PDA

View Full Version : You Can't Have it Both Ways



Jumbo
12-07-2008, 01:14 AM
I've read just about every post on the board since the Michigan game, and the nature of many of them continues to amaze me. It's not that we haven't been down this road before -- overreacting to a loss -- but the grand pronouncements based on one 40-minute session of basketball are just so over the top that they warrant a more general discussion that doesn't center around one game.

What's the biggest issue? The loss to Michigan, in many respects, was exactly what some people have been saying they wouldn't mind. For years, members of this board have complained about Duke's early schedule. We should play more true road games, they said. We should play better opponents, they said. They'd sacrifice a couple of losses in November/December for more success in conference play and -- especially -- the NCAA Tournament. They'd rather see young players struggle early in the season, but be given the chance to learn through their mistakes so that they can be more dangerous down the road. Remember all those discussions? I do. Heck, they dominated the board for much of this summer.

So, what happened today? One loss, and all of those nice little theories and promises are forgotten. We play two games in one week in hostile environments. The first is against a top-10 team that we beat easily. The second is a rematch against a team with an odd style of play, in a rough setting, after flying in the night before while kids are preparing for finals. We lose. Nolan Smith struggles to run the point, but K opts to keep him in and let him play through it, rather than reflexively turning to his senior, three-year starter, who is sitting on the bench, knowing Smith could lift the team to a different level in March. Okay, that's what we were willing to deal with when we signed on for this different approach, right? Everything's cool, right? We'll deal with the loss, the mistakes, the short-term consequences. Uh, no, apparently not.

Look, people, you can't sit here and complain about how you want the team to peak in March and expect to win every single game. That's beyond crazy. Even the best Duke teams lost games. Whether those teams peaked in December or March, they lost games. No one enjoys losses. But they happen. And sometimes they don't mean anything more than the fact that the team played poorly that day.

I've read a lot about how this game was "reminiscent" of past losses. Well, you know what? Most losses feel the same. Duke plays a similar style, year-in, year-out. When Duke loses, chances are fewer shots go in than usual. Chances, are the team doesn't get key stops. Chances are, a couple of guys have an off-night. Chances are, it feels crappy.

But to read so much into this loss that it significantly changes your opinion of how deep this team can go? Give me a break. When the 2003-04 team lost in Alaska to an unranked Purdue squad, was it doomed? What about when the 2000-01 team blew a December game at Stanford? How about the 1999-2000 team's back-to-back losses to open the season? The 1998-99 team's loss to Cincinnati in Alaska? As somene else mentioned, the 1997-98 squad lost 81-73 on the road against an unranked Michigan team (sound familiar?). Go back through the schedules of the 7-Final Fours-in-9-years teams. They lost games early in the season, too.

If you want this team to test itself early in the year, you have to be willing to deal with it if they fail an occasional quiz or two. There were no fundamental flaws exposed against Michigan. There's no reason why the team can't continue to get better. A lot can change between now and March. I don't think the team is sitting around, lamenting its fate, worrying that it has been exposed and that a bitter March is a foregone conclusion. So why would anyone here take that approach? It makes no sense, especially if you've been downplaying December in favor of March, anyway. Come on, everyone. We can do better than this.

Ben63
12-07-2008, 01:33 AM
Extremely well thought out and well said, as usual, Jumbo.

Last year I was one of those idiots who came on the boards and was bombs away. I was tempted to do the same today with about 6 minutes left and even though we were still in it, I could just sense the imminent defeat. But I stopped, thought about it, and did not say one thing in the post game thread. There were positives, but I felt no need to express them amongst all of the negativity. I have been on DBR for exactly one year, and have gotten farther and farther away from the post game threads, even after wins.

Don't get me wrong, I love DBR and will be on here for years to come, but the way some people act on gameday, especially after losses really bothers me. I agree with everything Jumbo said and just wish some people would use some decency and thought when it comes to posting.

Last year I would get really into the games and I would be miserable for a few days after losing. Negative posts on here (by me and others) just added fuel to the fire. It sucked to watch us perform at that level today, but I was not really down after the loss. Yes, I was disappointed, but I turned off the TV and went on with my day in a positive attitude. I feel a really good season for the Devils this year, and I will be right their supporting my favorite team through all of the ups and downs, and whatever happens in March, I will be proud to be a Devils fan.

bfree
12-07-2008, 02:13 AM
They'd sacrifice a couple of losses in November/December for more success in conference play and -- especially -- the NCAA Tournament. They'd rather see young players struggle early in the season, but be given the chance to learn through their mistakes so that they can be more dangerous down the road. Remember all those discussions?

Elliot Williams, G 8 0-2 0-2 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miles Plumlee, F 2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

ESPN doesn't even know Olek exists (a top 100 recruit).

I indeed would rather see young players struggle early in the season, but given the chance to learn through their mistakes so that they can be dangerous down the road.

I really don't care about a non-conference loss in December. A non-conference loss in December which might make us more likely to lose in February and March (pounding on our most important players, further damage to the confidence of our freshman) makes me want to throw my laptop through a window!

Or it could be cramming for finals! Gotta keep things in perspective.

jma4life
12-07-2008, 05:29 AM
Some of the posters here remind me of when I would cry after regular season losses when I was like ten years old.

It's always annoying to lose the games but as has been stated, to make grand sweeping conclusions based on a single game is just ludicrous. We lose a couple more, fine but at this point, Duke had one bad game. Think about how often the worst team in the NBA loses to a mid ranked team in the NBA. You won't see Phil Jackson panic and change everything if the Lakers drop a game to the Bulls on a given night.


One other pet peeve. I have long criticized K for not playing certain players in certain circumstances. There have definitely been games where Duke was up by 40 and Redick still played 39 minutes where I disagreed with K. I felt that the team would be better served by resting Redick and more importantly, potentially developing bench players.

This is not a game to develop unproven players who struggle early. Do that against Purdue or "Michigan game one" when the game is relatively comfortably in hand. Don't do it in a game such as this. Not only would K be putting Duke in a position to lose, he'd be putting the younger guys in positions to fail. Once we get to ACC play and those guys have more experience, you can start to ease them into bigger situations but there are a couple of guys who clearly were not ready and who need more time before being thrown into a game in this sort of environment. There might be something to be said for throwing a guy into the waters and making him hold his own but its just not necessary on this team so I'd rather see guys brought along slowly. Plus, K knows better than us, who will be able to initially survive and who will ultimately suffer long term from being thrown in too early.

NYC Duke Fan
12-07-2008, 05:52 AM
I've read just about every post on the board since the Michigan game, and the nature of many of them continues to amaze me. It's not that we haven't been down this road before -- overreacting to a loss -- but the grand pronouncements based on one 40-minute session of basketball are just so over the top that they warrant a more general discussion that doesn't center around one game.

What's the biggest issue? The loss to Michigan, in many respects, was exactly what some people have been saying they wouldn't mind. For years, members of this board have complained about Duke's early schedule. We should play more true road games, they said. We should play better opponents, they said. They'd sacrifice a couple of losses in November/December for more success in conference play and -- especially -- the NCAA Tournament. They'd rather see young players struggle early in the season, but be given the chance to learn through their mistakes so that they can be more dangerous down the road. Remember all those discussions? I do. Heck, they dominated the board for much of this summer.

So, what happened today? One loss, and all of those nice little theories and promises are forgotten. We play two games in one week in hostile environments. The first is against a top-10 team that we beat easily. The second is a rematch against a team with an odd style of play, in a rough setting, after flying in the night before while kids are preparing for finals. We lose. Nolan Smith struggles to run the point, but K opts to keep him in and let him play through it, rather than reflexively turning to his senior, three-year starter, who is sitting on the bench, knowing Smith could lift the team to a different level in March. Okay, that's what we were willing to deal with when we signed on for this different approach, right? Everything's cool, right? We'll deal with the loss, the mistakes, the short-term consequences. Uh, no, apparently not.

Look, people, you can't sit here and complain about how you want the team to peak in March and expect to win every single game. That's beyond crazy. Even the best Duke teams lost games. Whether those teams peaked in December or March, they lost games. No one enjoys losses. But they happen. And sometimes they don't mean anything more than the fact that the team played poorly that day.

I've read a lot about how this game was "reminiscent" of past losses. Well, you know what? Most losses feel the same. Duke plays a similar style, year-in, year-out. When Duke loses, chances are fewer shots go in than usual. Chances, are the team doesn't get key stops. Chances are, a couple of guys have an off-night. Chances are, it feels crappy.

But to read so much into this loss that it significantly changes your opinion of how deep this team can go? Give me a break. When the 2003-04 team lost in Alaska to an unranked Purdue squad, was it doomed? What about when the 2000-01 team blew a December game at Stanford? How about the 1999-2000 team's back-to-back losses to open the season? The 1998-99 team's loss to Cincinnati in Alaska? As somene else mentioned, the 1997-98 squad lost 81-73 on the road against an unranked Michigan team (sound familiar?). Go back through the schedules of the 7-Final Fours-in-9-years teams. They lost games early in the season, too.

If you want this team to test itself early in the year, you have to be willing to deal with it if they fail an occasional quiz or two. There were no fundamental flaws exposed against Michigan. There's no reason why the team can't continue to get better. A lot can change between now and March. I don't think the team is sitting around, lamenting its fate, worrying that it has been exposed and that a bitter March is a foregone conclusion. So why would anyone here take that approach? It makes no sense, especially if you've been downplaying December in favor of March, anyway. Come on, everyone. We can do better than this.

You do make excellent points and I do defer to you on Duke basketball knowledge. That said, and I might be mistaken here, but I believe that in all the years that you mention, we Duke fans had extremely high expectations for the team....a national championship or at worst a Final 4 appearance.

While we all love and support this year's team and Duke basketball in general, I do not believe in our heart of hearts we believe that Duke is capable of winning the National Championship this year.I am not even sure that we think realistically that we are a Final 4 team, although that is open for debate.

Another point for disappointment with yesterday's loss was the posting on a previous post that Duke could and might beat UNC this year. While the thought of the Duke-UNC game is way too far to consider, I guess people feel that based on this year's performance to date, yesterday's loss coupled with the almost loss to Rhode Islad at home, the thought of beating UNC is very remote now.

Anyway thank you for your always inciteful posts.

sagegrouse
12-07-2008, 06:52 AM
Anyway thank you for your always inciteful posts.

Hey, Jumbo! Did you get the skewer stuck in your side? That was a really good one, NYC Duke Fan.

FWIW, I think an unexpected Duke loss on this Board is like a full moon to a pack of coyotes. There's a primordial urge to howl that can't be controlled.

sagegrouse
'Yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-howwwwwiiya!!!!'

dukelifer
12-07-2008, 07:55 AM
What's the biggest issue? The loss to Michigan, in many respects, was exactly what some people have been saying they wouldn't mind. For years, members of this board have complained about Duke's early schedule. We should play more true road games, they said. We should play better opponents, they said. They'd sacrifice a couple of losses in November/December for more success in conference play and -- especially -- the NCAA Tournament.

I noted in another thread that this is the first time in over 10 years that Duke has played back to back true road games at this time of the year. In one, Duke was stellar. In the other, Duke was not - and against a team that they had already beaten. I wrote after the Michigan win a few weeks back that they reminded me of an ACC team. So in effect, Duke got a split. Duke has a challenging early schedule. The hope is that they get better from it- that they learn from it. Early loses with a fragile team is bad- early losses for a veteran team should make them mad and play better. Lets just see how this team responds and adjusts. This team is playing for March- that is when they need to be playing their best. All this loss showed is that there is still work to do.

NYC Duke Fan
12-07-2008, 07:56 AM
Hey, Jumbo! Did you get the skewer stuck in your side? That was a really good one, NYC Duke Fan.

FWIW, I think an unexpected Duke loss on this Board is like a full moon to a pack of coyotes. There's a primordial urge to howl that can't be controlled.

sagegrouse
'Yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-howwwwwiiya!!!!'

Meant incisive not inciteful- Sorry about that...too early in the morning

Wander
12-07-2008, 08:21 AM
Something worthy of adding is not just looking at previous successful Duke teams, but other teams also. Last year Davidson lost to every good opponent they played before March. When Florida won the title in 07, they lost to an unranked FSU team in December. The LSU team that beat us in the tournament the year before that lost FOUR games before conference play, half of them at home and some (all?) of them to unranked teams. And of course we all know the 05 UNC squad lost a road game to unranked Santa Clara.

I said this before, but I think it's worth repeating. The Pitt loss last year, and Marquette the year before, exposed big fundamental flaws in our team. I'm not sure any similar really basic flaws were exposed here.

dukelifer
12-07-2008, 08:47 AM
Something worthy of adding is not just looking at previous successful Duke teams, but other teams also. Last year Davidson lost to every good opponent they played before March. When Florida won the title in 07, they lost to an unranked FSU team in December. The LSU team that beat us in the tournament the year before that lost FOUR games before conference play, half of them at home and some (all?) of them to unranked teams. And of course we all know the 05 UNC squad lost a road game to unranked Santa Clara.

I said this before, but I think it's worth repeating. The Pitt loss last year, and Marquette the year before, exposed big fundamental flaws in our team. I'm not sure any similar really basic flaws were exposed here.

I am not sure it is a fundamental flaw- but I do not think this Duke team can shoot it as well as they think they can. So if anything was exposed is that Duke needs to rely less on the three than in previous years. For the most part they have been doing this. I wish that Singler would post a bit more and shoot from three a lot less. Some tweaking is needed there. He is very efficient around the hoop. I dd not see this game but from what I can gather - Michigan gave Duke shots that were wide open- so you have to take the shots that are given to you - but you have to knock them down. When that does not happen - you fall into the trap of that defense. That defense will probably fail badly at times and for Michigan to win consistently- they need to have better O. Right now- their O is good but not great- which is why they will probably be only an average team- but they are not bad. But their D worked yesterday in that Duke did not shoot it well from three and more importantly, they did not get to the line. 6 free throw attempts is very uncommon for Duke. In their only other close game, URI, they got to the line plenty 32 times and made 28 of them. But as in this game - they shot it poorly from the outside.

Misunderestimated
12-07-2008, 08:53 AM
I've read a lot about how this game was "reminiscent" of past losses. Well, you know what? Most losses feel the same. Duke plays a similar style, year-in, year-out. When Duke loses, chances are fewer shots go in than usual. Chances, are the team doesn't get key stops. Chances are, a couple of guys have an off-night. Chances are, it feels crappy.

Every loss hurts, but honestly, this one didnt sting quite as bad as others in recent memory. This wasn't one of those head-scratching, we've been exposed, how do we bounce back losses. We ran into the wrong team on the wrong day and the other team capitalized. It usually happens to every team in every sport - except the '72 Dolphins, of course. LOTS of basketball left to go - Next Play.

Highlander
12-07-2008, 08:54 AM
Good points, especially the ones by Nolan struggling but staying in the game. The ideal rotation is 8-9 players deep, and we are that. We didn't play well and we got beat. On the road. In December. It happens.

I was one of the people who said this loss reminded me of WVU. I don't disagree with anything Jumbo said about losses being similar because of the style of play we have. I would point out that there were a lot more similarities in that loss than there were to say, UNC #2 last year, where we just looked outmanned. Not all losses are the same, so I think drawing comparisons between past losses or looking at trending has some value.

yancem
12-07-2008, 09:19 AM
I think that Jumbo makes some very good points. I'm glad that we have played some good road games and don't overly mind that we lost yesterday. My problem is in the way that we lost and some trends that seem to be forming so far this season. Singler has played exceptionally so far this year but he seems to be too in love with the 3 pt. shot. He is a good outside shooter but he is also very effective around the basket. I hope that he can learn that when the outside shot is not on that he should build his offense from the inside before pushing to the outside. I'm also concerned about him wearing down as the season continues. It not his minutes exactly (although a few more on the bench might be nice), it's that he seems to be at the heart of every play both offensively and defensively. He may not be guarding the 5 as much as last year but he is still expending a lot of energy on the defensive side of the ball. Some times it feels like it him and Scheyer are playing 2 on 5.

Speaking of which, I'm a little tired of hearing how Henderson is contributing in so many ways other than offense. Yes, his defense is much improved and he is passing better as well but something is missing. I know that foul problems made things difficult for much of the game yesterday but we have to find a way to get him more involved in the offense. If we can only count on Singler and Scheyer to consistently score then this season could become very frustrating.

Count me in as one of the fans that thought a final four run this years was a real possibility. This years team is deeper, more talented and more experienced than last years squad and that team could play with anyone in the nation until fatigue and injuries sideline it. I am hopeful that games like RI and yesterday will be good learning experiences and provide the lessons needed to have a successful season. Smith is still learning to run the point, Paulus is recovering from injuries, Zoubek and Thomas are learning their roles and developing quite well. The talent is there for a great season but right now we are far from a great team. As for how we stack up with UNC right now, we don't. But that doesn't me that we won't come February. The season is still young.

Fish80
12-07-2008, 09:26 AM
While we all love and support this year's team and Duke basketball in general, I do not believe in our heart of hearts we believe that Duke is capable of winning the National Championship this year.I am not even sure that we think realistically that we are a Final 4 team, although that is open for debate.

In my heart of hearts I believe this team can compete with anybody. :D

And they will get better between now and March. I believe that we will be in the hunt and competing for the National Championship.

All of the pieces are coming together. We're developing a strong inside game and good depth at every position. This year will be special, and a very fun ride! :D

One of the common features shared by most of the recent champions is future pro players on the roster. All 5 of our starters have pro potential. And a few on the bench do too. :D

RelativeWays
12-07-2008, 09:56 AM
I remember the Marquette loss exposed problems with the 07 team, but I never felt that the Pitt loss "tore back the curtain". Pitt played great and Duke had an off game and it still took a Levance Fields 3 pointer in the closing seconds to win the game for Pitt. Scheyer had a chance for a better shot before the buzzer but all in all it was a competitive hard fought game that Pitt still needed a last second shot to win. I felt good about that Duke team after that loss. I think we were exposed in the back to back Miami/Wake losses. The team was never the same after that.

jipops
12-07-2008, 10:11 AM
How exactly do you expect a group of young players to perform after flying in the night before while cramming before finals? Combine that with all the emotional energy invested in a huge road game just a few days prior. Given this, doesn't it make sense that a team would shoot 7-33 from downtown against a zone? This isn't a team of hired mercenaries, these are kids with pressures extending beyond the basketball court and they still happen to be damn good when they are hitting the floor.

I think a lot of the issue of panic posters centers around us staring down the road 8 miles and a little jealous of the fact that we're just not as good. Well, you know, so what? Wasn't too long ago when those in the pale shade of blue were feeling the same. Probably won't be too long when those feelings will swing back in our favor. It's just the nature of the rivalry.

I think waaay too much is over-analyzed about this team. Certainly yesterday's game was. But I think this happens because the media does like to over-analyze the heck out of Duke as well, seemingly even more so than the rest of the country. This ofcourse affects how we feel about our team - but it shouldn't.

I 100% agree with Jumbo that no fundamental flaws were exposed yesterday. This wasn't at all like the Pitt loss early last season. I don't care if it sounds like an excuse either, but seriously for what reason would a team shoot such a morbid rate behind the arc when 90% of those shots are unchallenged - fatique - and it's not just the physical kind either. Anybody who's paid attention to Duke basketball over the years can point to games at this very time of year and notice how poorly they were played. That's just the way it is. That's just the challenge of running a college progarm.

sagegrouse
12-07-2008, 10:18 AM
Meant incisive not inciteful- Sorry about that...too early in the morning

Dr. Freud fully accepts your statement as a true product of your conscious self. However, he has some concerns about your subconscious.:D:D

sagegrouse

DukeDevilDeb
12-07-2008, 10:22 AM
We have gotten so used to winning over the last two decades that we have become selfish and unrealistic. I remember in 1991 after losing to Carolina in the ACC Tournament Finals by 22 (ouch) and sobbing--literally sobbing--because the danged Tarheels beat us.

That was the day of a personal epiphany. There were three things I learned by examining my own reactions to the loss, and one thing I already knew. I already knew that losing to Carolina was ALWAYS going to hurt worse than losing to anyone else. I just had to accept that it was going to sting. But I couldn't let it sting long because we had to go on to the next play. (And I remember thinking that when we won the championship on my 40th birthday that year that beating UNLV and Kansas was a whole lot more important than losing to UNC!).

Three things I learned were the following:

1. Although winning was preferable to losing, we could not possibly win every game forever. I think a lot of us are guided by beliefs of Blue Devil invincibility--and that is ridiculous.

2. Our players--no matter how good--are always capable of having a bad game... and not pulling it out in the end. When we get into a game like the one against Michigan yesterday and are still in it with three minutes left, we have visions of Laettner against Connecticut and Kentucky, Dockery against VTech, and McClure against Clemson. (There was one game that Marty Clark one for us at Cameron with a remarkable shot, but I can't remember against whom.) The Devils have great players and a great coach, but all are human.

3. I love the Blue Devils, win or lose. This board (perhaps the best fan site on the web) has thread after thread after thread of supposed Blue Devil fans who rake Coach K and the team over the coals when we don't win. I'm not at all saying that we cannot criticize the team...I kept yelling yesterday "Stop with the 3s already and drive!" and thought that was a big mistake on the part of the players, but they didn't. And I'm not calling for Coach K's retirement or hoping some players will transfer or looking forward to next year because this year is so bad.

We can criticize the team over individual plays, poor games, or major losses. It would be unnatural not to. But sometimes we go over the edge... I was especially distressed by someone on the postgame thread who was talking about getting Plumlee and Williams more minutes (in a tight game where they did nothing???) and said, "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."

That's what you like? The way Roy brings along his freshman better than K? Fine... just drop your Blue Devil clothes and toys at my house and head for the light blue world... far as I'm concerned, Roy is all yours! I'll take K and our kids 1000 times over the Tarheel nation.

To all, a happy holiday season. The kids will complete exams and get rested and have a good game against UNC Ashville on the 17th. And everyone have a wonderful New Year. We're going to be good this season; let's enjoy!

Lord Ash
12-07-2008, 10:31 AM
I think what sends people into a tizzy isn't necessarily the loss in December to a non-conference team. Rather, it is a few trends that people see as a sign of the future, when games mean a lot more. (i.e. March.)

1) It is seeing the bench basically disappear the second half. As a former Duke athlete, I have seen guys other than the top dogs step up in key situations time and time again and contribute and I do hope our second-tier guys have the chance to do this when it doesn't matter as much. I think that many people feel this way, especially when an issue that has seemed to help end our seasons in March recently has been primary guys wearing down by too much use. This intensity in the second half isn't likely to go away as the rest of the season continues, so I, for one, would rather we establish early that a BUNCH of guys will play, even in serious games. Otherwise it feels like a bit of a set-up for failure in that A) maybe the non-starters will have never actually stepped up in a real situation and had the chance to show that they CAN contribute in a meaningful way in a big situation, so they will not be ready to contribute when a top player is having an off game and B) we get into a routine where only the big dogs play the most intense minutes, and as the season gets packed with intense games our primary guys will wear down.

2) It was seeing us not adjust. Our three point shooting was very, very off yesterday. Now, some would say "Keep shooting; it will even out by the end of the game as the math dictates" and it makes a certain sense. But for Duke fans, who often associate the end of the season with clanked three pointers (a very easily visible "failure;" the ball is shot and doesn't go in) we can expect a little disappointment when the adjustment isn't made to go inside more, especially as our "inside" game really produced yesterday. We expect adjustments to win.

3) It was seeing a single guy be the "go to" guy while a few of the other expected scorers did not produce. Again, over the last few seasons, we've seen teams that are largely focused around a single guy (to be honest, a lot of this is JJ-flashback time) who got cold in a March game and didn't have a supporting cast to pull us through. I think that after the Michigan game some people had slight flashbacks, and envisioned a tired Kyle Singler, who has been the man all year, having a cold game and Gerald and Greg not being able to pull us through, and having no other guys who had stepped up and shown they react when there is serious pressure to lean on.

I, like many people, think that a loss now isn't that big a deal, as long as it results in learning and development that is applicable towards March. I understand and agree with a lot about what you say, such as many Duke losses looking the same. I also don't think any individual flaws were exposed yesterday. I do, however, think that it is reasonable for people to feel that consistent, multi-year flaws were evidenced in the loss yesterday. I do think that going off on disappointed posters is not quite fair on a message board for discussing basketball, and am disappointed with the attitude some people have which tends to come out in statements like "You people always complain about the same things; just stop, you don't understand basketball... or why don't you go root for another team." While people might not take the time to really flesh out the reasons for their discomfort, I think that there are certain trends that some Duke fans are reacting to, trends that in the past have led to losses at the most important times, and it is okay for Duke fans to do so.

mapei
12-07-2008, 11:19 AM
I do think that going off on disappointed posters is not quite fair on a message board for discussing basketball, and am disappointed with the attitude some people have which tends to come out in statements like "You people always complain about the same things; just stop, you don't understand basketball... or why don't you go root for another team." While people might not take the time to really flesh out the reasons for their discomfort, I think that there are certain trends that some Duke fans are reacting to, trends that in the past have led to losses at the most important times, and it is okay for Duke fans to do so.

Bingo. The complaining about the board is just as predictable and tiresome as the complaining about the team. We should all have a bit more generosity of spirit IMO.

SMO
12-07-2008, 11:27 AM
I've read just about every post on the board since the Michigan game, and the nature of many of them continues to amaze me. It's not that we haven't been down this road before -- overreacting to a loss -- but the grand pronouncements based on one 40-minute session of basketball are just so over the top that they warrant a more general discussion that doesn't center around one game.

What's the biggest issue? The loss to Michigan, in many respects, was exactly what some people have been saying they wouldn't mind. For years, members of this board have complained about Duke's early schedule. We should play more true road games, they said. We should play better opponents, they said. They'd sacrifice a couple of losses in November/December for more success in conference play and -- especially -- the NCAA Tournament. They'd rather see young players struggle early in the season, but be given the chance to learn through their mistakes so that they can be more dangerous down the road. Remember all those discussions? I do. Heck, they dominated the board for much of this summer.

So, what happened today? One loss, and all of those nice little theories and promises are forgotten. We play two games in one week in hostile environments. The first is against a top-10 team that we beat easily. The second is a rematch against a team with an odd style of play, in a rough setting, after flying in the night before while kids are preparing for finals. We lose. Nolan Smith struggles to run the point, but K opts to keep him in and let him play through it, rather than reflexively turning to his senior, three-year starter, who is sitting on the bench, knowing Smith could lift the team to a different level in March. Okay, that's what we were willing to deal with when we signed on for this different approach, right? Everything's cool, right? We'll deal with the loss, the mistakes, the short-term consequences. Uh, no, apparently not.

Look, people, you can't sit here and complain about how you want the team to peak in March and expect to win every single game. That's beyond crazy. Even the best Duke teams lost games. Whether those teams peaked in December or March, they lost games. No one enjoys losses. But they happen. And sometimes they don't mean anything more than the fact that the team played poorly that day.

I've read a lot about how this game was "reminiscent" of past losses. Well, you know what? Most losses feel the same. Duke plays a similar style, year-in, year-out. When Duke loses, chances are fewer shots go in than usual. Chances, are the team doesn't get key stops. Chances are, a couple of guys have an off-night. Chances are, it feels crappy.

But to read so much into this loss that it significantly changes your opinion of how deep this team can go? Give me a break. When the 2003-04 team lost in Alaska to an unranked Purdue squad, was it doomed? What about when the 2000-01 team blew a December game at Stanford? How about the 1999-2000 team's back-to-back losses to open the season? The 1998-99 team's loss to Cincinnati in Alaska? As somene else mentioned, the 1997-98 squad lost 81-73 on the road against an unranked Michigan team (sound familiar?). Go back through the schedules of the 7-Final Fours-in-9-years teams. They lost games early in the season, too.

If you want this team to test itself early in the year, you have to be willing to deal with it if they fail an occasional quiz or two. There were no fundamental flaws exposed against Michigan. There's no reason why the team can't continue to get better. A lot can change between now and March. I don't think the team is sitting around, lamenting its fate, worrying that it has been exposed and that a bitter March is a foregone conclusion. So why would anyone here take that approach? It makes no sense, especially if you've been downplaying December in favor of March, anyway. Come on, everyone. We can do better than this.

Thank you! Thank you! The sanity and perspective in posts such as these keep me coming back.

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 12:08 PM
I think what sends people into a tizzy isn't necessarily the loss in December to a non-conference team. Rather, it is a few trends that people see as a sign of the future, when games mean a lot more. (i.e. March.)

1) It is seeing the bench basically disappear the second half. As a former Duke athlete, I have seen guys other than the top dogs step up in key situations time and time again and contribute and I do hope our second-tier guys have the chance to do this when it doesn't matter as much. I think that many people feel this way, especially when an issue that has seemed to help end our seasons in March recently has been primary guys wearing down by too much use. This intensity in the second half isn't likely to go away as the rest of the season continues, so I, for one, would rather we establish early that a BUNCH of guys will play, even in serious games. Otherwise it feels like a bit of a set-up for failure in that A) maybe the non-starters will have never actually stepped up in a real situation and had the chance to show that they CAN contribute in a meaningful way in a big situation, so they will not be ready to contribute when a top player is having an off game and B) we get into a routine where only the big dogs play the most intense minutes, and as the season gets packed with intense games our primary guys will wear down.

2) It was seeing us not adjust. Our three point shooting was very, very off yesterday. Now, some would say "Keep shooting; it will even out by the end of the game as the math dictates" and it makes a certain sense. But for Duke fans, who often associate the end of the season with clanked three pointers (a very easily visible "failure;" the ball is shot and doesn't go in) we can expect a little disappointment when the adjustment isn't made to go inside more, especially as our "inside" game really produced yesterday. We expect adjustments to win.

3) It was seeing a single guy be the "go to" guy while a few of the other expected scorers did not produce. Again, over the last few seasons, we've seen teams that are largely focused around a single guy (to be honest, a lot of this is JJ-flashback time) who got cold in a March game and didn't have a supporting cast to pull us through. I think that after the Michigan game some people had slight flashbacks, and envisioned a tired Kyle Singler, who has been the man all year, having a cold game and Gerald and Greg not being able to pull us through, and having no other guys who had stepped up and shown they react when there is serious pressure to lean on.

I, like many people, think that a loss now isn't that big a deal, as long as it results in learning and development that is applicable towards March. I understand and agree with a lot about what you say, such as many Duke losses looking the same. I also don't think any individual flaws were exposed yesterday. I do, however, think that it is reasonable for people to feel that consistent, multi-year flaws were evidenced in the loss yesterday. I do think that going off on disappointed posters is not quite fair on a message board for discussing basketball, and am disappointed with the attitude some people have which tends to come out in statements like "You people always complain about the same things; just stop, you don't understand basketball... or why don't you go root for another team." While people might not take the time to really flesh out the reasons for their discomfort, I think that there are certain trends that some Duke fans are reacting to, trends that in the past have led to losses at the most important times, and it is okay for Duke fans to do so.

You completely missed the overall point of everything I wrote.

SupaDave
12-07-2008, 12:38 PM
"If you want this team to test itself early in the year, you have to be willing to deal with it if they fail an occasional quiz or two."

That's all you really had to say right there...

ohioguy2
12-07-2008, 12:48 PM
I was in Ann Arbor for the game. I have not read all of the posts, just a selected few. Do not over react people. Yes, we looked a little "off" and I dare say tired, but it seemed almost a mental tired as opposed to physical. The Michigan players and crowd treated this as a final four game. We did not hit enough outside shots early to extend their zone. Henderson's early two fouls hurt.

I wonder when the team arrived for the game. Did we fly in that morning?

The weather was bad, but the Michigan crowd was there as were quite a few of us.

The half time "show" was great.:)

Lord Ash
12-07-2008, 12:54 PM
I've read just about every post on the board since the Michigan game, and the nature of many of them continues to amaze me. It's not that we haven't been down this road before -- overreacting to a loss -- but the grand pronouncements based on one 40-minute session of basketball are just so over the top that they warrant a more general discussion that doesn't center around one game.

Okay; so here you say "Everyone is over-reacting and this is typical, and everything that people are saying about this game and Duke overall is over the top." An excellent start to an honest discussion.


What's the biggest issue? The loss to Michigan, in many respects, was exactly what some people have been saying they wouldn't mind. For years, members of this board have complained about Duke's early schedule. We should play more true road games, they said. We should play better opponents, they said. They'd sacrifice a couple of losses in November/December for more success in conference play and -- especially -- the NCAA Tournament. They'd rather see young players struggle early in the season, but be given the chance to learn through their mistakes so that they can be more dangerous down the road. Remember all those discussions? I do. Heck, they dominated the board for much of this summer.

Here you are saying that the loss to Michigan is what everyone wanted, that people have said they would accept is a few more losses in November/December IF it showed a trend towards developing those habits that have NOT been developed in the past and that many folks think would help; namely, not over-reliance on three point shooting, and allowing ALL of the team to step up in big games and not limiting it to an exhaustion-causing six guys. Agreed!


So, what happened today? One loss, and all of those nice little theories and promises are forgotten. We play two games in one week in hostile environments. The first is against a top-10 team that we beat easily. The second is a rematch against a team with an odd style of play, in a rough setting, after flying in the night before while kids are preparing for finals. We lose. Nolan Smith struggles to run the point, but K opts to keep him in and let him play through it, rather than reflexively turning to his senior, three-year starter, who is sitting on the bench, knowing Smith could lift the team to a different level in March. Okay, that's what we were willing to deal with when we signed on for this different approach, right? Everything's cool, right? We'll deal with the loss, the mistakes, the short-term consequences. Uh, no, apparently not.

Here you say that suddenly everyone has forgotten all of that and freaked out, based on, I assume, lots of threads saying "PUT GREG PAULUS BACK IN!" and "WHY DID WE PLAY ALL THOSE NEW PLAYERS SO MUCH!!!" and that we did use our youngsters, and the proof is Nolan Smith playing a lot. Funny... I haven't seen a single thread like that.


Look, people, you can't sit here and complain about how you want the team to peak in March and expect to win every single game. That's beyond crazy. Even the best Duke teams lost games. Whether those teams peaked in December or March, they lost games. No one enjoys losses. But they happen. And sometimes they don't mean anything more than the fact that the team played poorly that day.

You say people expect to win every game of the year, and that sometimes losses mean nothing. Funny... again, I have not seen anyone say that they expect to win every game... in fact, it seems most people who were upset by the Michigan game were upset because they did, indeed, feel that the way the team lost DID mean something more. So your assumptions don't seem to line up with what other folks assume.


I've read a lot about how this game was "reminiscent" of past losses. Well, you know what? Most losses feel the same. Duke plays a similar style, year-in, year-out. When Duke loses, chances are fewer shots go in than usual. Chances, are the team doesn't get key stops. Chances are, a couple of guys have an off-night. Chances are, it feels crappy.

So here you say that this loss was similar in many ways to other losses, and this is inevitable given our style of play. What I have seen some folks say is they feel like we need to address some of these things that we have seen before. However, obviously your basic point is fine... when you lose, you probably didn't play as well. Fine, and I don't think anyone who is complaining about the game last night is not really, at heart, complaining about players not playing well.


But to read so much into this loss that it significantly changes your opinion of how deep this team can go? Give me a break. When the 2003-04 team lost in Alaska to an unranked Purdue squad, was it doomed? What about when the 2000-01 team blew a December game at Stanford? How about the 1999-2000 team's back-to-back losses to open the season? The 1998-99 team's loss to Cincinnati in Alaska? As somene else mentioned, the 1997-98 squad lost 81-73 on the road against an unranked Michigan team (sound familiar?). Go back through the schedules of the 7-Final Fours-in-9-years teams. They lost games early in the season, too.

So here you are saying all sorts of good teams lose, especially against other good teams in hostile environments, and not to read too much into it. That is just fine, except that apparently some fans do think that some of the aspects of our team play and management over the last few years that have not helped us were evident here, and they were disappointed to see them return.


If you want this team to test itself early in the year, you have to be willing to deal with it if they fail an occasional quiz or two. There were no fundamental flaws exposed against Michigan. There's no reason why the team can't continue to get better. A lot can change between now and March. I don't think the team is sitting around, lamenting its fate, worrying that it has been exposed and that a bitter March is a foregone conclusion. So why would anyone here take that approach? It makes no sense, especially if you've been downplaying December in favor of March, anyway. Come on, everyone. We can do better than this.

And here is the paragraph many people would disagree with. There are a lot of Dukies on here who have watched plenty of Duke ball and who have felt like there are a few weaknesses recently that have hurt the team in March and that have not been addressed. This game seemed to have showcased them. To tell people to relax and not take this as a sign of anything is fine, but if they disagree, then they disagree, and you didn't make any sort of argument that nullified concerns except to say "Teams lose." The last few years we've been REALLY good in the first part of the year, but trends like an overdependence on 3s and the failure to develop younger guys and stick them in the fire when it DIDN'T matter (i.e. December) seems to have led to VERY early exits in March. Sure teams lose, but you do hope to see the demons that many feel have haunted us in March the last few years at least a bit tamed. You made it sound like this game at Michigan was some grand fufillment of what people have wanted. Most of the upset folks are upset because it seemed to them that it was anything but.

I also felt your tone was not ideal for getting your point across. It came across as a bit condescending to your fellow Duke fans, including some who may just know more about the sport of basketball and the history of Duke basketball than you, complete with lines like "(the reaction) is completely over the top" and "(typical) overreacting to a loss" and "nice little theories and promises" and "Uh, no, apparently not" and "That's beyond crazy." I think there were other ways you could have made the point you wanted to make. I know DBR prides itself on being a rather classy and thoughtful place, and I think that has to start with the moderators especially.

So. Now did I completely miss the point of what you were saying yet again?

Oh, and P.S.; I am actually not one of the folks you are apparently talking to, as I didn't take this one too badly.

gw67
12-07-2008, 01:54 PM
I generally don't visit this site until the next day after a loss because some fans tend to overreact to the loss. I am certainly not going to read 200 posts on the game, particularly, if several are overly negative, so I will take Jumbo's initial post on face value.

Prior to reading his post, my thinking was that I had seen Duke teams better that this year's team lose unexpectedly and that the youngsters just ran into a well coached team that took away a strength (driving to the basket), exposed an average jump shooting team who had an off day, and suffered through a career day by one of Michigan's players. His post didn't change what I took from the game.

Frankly, I was surprised at the outcome. Throughout the game, I felt that the Devils would come back but Michigan hung around too long and, with the crowd behind them, they played very well for most of the 2nd half. I thought that there were several positives coming from this game - (1) the passing against the zone was excellent and the players had numerous open shots; (2) the halfcourt defense was good. It appeared to me that Michigan struggled to get a shot every possession. It is to their credit that they worked to get shots; (3) the defense on Harris by Scheyer and McClure was solid. He had 17 points but it wasn't easy; and (4) once they got inside the zone, they shot lights out (about 75%).

The only negative, besides the poor jump shooting, was the ease by which Grady and to a lesser extent, Merritt, were able to get to the key and the basket. Neither is regarded as a top flight PG.

gw67

Davidson09
12-07-2008, 02:31 PM
Jumbo,

Very well said. I, too, was disappointed that Duke lost last night, but it's not the end of the world. Coach Bob McKillop of Davidson always stresses three things to our players: you play to win, you play to have fun, and you play to get better. Let's look at that last one.

When a team loses a game, that can be a better learning experience than a win. You look at the tape over and over again, analyze it down to the last detail, and figure out how you can get better the next time around.

I can tell you than when Davidson played Oklahoma, there were several things that I, as a fan, noticed that we could improve. I'm sure the coaching staff had many more notes. Here's the thing, though. Over the next few games, the weaknesses that I had seen seemed to have improved. Drastically. For example, our rebounding against Oklahoma was terrible. Terrible. Granted, we were up against Blake Griffin. But, OK. You play to get better. How can we do that better next time?

Fast forward to December 6, against NC State. We outrebounded them by something like 13 or 14, including several offensive rebounds.

Coach K is an excellent coach. I have no doubt that he and the rest of the coaching staff will figure out to make this team play better.

Saratoga2
12-07-2008, 02:48 PM
I like to look at it as strengths and weaknesses. I thought our starters played hard and had decent games. We did have Lance and David also give good minutes, while Paulus looked like he is not back as yet. Really, no one else contributed nor did they get in the game very much. Our defense was active and performed well for most of the game.

As far as weaknesses, I can name a few:
1. Poor 3 point shooting
2. Lack of help defense when guards were beaten
3. Trouble keeping Michigan off the boards.

In the case of 3 point shooting, we are at best an average team and with Paulus not yet performing, we have no one capable of a 40% shooting night.

In the case of help defense, it was indicated that we were so worried about their 3 point shooting that we didn't provide help defense. It looked more to me that there was a lack of communication and perhaps confusion that led to the easy points.

In the case of rebounding, we faced a determined an capable Michigan team with our smaller lineup. Zoubek seemed to help that situation but he didn't play a great deal. We looked tired at the very end of the game and that may have contributed to the rebounding weakness compared to the last game. That and all the missed 3 pointers.

While none of these are fundamental issues, I would think that rebounding will be a difficult problem to overcome when we have our small lineups in against some of the rugged ACC teams.

CameronCrazy'11
12-07-2008, 03:09 PM
In the case of 3 point shooting, we are at best an average team and with Paulus not yet performing, we have no one capable of a 40% shooting night.


Um.....Nolan shot 40% and Gerald shot 50% last night. So I'm gonna say we do have a few people capable of shooting 40% on any given night.

Ultrarunner
12-07-2008, 03:42 PM
In the case of rebounding, we faced a determined an capable Michigan team with our smaller lineup. Zoubek seemed to help that situation but he didn't play a great deal. We looked tired at the very end of the game and that may have contributed to the rebounding weakness compared to the last game. That and all the missed 3 pointers.


It may that the person taking many of the 3's was Kyle - and he's our leading rebounder. Missing as many as he did put him well out of position for at least 8 possessions/rebounds. You can probably put Scheyer in the mix as well.

Kedsy
12-07-2008, 03:47 PM
We've all heard K talk about how teams have worn down at the end of the year. We've all seen players like Kyle and JJ leave shots short in March, presumably due to tired legs. We've all read scores of posts on this board lamenting the minutes our players are logging in November/December and predicting dire consequences in three months.

But if our teams have been wearing down toward the end of the season, can it really have anything to do with minutes played in early games?

I play "organized pickup" games every Wednesday and Saturday, with an occasional third game on Tuesdays. There is no off-season; I play all year round. Sure, after two hours of running hard, I sometimes get tired at the end of a particular game, but I don't think it affects my energy level at all in my next game. If anything, I get more tired if I've been playing less in the preceding weeks. And I'm 48; the Duke players' 20-year-old bodies should be able to take significantly more punishment and recuperate much more quickly than mine can.

True, the players I go up against aren't nearly as big, strong, or fast as the players Duke plays against; the courts I play on aren't as long. And I almost never practice between games. But that's sort of my point: if our players are getting tired, isn't it much more likely that they're suffering from some sort of emotional fatigue, or the consequences of five months of grueling practices?

Does anybody actually believe the real problem is the difference between a kid playing 30 minutes per game vs. 35 minutes per game? In December? (Or January, or even early February.) How could that possibly matter?

mo.st.dukie
12-07-2008, 03:47 PM
In the case of rebounding, we faced a determined an capable Michigan team with our smaller lineup. Zoubek seemed to help that situation but he didn't play a great deal. We looked tired at the very end of the game and that may have contributed to the rebounding weakness compared to the last game. That and all the missed 3 pointers.

While none of these are fundamental issues, I would think that rebounding will be a difficult problem to overcome when we have our small lineups in against some of the rugged ACC teams.


Michigan only had one more rebound that us, 35-34, that's pretty darn good considering the rebounding issues we had last year. IMO, it wasn't post play/rebounding that beat us it was poor defenese (no help rotation on back door cuts and dribble drive) and it was not attacking the zone very well (we just settled for jump shots without getting into the lane).

Devilsfan
12-07-2008, 03:54 PM
Hire Coach Cut as a consultant for conditioning.

Jim3k
12-07-2008, 03:55 PM
Meant incisive not inciteful- Sorry about that...too early in the morning

What was the matter with insightful?

Truth
12-07-2008, 04:27 PM
We've all heard K talk about how teams have worn down at the end of the year. We've all seen players like Kyle and JJ leave shots short in March, presumably due to tired legs. We've all read scores of posts on this board lamenting the minutes our players are logging in November/December and predicting dire consequences in three months.

But if our teams have been wearing down toward the end of the season, can it really have anything to do with minutes played in early games?

I play "organized pickup" games every Wednesday and Saturday, with an occasional third game on Tuesdays. There is no off-season; I play all year round. Sure, after two hours of running hard, I sometimes get tired at the end of a particular game, but I don't think it affects my energy level at all in my next game. If anything, I get more tired if I've been playing less in the preceding weeks. And I'm 48; the Duke players' 20-year-old bodies should be able to take significantly more punishment and recuperate much more quickly than mine can.

True, the players I go up against aren't nearly as big, strong, or fast as the players Duke plays against; the courts I play on aren't as long. And I almost never practice between games. But that's sort of my point: if our players are getting tired, isn't it much more likely that they're suffering from some sort of emotional fatigue, or the consequences of five months of grueling practices?

Does anybody actually believe the real problem is the difference between a kid playing 30 minutes per game vs. 35 minutes per game? In December? (Or January, or even early February.) How could that possibly matter?

I'm with you here, Kedsy. I have no faith that there's any difference in a player going for 32 minutes a game vs 37 minutes a game. If anything, the amount of practice time in between games (likely, hours and hours in a week, compared to 1 hours of game time) would be much more tiring.

In my opinion, the whole "too many minutes in a game" makes a players tired at the end of the year is bunk.

That said, I feel it important to distinguish this argument vs. the one about Singler being worn out last year by playing out of position. I DO think that Singler was justifiably fatigured by playing out of a position; it's not that he was "tired" due to the quantity of minutes, it's that he was playing in a more physically demanding role than he was accustomed. I think these two points often get conflated on the boards...

hurleyfor3
12-07-2008, 04:39 PM
I don't have time to read all the 500-word posts in this thread, but want to remind people that our Eerily Foreshadowing Losses never happen in December. They happen usually in February on the road against a middle or lower-middle ACC team, usually a football school. So forget Michigan, we need to pre-emptively worry about the 2/28 gaime at VPI.

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 04:44 PM
Okay; so here you say "Everyone is over-reacting and this is typical, and everything that people are saying about this game and Duke overall is over the top." An excellent start to an honest discussion.

Nope. Where did I use the word "everyone" in that paragraph? (Hint: You won't find it.) Everyone does not mean the same as "many". Similarly, I didn't say refer to "everything" either. And I made it clear that I was focusing on people making grand pronouncements off a small sample size (i.e. -- we lost to Michigan, I noticed X, Y and Z, therefore there's no way this team can reach the Final Four). I'm not sure why you are painting in extremes and not understanding nuance. Maybe you're doing it for effect. It's amusing, though, since you famously accused someone of being "intellectually dishonest" on these boards. Seems you're headed in that very direction.


Here you are saying that the loss to Michigan is what everyone wanted, that people have said they would accept is a few more losses in November/December IF it showed a trend towards developing those habits that have NOT been developed in the past and that many folks think would help; namely, not over-reliance on three point shooting, and allowing ALL of the team to step up in big games and not limiting it to an exhaustion-causing six guys. Agreed!

Nope, still not getting me. Still not even close. Still going with this all-or-nothing motif using words like "everyone" and such. Still not realizing that in that paragraph, I'm talking almost exclusively about playing true road games and a tougher OOC schedule. In fact, I don't recall mentioning half of what you included in that paragraph. Of course, I'm sure you know that. I imagine it's part of your definition of "humor."


Here you say that suddenly everyone has forgotten all of that and freaked out, based on, I assume, lots of threads saying "PUT GREG PAULUS BACK IN!" and "WHY DID WE PLAY ALL THOSE NEW PLAYERS SO MUCH!!!" and that we did use our youngsters, and the proof is Nolan Smith playing a lot. Funny... I haven't seen a single thread like that.

Lordy, Lordy -- looks like you're struggling with basic comprehension again. You know darn well what my Nolan Smith example means. Part of the problem against Michigan was that he didn't play well. Before the season, a lot of people said they'd trade losses for development. Nolan Smith, as you might know, is a young player learning a new position. One would think that this game is a direct example of that philosophy. Once again, your extreme examples (starting a thread about putting Paulus in, ripping Nolan, etc.) are not necessary. The point is that you would think posters, were they going to be consistent with the development philosophy, would temper their criticism of the team after a loss like this.



You say people expect to win every game of the year, and that sometimes losses mean nothing. Funny... again, I have not seen anyone say that they expect to win every game... in fact, it seems most people who were upset by the Michigan game were upset because they did, indeed, feel that the way the team lost DID mean something more. So your assumptions don't seem to line up with what other folks assume.

Nah, still not understanding reallly well. No one has to say (directly), "I expect to win every game." That attitude is reflected in one's reaction to a loss. I already spoke about how limited this sample size is, and why reading so much into it is a mistake. Not sure why you're going back over that again.


So here you say that this loss was similar in many ways to other losses, and this is inevitable given our style of play. What I have seen some folks say is they feel like we need to address some of these things that we have seen before. However, obviously your basic point is fine... when you lose, you probably didn't play as well. Fine, and I don't think anyone who is complaining about the game last night is not really, at heart, complaining about players not playing well.

I'm saying (again ... stay with me here ...) that 40 minutes is not a sufficient sample size, and that similarities will exist among most losses. So, deciding that we need to address certain "issues" because there were some similarities between this loss and, say, the WVU loss is silly. Why? Because it's basically just saying "don't lose." At least you get the basic point -- that when you lose, it means you probably didn't play well. And it's easy to latch on to things that look the same (like, "Look, Duke shot poorly from three against Michigan and WVU -- we shoot too many threes!). Meanwhile, no one is saying "Wow, Duke was even on the boards against Michigan, and got out-rebounded by 20 against WVU. Those two losses aren't similar at all!" Do you get my point now?


So here you are saying all sorts of good teams lose, especially against other good teams in hostile environments, and not to read too much into it. That is just fine, except that apparently some fans do think that some of the aspects of our team play and management over the last few years that have not helped us were evident here, and they were disappointed to see them return.

And, for like the ninth time, I'm saying that you can always find similarities between two losses, because your team didn't play well enough to win. That means there will be statistical trends that aren't associated with anything other than losses. I've repeated myself enough about sample size, ignoring differences in favor of similarities and drawing sweeping conclusions about a team that is still developing. As I said, you're clearly just not getting my overall point.


And here is the paragraph many people would disagree with. There are a lot of Dukies on here who have watched plenty of Duke ball and who have felt like there are a few weaknesses recently that have hurt the team in March and that have not been addressed. This game seemed to have showcased them. To tell people to relax and not take this as a sign of anything is fine, but if they disagree, then they disagree, and you didn't make any sort of argument that nullified concerns except to say "Teams lose."

Oh, I've made tons of arguments beyond "teams lose" in multiple threads. You're just choosing to ignore all of them. Remember that part about intellectual dishonesty? Oh, and I don't remember saying anything about taking the game as "a sign of anything is fine."


The last few years we've been REALLY good in the first part of the year, but trends like an overdependence on 3s and the failure to develop younger guys and stick them in the fire when it DIDN'T matter (i.e. December) seems to have led to VERY early exits in March.

So you say. I don't see things that way. Last year's team didn't lose to West Virginia because it didn't develop younger guys. The whole team was young! Of the freshmen, Singler was a star, Smith was in the rotation all year and King had every chance in the world early in the year to earn minutes, but it became incredibly clear that he couldn't play defense at a level remotely up to Duke's level. Duke had a tiny team, a freshman playing out of position at the 5, Henderson playing with a torn ligament in his wrist, Paulus needing surgery, Thomas needing surgery, Zoubek playing on a broken foot, Pocius out for the year, etc. There were no younger guys who didn't get stuck in the fire. The team had inherent personnel flaws, many of which have been addressed. If the best you can up with is "Duke missed a ton of threes against Michigan, and missed a ton of threes late last season," without recognizing what Duke has done in the other eight games this season and how much else is different, you don't have much of an argument.


Sure teams lose, but you do hope to see the demons that many feel have haunted us in March the last few years at least a bit tamed. You made it sound like this game at Michigan was some grand fufillment of what people have wanted. Most of the upset folks are upset because it seemed to them that it was anything but.

I don't know how to get through to you -- you're still missing the point about why a loss like this should be tolerated, based on scheduling, etc. How about this -- describe a loss that would be acceptable to you and wouldn't have you making sweeping judgments about the team's March prospects.


I also felt your tone was not ideal for getting your point across. It came across as a bit condescending to your fellow Duke fans, including some who may just know more about the sport of basketball and the history of Duke basketball than you, complete with lines like "(the reaction) is completely over the top" and "(typical) overreacting to a loss" and "nice little theories and promises" and "Uh, no, apparently not" and "That's beyond crazy." I think there were other ways you could have made the point you wanted to make. I know DBR prides itself on being a rather classy and thoughtful place, and I think that has to start with the moderators especially.

Among the people with a right to comment on others' tone, you are at the bottom of the list on this board. Suffice it to say that we have tolerated some very questionable posts from you -- particularly on the PP board -- for some time. Suffice it to say that you also have a history of launching attacks, then crying foul when someone disagrees with you. That's the last we're going to talk about tone in this thread, though. If you'd like to have a discussion about that with me, send me a PM. Let's keep this focused on Duke basketball.


So. Now did I completely miss the point of what you were saying yet again?

Yup. Pretty much.

Kedsy
12-07-2008, 04:46 PM
That said, I feel it important to distinguish this argument vs. the one about Singler being worn out last year by playing out of position. I DO think that Singler was justifiably fatigured by playing out of a position; it's not that he was "tired" due to the quantity of minutes, it's that he was playing in a more physically demanding role than he was accustomed. I think these two points often get conflated on the boards...

Agreed. I have always found it to be a lot more physically demanding to guard a much larger opponent than it is to sprint up and down the court for two hours. And on the rare occasions I'm forced to guard a much larger player, my legs feel it a lot more the next day. Especially for a freshman -- who is not used to the demands at this level to begin with -- to have to guard bigger, stronger players for five months could definitely tire one out by the end of the season.

Ders24
12-07-2008, 04:50 PM
I'm with you here, Kedsy. I have no faith that there's any difference in a player going for 32 minutes a game vs 37 minutes a game. If anything, the amount of practice time in between games (likely, hours and hours in a week, compared to 1 hours of game time) would be much more tiring.

In my opinion, the whole "too many minutes in a game" makes a players tired at the end of the year is bunk.

That said, I feel it important to distinguish this argument vs. the one about Singler being worn out last year by playing out of position. I DO think that Singler was justifiably fatigured by playing out of a position; it's not that he was "tired" due to the quantity of minutes, it's that he was playing in a more physically demanding role than he was accustomed. I think these two points often get conflated on the boards...

I think mental fatigue is a huge issue (regardless of what I think about the physical conditioning). Yeah, they are kids, but they are constantly put into the spotlight, and that does take a toll. They have other things going on in their lives, etc.

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 05:01 PM
Agreed. I have always found it to be a lot more physically demanding to guard a much larger opponent than it is to sprint up and down the court for two hours. And on the rare occasions I'm forced to guard a much larger player, my legs feel it a lot more the next day. Especially for a freshman -- who is not used to the demands at this level to begin with -- to have to guard bigger, stronger players for five months could definitely tire one out by the end of the season.

You both made really good points here. I've never thought 32 minutes vs. 37 makes much of a difference -- unless a guy is really struggling in a given game and just needs a break. Kyle's issue, as you said, was something totally different last year.

As you guys also identified, the real fatigue comes from five months of K's punishing practices, the pressure to be excellent every day, and all the other requirements on the guys' time (i.e., the fact that exams were looming, guys were turning in papers and the team flew to Michigan late on Friday night). That could have left them tired yesterday, but I'm not at all concerned about some sort of cumulative effect based on minutes played. Also, let's keep in mind that we all read about how Duke changed its conditioning program this summer, working more on strength and less on running. The idea was to have fresher legs in March. So, maybe the team isn't in tip-top leg/cardio shape just yet. That's fine.

mcdukie
12-07-2008, 05:08 PM
I agree with the poster who said he didn't read the board until the day after because too many people panic immediately after a game. I am a die hard like many of you and if we believe in K like we say you should know that he will correct the areas that are fixable, like shooting too many 3's. My only concern that I have had from day 1 is that I think at some point it is going to hurt us not to have an inside presence. Zoubek and Lance have improved but they don't scare anyone inside. We will have a good year, I just don't know if we are a final four team.

77devil
12-07-2008, 05:27 PM
If you want this team to test itself early in the year, you have to be willing to deal with it if they fail an occasional quiz or two.

Jumbo:

You make the presumption that the Michigan game should be considered an early test. Playing a top 30 opponent away would be an early test in my opinion. I believe that has contributed to the reaction. The fans expected a win, and, given the way it played, it would seem the team did as well.

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 05:31 PM
Jumbo:

You make the presumption that the Michigan game should be considered an early test. Playing a top 30 opponent away would be an early test in my opinion. I believe that has contributed to the reaction. The fans expected a win, and, given the way it played, it would seem the team did as well.

Where would you rank Michigan, then? A road game against a team in a BCS conference is pretty much always a test. It's even more of a test when it's your second road game that week, your kids are preparing for exams, you fly in the night before, you've played the team already, etc. And that team already beat UCLA this year.

I'm not sure where Michigan will finish in the Big 10. They're the type of team that can beat really good teams, but can also go really cold and lose to Northwestern one night. I don't know why you wouldn't consider this game a good early-season test, though. Michigan has shown it is a capable opponent and should have won at Maryland earlier in the week. And we'd all consider a game at Maryland to be a test, right?

devildownunder
12-07-2008, 05:41 PM
this was a loss that I don't mind. There has been some talk about how experienced this team is relative to most competition these days. That's true in some respects but we still have a second-year player trying to learn the pg position and almost everyone on the team is notch up the ladder of responsibility from where they were last year. This means yesterday was the first time many of them have been asked to perform in their current roles when facing a stern challenge on the court. I for one am glad the first time came in December, not halfway through January in an ACC road game.

Michigan isn't exactly a top-25 program these days and I think one of the (several) factors that contributed to this loss was our fairly easy win over them in NY a little while ago. I suspect that led to a bit of a mental letdown for the rematch. The point is that this wasn't an example of the kind of tough scheduling I'd really like to see but the effect was the same -- a tough game on the road. I don't know whether Jumbo's assumption that many people complaining about the loss are the same ones who wanted tougher scheduling but this scheduling critic is quite fine to accept this loss because I do believe it will make us better down the road. Plus, who had any illusions about going undefeated anyway? The best bit? Letting Nolan take his lumps at the point. The kid's gotta learn, and for us to be great, he has to improve, so I'm thrilled K left him in there.

I have only one complaint about the game management/strategy, that's the 2-33 we were in 3pters before we hit a few down the stretch. I know the 3 is a large part of the offense but this team is plenty athletic enough to get into the lane and attack the basket. And when the shooting is that poor, IMO the strategy should adjust to using that athleticism to get to the hole and get to the line -- long before we ever miss 31 shots out of 33.

mgtr
12-07-2008, 05:53 PM
I have only one complaint about the game management/strategy, that's the 2-33 we were in 3pters before we hit a few down the stretch. I know the 3 is a large part of the offense but this team is plenty athletic enough to get into the lane and attack the basket. And when the shooting is that poor, IMO the strategy should adjust to using that athleticism to get to the hole and get to the line -- long before we ever miss 31 shots out of 33.

I have been trying to make this point. When you are clanging 3s (and 2-33 is really bad) you need to try a different strategy. But our strategy was keep on shooting 3s. We have had that problem before. We don't have a Shel or JJ to go to, so we need someone to try something else. I think that Hendo, EWill, maybe Marty, and Nolan can dribble into the middle and cause something useful to happen. Singler and Scheyer can do it against man to man, maybe not so easily in the zone.
I am not a coach. Perhaps I don't understand the niceties of the situation. But I know that 2/33 from three is not going to win many ballgames.

Jumbo
12-07-2008, 06:07 PM
I have been trying to make this point. When you are clanging 3s (and 2-33 is really bad) you need to try a different strategy. But our strategy was keep on shooting 3s. We have had that problem before. We don't have a Shel or JJ to go to, so we need someone to try something else. I think that Hendo, EWill, maybe Marty, and Nolan can dribble into the middle and cause something useful to happen. Singler and Scheyer can do it against man to man, maybe not so easily in the zone.
I am not a coach. Perhaps I don't understand the niceties of the situation. But I know that 2/33 from three is not going to win many ballgames.

This really belongs in the post-game thread. But, again, it's not enough to say "we just need to shoot more twos." Michigan's defense was designed to give us those open threes, they are easy shots, and they are shots we're going to hit on just about any other night. More to the point, you have to give Michigan credit for taking away our other options. Sure, I was screaming at the TV too, hoping we could get some easier baskets. But you can't just say "try a different strategy" and magically make easy baskets appear.

Duke's strength is attacking the basket off the dribble. The 1-3-1 was designed to stop that. Yes, there were other options available to try to get the ball inside. For instance, you can throw quick skip passes, then try to hit one of your post players on the block against the chaser (the bottom guy in the zone). You could've tried to gap the zone -- penetrating into soft spots, not all the way to to the basket, but a dribble or two, drawing two defenders -- and then kicked it out. And instead of shooting the open three off the kickout, you could've attacked off the bounce again. In theory, that can open things up. You could've overloaded a side and tried to pound the ball a little more.

The probems were that 1) UM's zone took away some of those options fairly effectively; 2) Duke isn't necessarily built to execute some of the other strategies. For all the talk about using Zoubek more, his baskets came off plays made by others -- penetration, on the break, etc. When he tried to post someone up, one-on-one, he almost tripped over himself and shot up a weak half-hook that didn't get over the front rim.

I would like to see Singler work in the post more often, and it would have been interesting to see if we'd been able to get him some touches down low. But against the zone, he would've been swarmed. So, it's not like there was a fool-proof solution to the problems the zone presented.

Saratoga2
12-07-2008, 06:15 PM
Um.....Nolan shot 40% and Gerald shot 50% last night. So I'm gonna say we do have a few people capable of shooting 40% on any given night.

They are shooting way below that for the year, Every player is well under 40%, and I take your point that on a given night one they might hit better, but on average they do not. Paulus is 8 for 25 and I believe Singler is 13 for 45.

ncexnyc
12-07-2008, 06:51 PM
Perhaps I don't understand the niceties of the situation. But I know that 2/33 from three is not going to win many ballgames.
You don't have to understand the niceties of the situation. All you had to do was listen to Jay Bilas, who time after time made the point that the goal of the 1-3-1 zone was to lull you into taking 3's instead of 2's.

I didn't get to see the game live, as I was at work, but managed to check the internet twice during the game. Two stats jump out at you, the limited number of free throw attempts and the 3 pt %. At first I thought the game was poorly officiated, but as we all know that wasn't the case. The high number of 3's was something, which several board members questioned after the Perdue game, however their concern was brushed aside with several sarcastic remarks. Unfortunately, the concern that was voiced came to manifest itself in the Michigan game.

I read several pages of the game thread, before finally watching the game in the wee hours of the morning. Aside from the fact we lost, it was a very entertaining game.

If the 1-3-1 gives up easy 3's, we should have made more of an attempt to work the clock and if an interior shot couldn't be had, then we could have settled for a 3 near the end of the shot clock. The adjustment is one that falls on our coaching staff to make.

I thought we got excellent games from Brian, Lance and David. Several people mentioned Brian getting beat away from the basket, well tough cookies. It's called a mismatch, something we boast about doing with Kyle, this time the shoe was on the other foot. Better defensive rotation would have taken care of this problem.

G and Jon had solid games and while G's lack of a huge offensive game bothers some people, I can't fault him since somebody else was heaving the ball-up left and right.

Greg was a non-factor and Nolan didn't have a very good game, but that can be expected every now and then.

Sorry, but this loss falls on Kyle. When the shots aren't dropping it's time to get the rest of your team involved. I'm not being hard on Kyle, as I've praised him in our previous games for being the, "MAN."

As they say, "Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you."

There's a long layoff before the next game and I'm sure the kids will bounce back.

Skitzle
12-07-2008, 11:33 PM
The only thing I have to say, is there were only a few occasions during the 2-33 run where the 3pt shot taken was a bad one.

Any of the other 27 or so misses were on open looks being taken by guys that are pretty good at hitting 3 point shots.

If you believe that this team isn't capable of hitting 3's, I point you to the 38% they made from behind the arc last year (Not including Nelson, King only includes Singler, Sheyer, Paulus, Smith, Henderson)

Let say that was an anomaly. Let say they're only really good enough to hit 33%... well 33% of 27 is 8ish... that's another 6 made threes or 18 points/.

Also, A team that "Lives and Dies by the three" wouldn't still be in any ball game against after shooting just 6% from behind the arc.

Yes Duke hasn't shot the ball well from 3 all season, but I still believe they're a fine 3 point shooting team. Only time will tell who's right...

Diddy
12-08-2008, 12:36 AM
I posted during the game, but not afterward. I wanted to cool down, and I did.

A lot of people are poo-pooing the so called "nay-sayers." They are called alarmists, retards, and worse.

The people saying these things about the nay-sayers are the same people who last year predicted, among other things:

1. No way, I mean NO WAY, would Duke have their second consecutive early exit from the NCAAs.

2. That firing Roof and hiring ANY concievable new coach was not the answer to Duke's woes in football.

3. Greg Monroe was a lock. And when he obiviously wasn't that much of a lock...

4. Kenny Boynton was a shoe in for Duke. Mortal Lock. All but signed.

So, needless to say, we are talking about the braintrust of Duke fandom. They know all, and to gainsay them is to risk some type of nebulous, ill-defined demerits system leading up to Xenu knows what.

But, occaisionally the nay-sayers stumble on to a grain of truth on the vast beach that is THE WAY THINGS ARE with regards to Duke sports. Blind hogs and acorns and whatnot.

Not that the nay-sayers are ever acknowledged when said grains come to light.

Now that I have spewed my snark, allow me to venture a gues as to why some fans are taking yesterday's loss so tough.

1. Michigan was not, as some have asserted, the tough pre-season game many have been longing for. They aren't a hypen, or a cupcake, but neither are they a titan. They lost to a very mediocre (at best) Maryland team. They are not a lock for the NCAAs. Beating Duke and UCLA will help them, but they will have some real headscratching losses along the way that will counter balance those wins. They will have to claw and scrape their way through the Big 10 to make the NCAAs. When certain nay-sayers whine about a soft schedule, we would like to see true away games scheduled at top 15 programs, preferabbly more than 1, each year.

We can lie to ourselves about how good Michigan is, or will be this season. It lessons the sting. but it is still a lie. They aren't awful. But they aren't great, either.

2. We are upset because an unpleasant reality has become clear regarding this year's team. There is the real potential that we could witness another first weekend swoon in the NCAAs. Admittedlly, there is also the potential for this team to reach the FF, a possibility which did not exist for the last two years. Last year, and the year before, even if the team had played well, we would not have advanced past the elite eight. This year, if we play to our capability, we could go to the final four. That is the upside.

The downside reality is that if we play poorly, we could lose in the round of 32. Such a possibility did not exist in 99, 01, 02, or 04. Even if those teams had played poorly, they still would have survived a tough early weekend game. For the first two rounds, those teams were essentially unbeatable, barring truly catastrophic play. Not so this year. An off game on the first weekend and we are done. This leads to ...

3. The style of play yesterday. Broken record. Jacking up threes, even when they aren't falling, and subsequently losing. A lot of people are upset by this occurrence, or reocurrance for 1 big reason. It is Lazy basketball. Jacking up threes is easy. You don't have to move, or do a good job of sharing the ball. It takes no effort, no thought, no hustle, no teamwork. That is scary. Of course, that is the best case scenario for such a style of play. Going inside and attacking the basket is hard. It involves fouls, banging bodies, and having to dig down for reserves of will and fortitude that you are never sure you have. The team's unwillingness to do this speaks to an emotional flaw that even I dare not give name. But it is an emotion that championship teams do not succomb to, if indeed they even feel such an emotion.

So lay off the sayers of Nay. What happened yesterday was upsetting not because we lost (not entirely anyhoo). It was how we lost. It was a style of play that has absolutely crushed us in recent years. We hoped it was behind us, but it reared its ugly head yesterday. It is an obvious and recurring failing, but it has not yet been corrected.

That scares me. It may not scare you. You not being scared of that doesn't make you a better person, or a better Duke fan. That is another lie you can tell yourself, to make yourself feel better. But repeating a lie over and over again will never make it true.

kinghoops
12-08-2008, 03:14 AM
I posted during the game, but not afterward. I wanted to cool down, and I did.

A lot of people are poo-pooing the so called "nay-sayers." They are called alarmists, retards, and worse.

The people saying these things about the nay-sayers are the same people who last year predicted, among other things:

1. No way, I mean NO WAY, would Duke have their second consecutive early exit from the NCAAs.

2. That firing Roof and hiring ANY concievable new coach was not the answer to Duke's woes in football.

3. Greg Monroe was a lock. And when he obiviously wasn't that much of a lock...

4. Kenny Boynton was a shoe in for Duke. Mortal Lock. All but signed.

So, needless to say, we are talking about the braintrust of Duke fandom. They know all, and to gainsay them is to risk some type of nebulous, ill-defined demerits system leading up to Xenu knows what.

But, occaisionally the nay-sayers stumble on to a grain of truth on the vast beach that is THE WAY THINGS ARE with regards to Duke sports. Blind hogs and acorns and whatnot.

Not that the nay-sayers are ever acknowledged when said grains come to light.

Now that I have spewed my snark, allow me to venture a gues as to why some fans are taking yesterday's loss so tough.

1. Michigan was not, as some have asserted, the tough pre-season game many have been longing for. They aren't a hypen, or a cupcake, but neither are they a titan. They lost to a very mediocre (at best) Maryland team. They are not a lock for the NCAAs. Beating Duke and UCLA will help them, but they will have some real headscratching losses along the way that will counter balance those wins. They will have to claw and scrape their way through the Big 10 to make the NCAAs. When certain nay-sayers whine about a soft schedule, we would like to see true away games scheduled at top 15 programs, preferabbly more than 1, each year.

We can lie to ourselves about how good Michigan is, or will be this season. It lessons the sting. but it is still a lie. They aren't awful. But they aren't great, either.

2. We are upset because an unpleasant reality has become clear regarding this year's team. There is the real potential that we could witness another first weekend swoon in the NCAAs. Admittedlly, there is also the potential for this team to reach the FF, a possibility which did not exist for the last two years. Last year, and the year before, even if the team had played well, we would not have advanced past the elite eight. This year, if we play to our capability, we could go to the final four. That is the upside.

The downside reality is that if we play poorly, we could lose in the round of 32. Such a possibility did not exist in 99, 01, 02, or 04. Even if those teams had played poorly, they still would have survived a tough early weekend game. For the first two rounds, those teams were essentially unbeatable, barring truly catastrophic play. Not so this year. An off game on the first weekend and we are done. This leads to ...

3. The style of play yesterday. Broken record. Jacking up threes, even when they aren't falling, and subsequently losing. A lot of people are upset by this occurrence, or reocurrance for 1 big reason. It is Lazy basketball. Jacking up threes is easy. You don't have to move, or do a good job of sharing the ball. It takes no effort, no thought, no hustle, no teamwork. That is scary. Of course, that is the best case scenario for such a style of play. Going inside and attacking the basket is hard. It involves fouls, banging bodies, and having to dig down for reserves of will and fortitude that you are never sure you have. The team's unwillingness to do this speaks to an emotional flaw that even I dare not give name. But it is an emotion that championship teams do not succomb to, if indeed they even feel such an emotion.

So lay off the sayers of Nay. What happened yesterday was upsetting not because we lost (not entirely anyhoo). It was how we lost. It was a style of play that has absolutely crushed us in recent years. We hoped it was behind us, but it reared its ugly head yesterday. It is an obvious and recurring failing, but it has not yet been corrected.

That scares me. It may not scare you. You not being scared of that doesn't make you a better person, or a better Duke fan. That is another lie you can tell yourself, to make yourself feel better. But repeating a lie over and over again will never make it true.

now i think this is a pretty good post. losing to michigan was a bad loss, no matter where the game was played. were they overlooked? i cant answer that, but there is one thing i dont understand. duke was 24 for 32 on two point baskets. thats 75 percent!! isnt part of halftime making adjustments?
i understand the 1-3-1 zone is played to give the open 3, but my god, if you see they arent falling, you are supposed to make adjustments!! im more than sure, that someone on the duke bench has seen a 1-3-1 zone before.

and, if anyone that doesnt think that this loss looks anything like the losses of say, they past four years, then you are just fooling yourself! and as fans, you should be upset at a loss, there is no such thing as a good loss.

another thing that sticks out, ZERO fast break points, meaning the defense didnt create any turnovers that could be turned into instant offense. and SIX free throw attempts! but when you jack up threes all nite, you will not go to the line.
do i think the season is over? nope. but i promise you one thing, if some adjustments arent made, them boys from down the road will run us out of the gym, no matter what gym it is. and i surely dont wanna see that!!

TwoDukeTattoos
12-08-2008, 08:13 AM
Since 2001, 6 out of 8 eventual National Champions lost at least one game prior to January.

UF: 06-07, Lost 2 games before January
UNC: 04-05 - Lost very first game of year (vs unranked opponent)
UCONN: 03-04, Lost one game before January
Syracuse: 02-03, Lost very first game of season (vs unranked opponent)
Maryland, 01-02, Lost very first game of season (vs unranked opponent) and 2 games before January
Duke: 00-01, Lost 1 game before January

Also, when you consider that Duke flew in late the night before the game due to academics, Duke pounded Michigan just a few days before, and Duke played in Michigan's gym the second time around, this had the makings of an upset. Let's recall that Michigan DID beat UCLA earlier this year, and they DID receive votes in the last poll.

Next Play.

-jk
12-08-2008, 10:18 AM
I posted during the game, but not afterward. I wanted to cool down, and I did.

A lot of people are poo-pooing the so called "nay-sayers." They are called alarmists, retards, and worse.

...

So, needless to say, we are talking about the braintrust of Duke fandom. They know all, and to gainsay them is to risk some type of nebulous, ill-defined demerits system leading up to Xenu knows what.



Two points and I'll let this thread return to its proper course.

1) if anyone calls someone else a "retard" (or worse) he would be given one of those "nebulous, ill-defined demerits".

2) those "nebulous, ill-defined demerits" are well documented in the Posting Decorum and Guidelines sticky.

-jk

davekay1971
12-08-2008, 10:31 AM
Jumbo, as usual, hit the nail right on the head. I agree completely with his thoughts about fans wanting it both ways. We played a decent team, had a bad game, lost, and hopefully will grow and develop from the experience, thus benefitting us in March. All great points, big guy :)!!!

dukelifer
12-08-2008, 11:27 AM
So lay off the sayers of Nay. What happened yesterday was upsetting not because we lost (not entirely anyhoo). It was how we lost. It was a style of play that has absolutely crushed us in recent years. We hoped it was behind us, but it reared its ugly head yesterday. It is an obvious and recurring failing, but it has not yet been corrected.

That scares me. It may not scare you. You not being scared of that doesn't make you a better person, or a better Duke fan. That is another lie you can tell yourself, to make yourself feel better. But repeating a lie over and over again will never make it true.

One issue I have with the sayers of nay is that little credit is given the team and the coach when the "style off play" is successful- when a lot of open threes drop- or the execution of slowdown takes a 5 point lead and blows it up to a 15 point win. The point of the game is to win and win with the kind of players Duke has on the court. Sometimes the best shot is a wide open three. If the shot is not falling, it does not mean the second best shot would be more successful. I am positive that if Duke passed up wide open threes all game to pound the ball inside into Zoubek or Thomas or Plumlee every play and they missed enough to lose the game - the sayers of nay would still not be happy with the loss.

The major point of discussion seems to be whether K made any adjustments. I am sure K was making adjustments- but Michigan was also adjusting and so it goes. Sometimes what a coach says does not materialize on the court. Listen to the Duke radio feeds to find out how he is making adjustments in games- as Matthew Lawrence will tell you what was said. Basketball is a funny sport because good or fair players or good or fair teams can have great nights- particularly against top opponents- when the world is watching- and usually that happens when a team is playing Duke. Then again, Duke will likely win a few games this year it should have lost. That is how it goes. Maybe Duke's style of play will never be successful again with regard to NCAA championships- maybe coach K is too stubborn to change - or maybe the players will play the style of play better and execute better - even in the post season. None of us know the answers to this. Championships in sport are rare things- a lot has to come together. And don't say that just getting to the final four year in and year out is enough- the sayers of nay would find other issues with that as well.

SupaDave
12-08-2008, 11:39 AM
Jumbo,

Very well said. I, too, was disappointed that Duke lost last night, but it's not the end of the world. Coach Bob McKillop of Davidson always stresses three things to our players: you play to win, you play to have fun, and you play to get better. Let's look at that last one.

When a team loses a game, that can be a better learning experience than a win. You look at the tape over and over again, analyze it down to the last detail, and figure out how you can get better the next time around.

I can tell you than when Davidson played Oklahoma, there were several things that I, as a fan, noticed that we could improve. I'm sure the coaching staff had many more notes. Here's the thing, though. Over the next few games, the weaknesses that I had seen seemed to have improved. Drastically. For example, our rebounding against Oklahoma was terrible. Terrible. Granted, we were up against Blake Griffin. But, OK. You play to get better. How can we do that better next time?

Fast forward to December 6, against NC State. We outrebounded them by something like 13 or 14, including several offensive rebounds.

Coach K is an excellent coach. I have no doubt that he and the rest of the coaching staff will figure out to make this team play better.

Very insightful.

JasonEvans
12-08-2008, 11:50 AM
I posted during the game, but not afterward. I wanted to cool down, and I did.

This is post-cool down!!??!!? Yikes!



A lot of people are poo-pooing the so called "nay-sayers." They are called alarmists, retards, and worse.


As -jk pointed out, this is just wrong and untrue. No one has been called "retards" or anything worse than that. If you see a fellow poster acting in this fashion, please hit the button to report that post and rest assured that the moderators will take care of it.

As an aside, I find it is a hallmark of a weak argument when you must first point out how persecuted you are before making your argument.


The people saying these things about the nay-sayers are the same people who last year predicted, among other things:

1. No way, I mean NO WAY, would Duke have their second consecutive early exit from the NCAAs.


The NCAA tournament is a one-and-done format. Anyone who thinks their team is a lock to make it far is a fool. Many, many great teams who would have seemed to have been mortal locks to make the Final 8 or even the Final 4 have fallen in the first weekend of the tournament. If someone says Duke or UNC or anyone is a lock to make the sweet 16 then they are not a basketball fan with much historical knowledge.


2. That firing Roof and hiring ANY concievable new coach was not the answer to Duke's woes in football.

3. Greg Monroe was a lock. And when he obiviously wasn't that much of a lock...

4. Kenny Boynton was a shoe in for Duke. Mortal Lock. All but signed.


The only thing that is less predictable than NCAA tournament results is recruiting. Again, anyone who tells you otherwise is someone who has not spent much time analyzing this stuff.

I would add that I am not sure how any of the above regartding Duke football or recruiting has anything to do with analysis of Duke's basketball performance so far this season and their prospects for success in the next several months.


So, needless to say, we are talking about the braintrust of Duke fandom. They know all, and to gainsay them is to risk some type of nebulous, ill-defined demerits system leading up to Xenu knows what.

Insult the moderators and the system of keeping the boards civil. Niiice.


(snip)

2. We are upset because an unpleasant reality has become clear regarding this year's team. There is the real potential that we could witness another first weekend swoon in the NCAAs. Admittedlly, there is also the potential for this team to reach the FF, a possibility which did not exist for the last two years. Last year, and the year before, even if the team had played well, we would not have advanced past the elite eight. This year, if we play to our capability, we could go to the final four. That is the upside.

The downside reality is that if we play poorly, we could lose in the round of 32. Such a possibility did not exist in 99, 01, 02, or 04. Even if those teams had played poorly, they still would have survived a tough early weekend game. For the first two rounds, those teams were essentially unbeatable, barring truly catastrophic play. Not so this year. An off game on the first weekend and we are done.

Ummmm-- are you surprised that this Duke team, a team that was ranked right around #10 in the preseason, might not have a cakewalk to the Sweet 16? Really? Dude, you need to re-align your expectations. I agree that this Duke team has a good chance to make the Final Four, perhaps the best that we have had since JJ and Shel left school, but of course there is a possibility they could fall muuuch earlier.

As an aside, do you recall the 2001 team's Round of 32 game against Missouri? The final score does not indicate how close a game that contest was. If we shot in that game the way we shot against Michigan, we most assuredly would have lost.

The 2002 team that you seem to feel was a lock to make the Sweet 16 only won its round of 32 game against Notre Dame by 7 points... and it shot 40% from 3-point land in that game against the Irish while ND was hitting a pathetic 22% of their 3s. If we miss a couple more from outside and ND hits some of the very makable 3s that they missed, that team could have fallen in the round of 32. As it was, they fell in the Sweet 16 instead.

Well, I think I have made my argument fairly clearly.

--Jason "more later" Evans

A-Tex Devil
12-08-2008, 11:58 AM
The only way this loss has any negative effect on us come March is if we needed it to make the tourney. I highly doubt that will be the case. Duke is a tourney team.

Every team in the country (even Carolina) has flaws that, if exposed, could leave them susceptible to a loss against a top 50-ish team if the other team has their A game - especially on the road. Now Duke should never lose to a team like, say, um, Belmont, but on the right night, a team like Michigan can take us down (obviously), and that's just life.

I've watched Texas play a lot this year, too. They look really, really good. But it's also pretty clear they will have a hard time scoring against and beating a top 20 team if AJ Abrams isn't on. Similarly, if Duke becomes reliant on the 3, and those 3s aren't falling, and simultaneously, we can't get the ball inside, we will lose to any decent team playing its "A" game.

We may or may not have the ability to make a final four run -- but please look at the losses that Florida, Syracuse, UCLA, and other final four teams had in recent years. I guarantee you can find losses that are a lot worse than Saturday's loss.

davekay1971
12-08-2008, 11:59 AM
Jumbo, as usual, hit the nail right on the head. I agree completely with his thoughts about fans wanting it both ways. We played a decent team, had a bad game, lost, and hopefully will grow and develop from the experience, thus benefitting us in March. All great points, big guy :)!!!


While I actually do agree with Jumbo's post, I want to clarify that the brown-nosing post above was a tongue-in-cheek part of a longer tongue-in-cheek post which apparently didn't pass muster.

So, in a more serious tone, I do agree with Jumbo, I think we, as fans, do need to have a little more patience about early-season losses. I also think we need to keep in mind the bigger picture that these are young players (even the juniors and seniors) who are learning, and will have off nights, both individually and as a team. I, for one, am okay with trading off early season losses as long as these experiences benefit the team down the road. The Michigan game was painful to watch, but I have faith that the loss will be dissected by our coaches, and each player will have useful learning points to apply down the road. We'll see, the next time the 3s aren't falling, if we continue to stand around passively jacking them up, or if our guys make a proactive shift toward driving the lane and creating shots/free-throw opportunities closer to the basket.

COYS
12-08-2008, 12:05 PM
another thing that sticks out, ZERO fast break points, meaning the defense didnt create any turnovers that could be turned into instant offense.

I'm not sure where you got your stats and maybe someone can back me up on this, but I can think of at least three fast break/semi fast break opportunities that we converted during the game: A steal by Scheyer and an easy deuce. A fast break led by Singler in which he passed to McClure who hoisted a badly timed lob pass that Singler was able to come down with and then hit a reverse layup. And a steal and a dunk by Nolan. I also seem to recall a semi-fast break in which I think it was Nolan tossed a 1/2 court pass to Zoubs who caught it in the lane on the move and managed to convert the layup without traveling.

There may have been other examples, as well. Does anybody have accurate stats for fast break points?

greybeard
12-08-2008, 12:06 PM
I just posted something on the game thread that is probably better posted here. To summarize:

1. Beilein is a terrific, terrific coach.

2. Beilein's teams always have a very player empowering, effective form of offense, with Princeton elements that make players smart, confident, and effective; there is very little micro management from the bench. They are always difficult to defend, and if on their game, especially their featured player(s), they are tough.

3. This 1-3-1 is I am sure filled with gimics. A unique style of defense that makes it difficult to play against because you see it once. Beilein gets to tweak the defense after the first game to take certain things away from Duke, make some things that players like to do much more difficult or actually impossible, and it is extremely difficult to make in-game adjustments because the whole thing is so foreign to begin with. No one is going to put the time (caoches and players both) into being prepared to play against that defense, except of course if you might be playing them in March. If Duke plays Michigan in the tournament, expect a much better offensive performance by Duke because the defense will have been deconstructed in practice to a far greater extent than it was these past two games.

4. Unlike last year when the offense came into the season highly polished, freaturing wing penetration, inside-out passes or attacks to the rim, this year's offense is much more diverse and much less settled. This team will, I expect, get much more proficient offensively as the season progresses, in contrast to last year when the wing-penetration approach got figured out, and Singler was too tired to handle a low post option consistently.

5. This team's ability to be sure of itself in different offensive approaches (I suspect that they will not only be refined but also some will be pared out) as the season moves along, will improve, perhaps dramaticly. If so, there should be a stronger offense in March than we see now, which is a good thing, yes.

Tough to beat a coach like Beilein twice in as many weeks, especially on his home court. Who's up next.

Kedsy
12-08-2008, 12:25 PM
The Michigan game was painful to watch...

Do you really think the game was painful to watch? Granted, the last 5 minutes were difficult to swallow, but before that I thought it was a pretty good game. Enjoyable, even. Then we stopped playing defense, and it stopped being enjoyable for me, but that was just the last few minutes of the game.

I have to say I agree with Jumbo's original post. So, Duke lost? Every team in college basketball this year is going to lose. More than once. Including Duke, so you all should probably prepare yourselves. The negativity around here smacks of entitlement. My senior year, Duke lost a lot more than they won. We were clobbered by 35 by Wake Forest in the ACC tournament, and then got hammered by 43 by Virginia in the ACC tourney the following year, capping an 11 win season. Think about that and you'll be thrilled to watch this year's team, even if they lose a couple.

(and please note that my second paragraph is not aimed at davekay, who said he also agrees with Jumbo.)

ncexnyc
12-08-2008, 12:45 PM
It's not the loss, but the manner in which the game was lost that has some people worried.

For those of you who think the team's poor 3 pt shooting isn't something to be concerned about, please answer this question. How many games do we have to lose due to poor 3 pt shooting will it take before you admit it's an issue?

SupaDave
12-08-2008, 12:51 PM
It's not the loss, but the manner in which the game was lost that has some people worried.

For those of you who think the team's poor 3 pt shooting isn't something to be concerned about, please answer this question. How many games do we have to lose due to poor 3 pt shooting will it take before you admit it's an issue?

So many things wrong with this...

I guess the opposing team deserves very little credit for missed shots - teams aren't gonna lay down. This also doesn't take into account the other teams scoring percentage. Then finally, this totally negates the fact that we could go 100% from the 3pt line and still lose...

AtlDuke72
12-08-2008, 01:05 PM
So many things wrong with this...

I guess the opposing team deserves very little credit for missed shots - teams aren't gonna lay down.

I agree with Supa Dave. All the whinning about the loss is hard to understand. The team usually makes about a third of its 3 point shots - in this game they were 2 for 27 or something like that at one point. If they had made a couple more the whole game would have been different. The shots were open shots for the most part. The answer isn't to stop shooting 3s because this team will not win without them. As in any game there are things that could have been done differently or better but the wholesale criticism of not only the teams effort, strategy, coaching, recruiting etc. etc. is ridiculous IMO. This may be a shock to some, but the Devils will probably lose a couple more before the season is over. By the way, how many games did the teams in 1991, 1992 and 2001 lose?

COYS
12-08-2008, 01:10 PM
It's not the loss, but the manner in which the game was lost that has some people worried.

For those of you who think the team's poor 3 pt shooting isn't something to be concerned about, please answer this question. How many games do we have to lose due to poor 3 pt shooting will it take before you admit it's an issue?

But at the same time, three point shooting is exactly the problem I'd like to have. We all know that Scheyer, Paulus, and Singler can shoot better than they are shooting. I'd expect that to improve. And if it doesn't improve for a while and we figure out ways to win without it, then that might be even better. If we were hitting 37% of our threes AND losing games to Michigan, I would be a little bit more concerned about our offense. But three of our best three point threats are shooting at or below 30% right now (Greg, Jon, and Kyle). Their career averages indicate that this will improve. Even if they fall off their marks from last year by a point or two, they will at least be hitting closer to 35-37% rather than 29-31%. They don't have to be great, they just have to shoot better than they are shooting now. I have no doubt that the will improve. In the meantime, the team will continue to develop its offensive identity. I would like to see that identity include a few more post-up opportunities for G and Kyle, as I think both are especially effective down low/on the baseline and definitely fewer than 33 trey attempts/game. But I think a game like the one at Michigan is part of that process.

If Jon, Kyle, and Greg all stay at 30% for the season, then I won't just worry about 3pt shooting, I'll be seriously concerned about what happened mentally and physically to those three players.

Fish80
12-08-2008, 01:11 PM
[QUOTE=SupaDave;228678]So many things wrong with this...

I guess the opposing team deserves very little credit for missed shots - teams aren't gonna lay down. QUOTE]

I agree with Supa Dave. All the whinning about the loss is hard to understand. The team usually makes about a third of its 3 point shots - in this game they were 2 for 27 or something like that at one point. If they had made a couple more the whole game would have been different. The shots were open shots for the most part. The answer isn't to stop shooting 3s because this team will not win without them. As in any game there are things that could have been done differently or better but the wholesale criticism of not only the teams effort, strategy, coaching, recruiting etc. etc. is ridiculous IMO. This may be a shock to some, but the Devils will probably lose a couple more before the season is over. By the way, how many games did the teams in 1991, 1992 and 2001 lose?

1990-1991 32-7
1991-1992 34-2
2000-2001 35-4

ncexnyc
12-08-2008, 01:13 PM
So many things wrong with this...

I guess the opposing team deserves very little credit for missed shots - teams aren't gonna lay down. This also doesn't take into account the other teams scoring percentage. Then finally, this totally negates the fact that we could go 100% from the 3pt line and still lose...

The question was a fairly simple one, is there any reason you ignored it?

If there's a common thread in our losses why do some people pretend there isn't reason to be concerned.

AtlDuke72
12-08-2008, 01:14 PM
For those of you who think the team's poor 3 pt shooting isn't something to be concerned about, please answer this question. How many games do we have to lose due to poor 3 pt shooting will it take before you admit it's an issue?


I am concerned that the shooting has not been great. So concerned that I think it is possible that we will not win the national championship, especially if we do not shoot well. It would be much smarter to throw it inside each time and dunk. I am surprised that Coach K did not think of that.

ncexnyc
12-08-2008, 01:18 PM
[QUOTE=AtlDuke72;228683]

1990-1991 32-7
1991-1992 34-2
2000-2001 35-4

And what exactly is this supposed to mean?

I hope that you're not implying this year's team is a championship caliber club.

SupaDave
12-08-2008, 01:19 PM
And what exactly is this supposed to mean?

I hope that you're not implying this year's team is a championship caliber club.

You never know till the end. Did anyone think that about Florida's first championship? Did anyone think that UNLV was beatable? You've got to let it play out.

throatybeard
12-08-2008, 01:20 PM
All the whining about the loss is hard to understand.

Ditto. In the pantheon of things that bother me, this loss is somewhere way below the fact that Florida is in another BCS championship, and possibly somewhere just above the hangnail on my left ring finger. We won our preseason tournament. We're still undefeated in the B10 challenge. We've still got possibly the most entitled fans on earth, but you can't have everything I guess.

The most incomprehensible part is that the ululation, on a scale consonant with a season-terminal NCAAT loss, continues 48 hours after the game.

-jk
12-08-2008, 01:21 PM
The most incomprehensible part is that the ululation, on a scale consonant with a season-terminal NCAAT loss, continues 48 hours after the game.

And we have 10 days 'til our next game...

-jk

ncexnyc
12-08-2008, 01:27 PM
The answer isn't to stop shooting 3s because this team will not win without them.

Isn't this what has some people concerned?

Cicero
12-08-2008, 01:29 PM
ululation

In one word, throatybeard has transformed this thread from annoying to edifying. I can't wait until I have kids: "If you don't stop ululating, you're going to bed early!"

SupaDave
12-08-2008, 01:31 PM
The question was a fairly simple one, is there any reason you ignored it?

If there's a common thread in our losses why do some people pretend there isn't reason to be concerned.

Your question is based on the assumption that the only way we win is via the 3 pointer - which doesn't make a lot of sense.

NEWSFLASH - and Jumbo has been saying this - if we lose a game there's a HIGH probability that we missed some shots - and not JUST at the 3pt line.

We only lost by 8. We shot 6 free throws. Michigan shot 22. Which do YOU think is the larger problem?

gumbomoop
12-08-2008, 01:34 PM
As was the case with a couple of other posters, I missed the Mich game, knew the result when I finally had time to watch the tape. Both Kedsy and ncexnyc (earlier post) remarked on what an interesting, enjoyable game it was, despite (or until) the painful loss.

I agree. I have to admit I was probably fortunate not to have seen it live, as I'd have been frustrated by mistakes, by Mich's good play, by inability to pull it out at the end. I'd have cussed a time or two, muttered silly things pretty frequently in the second half, and berated K for not taking my advice on God knows what. I wish we hadn't lost a game we weren't "expected" to lose, but as Lucinda Williams says (quoting Hegel?), "If wishes were horses, I'd have a ranch."

Still, knowing the outcome allowed a certain calm as I watched, and I saw some positives: (1) Scheyer's court awareness continues to impress me a whole lot. He intercepts passes and interrupts the other team's offense regularly. I won't quite claim he's "tougher" than Singler, but Scheyer's the real deal on understanding the game. (2) DMc's play is steady. Was it near end of first half that, shot clock expiring, he fed (ta da!) Scheyer for the neat odd-reverse-left-handed lay-up? DMc blocks shots, often with left hand. DMc blocks out. (3) Not as big a Z fan as some, I do see that his footwork is somewhat improved, and, when he resists that temptation to wrap-around-foul, he's developing a nice baseline-back-to-basket offensive move.

Cheer up if possible. Let's have fun watching Stephen Curry tomorrow night. That's surely a very positive story.

Fish80
12-08-2008, 01:37 PM
[QUOTE=Fish80;228688]

And what exactly is this supposed to mean?

I hope that you're not implying this year's team is a championship caliber club.

That post shows the records of the 1991, 1992, and 2001 teams, in response to a query from SupaDave.

As I've stated earlier, this team will compete for the National Championship. By March, they will be capable of beating anyone. So yes, it is a championship caliber club.

Is it the greatest team ever? Not yet.

Do they have the potential to be a great team? Yes, I believe they do. All the pieces are in place.

Is a National Championship a lock? No, it never is a lock.

JDev
12-08-2008, 01:41 PM
This is not directed at anyone in particular, but complaining to this extent about a December loss plays into the "sense of entitlement" stereotype that is occasionally laid on us Duke fans. Duke is not going to win every game. Duke will not win simlpy because they are Duke. Yes, Duke has had a lot of success in the last wo decades, but none of it came easy, and the coaches and players had to work damn hard for it. It seems as though some people feel they are owed a championship caliber team every year, and losses to perceived "lesser" teams are unacceptable. People should simply be happy that they root for a program that is this well run and successful, and that is run with the utmost integrity. 99.9% of programs in the country would kill to be where Duke is. This Duke team will be fine.
Again, this isn't directed at anyone in particular, and I certainly don't mean any of it in an offensive manner.

Jumbo
12-08-2008, 01:45 PM
Since 2001, 6 out of 8 eventual National Champions lost at least one game prior to January.

UF: 06-07, Lost 2 games before January
UNC: 04-05 - Lost very first game of year (vs unranked opponent)
UCONN: 03-04, Lost one game before January
Syracuse: 02-03, Lost very first game of season (vs unranked opponent)
Maryland, 01-02, Lost very first game of season (vs unranked opponent) and 2 games before January
Duke: 00-01, Lost 1 game before January

Also, when you consider that Duke flew in late the night before the game due to academics, Duke pounded Michigan just a few days before, and Duke played in Michigan's gym the second time around, this had the makings of an upset. Let's recall that Michigan DID beat UCLA earlier this year, and they DID receive votes in the last poll.

Next Play.

Geez, TDT, why let facts get in the way of an argument? ;)
Excellent post.

Fish80
12-08-2008, 01:46 PM
Am I going crazy or were a bunch of posts just edited? :confused:

For a few minutes it looked like the quoting tool was all frigged up, attributing the quote to the "wrong" person, but that now seems to be corrected.

AtlDuke72
12-08-2008, 01:46 PM
[QUOTE=Fish80;228688]

And what exactly is this supposed to mean?

I hope that you're not implying this year's team is a championship caliber club.

The message is that even the best of teams lose occasionally and there is no reason to go into a panic or deep funk when this team has a bad night. The odds are against winning the NCAA championship but it is certainly possible. There is one dominant team (UNC) and one team that some argue can match them (Conn). Duke is as good as anybody else. Do you really think that this team has no chance?

Fish80
12-08-2008, 01:48 PM
. . . Yes, Duke has had a lot of success in the last wo decades, but none of it came easy, . . .

The wo decades? POTD! Wojo! Wojo!

greybeard
12-08-2008, 01:52 PM
I missed the game too, but given my respect for Beilein's offense, here is something to consider:

Many people think that it all starts with defense, being able to stop the other guy. I actually think that it often is the other way around--if you can assert your will offensively, then your ability to defend is amped up.

In this instance, it really doesn't matter which is which, most of the time.

If, and I do not know that this was the case (see above), Duke players were nailing their defense and Michigan was still able to get the shots that they wanted and make them, that just might have taken something away from Duke's offense, particularly if the 1-3-1 prevented Duke from getting their shots in a manner that they wanted. In other words, Beilein's offense put more pressure on Duke to score efficiently, and his defense made Duke create shots in a manner that Beilein's team dictated, rather than as Duke chose. The combination puts unusual pressure on your ability to score the ball, especially from long.

Just a theory.

Jumbo
12-08-2008, 01:58 PM
It's not the loss, but the manner in which the game was lost that has some people worried.

For those of you who think the team's poor 3 pt shooting isn't something to be concerned about, please answer this question. How many games do we have to lose due to poor 3 pt shooting will it take before you admit it's an issue?

Well, I think we lost because of poor defense. So, there's that.

Also, another question to ponder (in a style, I think, Greybeard will appreciate): Did we lose because of poor three-point shooting, or did we suffer through poor three-point shooting because we lost? Think about that for a second.

Lord Ash
12-08-2008, 01:58 PM
Ditto. In the pantheon of things that bother me, this loss is somewhere way below the fact that Florida is in another BCS championship, and possibly somewhere just above the hangnail on my left ring finger. We won our preseason tournament. We're still undefeated in the B10 challenge. We've still got possibly the most entitled fans on earth, but you can't have everything I guess.

The most incomprehensible part is that the ululation, on a scale consonant with a season-terminal NCAAT loss, continues 48 hours after the game.

Hm, I think that it is a mix of some PTSD from Marchs past, mixed with the fact that there is a thread chiding people for being upset, and this causes people to want to defend their points and thus it stretches out the lamentation.

Jumbo
12-08-2008, 02:00 PM
But at the same time, three point shooting is exactly the problem I'd like to have. We all know that Scheyer, Paulus, and Singler can shoot better than they are shooting. I'd expect that to improve. And if it doesn't improve for a while and we figure out ways to win without it, then that might be even better. If we were hitting 37% of our threes AND losing games to Michigan, I would be a little bit more concerned about our offense. But three of our best three point threats are shooting at or below 30% right now (Greg, Jon, and Kyle). Their career averages indicate that this will improve. Even if they fall off their marks from last year by a point or two, they will at least be hitting closer to 35-37% rather than 29-31%. They don't have to be great, they just have to shoot better than they are shooting now. I have no doubt that the will improve. In the meantime, the team will continue to develop its offensive identity. I would like to see that identity include a few more post-up opportunities for G and Kyle, as I think both are especially effective down low/on the baseline and definitely fewer than 33 trey attempts/game. But I think a game like the one at Michigan is part of that process.

If Jon, Kyle, and Greg all stay at 30% for the season, then I won't just worry about 3pt shooting, I'll be seriously concerned about what happened mentally and physically to those three players.

Right on.

ncexnyc
12-08-2008, 02:17 PM
You never know till the end. You've got to let it play out.

As with many threads I've witnessed on this board, there comes a time when the various parties should say, "we agree to disagree."

I'll go that route this time and promise not to mention 3 pt shooting for the remainder of this month (Phase II).;)

greybeard
12-08-2008, 03:22 PM
Well, I think we lost because of poor defense. So, there's that.

Also, another question to ponder (in a style, I think, Greybeard will appreciate): Did we lose because of poor three-point shooting, or did we suffer through poor three-point shooting because we lost? Think about that for a second.

"Is a thing seen because it is being seen, or is it being seen because it is seen." You might think that that is quintessential greybeard but you would be wrong. "Is a thing just because it is being just, or it being just because it is just." You don't need to go to Google, it's Plato, gents, "The Apology," if I memory serves.

But, I rely here not on Plato, but on my own considerable experience on the lower rungs of the middle ladders of the basketball world. My take always was, you take the other guy's best defense and still score the ball on your terms, he knows (thinks) he is in trouble. Beilein and JTIII develop offenses, well they often have, that permit their teams to do that to other teams, even those whom on paper are stronger.

Being able to show an opponent that you can score the ball on him as you would chose creates a mindset, tone, that translates to the other end. Puts way more pressure on the offensive guy to score the ball than he would like. You make him try to score the ball, even if it "objectively" is a good shot, in a way other than he would "chose," now the pressure is really there. You put some other chink in, get him a little off tempo, a little off balance, make the passer throw it a tad low, and voila, the game has turned. Often, my style, I would creat as my far the most logical option one I knew that the offensive player would never want to chose. You could see it in his eyes, and, if you did, you would close the other options, even making the undesired one more available, making sure you had an angle of recovery that would keep him from getting something truly easy and then, he must take a shot you chose for him that he does not like or give it up. Either way he is yours.

To me, putting the clamps on a guy defensively never produced the same results. A guy can usually get results by working harder defensively. But, if he is made to feel inferior defensively, his offense suffers. Then, he tries to "make plays" defensively, instead of just playing good defense, and it just gets worser for him.

BTW, I never understood what the X$*# Plato was trying to get at, and believe me I tried. :o

ArnieMc
12-08-2008, 03:26 PM
At first I thought the game was poorly officiated, but as we all know that wasn't the case.
I hope this was sarcastic. Did you see the charge called on Kyle, when Novak clearly, obviously slid under him while Kyle was in the air? It should have been an "and one" - instead it was a foul. It could have turned the game around, but everybody's shoulders slumped instead. Also, I don't believe that the disparity in free throws happens without a lot of homerism.


Sorry, but this loss falls on Kyle. When the shots aren't dropping it's time to get the rest of your team involved. I'm not being hard on Kyle, as I've praised him in our previous games for being the, "MAN."

This comment is ludicrous.

1. Kyle missed a lot of 3 pointers.

2. So did the rest of the team.

3. Kyle nearly had a triple double: 15 points, 10 boards, 7 assists.

4. So did . . . Oh, wait, no they didn't.

Get the rest of the team involved? Did I mention 7 assists? Nolan and Greg combined had 3! In fact, when Nolan and Greg were so ineffective, Kyle took over the point. You really need to watch the game.

Bob Green
12-08-2008, 03:41 PM
ululation


In one word, throatybeard has transformed this thread from annoying to edifying. I can't wait until I have kids: "If you don't stop ululating, you're going to bed early!"

I love it when a post sends me scrambling to the dictionary. On to the topic at hand: three point shooting.

We need to be successful on at least 25 percent of our attempts. Obviously, a success rate in the 30s is desireable but 25 percent is the minimum. At Michigan we made 21.2 percent (7/33). To top 25 percent we would have had to have been successful on nine attempts (27.3%). That extra six points could have made the difference. Wait a minute you say, we lost by nine points. Yes, but Michigan made a ton of free throws down the stretch when we were fouling to stop the clock.

This link (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=283410130) contains this fact:


Duke was 7-for-33 on 3-pointers, its third straight loss in which it has shot worse than 25 percent on 3-pointers.

and this fact:


The Wolverines made 13 of 14 free throws in the final 3 minutes to seal the upset...

This explains the disparity in free throw attempts, which was not due to poor officiating or homerism. And, of course, if we had played better defense this whole conversation would be irrelevant.

ArnieMc
12-08-2008, 03:45 PM
I
This explains the disparity in free throw attempts, which was not due to poor officiating or homerism. And, of course, if we had played better defense this whole conversation would be irrelevant.Ok, I'll concede that, but the charge call was still bad.:)

Bluedog
12-08-2008, 04:11 PM
But three of our best three point threats are shooting at or below 30% right now (Greg, Jon, and Kyle). Their career averages indicate that this will improve. Even if they fall off their marks from last year by a point or two, they will at least be hitting closer to 35-37% rather than 29-31%. [...] If Jon, Kyle, and Greg all stay at 30% for the season, then I won't just worry about 3pt shooting, I'll be seriously concerned about what happened mentally and physically to those three players.

Not saying that it makes a significant difference, but the three-point line this year is farther back this year than it was last year. So, I'd expect the percentages to go down, at least, a bit. I wonder if there is an aggregate NCAA 3 pt % out there, and if this year it's lower than last year's. Anybody know?

Skitzle
12-08-2008, 04:20 PM
Ok, I'll concede that, but the charge call was still bad.:)

I watched it a couple times (love tivo). I ended up agreeing with the call.

Bob Green
12-08-2008, 04:20 PM
I wonder if there is an aggregate NCAA 3 pt % out there, and if this year it's lower than last year's. Anybody know?

This post covers it:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=228735&postcount=3

Rudy
12-08-2008, 05:20 PM
Thanks to Jumbo particularly for pointing out the travel and exam schedule, which I had forgotten while I was watching the game. Most of the 3's were falling short, but on line, generally a sign of tired legs, and I couldn't figure out why that would be.

Some excellent H.S. girls basketball coach in my area was asked how his team lost a game that it supposedly should have won. His answer was that the ball went into the basket more times for the other team than it did for his team that night. Sometimes the explanation is as simple as that.

I love this Duke team. They are fun to watch.

jv001
12-08-2008, 05:26 PM
This link (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=283410130) contains this fact:



and this fact:



This explains the disparity in free throw attempts, which was not due to poor officiating or homerism. And, of course, if we had played better defense this whole conversation would be irrelevant.

I knew we were in trouble when I saw Ed Hightower was one of the officials for the game. I think Duke has lost more non-ACC games with him as an official than any other official. For ACC play it was Linny (unc) Wirtz.

Skitzle
12-08-2008, 06:29 PM
Thanks to Jumbo particularly for pointing out the travel and exam schedule, which I had forgotten while I was watching the game. Most of the 3's were falling short, but on line, generally a sign of tired legs, and I couldn't figure out why that would be.

Some excellent H.S. girls basketball coach in my area was asked how his team lost a game that it supposedly should have won. His answer was that the ball went into the basket more times for the other team than it did for his team that night. Sometimes the explanation is as simple as that.

I love this Duke team. They are fun to watch.

I feel like a couple times last year (at least) there were links to Post Game Press-Conferences that K held. Are there any of those for this game? I'd love to read his opinion of it. Always helps put things into perspective.

Madrasdukie
12-08-2008, 06:55 PM
I feel like a couple times last year (at least) there were links to Post Game Press-Conferences that K held. Are there any of those for this game? I'd love to read his opinion of it. Always helps put things into perspective.

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=3629590

MChambers
12-08-2008, 08:26 PM
It's not the loss, but the manner in which the game was lost that has some people worried.

For those of you who think the team's poor 3 pt shooting isn't something to be concerned about, please answer this question. How many games do we have to lose due to poor 3 pt shooting will it take before you admit it's an issue?

It will take 20-25 games before I'll worry about three point shooting.

We have very good shooters, and more than most teams have. I think Paulus is an exceptional shooter and just needs to get healthy and back in shape. Smith, Scheyer, and Singler are all quite good shooters. Henderson is adequate. Williams will be good, just don't know how soon. Pocius is okay.

How many teams have four starters who can shoot the three?

As someone else said, this is not a bad worry, at least not yet.

throatybeard
12-08-2008, 09:21 PM
Hm, I think that it is a mix of some PTSD from Marchs past, mixed with the fact that there is a thread chiding people for being upset, and this causes people to want to defend their points and thus it stretches out the lamentation.

Trauma. Yes, what trauma it is to have your team lose in March. There are 347 teams in NCAA Division I. One wins the NCAAT. One wins the NIT. That leaves 345, almost all of whom lose their last game. Imagine all the trauma involved! Only 99.42% of teams end their season with a loss. The indignity; the trauma!

Wander
12-08-2008, 09:44 PM
Trauma. Yes, what trauma it is to have your team lose in March. There are 347 teams in NCAA Division I. One wins the NCAAT. One wins the NIT. That leaves 345, almost all of whom lose their last game. Imagine all the trauma involved! Only 99.42% of teams end their season with a loss. The indignity; the trauma!

I was wondering about this recently - the maximum number of teams that can finish the season with a win.

There's the 3 postseason tournament winners. I guess as many as 5 Ivy League teams can too. Used to be the bottom of the Big East could, but not anymore. There are still the newer teams though that are ineligible for postseason play, but I bet some of them play each other in their final game. Am I missing anyone?

So I guess the maximum number is in the 10-20 range.

throatybeard
12-08-2008, 09:52 PM
I was wondering about this recently - the maximum number of teams that can finish the season with a win.

There's the 3 postseason tournament winners. I guess as many as 5 Ivy League teams can too. Used to be the bottom of the Big East could, but not anymore. There are still the newer teams though that are ineligible for postseason play, but I bet some of them play each other in their final game. Am I missing anyone?

So I guess the maximum number is in the 10-20 range.

And I think there are couple other large conferences whose dregs don't qualify for the conference tourney. Yes, it's probably really around a dozen.

Maybe we should join the Ivy League and then proceed to go 12-16 but win our last game. This would limit the amount of PTSD our fans suffer, presumably. Unless they're already reeling from the PTSD induced by losing at Michigan in December.

Truth
12-08-2008, 10:20 PM
I hope this was sarcastic. ... Also, I don't believe that the disparity in free throws happens without a lot of homerism.

I hope this was sarcastic. You have seen Duke's FT stats in Cameron right? Would you also call that homerism?

I wouldn't, the more aggressive offensive team tends to lead in FT attempts; usually that's us, last game it wasn't.

ncexnyc
12-09-2008, 02:49 AM
I hope this was sarcastic. Did you see the charge called on Kyle, when Novak clearly, obviously slid under him while Kyle was in the air? It should have been an "and one" - instead it was a foul. It could have turned the game around, but everybody's shoulders slumped instead. Also, I don't believe that the disparity in free throws happens without a lot of homerism.



This comment is ludicrous.

1. Kyle missed a lot of 3 pointers.

2. So did the rest of the team.

3. Kyle nearly had a triple double: 15 points, 10 boards, 7 assists.

4. So did . . . Oh, wait, no they didn't.

Get the rest of the team involved? Did I mention 7 assists? Nolan and Greg combined had 3! In fact, when Nolan and Greg were so ineffective, Kyle took over the point. You really need to watch the game.
I did watch the game. In fact since I watched it approximately 8 hrs after the end of the game, I probably was more objective in my viewing than you were.

As a Duke fan you should be well aware of the mantra that, "Duke gets all the calls", which our opposition constantly repeats. You should also be aware that by the end of just about every season we end up making more free throws than our opposition shoots. This is due to our team's aggressive attacking of the basket, as well as spreading the floor at the end of games when we have a lead. This didn't happen Saturday as we didn't attack the basket and settled for long jump shots.

It's very easy to focus on one bad or questionable call and say it cost us the game, but I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, any Michigan fan could point out several similar plays that went against their team. Again I say this was an evenly called game. If you want to say otherwise then feel free to do so.

If there is a, "Man of the Match", then surely there can be a, "Goat of the Game." I truly understand that this is a team sport, but when we single out one player for praise, then it's only fair that in some games someone will get the finger pointed at them for a poor performance.

You want to talk stats then let's do so. So Kyle nearly had a triple double. Well in case you never heard, "almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades."

Kyle played the most minutes, but he wasn't the teams leading scorer. That distinction goes to Jon.

Kyle had a great game on the boards with 10, but our 3 headed post monster had 8 boards.

Kyle also had 7 assists, which is again a very impressive number. The runner-up was G with 4.

The scoring, rebounding, and assists all look good. It's when you look at how he got his points that you see why he earned his horns.

PTS FG-A 3P-A MIN
Jon 16 7-11 1-5 34
Kyle 15 6-17 1-9 36
Nolan 12 5-9 2-5 31
G 11 4-8 2-4 19
Brian 8 4-6 0-0 14

I'm sorry, but 6-17 and 1-9, just doesn't cut it. Jon was just as bad from downtown, but his overall effort of 7-11, was outstanding. Take a real close look at what we got from Nolan, G, and Brian. Those 3 were a combined 13-23 and 4-9, that's not to shabby. Extremely efficient shooting if you ask me.

Lulu
12-09-2008, 03:26 AM
Lots of argument here that we didn't go to the free throw line because we didn't attack the basket, and pointing to the number of attempted 3 pointers... I'm thinking chicken and egg here... what if some of our personnel, Kyle for example, found they weren't able to effectively drive due to all the non-calls, and thus it was just easier to jack up 3's.

I know Beilein's defense was set up to allow some 3's, but it's not like we didn't drive the whole game. There just wasn't a single call on any of those drives until near the end of the game. So which came first? The non-calls or the reliance on 3's? I have a feeling that if a few of those fouls were called we would have seen more drives.

There was a TON of contact that was never called on our end.

Lord Ash
12-09-2008, 07:23 AM
Trauma. Yes, what trauma it is to have your team lose in March. There are 347 teams in NCAA Division I. One wins the NCAAT. One wins the NIT. That leaves 345, almost all of whom lose their last game. Imagine all the trauma involved! Only 99.42% of teams end their season with a loss. The indignity; the trauma!

Given that people still post with fresh-sounding angst about UConn, Arkansas, and a non-foul against Carlos Boozer (and yep, without thinking for a moment we all know that game...) and how people often write posts vividly remembering where they were at those times (almost like I remember where I was when the Challenger went down and my mother remembers where she was when she her MLK was shot) I am glad we agree ;)

Hey, no one said it was REASONABLE. I was just giving a REASON.

JasonEvans
12-09-2008, 09:41 AM
We lost because...

A lot of people in this thread seem to be focused on this notion of assigning blame to one aspect of the game for our struggles against Michigan. In my opinion, it is a silly notion. Trying to pin a loss on one factor -- 3-point shooting, defense, Singler, Henderson, poor in-game adjustments, a strong performance by Simms, Beilin's genius, lack of FTs, or whatever -- it just does not make sense to me.

In a game like this, where Duke loses to a team that is pretty clearly not as good as we are on a regular basis, there are going to be many factors that contribute to the loss. Success in the game of basketball falls back on a million little things. When any of them start to fall apart, it can affect others.

For example, when you shoot poorly, it can lead to long rebounds which allows the other team more fastbreaks and prevents you from setting up certain types of defenses. What is to blame in a case like that -- poor shooting, poor defense, bad transition play?

Bottom line-- Duke did a lot of things poorly in the game and Michigan did a lot of things right. It happens. Trying to figure out one thing to change and harping on it -- "if only we had made 3 more 3s, we'd have 9 more points" -- does not strike me as productive basketball analysis.

--Jason "next play..." Evans

jv001
12-09-2008, 10:02 AM
A lot of people in this thread seem to be focused on this notion of assigning blame to one aspect of the game for our struggles against Michigan. In my opinion, it is a silly notion. Trying to pin a loss on one factor -- 3-point shooting, defense, Singler, Henderson, poor in-game adjustments, a strong performance by Simms, Beilin's genius, lack of FTs, or whatever -- it just does not make sense to me.

In a game like this, where Duke loses to a team that is pretty clearly not as good as we are on a regular basis, there are going to be many factors that contribute to the loss. Success in the game of basketball falls back on a million little things. When any of them start to fall apart, it can affect others.

For example, when you shoot poorly, it can lead to long rebounds which allows the other team more fastbreaks and prevents you from setting up certain types of defenses. What is to blame in a case like that -- poor shooting, poor defense, bad transition play?

Bottom line-- Duke did a lot of things poorly in the game and Michigan did a lot of things right. It happens. Trying to figure out one thing to change and harping on it -- "if only we had made 3 more 3s, we'd have 9 more points" -- does not strike me as productive basketball analysis.

--Jason "next play..." Evans

Jason you are so correct. This was a team loss just as the Purdue win was a team win. We just did not play a good game and against a team like Michigan we could not get away with it. No one player was responsible because no one played their best. I think the coaching staff will have the guys ready after the break. Go Duke!

devildownunder
12-09-2008, 02:16 PM
Bottom line-- Duke did a lot of things poorly in the game and Michigan did a lot of things right. It happens. Trying to figure out one thing to change and harping on it -- "if only we had made 3 more 3s, we'd have 9 more points" -- does not strike me as productive basketball analysis.

--Jason "next play..." Evans

I don't think it's fair to request that everyone provide a fully nuanced commentary in order to justify making a critical point. How many people have the time and ability to do that anyway? Is it your argument that unless does then they are incapable of providing "productive basketball analysis"?

devildownunder
12-09-2008, 02:23 PM
So, it's not like there was a fool-proof solution to the problems the zone presented.

Of course not. The solution that was attempted -- keep shooting, they'll start falling -- didn't work and appears to have been employed often recently with similar results. That's the way it seems to me, anyway, others may have far more insight and disagree with me. So with that info to go on, it seemed like a good idea to me to de-emphasise the 3 in the offense at some point in the game.

jv001
12-09-2008, 04:04 PM
Of course not. The solution that was attempted -- keep shooting, they'll start falling -- didn't work and appears to have been employed often recently with similar results. That's the way it seems to me, anyway, others may have far more insight and disagree with me. So with that info to go on, it seemed like a good idea to me to de-emphasise the 3 in the offense at some point in the game.

I think Coach K said after the game that their zone gives you those shots and if you don't take them you don't deserve to win. Next Play & Go Duke!

davekay1971
12-09-2008, 04:09 PM
I think Coach K's best postgame comment was basically along the lines of "we're 9 games into a long season, we've been playing pretty well so far, we didn't play well this game, we lost, we'll learn from it, move on." That all made to sense to me...

Lord Ash
12-09-2008, 05:06 PM
I think Coach K's best postgame comment was basically along the lines of "we're 9 games into a long season, we've been playing pretty well so far, we didn't play well this game, we lost, we'll learn from it, move on." That all made to sense to me...

It DOES have a certain simple elegance...

devildownunder
12-10-2008, 11:01 AM
I think Coach K said after the game that their zone gives you those shots and if you don't take them you don't deserve to win. Next Play & Go Duke!

yep, clearly that's his philosophy about it, so I guess there isn't much reason to belabor the point. I'll do my best not to bring it up again.

Next play.