zoubeck is not someone we can rely on. The person that needed to step up was Henderson.

Agreed, just imagine Henderson on the post. He's strong enough to power over or through anyone his own size. He's quick enough that he can shot fake and go by anyone bigger than him. He jumps high enough to simply turn and shoot over anyone who isn't 4 inches taller than he is. It would also eliminate his propensity to dribble into turnovers. He's also a good enough passer that he could find open shooters or cutters when he gets double teamed. He can also improvise from the air when he goes to shoot and finds someone has rotated onto him, perhaps hitting an open cutter or shooter. He should use the medium post like Michael Jordan did. He's just not ready to take people off the dribble if anyone cuts off his initial move. Probably a side effect of his unbelievable athleticism that he never had to develop a great handle or learn "moves" to get by guys.

Oriole Way
12-06-2008, 06:34 PM
Sorry but you either got it or you don't. Was Singler scared last year? How about Elton Brand? Deng? JJ? Granted Elliott Williams may develop into an excellent player, but it's not going to be this year.

To use Iverson as an example is crazy. He's near the twillight of his career. The amount of physical abuse Iverson put his body through during his NBA career is amazing. Surprised his body hasn't already broken down.

Way to counter an extreme example with other extreme examples. You are saying that Elliot Williams doesn't "got it". I am saying that not only does he got it, he needs more minutes to show it. The talent is there, the minutes are not. Hey, you might be right about Williams not blossoming until next year. But I really want to find out for sure by giving him 15-20 minutes a night now, as opposed to not playing him and never finding out, which is where we're headed right now.

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 06:40 PM
Sorry but you either got it or you don't. Was Singler scared last year? How about Elton Brand? Deng? JJ? Granted Elliott Williams may develop into an excellent player, but it's not going to be this year.

To use Iverson as an example is crazy. He's near the twillight of his career. The amount of physical abuse Iverson put his body through during his NBA career is amazing. Surprised his body hasn't already broken down.

Singler had no one behind him that was anywhere near his ability. Neither did Deng or Elton. JJ was not as amazing his freshman year as you seem to remember. But he also had little competition for his spot.

Further, go back and watch Jason Williams' first 5 games at Duke. If we had had any other PG, he would have been yanked early and often. He was completely out of his league as a freshman PG. However, there was no one else behind him and his natural ability finally took over when he got used to the speed of the game. There is only one way to get used to that speed - being in the game. I think (and so do most others, including the coaching staff that recruited him) Elliott that elite level talent. He needs to be developed, end of story.

Elliott has Scheyer, Hendo, and Smith playing spots he could play. Any time things get tight, we just leave them all in the game the entire game and watch them wear down until they get tired on defense down the stretch. That is why Elliot needs early minutes for longer stretches.

Iverson would have dominated if he were our starting point guard.;)

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 06:42 PM
Way to counter an extreme example with other extreme examples. You are saying that Elliot Williams doesn't "got it". I am saying that not only does he got it, he needs more minutes to show it. The talent is there, the minutes are not. Hey, you might be right about Williams not blossoming until next year. But I really want to find out for sure by giving him 15-20 minutes a night now, as opposed to not playing him and never finding out, which is where we're headed right now.

you prove yourself in practice.

BlueintheFace
12-06-2008, 06:43 PM
I'm not a Marty Maniac at all, but this is one of the few games that I believe he would have been a pretty big asset on offense in small spurts. Think about the few solid elements of his game... slicing between defenders to the hoop, driving the baseline for the reverse layup or pass to the opposite corner, hitting the three.

He would have done very well collecting the passes in the corners and making something happen. He might have run into an offensive foul once or twice, but he wouldn't have been tentative at attacking the zone IMO.

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 06:47 PM
you prove yourself in practice.

He has to play against McDonald's All-Americans in practice every day. He is playing against guys who are supposed to be better than him (due to experience). The point is that he should get a chance to try what he is learning in practice before he loses all confidence.

Not to bring it back to UNC, I hate that, but Roy Williams puts his freshman in early and often and it has payed obvious dividends in that program. Please don't say they get better talent either. Roy would love to have had Elliot Williams, and I bet you most people would agree that Elliot would play much more if he were at UNC than he is for us. Same for almost any other school he could have chosen. I sometimes wonder if that hurts us in recruiting.

mgtr
12-06-2008, 06:49 PM
I agree with a couple of other posters on one point: This one was on K and his staff. The team was not prepared. They had Plan A, the normal Duke plan, take what they give you. Then Plan B: repeat Plan A, Plan C: repeat Plan A etc, etc, ad nauseum.
I also agree that this was reminiscent of past tournament losses -- the inability to do much if the 3s won't fall. Any chance of getting Curry to transfer to Duke? (Just kidding).
Look, I haven't given up on this team, but I hope the players and the coaching staff learn from this game.

Oriole Way
12-06-2008, 06:50 PM
I'm not a Marty Maniac at all, but this is one of the few games that I believe he would have been a pretty big asset on offense in small spurts. Think about the few solid elements of his game... slicing between defenders to the hoop, driving the baseline for the reverse layup or pass to the opposite corner, hitting the three.

He would have done very well collecting the passes in the corners and making something happen. He might have run into an offensive foul once or twice, but he wouldn't have been tentative at attacking the zone IMO.

I was thinking the same thing. Marty came in and was active, and could have been a nice jump start for us in the second half. But, K doesn't give him big minutes in close games either. Even though I think getting more PT for Williams and Plumlee is more essential, I also wouldn't mind getting Marty some more court time. It could really pay off next season if he is still here, because we could actually be very shallow in terms of guards.

Oriole Way
12-06-2008, 06:55 PM
He has to play against McDonald's All-Americans in practice every day. He is playing against guys who are supposed to be better than him (due to experience). The point is that he should get a chance to try what he is learning in practice before he loses all confidence.

Not to bring it back to UNC, I hate that, but Roy Williams puts his freshman in early and often and it has payed obvious dividends in that program. Please don't say they get better talent either. Roy would love to have had Elliot Williams, and I bet you most people would agree that Elliot would play much more if he were at UNC than he is for us. Same for almost any other school he could have chosen. I sometimes wonder if that hurts us in recruiting.

Another very good point.

I just have a hard time buying the whole "earn it in practice" thinking. Maybe they don't, but what if they play fine in practice and K just favors playing his top 7 guys in close games? He has used that approach for about 10 years. Some times, it works. Some times, it works and it's the only option (2001 obviously). But I think there have been several seasons where it has hurt us significantly.

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 06:55 PM
It could really pay off next season if he is still here, because we could actually be very shallow in terms of guards.

Not sure why will be short on guards. Who is leaving? Not Hendo at this rate. Only Paulus and he is already not playing much.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
12-06-2008, 07:02 PM
we also are lacking a complete post player (discounting Kyle). The fact we could combine Lance, Zoubek, and McClure to make a nice post player isn't very efficient.

At this point I simply don't believe that we are able to attract high-quality low post threats with any regularity. There are very few guys with the body and game to be Brand-type players. Most that do have that go to the NBA ASAP. Take away guys who aren't up to Duke's characters and academic restrictions and you're left with maybe 1-2 candidates every 2-3 years.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason we've developed a reputation as a place big stud 5's don't go. We've missed on every significant guy like that since Shel in 2002 (Kaun, Brockman, Hump, Wright, Patterson, arguably Monroe, etc.) We had a brief anomalous period where we were so head-and-shoulders above every other program that we could grab the Boozers and Shels (how we got Elton is still a miracle to me, but the guys that recruited him are long gone) but that time seems to have passed.

We can seem to grab stud high-post players (see e.g. McBob, Singler, Kelly, Plumlee) and historically we've made up for our failings in the post with versatile high post guys (Alarie, Ferry, Laettner, Chief) and with killer PG's who disrupt other teams at the point of attack and shred D's to create easy shots.

For the last few seasons we've lacked both PG and C play and it's been brutal ('06 has just killed us). As I say, I don't see any major C studs coming and sticking around for the long term, but I do have some hope at the PG positions where we have such a historical base of success. Maybe Nolan becomes that guy and this team goes on a great run. Maybe Wall or Knight come and make the great parts we have into an actual team. But whatever happens, I expect any resurgence we have to come at the 1, and not the 5.

I'd love to be wrong and to see Josh Smith (for example) show up and stick around for 2-3 dominant seasons, but I expect to see a lot more Duke teams that look like 1991 than like 1999. That's not necessarily a bad thing (as the end of those seasons demonstrates) but I think it's a change that is coming and we need to accept it.

edensquad
12-06-2008, 07:15 PM
Well, it is Black Saturday in our house: first Duke goes down, now 'Bama in the SEC title game (my wife went to law school there).

Tough day :(

rockymtn devil
12-06-2008, 07:17 PM
Haven't read the whole thread, but quick thoughts on the loss, most of which have probably been expressed.

Duke simply didn't have it today in a hostile environment. Michigan is a good, not great basketball team. Those two together equal a loss more often than not.

On defense, we looked slow and, at times, lazy, especially in the second half on Wolverine misses. On offense we were sloppy with the ball, but, despite what Bilas kept saying, I thought we handled the 1-3-1 pretty well. How many wide open jump shots did we miss? Our guys were getting good looks from the outside and just weren't hitting them. A scholarship basketball player at Duke should be able to hit open shots with a fairly high percentage. Today we didn't and lost. You don't beat good teams when you miss open shots at the rate we did.

It's a tough loss and the team will learn from it. We'll move on and, hopefully, find our shot. The only concern I have is that Henderson is still absent on offense. His defense is so good that he needs to be on the floor, but his offense is simply non-existent right now. It will come. He's too talented to not get into a groove. The good news? It's December. National champions are crowned in March/April.

jipops
12-06-2008, 07:23 PM
"We were really worried coming off the Purdue game. This is a tough academic week for us, and we didn't handle it in a mature way," Krzyzewski said. "We were not mentally ready to play."

That completely sums it up. There is nothing else to take away from today's game.

Oriole Way
12-06-2008, 07:25 PM
Not sure why will be short on guards. Who is leaving? Not Hendo at this rate. Only Paulus and he is already not playing much.

Could be short... while G isn't playing well now, all he needs is a streak of huge games in March and he could be gone. That leaves us with Nolan, Jon, and Elliot. Marty would add some much-needed depth.

Dr. Rosenrosen
12-06-2008, 07:42 PM
I thought we played a stubborn game in shooting 7-33 from 3land. We played the same exact defense 2 weeks ago and seemed to know how to handle it the first time. The single most glaring stat was 4-6 FTs today vs. 19-25 FTs the first game. We settled for outside shots. I thought many were decent looks but I also thought we forced it a bit. The 1-3-1 does not automatically dictate a barrage of 3s. Our skip passes were being made from really far outside the arc and had to be thrown high over the defense. This gave Michigan plenty of time to recover. My biggest frustration was seeing open space at the high post but rarely seeing Kyle or anyone else get in position to take a high post entry pass that would have drawn in the defense and made for good passing opportunities down to the low post or out to the corners for 3s. Singler did it early in the game and it was beautiful. Then we just kind of forgot. Oh well. We looked tired and unprepared. I hope the real lesson here is one about mental toughness.

edensquad
12-06-2008, 07:44 PM
Well, we tried other options. We tried to reverse the ball and dump it into Zoubek. Unfortunately, he's not a particularly adept scorer, so that didn't really work. I might've gone smaller, using Kyle at the five, and tried to find ways to isolate him on the bottom guy in the 1-3-1 (the chaser) who was usually a guard. I might've tried to force the tempo more (even off made baskets), to get better looks before the zone was set. But when you get easy looks, you've got to take 'em and make 'em.

I recall Coach K saying Zoubek was a "weapon"....so, he may, in fact, see his potential as an adept scorer.... but, ya gotta give a big man touches in the flow of the offense. Duke is not great at this, IMHO.

CameronCrazy'11
12-06-2008, 07:46 PM
Michigan looked confident out there and we looked timid and hesitant. That's probably the simplest explanation.

buddy
12-06-2008, 07:50 PM
"We were really worried coming off the Purdue game. This is a tough academic week for us, and we didn't handle it in a mature way," Krzyzewski said. "We were not mentally ready to play."

That completely sums it up. There is nothing else to take away from today's game.

This is an experienced team, composed primarily of upperclassmen. It does not speak well of the players or the staff if they "were not mentally ready to play." I would expect that of more youthful teams, or an inexperienced coaching staff. EVERYONE needs to take a careful look in the mirror.

grossbus
12-06-2008, 07:57 PM
"That's a bit of an oversimplification, don't you think? Other guys "showed up." Jon showed up. He had something like 16 points, a bunch of steals and assists, and did a solid job on Harris until the final couple of minutes. Gerald showed up. He gave a great effort -- he just fouled a lot. Etc."

i don't think it is OVERsimplification jumbo. no one else on the starting 5 elevated their game. jon's game was his usual fine effort, but about normal for him, right? gerald did a lot of things, fouls included, but continued his somewhat puzzling "laid back" play on offense. the bench provided nothing.

so, it may be, and probably is, a simplified analysis, but certainly not inaccurate.

certainly not deserving of a "jumbo."

dbd4ever
12-06-2008, 07:57 PM
Everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath. Stop acting like this is the end of the world!!! We have lost one game and it was a game that we played like S--- and were in up until the last 1:09. I think we will get our acts together over the next week or so and be back to form soon. We have to realize the amount of games we have played over the last month and a good bit of those were on the road and in hostile environments. Granted every environments outside of Cameron is hostile for our guys!!

But on the other hand, there are a few things that are very concerning about this game and some trends that are surfacing in this team/program. We are not developing our young players or letting them play as much as you see other teams around the country play and involve their young talent. With Kyle being an exception to this since he had to be thrown into the fire early due to our lack of a post player last year. Nolan still looks like a freshman at times with his decision making and lack of will to take control of the offense. If we're gonna make a run through this season and into the tournament, he has to be the guy to take control when the offense is sputtering and get the other players scoring opportunities. Today he looked scared and lost. But the thing that scares me is the lack of playing time for our so-called great recruiting class. Williams takes two shots in the first half and gets yanked never to be seen again. Plumlee played good minutes but none in the second half and God forbid we see Czyz in this game or the Purdue game. This is a recurring trend with K and it is probably the reason we have seen so many transfers over the last few seasons. Boateng, Boykin, and King to name some. They're freshmen and it's better for them to play and make mistakes early in the regular season and be ready for March than to sit the bench for next year and we run out of gas in the tournament!!!!

Billy Dat
12-06-2008, 08:18 PM
Was forced to watch the game delayed and wasn't that pissed when it was over...just read through every comment on this string..

-In over 120 comments, there were only 1 or 2 that mentioned how well Michigan played. Come on, they really played very very well. I also saw no mention of the advantage they had having just played us in the past two weeks. It's not like we killed them in NYC, and we played very well up there. Sims was a stud and Harris really came on down the stretch. The rest of them played great...I give them more then a little credit, they played their hearts out.

-Aside from us not hitting 3s, which I thought were all pretty good shots, I thought we did fight pretty well up until the final few minutes. Until Novak hits those back to back 3s, I thought we were showing a lot of toughness in a hostile environment. It really felt like one of those games that just wasn't our night - every loss is going to remind you of a bad loss unless it comes down to the wire.

-My biggest concern is that Singler and Scheyer are the only guys playing at an elite level. I think G needs to be playing at that level but can't seem to get into it. Nolan has the potential to be at the level and we need him to get their quick. Lance, Zoubek and McClure are, to me, playing to their potential - they are just not elite players. Paulus has clearly regressed because of his injury - we need him back badly. I agree that I'd like to see Plumlee and EWill get some more burn so that we go a little deeper.

-Really, I walked away bummed but not despondent. It's pre-conference, we played a team who got to "lose their awe" in person two weeks ago, they play a d we rarely see and an offensive style that picks you apart when you get down and have to pressure. Sims had a career game and Harris was Harris - they've got one of the best coaches in the game on the bench, etc. Better we lose some games like this then get to January undefeated and really think we're better then we are.

sagegrouse
12-06-2008, 08:35 PM
I didn't see this one.

We beat Michigan by 16 points in MSG for a championship. The Wolverines were up for the rematch at home and played well. We weren't and didn't. End of story.

This game won't mean a darn thing after the holidays -- much less in the tournaments.

sagegrouse

JDev
12-06-2008, 08:37 PM
-Really, I walked away bummed but not despondent. It's pre-conference, we played a team who got to "lose their awe" in person two weeks ago, they play a d we rarely see and an offensive style that picks you apart when you get down and have to pressure. Sims had a career game and Harris was Harris - they've got one of the best coaches in the game on the bench, etc. Better we lose some games like this then get to January undefeated and really think we're better then we are.

My sentiments as well. Duke did not play defense as well as the other games thus far, but UM did play well. They are a team you have to play well to beat (ask UCLA).
The 33 threes does jump out at you. Duke did not need to light it up; if they would have just shot close to their modest season percentage, which is around 34% I think, that would have been about 12 more points, give or take. But, unfortunately, tonight they were not falling. Coach K said in the pregame how he has been waiting for a break-out shooting game from this team. He did not get it today. Not the end of the world, this is still a good team that has the potential to get better.

tommy
12-06-2008, 08:41 PM
sorry, but you must have been on a bathroom break or something. Scheyer got beat several times. but like I said that's expected. The person who played poor interior defense was Lance Thomas. He needs to step up on the help defense.

Apparently, no bathroom break was taken, as Jumbo is correct on this. I did DVR it and just watched the last 5 minutes again. In the last 5 minutes, Scheyer was beaten on one backdoor (at the 3:42 mark, and Thomas was nowhere near the play) and then was beaten on a straight drive and dunk by Manny Harris at the 1:36 mark. On the latter play, Thomas should've been in a help position but wasn't.

But the assertion that Scheyer was beaten 4-5 times (or whatever large number you had stated) on backdoors in the last five minutes of the game is false.

tommy
12-06-2008, 08:45 PM
For me, the biggest issue with the team right now is Henderson's inconsistent, and often passive, offense. Yes, he's contributing in many other ways, but let's face it, we need him to be aggressive with the ball on a regular basis. The high expectations for this team were in large part grounded on the assumption that we were going to have two elite scorers, he and Singler. Singler is bringing it every night and Gerald just isn't. I would think that might be a major focus of Jumbo's next Phase -- can we find a way to get him going?

arnie
12-06-2008, 08:54 PM
I think the team is deeper and more talented than the last 3-4 Duke teams, but the style of play is essentially the same. If we're hitting 3s we beat the good teams, if we don't, then we likely lose. It doesn't matter against average or poor teams since we are simply quicker and more talented.

This works OK until the tournament when inside play is needed (and one bad 3-point shooting night ends it all). I'm hoping K will force us inside more just to see if we can play that way.

poobear
12-06-2008, 08:56 PM
:)We beat them in the first game and only made 4 three point shots the whole game.They must have scored on 2 pointers and foul shots,do you think?I agree the team fell into a trap game and let UM set the tone.But wouldn't it have been great if all those three pointers had gone in.The guys will regroup and come back strong.No worries.:):)




Yeah, you know how you beat the 1-3-1, hit outside shots. We couldn't do it, why?, fatigue. And given that last road game and the onset of exams, I think it may actually be more mental fatigue. It's really that simple. When shots don't go down the D gets deflated. Happens to everybody.

should_be_working
12-06-2008, 09:07 PM
I agree with the posts stating that this one was on the coaching stafff. We seem to have had trouble adjusting. When 3's weren't falling we kept taking them. When we were getting beat on back doors we kept pressuring the ball like normal and not adjusting to what they were doing. Unfortunetly we just laid the blueprints to our opposition on how to beat us. Now we must adjust and figure out ways to overcome our shortcomings.

A couple other things:

-why Z plays 25-30ft away from the basket defending is beyond me. the help defense wasn't there tonight because michigan did a great job spreading their offense, knowing that duke would overplay away from the basket leaving the paint wide open.

-To me there are three kinds of 3's, good 3's, open 3's and contested bad 3's. We took a lot of open 3's but not necessarily good 3's. There were many 3's taken after only a pass or two into the possesion without running through the offence. There didn't seem to be many "extra pass" 3's - something we usually are very good at. Kyle took too many ill-advised 3's, and i wish K would have gotten on him a little more.

Michigan played a great game and they deserve some credit. We got out coached, out played, and out hussled today. Not the end of the world, we'll play better. I just hope we can start doing a better job adjusting as opposed to playing the way we play regardless of how well its working.

This is nice therepy.

Wheat/"/"/"
12-06-2008, 09:09 PM
I've only seen the Purdue game and this one, and it's way early in the season and not that big a deal for now that you lost. But I do have some early thoughts. I didn't want to comment after the Purdue game because I thought Duke looked very average there and everyone was loving the sixteen point win, but no inside game is going to kill you guys this year.

Zoubek had a sweet move to the baseline early in the 2nd half to show he has some talent, but he's...um not quick and will not consistantly cause enough problems to open up the outside.

Thomas is long and active, but also not going to force any top ten team to focus on him either.

Singler can (probably should) play more post, he's your best inside guy, but we know he really won't.

So you have 2 1/2 inside guys and 2 are very average. And now you are out of post players. That doesn't mean you can't win, just going to make it a lot tougher.

I thought tonights intensity was fine, as usual Duke's biggest strength, in fact. Just an off shooting night and some poor decisions.

Singler and Henderson are the only two exceptionally talented players on this team I see. Scheyer is very good, and Smith seems to have promise. Jury is out on Williams.

I have always believed that the best teams play inside out, not outside in.
Duke's best teams always had strong inside play. This one doesn't.

A bit of an off shooting night like tonight and its trouble this year, like last year.

Don't get me wrong here, it's a good team, and you will beat a lot of good teams. But this team is not at the level I know many of my Duke friends would like to see.

Wheat/"/"/" (http://4tarpon.wordpress.com/)

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 09:12 PM
At this point I simply don't believe that we are able to attract high-quality low post threats with any regularity. There are very few guys with the body and game to be Brand-type players. Most that do have that go to the NBA ASAP. Take away guys who aren't up to Duke's characters and academic restrictions and you're left with maybe 1-2 candidates every 2-3 years.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason we've developed a reputation as a place big stud 5's don't go. We've missed on every significant guy like that since Shel in 2002 (Kaun, Brockman, Hump, Wright, Patterson, arguably Monroe, etc.) We had a brief anomalous period where we were so head-and-shoulders above every other program that we could grab the Boozers and Shels (how we got Elton is still a miracle to me, but the guys that recruited him are long gone) but that time seems to have passed.

We can seem to grab stud high-post players (see e.g. McBob, Singler, Kelly, Plumlee) and historically we've made up for our failings in the post with versatile high post guys (Alarie, Ferry, Laettner, Chief) and with killer PG's who disrupt other teams at the point of attack and shred D's to create easy shots.

For the last few seasons we've lacked both PG and C play and it's been brutal ('06 has just killed us). As I say, I don't see any major C studs coming and sticking around for the long term, but I do have some hope at the PG positions where we have such a historical base of success. Maybe Nolan becomes that guy and this team goes on a great run. Maybe Wall or Knight come and make the great parts we have into an actual team. But whatever happens, I expect any resurgence we have to come at the 1, and not the 5.

I'd love to be wrong and to see Josh Smith (for example) show up and stick around for 2-3 dominant seasons, but I expect to see a lot more Duke teams that look like 1991 than like 1999. That's not necessarily a bad thing (as the end of those seasons demonstrates) but I think it's a change that is coming and we need to accept it.

i posted my thoughts on our recruiting defiencies several days ago. I called the post "Duke: Are we losing the arms race?". It was quickly deleted and I was banned for 2 days. Essentially Duke has failed to recruit either a STUD PG or Center.... and as you pointed out... that has hurt us big time. Those two positions by far are the most important two positions. I have my theories why, but if i repeat them here... I'd be banned again.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 09:16 PM
Singler had no one behind him that was anywhere near his ability. Neither did Deng or Elton. JJ was not as amazing his freshman year as you seem to remember. But he also had little competition for his spot.

Further, go back and watch Jason Williams' first 5 games at Duke. If we had had any other PG, he would have been yanked early and often. He was completely out of his league as a freshman PG. However, there was no one else behind him and his natural ability finally took over when he got used to the speed of the game. There is only one way to get used to that speed - being in the game. I think (and so do most others, including the coaching staff that recruited him) Elliott that elite level talent. He needs to be developed, end of story.

Elliott has Scheyer, Hendo, and Smith playing spots he could play. Any time things get tight, we just leave them all in the game the entire game and watch them wear down until they get tired on defense down the stretch. That is why Elliot needs early minutes for longer stretches.

Iverson would have dominated if he were our starting point guard.;)


revisionist history at its best. It's amazing how all these stud players of our had no one behind them... and thus that allowed them to become great players. Well how come Zuobeck or Paulus or Henderson, etc... don't become stud NBA lottery cailber studs?

Sorry but the cream always rises to the top. You really think Jason Williams would have sat behind Greg Paulus? HAHA. Elliott Williams might oneday become a stud. Maybe next year he gains the confidence, learns the system, and plays more within himself. but right now I don't see it.

dw0827
12-06-2008, 09:19 PM
Apparently, no bathroom break was taken, as Jumbo is correct on this. I did DVR it and just watched the last 5 minutes again. In the last 5 minutes, Scheyer was beaten on one backdoor (at the 3:42 mark, and Thomas was nowhere near the play) and then was beaten on a straight drive and dunk by Manny Harris at the 1:36 mark. On the latter play, Thomas should've been in a help position but wasn't.

But the assertion that Scheyer was beaten 4-5 times (or whatever large number you had stated) on backdoors in the last five minutes of the game is false.

I had said that Jon was beaten more times than I could count . . . which, sad to say, is not a very large number. I made no reference to the last five minutes.

As someone said, the problem isn't so much that Jon got beaten but that there was ineffective help.

CameronCrazy'11
12-06-2008, 09:21 PM
i posted my thoughts on our recruiting defiencies several days ago. I called the post "Duke: Are we losing the arms race?". It was quickly deleted and I was banned for 2 days. Essentially Duke has failed to recruit either a STUD PG or Center.... and as you pointed out... that has hurt us big time. Those two positions by far are the most important two positions. I have my theories why, but if i repeat them here... I'd be banned again.

for the last time, it's not recruiting, it's that some players just haven't panned out. McRoberts was the #1 overall recruit in 2005 and Paulus was the #1 PG.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 09:29 PM
for the last time, it's not recruiting, it's that some players just haven't panned out. McRoberts was the #1 overall recruit in 2005 and Paulus was the #1 PG.

wrong! that is absolutely all about recruiting. Recruiting is not signing on Rivals.com or Scout.com and seeing how many stars they have. Recruiting is talent evaluation and getting great players that fit your style. Great recruiters also get great players of positions of need.

The fact that we have so many 5-star flops... makes me wonder if Coach K's staff are "bad" recruiters.

CameronCrazy'11
12-06-2008, 09:34 PM
wrong! that is absolutely all about recruiting. Recruiting is not signing on Rivals.com or Scout.com and seeing how many stars they have. Recruiting is talent evaluation and getting great players that fit your style.

The fact that we have so many 5-star flops... makes me wonder if Coach K's staff are "bad" recruiters.

Please. It's not like it was only the Duke staff that thought McRoberts would be better than Hansbrough. It was everyone. Of course, that's not the way it turned out. And if Duke had gotten Hansbrough instead of McRoberts, which technically would have meant our recruiting class would have been worse that year, nobody would be saying anything was wrong with Duke's recruiting.

SMO
12-06-2008, 09:38 PM
for the last time, it's not recruiting, it's that some players just haven't panned out. McRoberts was the #1 overall recruit in 2005 and Paulus was the #1 PG.

Not responding to the post quoted above in particular, but it is REMARKABLE how this board goes downhill after a loss. Suddenly the program has all these flaws, no low post presence, etc. The simple fact is Duke lost a game they could have won had they:

1. shot better from 3
2. used other ways to attack the 1-3-1 such as more frequent dribble drive penetration and/or posting up
3. had a top-notch performance from anyone of their 5 starters or even one of the first two guys off the bench
4. Michigan doesn't play as well as they do and Sims isn't sinking 3's with 7 foot defenders in his face

Unfortunately, they didn't do any of these things and Michigan played well. Yes, it looked like some recent March losses because all losses look bad. Let's get over it and move on. I'm sure the team will do so.

dukediv2013
12-06-2008, 09:41 PM
Duke played terribly today. They were out-rebounded, out-hustled, beaten by the dribble, didn't play their offense, refused to communicate on defense, shot too many threes and yet they still only lost by 8.

This team is going to be a fun team to watch. Don't expect for them to go undefeated from here on out, they won't. They are going to lose some games, but they are also going to win a lot of games. They were off today, but I can't wait to see them again on December 17th against UNC-Asheville.

GO DUKE!

edensquad
12-06-2008, 09:42 PM
Hate to agree with a Carolina guy.... but, ditto what Wheat said. I am going to pull for this team like crazy, but we are an "outside in" team.... and anything we do in March will be a pleasant surprise to me.

Don't shoot the messenger, please.... I went to Duke, I bleed royal blue.... but,,,, we are, in K's own words, not a young team. We have upper class leadership. This is not a team that has to "learn the system." It is playing the best it can every night out..... It is a team that will beat a lot of folks because they play so hard, and when the 3's are falling, will look pretty darn good. But, we seem unwilling, or unable, to consistently feed the post for close-in shots. Just for grins, just count how many times Lance/Brian get touches down low in the half court set. It's not many.

This team, so far, has too few assists and too many turnovers,.... not to mention a suspect 3 point shooting percentage, to go deep in the tourney.

Having said that, I love these guys and fully intend to enjoy each game along the way!

** even though I am not an NCAA coach, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night **

:D

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 09:50 PM
Please. It's not like it was only the Duke staff that thought McRoberts would be better than Hansbrough. It was everyone. Of course, that's not the way it turned out. And if Duke had gotten Hansbrough instead of McRoberts, which technically would have meant our recruiting class would have been worse that year, nobody would be saying anything was wrong with Duke's recruiting.

see once again you make the rookie mistake. You follow the herd. You worry about rankings and stars. No actual talent evaluation on your part. So what if McRoberts was ranked higher than Hansbrough. You think everyone thought McRoberts was an automatic? I doubt it. You think Hansbrough just turned on the intensity switch when he went to UNC and that McRoberts turned on the lazy switch when he came to Duke?

Eitherway, each recruiting class you need about 2 major impact players. So it's just not about 1 player. Plus you want players of need. Right now we need a "back-to-the-basket" type center and we need a play-making PG. We've needed these two positions for 2-3 years now.

The1Bluedevil
12-06-2008, 10:05 PM
Enough recruiting talk after losses. How about a question for everyone. Watching Duke miss several wide open three pointers today, I asked myself was that really good defense or just a bad night shooting. I truly believe a defense like that can't possible win six games in March and early April. I know Syracuse ran a zone in 03 but I'm trying to remember a team that just sat back and hoped teams missed threes all night and won it all? UNLV's Amiba was hardly sitting back so I'm not counting that. Now no way am I saying Michigan is at that level but personally I feel zone for an entire game is very risky for championship success.

CameronCrazy'11
12-06-2008, 10:08 PM
see once again you make the rookie mistake. You follow the herd. You worry about rankings and stars. No actual talent evaluation on your part. So what if McRoberts was ranked higher than Hansbrough. You think everyone thought McRoberts was an automatic? I doubt it. You think Hansbrough just turned on the intensity switch when he went to UNC and that McRoberts turned on the lazy switch when he came to Duke?

Eitherway, each recruiting class you need about 2 major impact players. So it's just not about 1 player. Plus you want players of need. Right now we need a "back-to-the-basket" type center and we need a play-making PG. We've needed these two positions for 2-3 years now.


My point is that the people who do evaluate talent for a living thought that McRoberts would be the better player. That it didn't turn out that way is a credit to Hansbrough, but not a knock on Duke's recruiting staff. K should have just known that McRoberts would underperform and leave early and that Hansbrough would turn into a NPOY? You can't always predict which players will improve by how much in college, or which players will transfer or go to the NBA early. There's a lot of chance involved.

Duke has 7 McD's AA's on the roster, which I believe is more than anyone other than UNC, so I don't know how you come to the conclusion that we can't recruit top talent.

Ders24
12-06-2008, 10:09 PM
Enough recruting talk after losses. How about a question for everyone. Watching Duke miss several wide open three pointers today, I asked myself was that really good defense or just a bad night shooting? I truely believe a defense like that can't possbile win six games in March and early April. I know Syracuse ran a zone in 03 but I'm trying to remember a team that just sat back and hoped teams missed threes all night and won it all? UNLV's Amiba was hardly sit back so I'm not counting that. Now no way am I saying Michigan is at that level but personally I feel zone for an entire game is very risky for championship success.

I think it depends on the type of zone. Beilein's teams even the best ones, I thought anyway, were always noted for being quirky, meaning they could beat just about anybody on a given night, but could also lose to just about anybody. If you have an active zone it can really disrupt a lot of teams. Threes are usually more open against a zone, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are sitting back and hoping teams miss. I prefer man to man myself though.

edensquad
12-06-2008, 10:12 PM
FYI, Brian/Lance took a combined 9 shots.... no matter how you spin that, that is not an "inside out" offense. At least, not tonight.

The1Bluedevil
12-06-2008, 10:17 PM
I think it depends on the type of zone. Beilein's teams even the best ones, I thought anyway, were always noted for being quirky, meaning they could beat just about anybody on a given night, but could also lose to just about anybody. If you have an active zone it can really disrupt a lot of teams. Threes are usually more open against a zone, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are sitting back and hoping teams miss. I prefer man to man myself though.

I agree with what your saying. I'm trying to think of one team right now that runs an active zone. The closest thing I could come to is LVille. Syracuse does not have the size right now to run a highly effective zone.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 10:19 PM
Duke has 7 McD's AA's on the roster, which I believe is more than anyone other than UNC, so I don't know how you come to the conclusion that we can't recruit top talent.


so why aren't we ranked at least #2?

CameronCrazy'11
12-06-2008, 10:22 PM
so why aren't we ranked at least #2?

Reasons other than recruiting.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 10:26 PM
Reasons other than recruiting.

such as?

lifelongdevil
12-06-2008, 10:29 PM
it seems like there isnt much in game coaching/ strategy change from coach k.

_Gary
12-06-2008, 10:36 PM
It is good to see that someone else understands this. If you miss the easy shots you are given, you will have trouble. It doesn't mean you took the wrong strategy. It just means you weren't on your game that day. Our guys are not professionals. They can have off days. If they had made even a few of those early open looks, this could/should have been a blow out.

We will get some rest and shoot better next game.

I do agree that Singler needs more rest though. These are the games to get the backups more time, especially when everyone is struggling anyway.

That's my analysis as well. Duke had plenty of wide open threes, especially in the first half, that simply wouldn't go down. And I thought they took it inside about as much as they were able. The zone was active and they attacked as best they could and actually had numerous inside baskets. It was the entire team's utter lack of being able to drain the outside shot - open outside shots, not contested ones - that killed us. That's not going to happen very often. It's one thing for one or two guys to be off on a given night. But for the entire team to be off from "3"? That was an anomaly today, plain and simple. I doubt we shoot that poor from "3", as a team, again this year. And if you take the last 3 or so minutes when we went crazy and actually hit 4 out of 5 three's then you'd have the more accurate, game-wide, idea of just how poor the team shot. It was something around 15% for most of the night. You just don't win games shooting that poor from three, while your opponents hit almost 50% from three. And for what it's worth, I thought Michigan hit the tougher threes, while we missed the easier ones, over all.

There are a lot of little things that we could look at and talk about, but I honestly do believe this was an anomaly and will not be repeated this year. If it isn't an anomaly, then we can expect to lose a ton of games. But that's not going to happen. We are what we are. A team that still plays outside to inside-out first and foremost (although we are getting better about feeding the post) and we are still mostly going to depend on our guards and wing forwards to put up the majority of our points. They don't have to shoot lights out to win games. They just can't shoot, at least from the outside, poorly like they did tonight. And they won't do that often, so I'm not worried.

One aside. I did feel like many of Kyle's shots in particular did look "tired", which I admit seems crazy to be talking about just 9 games into the season. But I'm calling it like I see it. Hopefully that too was just an anomaly and Kyle will have his legs from three from now on and be nailing them like he did against Purdue. That's the Singler I'm looking for for the remainder of the season.


Gary

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 10:39 PM
revisionist history at its best. It's amazing how all these stud players of our had no one behind them... and thus that allowed them to become great players. Well how come Zuobeck or Paulus or Henderson, etc... don't become stud NBA lottery cailber studs?

Sorry but the cream always rises to the top. You really think Jason Williams would have sat behind Greg Paulus? HAHA. Elliott Williams might oneday become a stud. Maybe next year he gains the confidence, learns the system, and plays more within himself. but right now I don't see it.

I see why you were banned. Not only are you insulting to others, you don't even understand the points they are making. You then change the point and make an obvious counterpoint to a completely different point.

Do you think a freshman JJ would start ahead of any of these guards? Not the point, but just consider it.

The point is this: more playing time makes players better. I am not saying that Elliot is Jason Williams. I am saying that we won't get to find out how good he is this year because he never gets a chance. Mistakes at this time of the year are acceptable especially when they lead to having a much deeper more talented bench in March.

CameronCrazy'11
12-06-2008, 10:41 PM
such as?

Recruiting is destiny only to a certain point. Duke has had some players leave early and some players not turn out as good as people expected them to coming out of high school. Even so, Duke has put together some very impressive teams the last couple of years, and I still think this one will do great things. Every team is going to lose. Even the national champion has 3-4 losses each year. You can't just reflexively blame every loss on poor recruiting and say we would have won if only we'd gotten better players. And if you honestly believe that Duke's recruiting has been poor over the last few years, I can't say anything that's going to change your mind.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
12-06-2008, 10:46 PM
For several seasons we were either not bringing in top-tier talent, not developing it well, or not utilizing it properly. Something was broken as the results attest. Going forward I think a lot of folks are hoping that having K's full attention again (2004 was a an important point on the trendline for both our success and K's other commitments) will pay some dividends and that Nate and CWell can change some of the nasty misperceptions about Duke as a program. Wall would be a great start on a lot of fronts.

All that said, we didn't lose tonight's game because of recruiting. We are clearly the more talented team. Michigan won it because they had a solid gameplan that they executed very, very well. We didn't look prepared today, but we've looked great for most of the season. I think there's a ceiling to what a bunch of great wings can do without a PG or C, but we've been doing that very well so far. 2 steps forward, one step back will probably be the way of the season, so let's enjoy the ride. We've got a lot of promise but tonight the better-executing team won. Hats off to the Wolverines and Next Play for the players, the staff, and the fans.

Good luck in finals everyone and here's to never forgetting this game.

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 10:46 PM
see once again you make the rookie mistake. You follow the herd. You worry about rankings and stars. No actual talent evaluation on your part. So what if McRoberts was ranked higher than Hansbrough. You think everyone thought McRoberts was an automatic? I doubt it. You think Hansbrough just turned on the intensity switch when he went to UNC and that McRoberts turned on the lazy switch when he came to Duke?

Eitherway, each recruiting class you need about 2 major impact players. So it's just not about 1 player. Plus you want players of need. Right now we need a "back-to-the-basket" type center and we need a play-making PG. We've needed these two positions for 2-3 years now.

Who exactly are you? How can you seriously say what you are saying? There is no way you can criticize what you know nothing about. There is one other aspect of recruiting that you are forgetting. We also recruit only high quality character players with above average grades (except in very rare exceptions) who will always be a credit to Duke on AND off the court. Those guys are hard to find. Let alone guys that can play at the highest level in college basketball. I agree that we have not had the best luck in the last few years, but you act as though Coach K didn't bring us Elton, J Will, JJ, Shane, etc, etc, etc, etc.

studdlee10
12-06-2008, 10:47 PM
Well, we tried other options. We tried to reverse the ball and dump it into Zoubek. Unfortunately, he's not a particularly adept scorer, so that didn't really work. I might've gone smaller, using Kyle at the five, and tried to find ways to isolate him on the bottom guy in the 1-3-1 (the chaser) who was usually a guard. I might've tried to force the tempo more (even off made baskets), to get better looks before the zone was set. But when you get easy looks, you've got to take 'em and make 'em.

Zoubek and Lance were VERY effective tonight. I hate that people are overlooking their contributions to this team. They were very solid, we just didn't get them the ball in the post. This can be blamed on coaching, poor passing angles, and the 1-3-1 zone. Guys, the 1-3-1 is the very definition of a gimmick zone. It forces you to shoot, which is why we almost exclusively shot 3s. Almost every time they went man, we attacked and scored. It's hard to pass up on wide open threes to drive into a lane where there are alwasy 3-4 people waiting for you.

I'm a bit worried, however, with our defense. We play very aggressive deny defense, but that leaves us very prone to backdoor offenses and to teams that have a number of guards and can run the pick and roll. I'm so frustrated that the coaches didn't make the players play off of the ball and give Harris and grady a cushion. Neither fo these guys have proven to have a consistent outside shot, so why not make them shoot it? Also, Coach K plays a very aggressive switching defense. IF you watch the tape, you notice that Grady and Harris were exploiting this like crazy. They woudl run a pick, and we would end up with singler/thomas/zoubek guarding grady or harris. Also, paulus came in and was an absolute sieve on defense. Grady got his confidence up and the green light off of Greg. Why doesn't Elliot (who granted makes some mistakes) get some more burn? He's definitely athletic enough to keep up on the outside.

Overall, I hope this is just a bump in the road. We'll see....Rhode Island had similar athletes and we struggled with them.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 10:53 PM
Do you think a freshman JJ would start ahead of any of these guards? Not the point, but just consider it.



Yes I think JJ would have received significant minutes on this team... even as a freshman. Everyone here seems to think JJ had a "bad" freshman year, yet he started 30 games and averaged 15.0 ppg. That's more than Scheyer has ever averaged.

So why wouldn't JJ play or even start. he was money from the 3-point range. We probably beat Michigan if JJ plays and has a regular game.

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 10:57 PM
Yes I think JJ would have received significant minutes on this team... even as a freshman. Everyone here seems to think JJ had a "bad" freshman year, yet he started 30 games and averaged 15.0 ppg. That's more than Scheyer has ever averaged.

So why wouldn't JJ play or even start. he was money from the 3-point range. We probably beat Michigan if JJ plays and has a regular game.

Really, please look at JJ's shooting percentage in the NBA this year where he is being treated much the same way Elliot Williams is being treated on this team. If he misses a shot, he is pulled.

And, as a stated, that was not the point of that post, but somehow I knew you would bit and try to change the subject again.

Now, forget what I said above, change the subject, and make an obvious counterpoint to something else as though that is what I said.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 10:59 PM
Who exactly are you? How can you seriously say what you are saying? There is no way you can criticize what you know nothing about. There is one other aspect of recruiting that you are forgetting. We also recruit only high quality character players with above average grades (except in very rare exceptions) who will always be a credit to Duke on AND off the court. Those guys are hard to find. Let alone guys that can play at the highest level in college basketball. I agree that we have not had the best luck in the last few years, but you act as though Coach K didn't bring us Elton, J Will, JJ, Shane, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Supposedly Monroe is a great student/person. B Wright was supposedly also very bright. As well as Boynton, etc. No one is arguing that Coach K isn't going after the players we need. We just aren't signing them. As for Elton, J Will, Shane. Totally different recruiting staff. Remember these kids were recruited when they were freshmen/soph in highschool. Guys like Tommy Amaker, Quin Snyder, etc are long gone.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 11:04 PM
Really, please look at JJ's shooting percentage in the NBA this year where he is being treated much the same way Elliot Williams is being treated on this team. If he misses a shot, he is pulled.

And, as a stated, that was not the point of that post, but somehow I knew you would bit and try to change the subject again.

Now, forget what I said above, change the subject, and make an obvious counterpoint to something else as though that is what I said.


so what is exactly your point? Let me guess... the only way a great player can show that he's great is if he gets enough playing time. right?

Well i disagree. You show it in practice and great players show it no matter how much playing time they get. Now like I said, maybe Elliott Williams develops into a great player, but he's not showing it.

Finally your JJ example is just awful. JJ was one of Duke's best ever players... even as a freshman (what does the NBA has to do with it??). So yes... he would EARN playing time... not just be given it to hopefully develop into a great player. Now I too would like to see Duke develop depth... but why are you so adament on Elliott? what about Plumlee or Czyz? Plumlee has shown me more than Elliott.

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 11:06 PM
Apparently, no bathroom break was taken, as Jumbo is correct on this. I did DVR it and just watched the last 5 minutes again. In the last 5 minutes, Scheyer was beaten on one backdoor (at the 3:42 mark, and Thomas was nowhere near the play) and then was beaten on a straight drive and dunk by Manny Harris at the 1:36 mark. On the latter play, Thomas should've been in a help position but wasn't.

But the assertion that Scheyer was beaten 4-5 times (or whatever large number you had stated) on backdoors in the last five minutes of the game is false.

Yeah! See, Jumbo doesn't need bathroom breaks! ;)

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 11:07 PM
Why don't you wait and see if these guys are actually good before saying that we missed out on the great ones and only get the bad ones. Monroe is billed much the same way Josh McRoberts was. By the way, we did get two big guys that many schools wanted this year. You can't get every single recruit. I'd bet anything you were hoping and praying McRoberts would come to Duke before he came. When he committed, I bet you were excited. When he looked really really good his freshman year, I bet you thought he was a stud. When he didn't live up to expectations for whatever reason, I bet you said you knew it all along and the coaches are fools.

If Boynton or Wall or Monroe don't pan out, I bet you won't be on here talking about how they didn't pan out even though everyone said they would. You mention revisionist history, but you seem to be a PhD in the topic. Or better yet, you seem to think you can read the future of players you have never seen play.

By the way, Patterson couldn't have helped much tonight either because there would have been 2 guys around him at all times. The truth is, this can be a really really good team, but no team is good when it misses wide open shots. Every team has off nights, stop freaking out.

chrisheery
12-06-2008, 11:13 PM
so what is exactly your point? Let me guess... the only way a great player can show that he's great is if he gets enough playing time. right?

Well i disagree. You show it in practice and great players show it no matter how much playing time they get. Now like I said, maybe Elliott Williams develops into a great player, but he's not showing it.

Finally your JJ example is just awful. JJ was one of Duke's best ever players... even as a freshman (what does the NBA has to do with it??). So yes... he would EARN playing time... not just be given it to hopefully develop into a great player. Now I too would like to see Duke develop depth... but why are you so adament on Elliott? what about Plumlee or Czyz? Plumlee has shown me more than Elliott.

Basketball is basketball. JJ isn't playing well now, in part, because he has a short leash and has lost confidence. Even he has acknowledged this in interviews. It isn't about time on the court, it is about flow and confidence. When you know any mistake you make will lead to you coming off the court, you press and do things you don't normally do. JJ had total confidence at Duke because Coach K loved him from the moment he stepped on campus. I did too, don't get me wrong. He had swagger and should have. You can see what has happened as he has been treated like a second rate player over the last 2+ years. Some players don't have the cockiness you need to step in and be a star or even a contributer right away. But, to say that jerking the kid around will help that in anyway is just plain wrong. Anyone who has ever played basketball knows all of these things. People who haven't don't.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 11:18 PM
Why don't you wait and see if these guys are actually good before saying that we missed out on the great ones and only get the bad ones. Monroe is billed much the same way Josh McRoberts was. By the way, we did get two big guys that many schools wanted this year. You can't get every single recruit. I'd bet anything you were hoping and praying McRoberts would come to Duke before he came. When he committed, I bet you were excited. When he looked really really good his freshman year, I bet you thought he was a stud. When he didn't live up to expectations for whatever reason, I bet you said you knew it all along and the coaches are fools.

If Boynton or Wall or Monroe don't pan out, I bet you won't be on here talking about how they didn't pan out even though everyone said they would. You mention revisionist history, but you seem to be a PhD in the topic. Or better yet, you seem to think you can read the future of players you have never seen play.

By the way, Patterson couldn't have helped much tonight either because there would have been 2 guys around him at all times. The truth is, this can be a really really good team, but no team is good when it misses wide open shots. Every team has off nights, stop freaking out.


but the difference... I don't get paid $2million a year to coach basketball. If i did... then yes it would be my responsibility to recruit well. And if I recruited a unch of duds... then I would get fired. It's that simple.

As fans we have the luxury and even the right to have 20/20 hindsight vision. And that's how coaches are judged and graded... on their past and current success.

I admit I was happy we got McRoberts. But I never thought or even considered him an Elton Brand or Sheldon Williams type player. Just like how I don't see Kelly or the incoming Plumlee as a-back-to-the-basket type players. but like I said I don't get paid to do the actual recruiting... nor to I have the same opportunity or resources to evaluate these players.

Sir Stealth
12-06-2008, 11:22 PM
First of all, I didn't see anything in today's loss to suggest that Duke has any less potential as a team than I thought before the game. I do not think that the problems were caused by a lack of personnel, and I think this team has a great chance to accomplish a lot this year (and yes, to compete with UNC).

I disagree that our problem was just an inability to hit open shots. I respectfully disagree that most of the 3s taken were the kind of set, open shots that the team would want to take after effectively moving the ball and attacking the 1-3-1. I think that, while many were open and should absolutely have been taken, far too many of the shots came without any real attempt to further attack the 1-3-1, and, though many of these somewhat open were not the most effective shots to take when the team was obviously collectively going cold.

I disagree that this is a "bad" 3-point shooting team. I think that we have the potential to be a great 3-pointing shooting team, although it appears that Paulus's injury has significantly limited our best 3-point shooter for now. It does not appear to me that this team is mentally disciplined when it comes to 3-point shooting. It's great that the 3 is such a great weapon for Singler in his inside outside game, but he is pulling up for too many spontaneous 3s without going into the offense. It appears that Nolan Smith sometimes gets frustrated as he learns to create offense and chucks up a long ball. G seems to have made it a point to develop his range and may be trying hard to shoot more 3s this year. I think that facing a 1-3-1 that they did such a great job of attacking last time around to find true, set, open 3 pointers (not just one pass, shoot, one dribble, shoot), put this team in too much of a mindset that they were going to take out Michigan from deep today, and the team was not mentally prepared or focused enough to respond when the 3s were not going in.

Even if is in fact true that the majority of the 3s taken today were open shots that you have to take to beat the 1-3-1 offense, I think that at some point, when it gets that bad, you have to go to Plan B, if you take enough bad shots and miss enough, eventually you get rattled as a team and even good long distance shots stop falling. When this happened, the team stubbornly kept chucking up 3 after 3, and started missing by more. When Marty and Eliot both went in the game, I thought for sure they had been inserted to try to go in a different direction with instructions to athletically attack the basket, and was shocked to see these guys do the exact same thing! Marty managed to get 1 of 3 to fall, while Eliot took the most rushed and worst missing 3 of the game at the worst possible time. Everybody on the team had to be thinking longball, and did not have the mental edge to adjust. The stat of the game, which has not been mentioned nearly enough, is that DUKE DID NOT ATTEMPT A SINGLE FREE THROW IN THE FIRST HALF (apologies for the caps). Unfortunately, it did not appear that the coaching staff was effective at making the adjustment either and was outcoached in this game.

This is not a result of lacking "John Wall" type players who can create shots. We have all seen Singler, Scheyer, G, Nolan, Marty, and Eliot make superior moves attacking the basket, and they are all superior players who can do better. Our inside game did seem to be somewhat effective when we went to it, and Z and Lance really are improving. Zoubek's not gonna make it every time, but he's made a very high percentage this year and can at least try to force the issue and get to the line down there. We know that Duke has always done well when it gets to the line, forces that action, attacks, gets the other team in foul trouble, etc. Yes, I know that the 1-3-1 collapses and dares you to shoot, but we were effective at attacking the interior even today when we made up our minds not to launch a 3 at the first hint of being somewhat open from outside.

I think that the team can really learn from this game but needs to keep its mental focus and be disciplined in its attack. K said it himself: "We were not mentally prepared to play." I think that our players really do need to focus on attacking the basket, and yeah, maybe G and everyone else should try to force the issue more. I don't think that it should have taken til now to figure it out, but maybe the coaching staff wants the players to figure it out for themselves. The good news is that all the physical gifts are still there, and we have smart, skilled players who can get themselves where they need to be over the next 2 months.

footballfan2
12-06-2008, 11:22 PM
Basketball is basketball. JJ isn't playing well now, in part, because he has a short leash and has lost confidence. Even he has acknowledged this in interviews. It isn't about time on the court, it is about flow and confidence. When you know any mistake you make will lead to you coming off the court, you press and do things you don't normally do. JJ had total confidence at Duke because Coach K loved him from the moment he stepped on campus. I did too, don't get me wrong. He had swagger and should have. You can see what has happened as he has been treated like a second rate player over the last 2+ years. Some players don't have the cockiness you need to step in and be a star or even a contributer right away. But, to say that jerking the kid around will help that in anyway is just plain wrong. Anyone who has ever played basketball knows all of these things. People who haven't don't.

sorry I disagree again. basketball is not basketball. Playing one-on-one is not the same as playing 5-on-5. Playing college basketball is not the same as NBA basketball. the NBA is a totally different level of basketball. Why do you think many people think Hansbrough will not do well in the NBA. I'm not too sure many people really thought JJ would be a NBA all-star in the NBA. Yet JJ was an All-American at Duke. Basketball is not basketball.

JJ is not playing well because every person who guards him used to be the stud college player with superior speed, quickness, and strength. Plus these same NBA guys that JJ has to now defend were the ones Coach K had Ewing guard because JJ couldn't guard them.

quickgtp
12-06-2008, 11:26 PM
I think I counted all of one. There was a dunk late where Thomas went the wrong way on a screen, which opened up the entire left side of the floor for Harris. Technically, he scored on Jon. That doesn't mean it's his fault. The help D was poor and, as Bilas said, Duke was looking to deny threes and was willing to give up a backdoor or two.

Not sure what game you saw but I watched Jon get burnt 3 times in the late first half and all of 2nd half....

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 11:29 PM
Wow, there's a lot going on in this thread, and I'm disappointed in the tenor of a lot of the conversation. Anyway, a few hours later, here's what I'm thinking:

-We lost this game more on the defensive end than on offense. When we went ahead 44-40 and 53-50, we couldn't get the stops necessary to make a real run and build a cushion. This team has played great D all year, and could have survived a cold shooting night with the defensive effort we're used to. Recall that we held UM to 56 points at MSG. More importantly, though, our D flowed directly into our offense. It's no secret that we struggled against the 1-3-1 zone, but performed extremely well when Michigan went to man. Well, particularly in the second half, Michigan was dropping back into its zone after a basket (and thus had time to set up), but was playing man off misses. So, literally, good D led to better offensive opportunities for us. We didn't get enough stops to force more man-to-man D.

-The diversion about depth is sort of silly. This game wasn't about how many minutes Elliot Williams or Miles Plumlee played. (Czyz, btw, easily could have redshirted this seaso. No one thinks he is close to ready. He's a long-term project. Please, relax with him.) Eleven guys got into the game in the first half. Elliot didn't get yanked for missing shots -- he hoisted two threes and still played eight minutes, so that wasn't it. At MSG, his D was excellent and he got to the rim and finished. We didn't see that tonight. And Plumlee, right now, is confused. He is missing a number of defensive assignments and going the wrong way on a number of plays on offense. He's learning. I realize that some people feel guys can only improve through game situations (I've played and I disagree), but there are a lot of other guys who can play on this team, there's plenty of depth, and Miles Plumlee wasn't going to change this outcome today. Coach K gave everyone a shot in the first half. Marty had time to launch three treys in his time on the court. This was a team-wide plague.

-I'm not even going to get into this ridiculous recruting discussion. It's just absurd. I think most everyone is on the same page, and it's better to let it go than to keep engaging someone who is just ranting without understanding.

-I have some thoughts that aren't game-specific that I'll try to post later. Oh, and the plus/minus.

Jumbo
12-06-2008, 11:30 PM
Not sure what game you saw but I watched Jon get burnt 3 times in the late first half and all of 2nd half....


I watched Duke play Michigan. So did this guy (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=228180&postcount=130). Perhaps you confused Jon with someone else?

Sir Stealth
12-06-2008, 11:31 PM
Why doesn't Elliot (who granted makes some mistakes) get some more burn? He's definitely athletic enough to keep up on the outside.


Eliot killed me in today's game. I was really excited to see him go in because I thought that of all people, his game is best suited to a circumstance where the team needed to drive and attack at all costs. Yes, I know that the 1-3-1 makes that tough, but we had missed so 3s at this point that we just had to mix it up somehow. I figured Eliot could go in with specific instructions from the coaching staff to get the ball and attack.

So what does he do? The first time he touches it, he launches a hasty 3 that completely misses and ends up with a wide open transition 3 for Michigan on the other end. I'm not trying to hate on Eliot, and I think his ceiling at Duke is incredibly high. I guess I understand to some extent the argument that if he was in more without a short leash then he wouldn't make these kinds of mistakes, but his brief appearance just seemed very representative of the lack of mental discipline that plagued Duke today. In fairness, as K has pointed out (rightly or wrongly), the guy is taking his first ever college exams right now.

dukelifer
12-06-2008, 11:33 PM
A few days ago, UConn the supposed 2nd best team in the nation almost got beat by Buffalo. In many ways this was the same as a loss- as it showed that UConn could be beat on any night by a significantly lesser opponent. This is always a strange time of the year. I don't recall Duke playing two tough back to back real road games around exam time- certainly not in the last 10 years (too lazy to go back further). Interesting to note that in 1997-1998 Duke lost to an unranked Michigan team on Dec 13 (an afternoon game on a Sat), 81-73! Something about playing Michigan at Michigan around exam time!

ice-9
12-06-2008, 11:34 PM
I didn't watch the game (in retrospect, maybe a good thing). But two thoughts that I haven't seen addressed so far:

- While it's true our 3-pt % was bad, the problem doesn't seem to be offense; we lost because of defense. We let Michigan score 81 points! Defense doesn't rely on shooting streaks or momentum; defense is all about intensity, effort, and communication -- things players can control -- and those didn't seem to be there today.

- Zoubek and Thomas together shot 7-9. Those stats indicate to me we could've gone inside more. At 7-9, even if they missed the next 5 shot attempts they'd still be an acceptable 50%. On a day when the 3-pt % isn't there we could've and probably should've gone inside. Forced it inside, even.

All things said though this isn't that bad of a loss. We always seem to lose to someone in December and hopefully Michigan is that loss (as opposed to a start of a trend). Moreover, we beat them convincingly already on a neutral court and it's hard to get up for that kind of rematch...especially with exams, cold weather and the Purdue win also in the background. If we beat Xavier we'll be in fine shape going into conference play.

Sir Stealth
12-06-2008, 11:42 PM
-We lost this game more on the defensive end than on offense. When we went ahead 44-40 and 53-50, we couldn't get the stops necessary to make a real run and build a cushion. This team has played great D all year, and could have survived a cold shooting night with the defensive effort we're used to. Recall that we held UM to 56 points at MSG. More importantly, though, our D flowed directly into our offense. It's no secret that we struggled against the 1-3-1 zone, but performed extremely well when Michigan went to man. Well, particularly in the second half, Michigan was dropping back into its zone after a basket (and thus had time to set up), but was playing man off misses. So, literally, good D led to better offensive opportunities for us. We didn't get enough stops to force more man-to-man D.

I think that this is a very good point. It definitely makes it a lot tougher when they get to set up the 1-3-1 every time, and we were definitely struggling against it. I'm still somewhat surprised that you found most of the shots we took on offense today to be appropriately within the offense. It just seemed to me like we were way to lazy in hoisting up shots without trying to further penetrate their D, and the frustration and stubbornness over the misses only seemed to compound itself. To me, the complete inability to attack and get to the line suggests an inability to make the mental adjustment in this game


-The diversion about depth is sort of silly.

Agreed, but I think the problem was that our bench players seemed to most mentally undisciplined at all. Rather than getting their chance to hastily launch 3s, I would have liked to have seen Marty and Eliot use their driving ability to shake up the attack. Miles needs more time and Olek is out of the picture.


-I'm not even going to get into this ridiculous recruting discussion. It's just absurd. I think most everyone is on the same page, and it's better to let it go than to keep engaging someone who is just ranting without understanding.

Really, really agree. Our players are very good. The problems today did not stem from a lack of basketball skill. K said after the game that the team was mentally unprepared. I'd like to think that no Duke team would ever come into a game this way, but it at least means that the potential of this team remains the same (high).

dukelifer
12-06-2008, 11:45 PM
I didn't watch the game (in retrospect, maybe a good thing). But two thoughts that I haven't seen addressed so far:

- While it's true our 3-pt % was bad, the problem doesn't seem to be offense; we lost because of defense. We let Michigan score 81 points! Defense doesn't rely on shooting streaks or momentum; defense is all about intensity, effort, and communication -- things players can control -- and those didn't seem to be there today.

- Zoubek and Thomas together shot 7-9. Those stats indicate to me we could've gone inside more. At 7-9, even if they missed the next 5 shot attempts they'd still be an acceptable 50%. On a day when the 3-pt % isn't there we could've and probably should've gone inside. Forced it inside, even.

All things said though this isn't that bad of a loss. We always seem to lose to someone in December and hopefully Michigan is that loss (as opposed to a start of a trend). Moreover, we beat them convincingly already on a neutral court and it's hard to get up for that kind of rematch...especially with exams, cold weather and the Purdue win also in the background. If we beat Xavier we'll be in fine shape going into conference play.
Any stat gurus out there know the last time Duke only got 6 free throw attempts for a whole game??? THAT is not Duke basketball

Sir Stealth
12-06-2008, 11:51 PM
I didn't watch the game (in retrospect, maybe a good thing). But two thoughts that I haven't seen addressed so far:

- While it's true our 3-pt % was bad, the problem doesn't seem to be offense; we lost because of defense. We let Michigan score 81 points! Defense doesn't rely on shooting streaks or momentum; defense is all about intensity, effort, and communication -- things players can control -- and those didn't seem to be there today.



Point total notwithstanding our defense seemed pretty good to me for most of the game. Ironically, while we always talk about good defense creating easy offense, I think that our bad offense made it tougher on D in this game. Missed 3s led to transition points for Michigan. We had to work hard to score without the benefit of resting and getting easy points at the foul line. We got thrown out of synch. Michigan hung in and built a swell of momentum. Finally, free throws increased their point total at the end.

People have pointed out getting beaten on the backdoor cuts. Usually, Duke seems to make its top priority agressive ball pressure that helps to eliminate the 3 from the other teams game. For whatever reason, this team does not seem to be as effective at that so far as we have out of the gate in the past few years, when opponents would be completely shut down from distance (the Purdue game was a big exception). When Michigan knocked down a few open 3s, I think that our players may have tried to overcompensate more in denying them. While Duke will always be vulnerable to backdoor cuts this way, I think that it was a particular problem here because we did not effectively shut down the 3 enough early on and sort of scrambled to prevent 3s later in the game. That's more of a guess though that occurred to me in real time.

quickgtp
12-06-2008, 11:53 PM
I watched Duke play Michigan. So did this guy (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=228180&postcount=130). Perhaps you confused Jon with someone else?

You're kidding, right? He said "in the last 5 minutes...." I said I saw Jon get burnt at least 3 times in the late 1st half all the way through the whole 2nd half. Sounds like you are the one that is confused, maybe?

Oriole Way
12-07-2008, 12:10 AM
Wow, there's a lot going on in this thread, and I'm disappointed in the tenor of a lot of the conversation. Anyway, a few hours later, here's what I'm thinking:

-We lost this game more on the defensive end than on offense. When we went ahead 44-40 and 53-50, we couldn't get the stops necessary to make a real run and build a cushion. This team has played great D all year, and could have survived a cold shooting night with the defensive effort we're used to. Recall that we held UM to 56 points at MSG. More importantly, though, our D flowed directly into our offense. It's no secret that we struggled against the 1-3-1 zone, but performed extremely well when Michigan went to man. Well, particularly in the second half, Michigan was dropping back into its zone after a basket (and thus had time to set up), but was playing man off misses. So, literally, good D led to better offensive opportunities for us. We didn't get enough stops to force more man-to-man D.

-The diversion about depth is sort of silly. This game wasn't about how many minutes Elliot Williams or Miles Plumlee played. (Czyz, btw, easily could have redshirted this seaso. No one thinks he is close to ready. He's a long-term project. Please, relax with him.) Eleven guys got into the game in the first half. Elliot didn't get yanked for missing shots -- he hoisted two threes and still played eight minutes, so that wasn't it. At MSG, his D was excellent and he got to the rim and finished. We didn't see that tonight. And Plumlee, right now, is confused. He is missing a number of defensive assignments and going the wrong way on a number of plays on offense. He's learning. I realize that some people feel guys can only improve through game situations (I've played and I disagree), but there are a lot of other guys who can play on this team, there's plenty of depth, and Miles Plumlee wasn't going to change this outcome today. Coach K gave everyone a shot in the first half. Marty had time to launch three treys in his time on the court. This was a team-wide plague.

-I'm not even going to get into this ridiculous recruting discussion. It's just absurd. I think most everyone is on the same page, and it's better to let it go than to keep engaging someone who is just ranting without understanding.

-I have some thoughts that aren't game-specific that I'll try to post later. Oh, and the plus/minus.

I definitely agree that the defense was a bigger issue than many of us have pointed out thus far.

I agree with all your points, but as a huge advocate of getting Williams and Plumlee many more minutes, let me say that by no means do I believe they would have changed the outcome of the game. I am just saying that I would rather lose by more today, or lose games in the future, if it means we can get these kids minutes. Czyz is obviously nowhere close to contributing, but I really think Williams and Plumlee have talents that can help this team win in the near-future. Williams for his ability to create and slash to the rim, Plumlee that ability to run the floor, block some shots, and stick some putbacks.

This is my problem with their playing time tonight: 8 minutes is not enough time for a player to develop, nor have a meaningful impact on the game. I cringed when Miles missed his man right after he came in... he got beat by his man, his man dished off to an open man, and then Miles fouled the shooter under the basket. K doesn't have any patience with those mistakes, and I think he should. Getting those two players meaningful minutes will accelerate their learning curve, and they will be able to contribute more quickly, and it will help this team in March.

If Williams and Plumlee don't show improvement with more minutes, fine, scale their minutes back. At least we'll know for sure that they can't contribute. But right now, they're losing out on the education that real-game minutes provide. You can tell me that these kids learn in practice and that they earn their minutes there, but I'm sure that they hold their own there. If they don't, I would like to hear Coach K say "I'd like to give them more time, but they aren't earning it practice." At that point, I'll concede that they can't contribute. But right now, I see a coach who has little patience with his youngest players, and he relies on his stars too much. He's not getting the maximum efficiency out of his depth.

Like someone pointed out earlier (and as much as I hate to compare us to UNC), Roy Williams gets his freshman tons of minutes, and always has. One important reason guys like Deon Thompson are so polished and improved now is that they took their lumps as freshman. I really think Roy gets his talented freshman - those comparable to Elliot and Miles - more minutes than K does for his. Maybe I'm overestimating the talent of both, but if Williams turns out to be the player I think he will, which is a first or second team all-conference player, then I really think it's unacceptable not to develop him at this stage of the season.

Highlander
12-07-2008, 12:23 AM
Bilas said before the game that Michigan had to do three things to win:

1) hit roughly 10 three pointers. They were 7-16.
2) win the turnover battle. They had 11 to Duke's 13.
3) hold their own on the glass. Rebounding was 33-33.

I'd say they get an A- on that report card. Not bad pregame analysis by the Bilas-strator.

The difference in this game and the last wasn't our offense; we scored 71 last time and won. The difference this time was that we gave up 25 more points on defense. Twenty five more points. That's quite a swing. In addition to our bad defense, we went cold from outside and let Michigan hang around for far too long in this game. When they made a run at the end of the game, we panicked, and a 3 point lead turned into a 7-9 point lead. From there, they just had to hit their FT's down the stretch, which they did. Ballgame.

Granted we had an off shooting game today, and sometimes that happens. I wish we had attacked the rim more, because almost every time we went inside we got points, foul shots, or both. The game reminded me a lot of WVU from last year to be honest. Both games were close in the first half, but we were cold from the outside and didn't get hot until the game was out of reach.

On a larger scale, our lack of a dominant offensive game so far this season has worried me. What I mean by that is we typically score between 70-80 ppg this season. That's not dominant IMO, no matter what you're holding your oppoents to on the defensive end, because we won't be able to hold quality opponents in the 60s very often, if at all. Heck, we'll be lucky if we can keep UNC below 80. At any rate, we'll have to score in the mid to high 80s, because quality opponents are going to score at least 70-80 ppg on us. Right now I have my doubts that we can do that with regularity without getting another 5-10 ppg out of Paulus and/or Henderson. Tonight we got 11 points from G and a goose egg from Paulus. That's not going to get it done.

As to rotation and distribution of minutes, I thought it was fine. We had 8 guys on this team get double digit minutes, and our 9th guy (Williams) played 8 minutes. Only Scheyer played more than 35 minutes. That's a pretty solid rotation IMO. Despite that, we only got 9 points from our bench. Our Freshman played 14 combined minutes, were 1-5 from the floor, and (for all the talk about working it inside) shot 5 threes and zero two's.

I do find it interesting that when Paulus (a senior) misses multiple thress, he needs to be benched, but when Williams (a freshman) does it, he needs more minutes.

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 12:38 AM
You're kidding, right? He said "in the last 5 minutes...." I said I saw Jon get burnt at least 3 times in the late 1st half all the way through the whole 2nd half. Sounds like you are the one that is confused, maybe?

Nope, I don't think I'm confused. I watched Duke's D really closely. Here's the game log (http://www.goduke.com/pdf4/356565.pdf?ATCLID=3629358&SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200). Maybe you can show me all the "Manny Harris layup" entries I'm missing.

Highlander
12-07-2008, 12:48 AM
I meant only Singler (not Scheyer) played over 35 minutes above.

duketaylor
12-07-2008, 12:53 AM
is as good as there are, IMO. He will build UM into the power it once was and do it the right way. He has a great basketball mind and ethics to go with it. Sound familiar? You get my point, I hope. He is sorely missed at UR.
Just a great coach, IMO. I knew today would be a tough game and I thought the previous match-up would be a bear. The Princeton-style back-door cuts is tough to D, it requires a ton of discipline, switching, etc. Plus you can't play soft if the team can hit three's, so it's a double-edged sword. Then they play a D that Duke has issues with when not hitting outside shots, a recurrent theme if I may. Recipe for a loss.
I am glad to see we're doing a better job of rebounding the ball. I do have a question; Brian seemed effective while on the court (I did not see the game-work) so why didn't he play more than 14 minutes-fouls wasn't an issue? I believe I saw he had two. Most amazing stat of the game was Duke only attempted 6 free-throws. Must've been a combo of taking so many 3's and not getting the ball into paint.

bluesin
12-07-2008, 01:49 AM
This is my first post here in 7 years, usually I find that one of the other posters has come and said what I think needs to be said before I get around to saying it. That established there are a couple of things I wanted to put out there, some actually have been said and some haven't.

1. We didn't make open shots. We can find all sorts of different ways to attack the 1-3-1 or whatever other junk defense is being thrown at us all we want but I'd venture ot guess our goal in attacking them would be to get open shots. Say whatever you want about attacking down low, or in the paint, or whatever, if you have open shots you're doing something right, if you miss them you're not shooting well. That doesn't mean you're playing the game wrong. At no point when we had out FT shooting abomination earlier in the year did I hear people saying, well shoot clearly FT's aren't the way to go we need to find another way to score. It's an imperfect analogy but it illustrates the point well enough for me, if you get an open uncontested shot 33 times and you don't make it 30% of the time, whatever shot that is, you're not having a good day.

2. G is having a rough time. He's not scoring and we'd all like him too, part of the problem in a game like today (and to a certain extent other games this year) is he was fouling. A lot. Which makes it pretty difficult to get into any offensive sort of rythm and causes a certain degree of disruption on the defensive end as well. (As a side note I accidentally deleted the DVR recording of the game but I was pretty sure on the initial replay his one block tonight was not goaltending, if anyone could tell me I'm right or wrong I'd appreciate it). He needs to find his groove in the offense again, and tonight wasn't really when he was going to get it. I found it telling that when he did play more minutes in the end of the game he picked up, it seemed to me, on offense.

3. As someone noted above Deon Thompson is as polished as he is now because Roy gave him burn when he was a freshman, which K is not doing with Eliot. The numbers so far fail to back this theory up as DT averaged 12.4 minutes as a freshman while Ewill is averaging over 14 at this point. Now the sample size is not conclusive, but even with his reduced minutes in Purdue and Michigan (which ESPN has listed as 0 as of this writing and not the 8 he actually got) that's MORE time than Thompson.

3a. Plumlee is averaging 8.6 but is about 4 on the depth chart for his position at times (Behind McClure, Lance, Z, and maybe even Singler). Which is including another 0 from ESPN, but to me that's a pretty good job of the coaching staff finding minutes for him to develop.

3b. The shortening of the bench argument that will come up as both Ewill and Miles have had fewer minutes in the past 2 games is not going to fly with me. Freshmen players in big time hostile arenas traveling across the country while preparing for their first year exams and playing at a level they have only just begun to experience should be playing less if the coach thinks they should. He knows their personal lives better than we do, and it can't help to have the stress of all that plus playing 15-20 minutes a game in these places weighing on them, I'd venture to say K is trying to do the best he can for them as people and as his charges, and we should take a moment to try to respect that.

4. Paulus is hurt, Nolan is new at this. Our PG play is not going to be stellar all the time, but it has shown promise and it has room to improve. How much room ot improve did our PG postion have in the last 3 years? So I'll take the positives out of that situation. A week to rest and not travel should do Greg a lot of good, and Nolan should learn an awful awful lot from this game if everything I've seen about his character is close to true.

5. 5 games in 14 days makes anyone tired, especially if you're traveling, studying, practicing, and living a life. Maybe Kyle is tired, if he isn't he's even more of a superman than I already think he is. It's not the same kind of tired you get from grinding yourself to the bone like he did last year. And some of it is surely mental fatigue from everything I've talked about before. The depth argument can come up in March or even February if you insist, I find no place for it before we've even seen them play 10 games, or enter conference play.

6. Let UNC worry about UNC until Feb. 8th. We have a lot to do for ourselves and a lot to talk about that doesn't concern them until after the Miami game. It's fun to speculate, but the speculation I saw engaged in in this thread was notthe fun kind. It'll just drive you crazy.

7. Jon wasn't anything close to a defensive liability today, or any other game I can remember seeing him play. He got beat at most 4-5 times all game, counting the ones Jumbo mentioned. Sometimes you can be a great defender and the guy still makes the shot. That's not getting beat, that's where you give credit to the other guy.

8. Michigan played hard, well, and with a lot of energy and poise. Good for them. I hope they win every other game they play, it'll only help us come tourney time to have a W against them. Nothing should be taken away from those guys, they earned the win as much as our poor play in whatever areas helped them.

9. The recruiting argument makes my head hurt. Ow. I was going to write more, but it hurts so bad.

Sorry to make it so long, but I had a lot bottled up. Our guys didn't play well mentally, they didn't execute like they should have. They know they can do better. This is not a loss that signals the end of days, it's a loss. We could have done a lot better, we could have been more prepared, we weren't and we'll learn from it. We had a bad shooting night on a team with guys we KNOW can shoot, at least to the tune of 35% especially if you take 30ish shoots, they didn't go in. That's all. Credit to Michigan, proud of my team even if it didn't have as much to be proud of as some games. Congratulations to anyone who read this whole thing.

mcdukie
12-07-2008, 06:41 AM
A couple of points:
1) I don't think anyone really showed up outside of Singler and Scheyer somewhat.
2) G really didn't show up at all. You can blame a good deal of that on the zone. A zone can make an athlete disappear. He couldn't get to the hole because of it and never got into the game. It showed he might not be as NBA ready as some people think.
3) Nolan had a rough night plain and simple
4) Something I thought all along is that we will be hurt because we have no inside game. We couldn't throw it inside which would have helped a lot since we weren't hitting threes. The lack of an inside game is why I don't see us a national championship team. Hopefully Plumlee will continue to improve. It still baffles me that in our great recruiting we can't get a big man. The guys we have coming in next year aren't post players per se.

We will rebound but the reality is that we are not the #4 team in the country.

heyman25
12-07-2008, 07:35 AM
Hey bluesin good post. The only thing for sure is we know this team will dust themselves off and get back to work after exams. This team gets great looks for open shots,but we are way down in accuracy.

Supposedly Paulus was or is a great 3 point shooter. All 4 of his shots were uncontested feet planted shots. None were even close to going in. He has over a week off to rest his injuries. Practice doesn't simulate real game time, but that is all they can do.

Now the press is noticing what we all notice, Gerald Henderson is not living up to the preseason hype. His contributions on offense need drastic improvement.Since Singler and Scheyer are likely to have the ball in their hands, they need to feed Henderson cutting to the hoop. He isn't a good 3 point shooter,therefore we need to figure out ways he can score points. Right now Lance Thomas does a better job of getting open close to the goal than Gerald. I believe in Coach K and it is a long season. If we get better in late February and March losses like on December 6 will be beneficial in the long run.

quickgtp
12-07-2008, 07:44 AM
Nope, I don't think I'm confused. I watched Duke's D really closely. Here's the game log (http://www.goduke.com/pdf4/356565.pdf?ATCLID=3629358&SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200). Maybe you can show me all the "Manny Harris layup" entries I'm missing.

So now in order to burn somebody YOU HAVE TO make a layup? Interesting. I also didn't know that Duke played the whole game without having to switch defenders. Harris got by, got around, drove through Jon a few times that I saw, AGAIN, in the late first half and all of second half. First it was "not in the last 5 minutes" and now it is only valid if it turned into a "Manny Harris layup."

Is this the part where I get warned? I like to post here, and the people, but come on man, anytime I disagree with you I get warned or you just keep refusing a legitimate point that I make. I don't post that often because everything is usually covered by the time I get here. I can also admit when I was wrong (see the Williams/Scheyer debates) but know when I have a good add to this board (see the Plumlee starting bit.)

roywhite
12-07-2008, 07:47 AM
Lots of good commentary; just a few quick thoughts the morning after:

1. A healthy Greg Paulus can help a lot; yesterday's game was perfect for his role---come off the bench, hits some 3's, spell Nolan if he wasn't effective; but Greg didn't seem physically up to the task.

2. We need contributions from freshmen Plumlee and Williams. Freshmen seem to develop in fits and starts...two steps forward, one step back. They have the ability and should be more of a factor as the season goes on.

3. A December out-of-conference exam period loss in a hostile environment---not pleasant, but can be an excellent learning tool.

quickgtp
12-07-2008, 08:13 AM
The previous link seems to be flawed in its descriptions. Maybe this link will help some:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId=283410130

MChambers
12-07-2008, 08:25 AM
This is my first post here in 7 years, usually I find that one of the other posters has come and said what I think needs to be said before I get around to saying it. That established there are a couple of things I wanted to put out there, some actually have been said and some haven't.

1. We didn't make open shots. We can find all sorts of different ways to attack the 1-3-1 or whatever other junk defense is being thrown at us all we want but I'd venture ot guess our goal in attacking them would be to get open shots. Say whatever you want about attacking down low, or in the paint, or whatever, if you have open shots you're doing something right, if you miss them you're not shooting well. That doesn't mean you're playing the game wrong. At no point when we had out FT shooting abomination earlier in the year did I hear people saying, well shoot clearly FT's aren't the way to go we need to find another way to score. It's an imperfect analogy but it illustrates the point well enough for me, if you get an open uncontested shot 33 times and you don't make it 30% of the time, whatever shot that is, you're not having a good day.

2. G is having a rough time. He's not scoring and we'd all like him too, part of the problem in a game like today (and to a certain extent other games this year) is he was fouling. A lot. Which makes it pretty difficult to get into any offensive sort of rythm and causes a certain degree of disruption on the defensive end as well. (As a side note I accidentally deleted the DVR recording of the game but I was pretty sure on the initial replay his one block tonight was not goaltending, if anyone could tell me I'm right or wrong I'd appreciate it). He needs to find his groove in the offense again, and tonight wasn't really when he was going to get it. I found it telling that when he did play more minutes in the end of the game he picked up, it seemed to me, on offense.

3. As someone noted above Deon Thompson is as polished as he is now because Roy gave him burn when he was a freshman, which K is not doing with Eliot. The numbers so far fail to back this theory up as DT averaged 12.4 minutes as a freshman while Ewill is averaging over 14 at this point. Now the sample size is not conclusive, but even with his reduced minutes in Purdue and Michigan (which ESPN has listed as 0 as of this writing and not the 8 he actually got) that's MORE time than Thompson.

3a. Plumlee is averaging 8.6 but is about 4 on the depth chart for his position at times (Behind McClure, Lance, Z, and maybe even Singler). Which is including another 0 from ESPN, but to me that's a pretty good job of the coaching staff finding minutes for him to develop.

3b. The shortening of the bench argument that will come up as both Ewill and Miles have had fewer minutes in the past 2 games is not going to fly with me. Freshmen players in big time hostile arenas traveling across the country while preparing for their first year exams and playing at a level they have only just begun to experience should be playing less if the coach thinks they should. He knows their personal lives better than we do, and it can't help to have the stress of all that plus playing 15-20 minutes a game in these places weighing on them, I'd venture to say K is trying to do the best he can for them as people and as his charges, and we should take a moment to try to respect that.

4. Paulus is hurt, Nolan is new at this. Our PG play is not going to be stellar all the time, but it has shown promise and it has room to improve. How much room ot improve did our PG postion have in the last 3 years? So I'll take the positives out of that situation. A week to rest and not travel should do Greg a lot of good, and Nolan should learn an awful awful lot from this game if everything I've seen about his character is close to true.

5. 5 games in 14 days makes anyone tired, especially if you're traveling, studying, practicing, and living a life. Maybe Kyle is tired, if he isn't he's even more of a superman than I already think he is. It's not the same kind of tired you get from grinding yourself to the bone like he did last year. And some of it is surely mental fatigue from everything I've talked about before. The depth argument can come up in March or even February if you insist, I find no place for it before we've even seen them play 10 games, or enter conference play.

6. Let UNC worry about UNC until Feb. 8th. We have a lot to do for ourselves and a lot to talk about that doesn't concern them until after the Miami game. It's fun to speculate, but the speculation I saw engaged in in this thread was notthe fun kind. It'll just drive you crazy.

7. Jon wasn't anything close to a defensive liability today, or any other game I can remember seeing him play. He got beat at most 4-5 times all game, counting the ones Jumbo mentioned. Sometimes you can be a great defender and the guy still makes the shot. That's not getting beat, that's where you give credit to the other guy.

8. Michigan played hard, well, and with a lot of energy and poise. Good for them. I hope they win every other game they play, it'll only help us come tourney time to have a W against them. Nothing should be taken away from those guys, they earned the win as much as our poor play in whatever areas helped them.

9. The recruiting argument makes my head hurt. Ow. I was going to write more, but it hurts so bad.

Sorry to make it so long, but I had a lot bottled up. Our guys didn't play well mentally, they didn't execute like they should have. They know they can do better. This is not a loss that signals the end of days, it's a loss. We could have done a lot better, we could have been more prepared, we weren't and we'll learn from it. We had a bad shooting night on a team with guys we KNOW can shoot, at least to the tune of 35% especially if you take 30ish shoots, they didn't go in. That's all. Credit to Michigan, proud of my team even if it didn't have as much to be proud of as some games. Congratulations to anyone who read this whole thing.

You should post more often. This is one of the best posts in this thread.

ldavid1
12-07-2008, 09:18 AM
I watched the game and from the beginning didn't have a good feeling. After reading alot of the posts here there is alot of chatter about bad D, G not showing up, Nolan looking lost, etc., etc.

The difference in this game was that the guys had a bad shooting game.........PERIOD. Knock down only 3 more shots behind the arc and game over.

We will rarely play the "perfect" game....every game there will be mistakes. For those of you that play the game, or played the game.......you know that sometimes the basket is an ocean and you can't miss, other times it like a cellophane(not sure of spelling) top on it an it just won't fall. Last night was just one of those nights.

The Duke basketball team will be okay. Break it down any way you want....we will be okay.

Let's look forward to showing up at Cameron and supporting the boys as they host UNC Asheville!!

ldavid1
12-07-2008, 09:30 AM
Oriole Way wrote:

This is my problem with their playing time tonight: 8 minutes is not enough time for a player to develop, nor have a meaningful impact on the game. I cringed when Miles missed his man right after he came in... he got beat by his man, his man dished off to an open man, and then Miles fouled the shooter under the basket. K doesn't have any patience with those mistakes, and I think he should. Getting those two players meaningful minutes will accelerate their learning curve, and they will be able to contribute more quickly, and it will help this team in March

I couldn't agree more!! You absolutely cannot replicate game experience in practice. Elliot and Miles are going to be playing with a fear of making mistakes. There is no way they can play up to their potential if they are worried about the horn blowing every time they make a mistake. I have been there and it is a horrible feeling. You feel like you are playing with shackles around your feet.

I would love to see both guys play 15+ minutes against UNC Asheville and continue to log minutes after that so that come tourney time they are tested and ready. Both have the ability......just give them the minutes.

The1Bluedevil
12-07-2008, 11:42 AM
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=494450

"The common theme in Duke's recent early postseason exits has been cold shooting. Part of this falls on Coach K's shoulders because he pushes his starters so much game in and game out that his shooters' legs aren't there in March. There was no need for John Scheyer or Kyle Singler to play 36 minutes against Purdue, a game that wasn't in doubt for at least the final 10 minutes."

Guess teams should just play hard on offense and rest on defense.

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 12:19 PM
So now in order to burn somebody YOU HAVE TO make a layup? Interesting. I also didn't know that Duke played the whole game without having to switch defenders. Harris got by, got around, drove through Jon a few times that I saw, AGAIN, in the late first half and all of second half. First it was "not in the last 5 minutes" and now it is only valid if it turned into a "Manny Harris layup."

The original point discussed Scheyer getting burned on backdoor plays. How often do you see backdoor plays ending in "jump shots." And as everyone knows, I watch Scheyer's D very closely. He rarely got burned by Harris in the half court. Another sign? Harris entered the game averaging almost nine FTA per game. He didn't get to the line once. He's a scorer -- he's going to make a couple of plays. That doesn't mean that Scheyer didn't do an excellent job on him for most of the game. And you're right, Duke does switch defenders on screens. Harris burned a couple of other guys off those switches. Of all the problems in yesterday's game, Scheyer's defense is somewhere around #51.


Is this the part where I get warned? I like to post here, and the people, but come on man, anytime I disagree with you I get warned or you just keep refusing a legitimate point that I make.
Warned? What are you talking about? I don't moderate threads in which I post. I disagree that your point is "legitimate," is all. If you're going to post on a board, you should be able to handle it when people disagree with you, right?


I don't post that often because everything is usually covered by the time I get here. I can also admit when I was wrong (see the Williams/Scheyer debates) but know when I have a good add to this board (see the Plumlee starting bit.)

No one is saying that you do, or don't, add to the board. Why are you taking it to that level? Just so I can be clear -- again -- all I'm saying is that I thought Scheyer played solid D against a very good scorer yesterday.

quickgtp
12-07-2008, 12:37 PM
The original point discussed Scheyer getting burned on backdoor plays. How often do you see backdoor plays ending in "jump shots." And as everyone knows, I watch Scheyer's D very closely. He rarely got burned by Harris in the half court. Another sign? Harris entered the game averaging almost nine FTA per game. He didn't get to the line once. He's a scorer -- he's going to make a couple of plays. That doesn't mean that Scheyer didn't do an excellent job on him for most of the game. And you're right, Duke does switch defenders on screens. Harris burned a couple of other guys off those switches. Of all the problems in yesterday's game, Scheyer's defense is somewhere around #51.


Warned? What are you talking about? I don't moderate threads in which I post. I disagree that your point is "legitimate," is all. If you're going to post on a board, you should be able to handle it when people disagree with you, right?



No one is saying that you do, or don't, add to the board. Why are you taking it to that level? Just so I can be clear -- again -- all I'm saying is that I thought Scheyer played solid D against a very good scorer yesterday.

My point is that Jon got burned numerous times, whether it was a back door play or not. I think Harris had the better of him.

Lord Ash
12-07-2008, 01:49 PM
Anyone else wishing it was RIGHT NOW?

Argh cannot wait until ACC time, when we get two and three games a week.

Lord Ash
12-07-2008, 02:29 PM
I couldn't help but be a little... well, underwhelmed by Coach Beilein's pre-game speech that we caught on ESPN yesterday. "No one is asking you to win four of seven" felt somewhat like saying "Hey, they are better that us normally, but we can beat them once, can't we?" That seems like a bit of a loser-ish approach. And the whole "Hey you can have Sunday off, and Monday too!" bit didn't overwhelm me either. I feel for a game like that the guys should be DYING to get onto the floor and KILL their opponent... a speech more like "This is OUR house; lets go out there and rip their throats out! VENGENCE!!" would have been a bit more inspiring. I don't know... was anyone else notice this?

heavy g
12-07-2008, 02:30 PM
I thought Scheyer got toasted a lot, too. More than usual. You can argue about the gamelog details all you want, but that's the way I saw it.

Jumbo, I have a bit of an issue with how you are calling people out on this thread. You state that you are not moderating threads you are posting on, but it sure doesn't look that way to me in practice. You used the words "silly" and "ridiculous" to describe certain points some people are trying to make, I guess because you deemed them completely invalid and/or didn't like the posters "tone". Then you called out the "tenor of the discussion" and also the guy who just said "get it now" on the first page.

I rarely ever post on this board much because it seems to stifle active, passionate, open debate more often than not.

Ders24
12-07-2008, 02:33 PM
I kind of laughed when I heard it, but it seemed like he knew what he had to say to motivate his team.

robed deity
12-07-2008, 02:45 PM
Tough one, but these losses happen early in the season.

Just wanted to agree that despite the poor shooting, our less than stellar defense (esp. 2nd half) played the biggest role in the loss. Just from playing a little basketball myself, when the offense stalls and open shots aren't going down (to the tune of 3-27 at one point), it is extremely deflating mentally, and makes it difficult to keep the same defensive intensity. It's just human nature. I would like to see this Duke team continue to have the same defensive determination all the time, even when the shots aren't falling. This is the sign of a mature team. Miss a shot-Next play. As Jumbo mentioned, we could have won this game with just a few stops around the 8 min. mark.

rthomas
12-07-2008, 02:51 PM
You don't have to say anything to get your team motivated to play Duke. Nothing.

Truth
12-07-2008, 02:59 PM
I couldn't help but be a little... well, underwhelmed by Coach Beilein's pre-game speech that we caught on ESPN yesterday. "No one is asking you to win four of seven" felt somewhat like saying "Hey, they are better that us normally, but we can beat them once, can't we?" That seems like a bit of a loser-ish approach. And the whole "Hey you can have Sunday off, and Monday too!" bit didn't overwhelm me either. I feel for a game like that the guys should be DYING to get onto the floor and KILL their opponent... a speech more like "This is OUR house; lets go out there and rip their throats out! VENGENCE!!" would have been a bit more inspiring. I don't know... was anyone else notice this?

I felt the exact same way; I even commented to my wife that I felt pretty confident about the game because the Michigan team looked rather apathetic during the speech. Unfortunately, I quickly had to eat those words as the Michigan team played inspired basketball right from the tip. I suspect the home crowd was more of a factor than Beilein's speech, but either way, kudos to Michigan for a great effort on the court.

ugadevil
12-07-2008, 03:01 PM
Jay Bilas made a comment about this during the game. He basically said, "If they can't get up to play a game like this, there's nothing he can say that's gonna change their mind."

John Skorupa
12-07-2008, 03:02 PM
There have been good points made about how various aspects of Duke’s offense were substandard, but I sense those are missing the more compelling point that Duke lost this game on defense.

Even being limited to 73 points on offense, we’d have won all but the Rhode Island game. So the offense, despite its failings wasn’t necessarily a fatal flaw.

The problem was Michigan scored 49 points in the second half.

Jay Bilas was dead-on target when he observed that Duke seemed more fearful of the 3-point shot than the occasional back-door cut or dribble penetration. Unfortunately, this is where I need help understanding the coaching staff’s guidance: as the game played out, we gave up 10-times the number of points to back-door cuts and dribble penetration than we did to 3-point shots. Why wasn’t there an adjustment?

If you are consistently getting burned by Harris and Grady by trying to guard them too closely on the perimeter, why not back off just enough to cut off their drive or cut to the basket? On the other hand, it's fair to say Novak and Sims warranted the “in-your-grill” defense 20-feet from the basket.

Michigan was deliberately manipulating the switching assignments to get mismatches. This is where the coaching staff could have helped. If the whole defense is on the same page, whoever switches to Harris or Grady has to know their first responsibility is to cut off the penetration. By the way, this should be Zoubek’s prime directive whenever he strays beyond 15-feet from the basket as well.

If we can learn these lessons, then we can say, “next play”.

Kedsy
12-07-2008, 03:05 PM
I couldn't help but be a little... well, underwhelmed by Coach Beilein's pre-game speech that we caught on ESPN yesterday.

Well, his approach seems to have worked...

Oriole Way
12-07-2008, 03:37 PM
3. As someone noted above Deon Thompson is as polished as he is now because Roy gave him burn when he was a freshman, which K is not doing with Eliot. The numbers so far fail to back this theory up as DT averaged 12.4 minutes as a freshman while Ewill is averaging over 14 at this point. Now the sample size is not conclusive, but even with his reduced minutes in Purdue and Michigan (which ESPN has listed as 0 as of this writing and not the 8 he actually got) that's MORE time than Thompson.

Thanks for your thoughts. You made several great points, but to address your thoughts about what I posted earlier, Elliot might have gotten a tad more minutes so far, but as I mentioned earlier, ACC play starts soon, and K has always shortened his rotation during the season. We can expect Williams to get substantially less minutes, which is the last thing I want for him and for this team.

We have played several cupcakes thus far in which, theoretically, Elliot will have played the most minutes of the season. His minutes right now, most likely, are at their peak. I'm fairly sure that Williams will average less than 12 minutes a game by season's end. I really hope I'm wrong, but that is what K tends to do, and given how he has used Elliot thus far, I don't see why he would get any more time against ACC opponents, especially away from Cameron. It will be a mistake to give him anything less than 15-20 minutes every night.

Comparing Thompson to Williams may not have been the best example on my part, because big men always get less minutes than guards. Comparing the minutes and usage of Plumlee and Thompson would be more fitting.

Truth
12-07-2008, 03:39 PM
I thought about posting this as a new thread on the EK board, but in reality it does belong in the "post-game" discussion. I just hope it doesn't get lost in the wave of loss backlash...

Anyway, I wanted to ask if anyone can offer opinions to explain our lack of FT attempts in this game, particularly considering that we made a living at the charity stripe in our prior meeting against the Wolverines.

We also shot poorly from 3 in our last matchup vs. Michigan, but our FT attempts allowed us to cruise to victory at the end. Not so this time...

Offhand, I think the refs called a "normal" (and fair) game; we just didn't get many whistles while in the act of shooting. Lack of aggression to driving? Lack of forcing the ball into the post area? Did Michigan make a more conscious effort to leave us open for 3's to discourage penetration, and therefore limit fouling to put us on the line?


Looking for reasoned discussion, not blasting of any players / coaches for "perceived" faults...

pfrduke
12-07-2008, 03:56 PM
Thanks for your thoughts. You made several great points, but to address your thoughts about what I posted earlier, Elliot might have gotten a tad more minutes so far, but as I mentioned earlier, ACC play starts soon, and K has always shortened his rotation during the season. We can expect Williams to get substantially less minutes, which is the last thing I want for him and for this team.

We have played several cupcakes thus far in which, theoretically, Elliot will have played the most minutes of the season. His minutes right now, most likely, are at their peak. I'm fairly sure that Williams will average less than 12 minutes a game by season's end. I really hope I'm wrong, but that is what K tends to do, and given how he has used Elliot thus far, I don't see why he would get any more time against ACC opponents, especially away from Cameron. It will be a mistake to give him anything less than 15-20 minutes every night.

Comparing Thompson to Williams may not have been the best example on my part, because big men always get less minutes than guards. Comparing the minutes and usage of Plumlee and Thompson would be more fitting.

Nolan last year was used similarly to how Williams has been used this year. Maybe a minute or so more on average, but not meaningfully different. In the close, early games last year, Nolan played 10, 14, and 9 minutes. In 18 ACC games, Nolan played 15 minutes just 8 times (6 of those were in the first seven conference games), and 20 only twice. There were several ACC contests where he played 10 minutes or fewer. He seems to have progressed quite nicely.

bass-piscator
12-07-2008, 04:10 PM
Long time fan, long time lurker.

One thing that stuck out to me was that on at least one occassion Zoob was one on one with his defender with space and Nolan ignored him and passed off to someone on the wing. And Zoob was right in front of him. Don't know how he could of missed him. Zoob had his arm up calling for the ball. Do you think this helps our center's confidence? Nolan's got a lot to learn.

My little observations so far in this season......... No one's going NBA from this team.

Truth
12-07-2008, 04:14 PM
My little observations so far in this season......... No one's going NBA from this team.

If you mean "this year," I hope you are right, but I absolutely guarantee you that several players on this year's team will be playing in the NBA in 3 years.

bluesin
12-07-2008, 04:35 PM
We have played several cupcakes thus far in which, theoretically, Elliot will have played the most minutes of the season. ... and given how he has used Elliot thus far, I don't see why he would get any more time against ACC opponents, especially away from Cameron. It will be a mistake to give him anything less than 15-20 minutes every night.



I just don't understand your reasoning, but maybe it's just me. You're right in saying that Elliot has played substantial minutes in some of our cupcakes, 24 against Montana and 23 against Duquesne, which seem like good opportunities for him. But he only scored 4 and 3 points in those games. That's 47 minutes for 7 points. He got time to play, against teams that aren't up to his talent level, and clearly he wasn't able to put the ball through the hoop. Which is probably why in our closest games, when we've needed to score at a high rate to win, he wasn't on the floor. I guess you're saying he needs to play and be allowed to make mistakes. Clearly he's been allowed to do that, but I don't think K is willing to let him make mistakes that contribute significantly to us losing games and aren't good for his confidence. I don't want to see him given 15-20 minutes a game myself, I want to see him "get it" on offense in his limited time in close games, play good to great defense and force K to play him more because he's earned it. I think Plumlee has a similar problem, as he seems to be behind the pace of the game which is a notorious freshman problem.

And no I don't want a rotation of 7 guys in March. Our current rotation which has 9 guys over 10 minutes and 2 at 8 seems to be pretty deep though so I'm personally very happy with that.

I guess with regards to what you're saying I'm just sort of wondering how Ewill getting an extra 10 minutes last night would have helped us win the game with his so far limited offense especially when he hasn't shown that he's a lock down defender either. But maybe I'm missing something, so if you have any ideas I'd be glad to consider them.

bass-piscator
12-07-2008, 04:56 PM
TRUTH,

based on the play so far this year I don't think anyone on this team is going to the NBA. Do think differently? Things may change but, not on anyone's performance so far IMHO. Good thing. Holes beware next year.

Kedsy
12-07-2008, 05:06 PM
I thought about posting this as a new thread on the EK board, but in reality it does belong in the "post-game" discussion. I just hope it doesn't get lost in the wave of loss backlash...

Anyway, I wanted to ask if anyone can offer opinions to explain our lack of FT attempts in this game, particularly considering that we made a living at the charity stripe in our prior meeting against the Wolverines.

We also shot poorly from 3 in our last matchup vs. Michigan, but our FT attempts allowed us to cruise to victory at the end. Not so this time...

Offhand, I think the refs called a "normal" (and fair) game; we just didn't get many whistles while in the act of shooting. Lack of aggression to driving? Lack of forcing the ball into the post area? Did Michigan make a more conscious effort to leave us open for 3's to discourage penetration, and therefore limit fouling to put us on the line?


Looking for reasoned discussion, not blasting of any players / coaches for "perceived" faults...

This certainly is a mystery, and I'm not sure what the answer is. It seemed to me that Michigan played the zone differently this time and we reacted differently. In the first game I felt they were playing tight defense on the perimeter. We required several passes and/or a good skip pass to get the open outside shot, and were often forced to penetrate the seams of the zone, get inside, and create from there. My recollection is Michigan picked up fouls in both situations -- when they were aggressive on the perimeter and when Duke slashed inside.

In this game, Michigan seemed to pack it in a little more, reducing their fouls on the perimeter and making it easier for us to get open 3's (which we by and large missed, but that's not the issue at hand). We managed to get some good inside looks at the basket as well, but they seemed to come more from quick passes to wide open inside guys rather than drives that might have drawn a foul.

That's my muddled observation, anyway.

Kedsy
12-07-2008, 05:09 PM
based on the play so far this year I don't think anyone on this team is going to the NBA. Do think differently? Things may change but, not on anyone's performance so far IMHO.

Singler's probably at least 50/50. G's chances seem to be diminishing but you never know. But that's just for the 2009 draft. As Truth said, several players from this year's team will be in the NBA eventually.

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 05:12 PM
It will be a mistake to give [Williams] anything less than 15-20 minutes every night.

I don't understand this sentiment. Why would it be a mistake? What has he proven yet? Why should he be playing half the game? And from where should those minutes come? Against good teams, I don't want Scheyer and Henderson playing less than 30 minutes. Heck, I don't want Scheyer playing less than 35 in a tight game. So, unless you significantly cut back Jon's and G's minutes (which, again, would be a mistake, because they are significantly better, more experienced players than Williams right now), you are only left with one option to get him your desired PT -- you have to stop playing McClure at the 3 and never play Paulus and Smith together in the backcourt.

I think Williams can provide a defensive spark at times (like he did at MSG) and can get to the basket at times (like he did a bit at MSG). But he has a lot of improvements to make, particularly on the mental end. A lot of those changes need to happen in practice before you see them in a game. You can talk all you want about how practice experience differs from game experience, but if you're missing assignments and not understanding plays in practice, you certainly won't get them right in a game.

Hopefully Elliot will make major strides over the next month in his understanding of the game. If he can give us a solid 10 minutes every night, that should more than sufficient with all the other perimeter firepower this team has.

Oriole Way
12-07-2008, 05:16 PM
I just don't understand your reasoning, but maybe it's just me. You're right in saying that Elliot has played substantial minutes in some of our cupcakes, 24 against Montana and 23 against Duquesne, which seem like good opportunities for him. But he only scored 4 and 3 points in those games. That's 47 minutes for 7 points. He got time to play, against teams that aren't up to his talent level, and clearly he wasn't able to put the ball through the hoop. Which is probably why in our closest games, when we've needed to score at a high rate to win, he wasn't on the floor. I guess you're saying he needs to play and be allowed to make mistakes. Clearly he's been allowed to do that, but I don't think K is willing to let him make mistakes that contribute significantly to us losing games and aren't good for his confidence. I don't want to see him given 15-20 minutes a game myself, I want to see him "get it" on offense in his limited time in close games, play good to great defense and force K to play him more because he's earned it. I think Plumlee has a similar problem, as he seems to be behind the pace of the game which is a notorious freshman problem.

And no I don't want a rotation of 7 guys in March. Our current rotation which has 9 guys over 10 minutes and 2 at 8 seems to be pretty deep though so I'm personally very happy with that.

I guess with regards to what you're saying I'm just sort of wondering how Ewill getting an extra 10 minutes last night would have helped us win the game with his so far limited offense especially when he hasn't shown that he's a lock down defender either. But maybe I'm missing something, so if you have any ideas I'd be glad to consider them.

In regards to your last point... they're buried somewhere in this vast and meandering thread, so I can't expect you to have read them, but I made two previous posts where I specifically said that I would not have expected Elliot to help us win the game yesterday. In fact, I said we probably would have lost by even more. But we were going to lose yesterday regardless, so an extra negative, or loss if you will, is that a talented guard who we could use later in the season, didn't get valuable minutes. Even worse, you have to imagine his confidence is shaken when he gets pulled after making a couple of mistakes, never to see the floor again. This isn't good for his development.

You make valid points about his point production, but he hasn't taken very many shots whatsoever. Even when Elliot has been on the floor, he has been the 3rd or 4th scoring option at best. While that will always be the case regardless, I think it's unfair to criticize his lack of scoring thus far. In games like Duquesne and Presbyterian, he saw most of his time in garbage time, when the game has already been decided and Duke is just milking the clock. You'll usually see Duke as a team be least offensively efficient in those instances, since they are not trying to score, and they are not trying to show up their opponents. Hence, the Duke drought and simultaneous Duquesne run at the end of the game against Duquesne.

I think Elliot had his two best outings against Southern Illinois and Michigan in New York. In those two games, in which he only played 14 minutes per game, he went 3-4 from the field and 4-4 from the free throw line (all against SIU). Each of his made baskets were made slashing to the basket and finishing, and his free throws were a result of drives. Those two skills are exactly what this team was lacking yesterday, and where he can help in the future. I'm not saying he would have made a difference yesterday. But getting him more minutes will make a difference in the future. And if he doesn't produce given more minutes, then we'll know he can't contribute this year.

I am willing to lose more games in the future if it means getting Elliot more minutes. I really think this kid is talented enough to make a difference. I believe he could be very similar to Daniel Ewing during his first two seasons. In fact, I think he may be more talented. I would love to see Elliot get similar minutes to Daniel's first two seasons (18 and 27). Daniel played for a more talented but less deep team and had moments of real impact. I think Elliot could do the same, but I want to see him get the chance.

Classof06
12-07-2008, 05:23 PM
- This isn't a loss that's going to keep me up at night. If you don't hit shots, you're going to have a hard time winning. Learn from it and get better. I don't mind the guys having 10, 11 days with this taste in their mouth, though.

- With the exception of the fact that we didn't get dominated on the boards (33 to 33) Michigan won this game by doing what WVU did to us last March; they made us into a jump shooting team and did it on a night where we happened to be cold from the field. The problem is that, like the WVU game, Duke didn't acknowledge the apparent lid on the basket and kept throwing up 3s, which leads me to my next point...

- Duke shoots and has always shot a lot of 3s, but they have to learn how to adjust (ie: attack the rim) when their shots aren't falling. Hindsight is 20/20 but when you end up 7-33 from behind the arc, you probably shouldn't have taken 33 threes to begin with. You remember how badly we shot against WVU? Well, we had ELEVEN more attempts yesterday and made only two more. I'm not saying stop shooting 3s if you're not hot at first, but 33 attempts is excessive, IMO. We did see a lot of zone, but still.

- On a related note, when the threes aren't falling, every time Duke forgets to attack the basket and get to the free throw line, they pay the price. And without a dominant big man, they will continue to.

- I thought Zoubek especially played another great game and I don't think we used him enough down the stretch. You can say you can't put Zoubek in because he was having problems with Sims, but the way Sims was playing, nobody was stopping him. Zoubek was converting his opportunities (4-6 from field) and rebounding well (8 in 14 minutes), so there was no reason for him to only play 14 minutes when he wasn't in any foul trouble. I think he could've helped and Brian continues to impress me more with each passing game.

- Yesterday was one of those games where I was waiting for Henderson to really explode in crunchtime. He actually did have a solid game despite being hindered by foul trouble. But the 2nd half was a half where Duke needed to attack and get to the basket and nobody on Duke's roster can do that like Henderson can.

Oriole Way
12-07-2008, 05:25 PM
I don't understand this sentiment. Why would it be a mistake? What has he proven yet? Why should he be playing half the game? And from where should those minutes come? Against good teams, I don't want Scheyer and Henderson playing less than 30 minutes. Heck, I don't want Scheyer playing less than 35 in a tight game. So, unless you significantly cut back Jon's and G's minutes (which, again, would be a mistake, because they are significantly better, more experienced players than Williams right now), you are only left with one option to get him your desired PT -- you have to stop playing McClure at the 3 and never play Paulus and Smith together in the backcourt.

I think Williams can provide a defensive spark at times (like he did at MSG) and can get to the basket at times (like he did a bit at MSG). But he has a lot of improvements to make, particularly on the mental end. A lot of those changes need to happen in practice before you see them in a game. You can talk all you want about how practice experience differs from game experience, but if you're missing assignments and not understanding plays in practice, you certainly won't get them right in a game.

Hopefully Elliot will make major strides over the next month in his understanding of the game. If he can give us a solid 10 minutes every night, that should more than sufficient with all the other perimeter firepower this team has.

To address the playing time issue, I think you pretty much solved it yourself. I don't think Greg and Nolan playing together at the same time is good for this team. Obviously Greg isn't healthy, but I would still like to see Smith and Paulus used in each other's stead. As I mentioned before, Paulus is playing hurt and likely aggravating his assortment of injuries every time he plays, and his play is hurting himself and the team. K needs to sit him for at least two games to get him 100%. In that time, give all of his minutes to Williams and we can see if Williams can make any of the strides you mentioned. But if he gets 10 minutes a game, with the lack of patience K has demonstrated thus far with him, being the 4th scoring option most of the time, we're not going to see very much.

I have watched Duke closely for more than a decade. I was lucky enough to be in school at Duke to witness some of the best teams of the K era, from 1998-2002. I know talent when I see it, and Elliot has the ability to be an excellent guard. He's not getting enough time on the court.

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 05:38 PM
To address the playing time issue, I think you pretty much solved it yourself. I don't think Greg and Nolan playing together at the same time is good for this team. Obviously Greg isn't healthy, but I would still like to see Smith and Paulus used in each other's stead. As I mentioned before, Paulus is playing hurt and likely aggravating his assortment of injuries every time he plays, and his play is hurting himself and the team. K needs to sit him for at least two games to get him 100%. In that time, give all of his minutes to Williams and we can see if Williams can make any of the strides you mentioned. But if he gets 10 minutes a game, with the lack of patience K has demonstrated thus far with him, being the 4th scoring option most of the time, we're not going to see very much.

I have watched Duke closely for more than a decade. I was lucky enough to be in school at Duke to witness some of the best teams of the K era, from 1998-2002. I know talent when I see it, and Elliot has the ability to be an excellent guard. He's not getting enough time on the court.

I don't understand why you don't consider 10 mpg "enough time." That's a quarter of the game. That's a real contribution. I agree that Elliot has a lot of potential down the road, but he has a lot of weaknesses as well, and not all of them will go away this year, regardless of how much time he gets. Part of that is just being a freshman. And he has to earn his minutes -- Paulus, Pocius and McClure are veterans and Williams shouldn't just be handed PT over them.

And, I've told a related story dozens of times on this board, but sometimes if you play guys too much, too early, when they are doing the wrong thing, it actually retards their development, rather than enhancing it.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
12-07-2008, 05:38 PM
Yesterday was one of those games where I was waiting for Henderson to really explode in crunchtime. He actually did have a solid game despite being hindered by foul trouble. But the 2nd half was a half where Duke needed to attack and get to the basket and nobody on Duke's roster can do that like Henderson can.

I think everyone knows that this is the $64,000 question (although it may be the $64,000,000 question for G if scouts are paying attention) but I'm really baffled. G had very serious anxiety issues his first year, but last season he seemed to find his game, especially by the end of the season. Is there some injury we aren't aware of? Are we not getting him the ball at the right points? Is K's in-your-face style not right for his laid-back attitude? Does someone have a voodoo doll?

Last night's stinker notwithstanding, I love what I've seen from the team so far, but without G our ceiling is significantly lower. G has contributed in a lot of ways, but he seems completely unable to assert himself with any regularity. Does anyone have any idea why our most talented guy is currently looking like our 6th best player? We're all cheering for you, G.

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 06:12 PM
I think everyone knows that this is the $64,000 question (although it may be the $64,000,000 question for G if scouts are paying attention) but I'm really baffled. G had very serious anxiety issues his first year, but last season he seemed to find his game, especially by the end of the season. Is there some injury we aren't aware of? Are we not getting him the ball at the right points? Is K's in-your-face style not right for his laid-back attitude? Does someone have a voodoo doll?

Last night's stinker notwithstanding, I love what I've seen from the team so far, but without G our ceiling is significantly lower. G has contributed in a lot of ways, but he seems completely unable to assert himself with any regularity. Does anyone have any idea why our most talented guy is currently looking like our 6th best player? We're all cheering for you, G.

And what's weird about it is he has addressed his biggest weaknesses from last year. Early last season, he was playing somewhat selfishly. He was a head-down driver. His court vision was really poor. Now, he's sharing the ball, playing with his head up, not forcing anything. He has matured as a player.

G stil has some real weaknesses. He's not a great ball-handler. His range is solid, but not great. His lateral movement leaves something to be desired. But yeah, he's capable of much more than what we've seen.

I have two theories. 1) He had major wrist surgery. It's possible that he's still not all the way back. 2) Our expectations are too high for him. When he came to Duke, I heard him compared to Dahntay Jones. I think most posters think he is better than that, and certainly expect him to be. But what if he's not? What if he's just an incredible athlete who is a straight-line driver and inconsisten jump shooter on offense?

I'm not sure either theory is sufficient. But I don't have any answers, either.

bass-piscator
12-07-2008, 06:12 PM
Did no one else see Brain calling for the ball, with oportunity, and being ignored? No?

Truth
12-07-2008, 07:00 PM
And what's weird about it is he has addressed his biggest weaknesses from last year. Early last season, he was playing somewhat selfishly. He was a head-down driver. His court vision was really poor. Now, he's sharing the ball, playing with his head up, not forcing anything. He has matured as a player.

G stil has some real weaknesses. He's not a great ball-handler. His range is solid, but not great. His lateral movement leaves something to be desired. But yeah, he's capable of much more than what we've seen.

I have two theories. 1) He had major wrist surgery. It's possible that he's still not all the way back. 2) Our expectations are too high for him. When he came to Duke, I heard him compared to Dahntay Jones. I think most posters think he is better than that, and certainly expect him to be. But what if he's not? What if he's just an incredible athlete who is a straight-line driver and inconsisten jump shooter on offense?

I'm not sure either theory is sufficient. But I don't have any answers, either.

Agreed, Gerald has made significant progress in his time with Duke. I am much less fearful of charging calls than I was earlier in his career, and he has developed a much improved court vision in terms of finding open teammates. Additionally, he has proven quite effective as a rebounder and I believe he leads the team in blocks (I know he did last year).

I think the Dahntay Jones comparison is decent. I do think Dahntay had more swagger, but I also believe that Gerald will develop this at some point. We can see it in flashes, but not yet sustained. I still believe Gerald will develop into an offensive force in the coming months. But I've been wrong before...

On the bright side though, if Gerald does not develop into an offensive force for us this year, he will likely do so for us next year.

Truth
12-07-2008, 07:04 PM
Did no one else see Brain calling for the ball, with oportunity, and being ignored? No?

I have seen Brian get overlooked at times when I thought he had established position, but I do not recall it happening regularly enough to warrant concern.

If anything, I suspect that we are so used to watching Zoubek struggle to establishing good position, that when he finally succeeds, we are dismayed when he doesn't get the ball. If Zoubek was establishing good position with increased frequency, I think he'd be getting the ball more, and I don't think we'd be having the discussion about the 1-2 times per game when he is overlooked.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
12-07-2008, 07:12 PM
I have two theories. 1) He had major wrist surgery. It's possible that he's still not all the way back. 2) Our expectations are too high for him. When he came to Duke, I heard him compared to Dahntay Jones. I think most posters think he is better than that, and certainly expect him to be. But what if he's not? What if he's just an incredible athlete who is a straight-line driver and inconsisten jump shooter on offense?

I'm not sure either theory is sufficient. But I don't have any answers, either.

Based on the "exercise-induced asthma" stuff my first inclination is to assume mental/confidence issues. You note that he's more unselfish this season, but I'm not sure that's an entirely good thing. Kyle killed us last night with his outside shooting, but he is a guy that has the faith in himself to demand the ball and keep taking good shots, even if they keep not going in. It seems like G just doesn't have that attitude. When K has forced him to take over on a specific play (Belmont springs to mind) G is great, but it seems like he's not comfortable asserting himself regularly over the course of a game. G is a golfer at heart and maybe he's just not prepared for the social aspects of leading a team, or even demanding shots within the offense. G is not Grant Hill, obviously, but I remember Hill having the same problem of deferring too much early on in his career.

OTOH, to buttress your point about not being back from surgery, I notice that we have yet to try any of those great set-play ally-oops that were so successful last season (often out-of-bounds plays). It may be that G's wrist still hurts, especially when absorbing contact, dunking, etc. Or at least that he's expecting pain when he does those things and is tentative as a result.

Your Dahntay Jones theory may be correct, but it's a bit too depressing for a chilly Sunday night. G has all the physical tools to be a star. As you note, he has some skills missing, but those can come with time and effort. We'll see in time what he develops into, but for now I'm going to hope that there's some block (mental or physical) that he can overcome and become the creative and dominant force that this team needs him to be. From what I've seen his attitude remains great and he's doing so many little things that the effort seems to be there.

bass-piscator
12-07-2008, 07:19 PM
I believe you are wrong. Zoob can be a force on this team. He was the best inside presence yesterday. The team (and coaches need to look for him) otherwise I don't think we're going far this year.

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 07:52 PM
I believe you are wrong. Zoob can be a force on this team. He was the best inside presence yesterday. The team (and coaches need to look for him) otherwise I don't think we're going far this year.

Define "force." How many of his baskets did he create on his own? What happened when we asked him to create on his own?

pfrduke
12-07-2008, 07:59 PM
Define "force." How many of his baskets did he create on his own? What happened when we asked him to create on his own?

He had one very, very pretty spin move from the left block. He had trouble sealing off his guy to catch the ball on a couple entries. He had one really ugly move toward the baseline from the right block where he short-armed a five-footer that barely got to 10' of elevation. Near as I can recall, those were the plays where he was asked to create on his own. The problem for asking him to do so when they were in zone is that it was a double/triple-team waiting to happen.

Zoubek is a useful player who has good floor sense, and is good a) passing the ball to cutters out of the post and b) capitalizing on opportunities others create. He's not a guy we can feed 10-15 times a game in the post and ask him to score. He may be if he gets a lot of footwork work, but he's certainly not yet.

DukeUsul
12-07-2008, 08:10 PM
I agree. I can't read any of these threads on the main board. I need another game before I can come back here.

Kedsy
12-07-2008, 08:11 PM
Unfortunetly we just laid the blueprints to our opposition on how to beat us.

What, play a 1-3-1 defense against us and give up a lot of open three point opportunities? I hope everyone uses that "blueprint."

bass-piscator
12-07-2008, 08:15 PM
and the next time we meet a moderately strong opponent and our 3s don't fall you will say what? Jumbo, etal al, you should replace Coach. You seem to know everything and have a very high opinion of your opinion. Some modesty perhaps upon occassion.

Kedsy
12-07-2008, 08:19 PM
Enough recruiting talk after losses. How about a question for everyone. Watching Duke miss several wide open three pointers today, I asked myself was that really good defense or just a bad night shooting. I truly believe a defense like that can't possible win six games in March and early April. I know Syracuse ran a zone in 03 but I'm trying to remember a team that just sat back and hoped teams missed threes all night and won it all? UNLV's Amiba was hardly sitting back so I'm not counting that. Now no way am I saying Michigan is at that level but personally I feel zone for an entire game is very risky for championship success.

Michigan played a good game, but I don't think anybody in the country, not even Beilein's mom, thinks Michigan is a national championship contender.

Kedsy
12-07-2008, 08:21 PM
so why aren't we ranked at least #2?

Going into the Michigan game we were ranked #4. You think there's a meaningful difference between #2 and #4 in an early December poll?

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 08:22 PM
and the next time we meet a moderately strong opponent and our 3s don't fall you will say what? Jumbo, etal al, you should replace Coach. You seem to know everything and have a very high opinion of your opinion. Some modesty perhaps upon occassion.

That's ironic since, you know, you're the one professing to know more than Coach K (or was K not responsible for the lack of touches for Zoubek?). I apologize for wondering why Brian Zoubek should be labeled a "force".

Bob Green
12-07-2008, 08:22 PM
Zoubek looks really good at times. The first two points scored in the game is an example as is the spin move he executed on the baseline. unfortunately, when Zoubek looks bad he looks really bad. The clumsy shortarmed shot when he stumbled for example. Zoubek is improving and will continue to score and rebound for us but he isn't going to be a double-double performer this year. We need him to be steady not spectacular.

Kedsy
12-07-2008, 08:54 PM
As a side note I accidentally deleted the DVR recording of the game but I was pretty sure on the initial replay his one block tonight was not goaltending, if anyone could tell me I'm right or wrong I'd appreciate it.

To me it looked like the ball was coming down when he swatted it (i.e., yes, goaltending). I also believe he had two other blocks in the game (that weren't whistled away).

Kedsy
12-07-2008, 09:10 PM
Your Dahntay Jones theory may be correct, but it's a bit too depressing for a chilly Sunday night.

What would be wrong with having Dahntay Jones? His senior year he averaged 17.7 ppg, 5.5 rpg, and was a defensive force. I'd take that from G, gladly.

mike88
12-07-2008, 09:23 PM
Your Dahntay Jones theory may be correct, but it's a bit too depressing for a chilly Sunday night. G has all the physical tools to be a star. As you note, he has some skills missing, but those can come with time and effort. We'll see in time what he develops into, but for now I'm going to hope that there's some block (mental or physical) that he can overcome and become the creative and dominant force that this team needs him to be. From what I've seen his attitude remains great and he's doing so many little things that the effort seems to be there.

I for one would be very happy if Gerald ends up "just" reaching Dahntay's level. Dahntay was a great defender; first team all-ACC and honorable mention All-American in 2003; a first round NBA draft pick that summer; and he is now starting for Denver, one of the better teams in the NBA. He also happens to be a very nice guy - very down to earth.

One thing I have noticed is that teams are more focused on stopping Gerald this year. He still has trouble going to his left with the same strength and skill as when he drives right; this makes it hard for him to score regularly against good defensive teams. Teams also seem to be recognizing and defending against the lob. I have been impressed that gerald has found other ways to contribute, and doesn't appear to be getting down. I think we will see him progress offensively as the year goes on, but I don't see him putting up 15-20 a game, especially not when Kyle and Jon are (appropriately) getting many shots.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
12-07-2008, 09:34 PM
What would be wrong with having Dahntay Jones? His senior year he averaged 17.7 ppg, 5.5 rpg, and was a defensive force. I'd take that from G, gladly.

Dahntay, like DeMarcus last year, was a very good complimentary player asked to lead a team with no real stars. I'm incredibly proud of what both guys contributed to undermanned teams, but neither guy was, IMO, the sort of stud that leads a team to the Final Four.

If that really is G's ceiling, so be it and I'll be proud of him for maximizing his potential. Based on his physical gifts and the flashes we've seen so far, I think G could blossom into a superstar. The sort of player that can put a team on his back and command consistent double-teams. Whatever G is, he is, and we're all really glad to have him on our team. But when he came in not many people expected a four-year ACC guy who never sniffs All-American status.

lifelongdevil
12-07-2008, 10:09 PM
I have a problem with those saying that G hasn't recovered from wrist surgery. In both the preseason practices and the blue white game he looked awesome and everyone was talking about how he had seriously stepped up both his shooting and his game. I don't think that wrist injuryhas reappeared in the interim.

I think our system just doesnt fit the athletic slashing 2/3 very well. Every big time 2/3 guard weve had has been an excellent shooter, something G is not(competent yes, but excellent no). At times he seems forgotten in the offense.

dukelifer
12-07-2008, 10:20 PM
I have a problem with those saying that G hasn't recovered from wrist surgery. In both the preseason practices and the blue white game he looked awesome and everyone was talking about how he had seriously stepped up both his shooting and his game. I don't think that wrist injuryhas reappeared in the interim.

I think our system just doesnt fit the athletic slashing 2/3 very well. Every big time 2/3 guard weve had has been an excellent shooter, something G is not(competent yes, but excellent no). At times he seems forgotten in the offense.

It seems like the system is all about players who can slash. Grant was a slasher. Dahntay Jones and Demarcus Nelson were both slashers. Dahntay is a good comparison in my mind. His senior year, Dahntay averaged 18 ppg and 5.5 rpg. That would be a good numbers for G. In an interview I saw- G says that he plays his best when he gets mad. Singler seems to play better mad also. Somebody needs get both of these guys very angry before each game!

throatybeard
12-07-2008, 11:18 PM
Poor Marty Pocius. Doesn't even get to graduate before Elliot Williams seizes the title of most fetishized bench player.

jv001
12-07-2008, 11:21 PM
I decided to let some time pass b-4 posting on this game as I recorded it and was able to go back and look at it. So here goes:
Michigan came out strong and got their fans into it and they(fans) stayed in the game for 40 mins. Our 3's were mainly on target but short. 2nd half we come out with two bad passes to Brian and one bad pass to Kyle all inside. Jon then makes a great pass to a cutting Kyle which sort of steaded us for awhile. Late in the game: Kyle misses 3 layups he normally makes, he makes one of two fts then makes two fouls he normally does not make. Jon has two defensive break downs but should have had help defense.

Kyle looked tired and I think this is from his hard play. On defense he switches on almost all screeens. This causes him to guard the 1-5 positions. Is 36 mins back to back too many mins for him to be our go to guy? Gerald played well in the 2nd half but no where to be seen in the first half. Is he trying to find his place in this years offense? Brian played well but only 14 mins. Is he out of shape, still not 100% or just Coach k's style to play small in for most of 2nd half? 3 pt shooting leads to long rbs no defense set up.

jv001
12-07-2008, 11:27 PM
Is this years team hurt by the longer 3 pt distance? E. Williams looks good on defense but very poor outside shooter. He seems to have a good looking shot. Could it be confidence? Marty is 1-3 from 3pt territory. That's 33% and good enough for a victory if we shoot that as a team. Should he have had more mins? Surely more than Williams? Are we a good, great, bad or avg 3 pt shooting team? If bad we better figure out another offensive scheme because we will be just like last years team come March. We have guys that can put the ball on the floor and drive(Kyle and Jon). Maybe a 3rd in Gerald. However that is not the way to beat a 1-3-1 defense. Base line play is the answer for that. So why did we not try it more? Well these are a lot of questions to be answered in about 10 days. Go Duke!

Sir Stealth
12-07-2008, 11:35 PM
Add me to the list of people who would like to see G play anywhere near the level of Dahntay Jones. Dahntay wasn't the greatest player we've ever had lead a team, but when we needed tough points his senior year, he took it strong to the hold and tried to make things happen. That 2003 relied on unpolished freshman and had lost a ton from the year before, and we only went down to a strong Kansas team, not a team well below our level. I felt confident with Dahntay putting the team on his back and making plays when the pressure was on.

We all know what G can do. He needs to force the action a little bit more. I don't mind seeing him commit some charges. I'd rather see him get called for a charge than miss 2 3s in a row. Obviously he shouldn't play selfishly or interrupt the flow of the offense, but on Saturday every player was guilty of doing that in the form of taking the quick 3 (sometimes open, sometimes kinda, sometimes just chucking it up lazily). I'd like to see G take the lead and at least try to get to the free throw line. I'm still confident that he'll figure it out.

Kilroy
12-07-2008, 11:35 PM
Hi gang...been a lurker here for years...but the loss finally forced me to ask this because I have been curious all of these years...always comes to my mind in some loses:

Why does K pull his center out of the paint on D? Especially when you are getting beat on back-doors.

Kedsy
12-07-2008, 11:52 PM
Dahntay, like DeMarcus last year, was a very good complimentary player asked to lead a team with no real stars. I'm incredibly proud of what both guys contributed to undermanned teams, but neither guy was, IMO, the sort of stud that leads a team to the Final Four.

If that really is G's ceiling, so be it and I'll be proud of him for maximizing his potential. Based on his physical gifts and the flashes we've seen so far, I think G could blossom into a superstar. The sort of player that can put a team on his back and command consistent double-teams. Whatever G is, he is, and we're all really glad to have him on our team. But when he came in not many people expected a four-year ACC guy who never sniffs All-American status.

OK, but we already have a star (Singler), and if G reached Dahntay levels we'd have two, because if he could reprise Dahntay's stats, he'd be our team's leading scorer, 2nd leading rebounder, and a first-team all-ACC defensive player. With his athleticism and reputation, those numbers would not only get him a sniff of All-American status, they'd give Duke a pretty fair chance to meet our team goals, including the Final Four. So I'm glad you'll settle for that, but I'd be absolutely thrilled.

wisteria
12-08-2008, 01:22 AM
I'm not a basketball guru or anything, so I'm just throwing out some guesses here. Could it be that G's subpar O performance is due to lack of plays set for him? I mean... could it be that Kyle and Jon (especially Kyle) are our primarily scorer right now, that K, or our system, just doesn't look for G that much? Or in other words, are we using G in a wrong way, not putting him into a position that he can be more successful offensively? I remember reading a post on our rivals board, someone was saying that GH senior was seen on TV sort of complaining about how the guys don't set plays for GH junior. (It could be just completely wrong lip-reading.)

Anyways, I along with everybody really hope that G can develop as another primary scorer. With Kyle alone leading points, rebounds, and assists, our team is kinda vulnerable.