Phase III - 2009 [Archive]

Jumbo

01-02-2009, 12:21 AM

Twelve games. A host of tough opponents -- inside and outside the conference. And it all ends with a certain game on Feb. 11. Yup, we're going to learn a lot about Duke during Phase III.

I actually thought about concluding this phase at the end of January (which also coincides with another big game -- at Wake). But I like stretching this through the first Carolina game. It's a good, long, difficult stretch, but there's still time left after that to make more changes. So, here's what I'll be looking to see over the next dozen games.

Can we break free from three?
This was an issue last period, and since it hasn't been resolved, it tops the list. I'm not as concerned as other people about Duke's shooting. I think when we get into the rhythm of playing twice a week, the shots will fall. Plus, in another thread, I mentioned that the sample size is still quite small in grading our shooting thus far. Still, we need to start knocking down treys at a higher rate, and that needs to happen soon. It's as simple as that. This isn't to say that we can't survive a bad shooting night or that we rely solely on the three. Far from it. But this team is exponentially better when it's hitting at a reasonable percentage of its shots from beyond the arc.

What does Greg Paulus have left?
This is directly tied to the question above, in that Paulus' greatest ability to help the team is with his shooting. But this goes beyond Greg's stroke. He looks beaten down -- physically, mentally, emotionally. He lost his job to a better player. That stings, especially for a senior. He's been beaten up for three-plus years, and not just his body, but his psyche -- even by his own fans. He needs to find a way to shake that all off and contribute. Yes, his role is diminished, but it's still important. Duke needs another shooter and a steady reserve in the backcourt. Can Greg summon enough strength to provide that? At this point, the answer isn't a simple "He's a veteran -- when he's healthy, he'll be fine." And the answer needs to come during this period.

What happens with increased minutes?
You can bet your sweet bottom that in close games against good teams, Jon Scheyer, Kyle Singler and Gerald Henderson all will play 30-plus minutes. Scheyer and Singler will probably get 35-plus, in fact. These guys haven't been forced to log major minutes on a consistent basis yet, but we got enough early tests to see what Scheyer and Singler would look like with an increased workload. (Henderson has only played 30-plus once this year, against Xavier. He was excellent: 19 pts, 2 reb, 1 ast, 3 stl, 1 blk, .667 FG%, .667 3PT%, 1.000 FT%.)
Scheyer and Singler have each gone 30-plus five times. The sample size is small, and I wouldn't really read much into it, but Scheyer has been absolutely fantastic when playing big minutes, while Singler's shooting has suffered.
Scheyer: 19 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 1.8 spg, .547 FG%, .478 3PT%, .929 FT%.
Singler: 16 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 4.0 apg, 1.4 spg, .424 FG%, .290 3PT%, .625 FT%

How will we hold up defensively against good bigs?
We're all thrilled with the improvement form Zoubek and Thomas so far, especially on offense. But we really haven't faced much in the way of strong interior play. Now they'll go through a series of challenges. It's not that I'm worried about low-post guys going off for big scoring games. Even if that happens, Duke can win. But Zoubek and Thomas need to do a reasonable job on the defensive boards and keep providing Duke with a balanced attack at both ends of the court. To do that, they have to stay on the floor. Both guys are quite foul prone, and that should only be a bigger issue against better teams that attack Duke's interior more successfully. Yes, Plumlee is available behind both of them and McClure and Singler certainly can play together at the 4/5. But Lance and Brian need to prove that they can play against quality opponents without fouling.

Where do we go down the stretch of a close game?
I laugh when people talk about Duke lacking a go-to guy. Singler wants to take big shots. Scheyer wants to take big shots. Henderson wants to take big shots. Duke has go-to guys. Still, I'm interested to see how we utilize them in big spots. Is it the high screen/roll with Scheyer and Singler? Iso for one of the three guys? Gerald in the post? When we most need a bucket, what is the one thing we can count on most? Maybe there doesn't have to be one thing, but I'm interested in seeing if K thinks so and if a pattern emerges late in games.

Can Elliot Williams give us a solid nine-man rotation?
At a minimum, we're eight deep right now. Plumlee is a luxury behind Zoubek and Thomas. Hopefully, he sees the light Coach K keeps talking about and improves rapidly. But even if he doesn't, Duke's okay in the post. I'd like to see us add one more threat behind Gerald and Jon, even though McClure can play the 3 and perform admirably. And while I'm still rooting for Pocius to find a way to contribute, it seems Williams would have the better chance of assuming that role. He doesn't have to be great. He doesn't have to give us more than 10 minutes a night. He just has to tighten up his handle, play consistent D and attack the basket when he has the opportunity. Anything more is gravy. But if he becomes a decent reserve, Duke has another option on nights where things aren't going according to plan. Plus, having another long, athletic defender to keep up the level of ball pressure can't hurt.

Will the offensive diversity continue against better opponents, or will we fall back into familiar habits when the going gets tough?
By this, I mean the following. In recent games, we've seen Zoubek become a semi-reliable inside scoring threat. We've seen Singler and Henderson post up more often. We've seen K add more motion and screening off the ball. Against Loyola, we pressed and trapped and forced the tempo.
But the basis of our system remains the same -- spreading the floor, attacking off the dribble, etc. I'm wondering how committed we'll be to pushing the ball in a tight game, or whether we'll keep up the good ball movement against teams that are playing tighter D, disrupting the passing lanes, etc., or whether we'll dump it into Zoubek against someone his size. Let's see.

Can we stay healthy?
This is, by far, the most important issue. Nolan's injury was a scary reminder of how much can change at any second. Duke's had some bad luck with injuries in recent seasons. Here's hoping that everyone makes it through unscathed.

As always, there are a host of other issues to consider, but these are the most prominent ones looking ahead to the next stretch of games.

Lord Ash

01-02-2009, 12:52 AM

Always a great read, Jumbo.

geraldsneighbor

01-02-2009, 01:53 AM

Awesome stuff Jumbo. On the injuries point, I agree that things can change in a hurry. I know our friends down the road had a similar "scare", even though it was highly overhyped. If all we have to worry about was that and Greg's forearm contusion, I'm thrilled. Because last year, it was bad. Between Zoub's foot and Gerald's wrist, we had some scary moments. If we can avoid the bumps and bruises, and stay rested as the season rolls on, I will be glad. Here's to staying healthy in 2009!

jma4life

01-02-2009, 02:27 AM

Great read. Thanks

Anyway, the Paulus situation is definitely tough not just on its impact on Duke but just in the sense that its sad to see a guy in his situation. A guy who came in and started over a senior point guard as a freshmen, has likely started his entire basketball (and football) career and is now coming off the bench for the first time in his life.

I think a lot of this will fall on K if Paulus does get fully healthy. K was able to sell Nate James on coming off the bench at the end of the season and James performed tremendously well. Assuming Paulus becomes physical healthy, its going to come down to his buying into his importance to this team and gaining the confidence to succeed in his new role. Few have done better at getting players to thrive in this situation than K. This will be one of the tougher jobs K has had.

dukelifer

01-02-2009, 08:48 AM

I think when we get into the rhythm of playing twice a week, the shots will fall.

What does Greg Paulus have left?
This is directly tied to the question above, in that Paulus' greatest ability to help the team is with his shooting. But this goes beyond Greg's stroke. He looks beaten down -- physically, mentally, emotionally.

How will we hold up defensively against good bigs?
But Lance and Brian need to prove that they can play against quality opponents without fouling.

Can Elliot Williams give us a solid nine-man rotation?
But if he becomes a decent reserve, Duke has another option on nights where things aren't going according to plan. Plus, having another long, athletic defender to keep up the level of ball pressure can't hurt.

Will the offensive diversity continue against better opponents, or will we fall back into familiar habits when the going gets tough?

The rhythm of playing twice a week against very good opponents in the regular season will affect a lot. There will be a few games where Duke should win easily but most will be tough. The key to the season is keeping folks fresh mentally. Taking everyone's best shot every night is very wearing, as we have seen.

Paulus has always been a guy who needs to get knocked to the floor a few times to get into the game. He plays much, much better when he sees the ball go through the hoop. Because of his arm injury and perhaps still a bad leg, and the fact he is coming of the bench, he is not hitting consistently. I agree that his play, particularly his shooting from deep is important for offensive balance on the team. I don't expect he will fade into the background. We know he is a competitor.

I have been thrilled with the play of Thomas of Zoubek. There is now a big enough sample to know that this is no fluke. But as Jumbo mentioned, this big question is whether they can stay in games. You can easily see teams looking to foul out Zoubek in the first few minutes. Plumlee will give some fouls, but he will likely pick them up at a faster rate. Teams with good bigs, like Wake, Clemson, State and UNC will be particularly tough.

As for Williams, I expect he will have his moments. Consistency will come with time- but as with Nolan last year- he may have one or two games where he is outstanding. He needs to pick his spots and for this year forget about the three. He is an excellent driver and a can bound very well. His D is okay and can play against some big guards with his length. But if he limits himself to his strengths for now- he will be much more effective.

jimsumner

01-02-2009, 09:13 AM

"A guy who came in and started over a senior point guard as a freshmen, has likely started his entire basketball (and football) career and is now coming off the bench for the first time in his life."

No question, Paulus needs to play better and can play better. But he did not start over a senior point guard as a freshman. I assume you're referring to Sean Dockery. Daniel Ewing was Duke's starting PG in 2005, while Sean was starting at the 2 and backing up the 1.

Greg took over from Ewing, while Dockery retained his role from the previous season.

The decision to not start Dockery at point was made in 2004-05 not 2005-06.

My two cents is that Paulus has not embraced the sixth-man role with the fervor demonstrated last year by Scheyer.

davekay1971

01-02-2009, 09:44 AM

Good read. For next season, if you continue to do the "Phase" previews, you should consider putting them on the main page. You do an excellent job of picking out key questions going forward.

I think the Paulus question is the biggest one, and not just his shooting. While Smith is very good, he's still learning the role as a sophomore. There will be games where Paulus's senior experience will make him invaluable as a floor general. With Smith at the point, we become a younger team, which can lead to streakiness and inconsistency. I can easily invision games where we're playing a good defense and the play is getting shaky and sloppy. That's where Paulus can be a key contributor, coming off the bench and settling things down while Smith takes a few minutes to regroup and talk things over with the coaches. Paulus's shooting is definitely a big benefit, but we have other guys who can shoot. As a team we've been off, but Henderson, Sheyer, Smith, and Singler can all be reasonable shooters.

OZZIE4DUKE

01-02-2009, 09:48 AM

I have been thrilled with the play of Thomas of Zoubek. There is now a big enough sample to know that this is no fluke. But as Jumbo mentioned, this big question is whether they can stay in games. You can easily see teams looking to foul out Zoubek in the first few minutes.

The thing I like about Zoubek is that he keeps getting better as the season has moved along and he has gotten in better shape, gained and exhibited far greater mobility and has shown nice touch around the basket, both in grabbing rebounds (instead of just batting them into the air) and in scoring baskets. Confidence is a wonderful thing, and Brian has gained tons of it against the inferior, smaller opponents. I think Brian expects that to continue as the competition stiffens.

A note on fouls called on Brian this year - they aren't, at least not the way they were the last two years. Brian is now a junior, he's not some rookie the refs call everything on - he's earning some "street cred", and he's not Shav who had a conference video made of him between soph and junior year to show the refs what a foul was. Case in point, and I noted this in the post game thread, was the first spin move he made in the Loyola game. He caught the ball on the baseline 8 to 10 feet from the basket, put the ball on the floor, spun and hooked his defender and laid the ball in off the backboard. No foul was called, even though it could have been. All the top big men make that move most of the time - it's instinct to shield yourself from the defender by extending the off arm. I'll amend that statement - all the players, regardless of size, make that move when driving. Sometimes it is called, most times it is not.

Great post Jumbo, as usual!

OZZIE4DUKE

01-02-2009, 09:51 AM

Good read. For next season, if you continue to do the "Phase" previews, you should consider putting them on the main page. You do an excellent job of picking out key questions going forward.

I agree, but that decision is Julio's and Boswell's, not Jumbo's! But your point is well taken and I wouldn't be too surprised to see them posted as articles (like Carlos's) instead of posts, IF Jumbo wants them to be.

davekay1971

01-02-2009, 10:02 AM

I agree, but that decision is Julio's and Boswell's, not Jumbo's! But your point is well taken and I wouldn't be too surprised to see them posted as articles (like Carlos's) instead of posts, IF Jumbo wants them to be.

I thought Jumbo was the Almighty. Now I've got to go and readjust my view of the universe again...

Atldukie79

01-02-2009, 10:05 AM

I concur with the several comments about Paulus in this thread, but wish to emphasize a frequently mentioned theme from other threads...

Paulus is slow on defense. In the last game against Loyola, this was never more apparent. The "book" is clear on attacking Duke when Paulus is in the game. Spread the floor, Duke will oblidge by sticking to tight man to man "D", and then drive on Paulus. I have not charted it, but the offensive efficiency doing this is very high. You might "hide" in a zone. You may get by in a soft man to man...but you can't hide playing Duke "D".

For different reasons senior players have seen the bench (Nate James, Jeff Capel, Mark Crow)... I just hope Greg can embrace this role, heal if this is still a factor, and make the difference in a big game.

bird

01-02-2009, 10:24 AM

I note that Paulus seems to have largely eradicated a habit that I found annoying last year -- trying to back the ball down the court when under pressure. He's spending more time facing up with the ball.

I agree that the "book" on Duke is that whenever Paulus is in the game the player he is defending is to attack off the dribble. However, while the times players get by him create bad memories, I think overall Paulus does an acceptable job. Also, at times, I think the "drive on Paulus" strategy is too obvious, and takes the opposing team out of the natural flow of the offense.

Being redundant, I really, really wish Paulus could get his three point shot going - it would help him, and the team, so much.

jimsumner

01-02-2009, 10:28 AM

Mark Crow?

The reality is that there are no Duke analogues to what is happening to Paulus, i.e. a three-year starter losing his starting job at the beginning of his senior year but still retaining a status of key reserve.

John Smith, Ricky Price, Taymon Domzalski all lost their starting jobs prior to their senior seasons. Mike Tissaw barely got off the bench as a senior. Nate James started almost all of his senior season, going to the bench only when Carlos broke in his foot in the next-to-last regular-season game. Greg Newton lost his starting spot in mid-season and plummeted out of the rotation. Tom Emma and Chip Engelland split the guard spot opposite Dawkins in '83.

Jeff Capel might come closest but Jeff did start at the beginning of his senior season. But he also slumped early before recovering to play some of his best ball down the stretch of his final campaign. Hopefully, Paulus can replicate that.

_Gary

01-02-2009, 10:29 AM

Great post, Jumbo. Your best ever "Phase" post, IMHO. Of course I say that because I agree with every single point and that you have placed the emphasis squarely where it should be.

Not to harp, but I think beyond some of the obvious concerns (Greg's role and whether or not he can contribute at a high level from here on out; outside shooting improving; Elliot growing into a solid bench player) is the 30 to 35 minutes a night we will be seeing from Gerald, Jon, and Kyle. As Jumbo stated, we only have a small sample size to go on, but at this point I do have to worry a tad about effectiveness (especially outside shooting) from Kyle once the heavy minutes start coming regularly. I'd still love to see Coach put his foot down and tell his assistants to monitor minutes and really keep the guys at 30 minutes maximum per game. I know that won't happen, but I do feel we have enough bodies that we could at least attempt to limit heavy minutes. As I said, a pipe dream for sure, but still... It is a concern in my book because Duke teams as of late have shown a tendency to be "worn down" more than normal in the last several years come late February and March.

Let's see if the "Big Three" can respond night in and night out to major minutes without seeing a drop off in effectiveness (especially outside shooting). I believe this will bear watching and be a huge part of how well we do down the stretch. Your mileage may of course vary.

Gary

roywhite

01-02-2009, 10:59 AM

There seems to be some pessimism about what Greg Paulus is likely to contribute going forward. Greg and the coaches have enough time, and certainly the incentive, to get him healthy (physically and psychologically) and back to being a solid contributor. His 3-point shooting in particular can be a real plus.

Between Paulus and Ewill---at least one needs to step up and be a big factor for the team to enjoy great success.

jv001

01-02-2009, 11:27 AM

Jumbo I agree with you on all your points for Phase III in our season. Great job on all points. Some thoughts:1. our 3 point shooting will improve but nice to see we have other weapons to win games with. 2. Greg's play..he has lost confidence and needs a great shooting game to bring him out of his funk. 3. Zoubek, Thomas & McClure are playing very well in their roles..no longer projects. 4. I agree with your earlier posts regarding Gerald posting up. He's begun to do this more and it's been effective 5. Our health..only God knows but I pray we stay healthy. Go Duke!

Cameron

01-02-2009, 11:27 AM

My two cents is that Paulus has not embraced the sixth-man role with the fervor demonstrated last year by Scheyer.

I wouldn't doubt that this has more to do with the fact that Jon knew he had another two years to be that starting force at Duke, while Greg, on the other hand, knows this is it. Greg's career at Duke will be over come March or early April, just three short months away. I would think it would be much easier to embrace a sixth man role when you know you are going to basically be "the man" the next two years.

We also have to take into consideration the fact that Greg had his eye on the NBA Draft as late as this past summer, thinking his senior year would be the season that would cement his spot in the League. I know for a fact that many believed Greg would be drafted. That, however, looks very unlikely now, if not completely out of the question (unless, of course, Greg went to pre-draft camps and impressed).

Then you add in the fact that, like stated above, Greg was a three year starter at point guard for the Duke University Blue Devils basketball team, the premier point guard position in the entire country. After playing in that spotlight position for so long there is no doubt that there would be some sort of an ego bursting when asked to take to the bench. I can't blame Greg, either. That would be tough.

In the end, once Greg's injuries fully heal and he gets back to his spectacular shooting self, I hope (and know) Greg will fully take on his new role and flourish. He's still our best pure shooter and, IMO, our key to successful long range marksmanship. When you step back and look at it, our club tends to have much better outside shooting performances when Greg gets things going from behind the semi circle early.

When Greg hit 4 threes versus UNC Asheville, we hit 11
When Greg hit 3 threes versus Duquense, we hit 10

When Greg went 1-for-5 from three versus Presbyterian, we went 3-for-11
When Greg went 0-for-1 from three versus URI, we went 4-for-17
When Greg went 0-for-4 from three versus Michigan, we went 7-for-33 (four of those triples coming in garbage time)

Look at last season...

When Greg hit 4 threes versus Wisconsin, we hit 11
When Greg hit 6 threes versus UNC, we hit 13

When Greg went 1-for-4 versus Georgia Tech, we went 1-for-15
When Greg went 1-for-6 versus Florida State, we went 7-for-27

This experiment could obviously be done in much more depth (and, yes, I did provide games that overly benefited my cause), but there is no doubt that Greg's success from behind the arc plays a role in our team's confidence and flow from deep. This might sound odd, but I honestly think there is some sort of motivational/frenetic energy Greg sends through the court on which we are playing when he starts banging home triples. There is an extra step our guys' march when Greg sends through a 25 footer. (Yes, pun intended:) And let's hope it serves true.)

BlueintheFace

01-02-2009, 11:27 AM

What does Greg Paulus have left?
This is directly tied to the question above, in that Paulus' greatest ability to help the team is with his shooting. But this goes beyond Greg's stroke. He looks beaten down -- physically, mentally, emotionally. He lost his job to a better player. That stings, especially for a senior. He's been beaten up for three-plus years, and not just his body, but his psyche -- even by his own fans. He needs to find a way to shake that all off and contribute. Yes, his role is diminished, but it's still important. Duke needs another shooter and a steady reserve in the backcourt. Can Greg summon enough strength to provide that? At this point, the answer isn't a simple "He's a veteran -- when he's healthy, he'll be fine." And the answer needs to come during this period.

I think that Greg plays about ten times better when he knocks down an early three. Last year it felt like he came off a high screen to knock down a three almost every game in the first two minutes. In the games that he didn't I feel as though he had a tougher time getting it going until the second half when he would have another shot at it.

Now, however he comes in at the 15-16 minute mark and tries to work into the ebb and flow of the game instead of setting the pace as he is used to doing. This is where I see a difference. If I were K, I would tell Paulus to look for his shot as soon as he gets in the game. He is still one of the best 3-point shooters in Duke History and that doesn't disappear too easily.

Similarly, I like what K has done in the last two games. He has gone to G in one of the first few possessions. G is a tricky player mentally IMO. I have said this before and still believe it to be true. G only plays assertively on the offensive end when he can work up his own adrenaline. This is so much easier for him in close games late or during big Duke runs. If his adrenaline is down during the middle of a game, he has to get it up by making a big defensive play (getting a steal, big block) to jump start it. By going to him on the first possession K has tried to get his juices flowing from the get-go and if he can see the ball go in early, this will be very helpful

trinity92

01-02-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimsumner
My two cents is that Paulus has not embraced the sixth-man role with the fervor demonstrated last year by Scheyer.

I wouldn't doubt that this has more to do with the fact that Jon knew he had another two years to be that starting force at Duke, while Greg, on the other hand, knows this is it. Greg's career at Duke will be over come March or early April, just three short months away. I would think it would be much easier to embrace a sixth man role when you know you are going to basically be "the man" the next two years.

What cameron said. Jimsumner is right, but that doesn't necessarily mean GP is selfish or not a consummate team player.

Lord Ash

01-02-2009, 11:55 AM

jimsumner

01-02-2009, 12:10 PM

I certainly don't mean to suggest that Greg is being selfish or isn't putting the best interests of the team ahead of his interests. Regular readers of this board know that I've been one of his staunchest supporters and I don't see how this team reaches its full potential without significant contributions from Greg Paulus.

But I used the word "embraced" deliberately. I think Paulus accepts the role of sixth man. But last year Jon embraced it, relished it, saw it as a way to make a statement.

I'm sure we see the distinction.

77devil

01-02-2009, 12:17 PM

For different reasons senior players have seen the bench (Nate James, Jeff Capel, Mark Crow)... I just hope Greg can embrace this role, heal if this is still a factor, and make the difference in a big game.

For the record, "Crow-bar" started all 26 games that he played in (out of 27) as a senior.

BlueintheFace

01-02-2009, 12:18 PM

I could be wrong, but I think some of what feels like Greg not embracing the role as much might also be that there are so many other players on the team getting media attention, and that he hasn't played too great, that maybe he simply isn't being noticed in the game as much. I know that sounds simplistic, but between the "Smith as the new starter" story, the "Kyle is awesome" story, the "Jon is awesome" story, the "Can Gerald become an NBA guy" story, the "Wow hasn't Zoubek improved!" story, the "Check out the freshmen!" story, the "Lance Thomas has really improved" story, and so on and so forth we might just not be hearing enough about Greg.

I think there is a LOT to this:

Greg's minutes have gone down by almost 10 minutes/game. So obviously his points and assists have gone down, but really his a/to ratio is pretty consistent. His steals have actually remained even despite less minutes. It's not like he has made a lot of turnovers. He hasn't even taken more than 8 shots in any of the games this year and has had good shot selection. He is still a solid pg who doesn't turn the ball over and manages the offense well. The only REAL difference is his fg% which is the same as saying his 3pt% since that is mostly what he shoots. Right now, Greg is an average- just slightly below average backup pg for a top team. If he gets his stroke going, he will be an above average backup for a top team. Just let those threes fall through the hoop baby.

77devil

01-02-2009, 12:26 PM

We also have to take into consideration the fact that Greg had his eye on the NBA Draft as late as this past summer, thinking his senior year would be the season that would cement his spot in the League. I know for a fact that many believed Greg would be drafted. That, however, looks very unlikely now, if not completely out of the question (unless, of course, Greg went to pre-draft camps and impressed).

I can't imagine that Greg had illusions of the NBA last summer. I like Greg for his determination, hustle, and toughness. But there has been nothing about his career to suggest that he possesses anything close to NBA skills or potential.

Cameron

01-02-2009, 12:50 PM

I can't imagine that Greg had illusions of the NBA last summer. I like Greg for his determination, hustle, and toughness. But there has been nothing about his career to suggest that he possesses anything close to NBA skills or potential.

From certain folks I talked to while in Durham helping out with the Duke Basketball camp this past summer, there were a few NBA teams with rising interest in Greg's game. When that interest took flight and/or when it started to fade, I'm not sure. My guess is it started to blossom during Greg's great stretch last February, when he was heating the South with his breath taking launches from deep and leading the greatest conference in basketball (in a historical and, yes, a literal sense) as the most accurate point guard.

Would Greg have been drafted high -- or even at all -- with the great senior campaign many envisioned coming this year? Maybe not. But I definitely think there was interest, and others talked about it as well.

greybeard

01-02-2009, 01:48 PM

I think that Greg is doing a much better job passing the ball this season (quick to give it up) than in any season in the past, and also is making much better decisions (not getting into difficulty with the ball and turning it over). I think that this has been MAJOR. I still have no idea what was/is wrong with Greg's arm.

I do think that his floor game has improved very much, and think that that is an immensely important asset for this team.

I am concerned that Smith continues to chose to make dangerous plays to score the ball. I don't care if 10 in a row are WOW plays. He needs to cut that out, and save those times when he makes a great move that puts himself in danger for crucial moments. If he doesn't, that could pose the single biggest obstacle to this team's success this season.

The real issue with respect to Zoubek and his performance against teams that have substantial presences inside lies with his teammates, not him. If they are determined that he will succeed and stay with that commitment even when an opponent makes a play or two that stymies him, I think that he will make significant contributions against the Carolinas and Wakes. At least, I think that that is this team's best shot against those opponents. And, I think that the biggest threat to this part of Duke's attack falling apart lies with the guys giving up on trying to get it to the Zman if someone blocks his shot, if he dribbles it off his foot, if he misses a shot, and especially, if a couple of these things happen in sequence. No one would think of not going to Singler if he misses several in a row that he shouldn't, or if he dribbles it off his leg, etc. You do that with Zoubek and you get what you create--the fans will blame the Zman, but it lie with his teammates.

EWill is the hardest to figure for me. On the one hand, I think that he might well knock some people's socks off if Smith continues to play recklessly and pays the price. I think that Williams best role might well be as a 1, especially in the open court.

That said, I would play EWill on the right side of the court, even when he is in the game with Scheyer who usually (I think) favors that side. I think that his game off the dribble works much better from that side.

I do not think that you can ask the guy to play a 2/3and not take a three when it's given. But, he has thrown up some bricks that doesn't cut it. Whether he needs to get more in the flow before shooting a three, or whether K can think things out and tweak things for when he is in to give him his best dribble penetration options, I don't know. But, he definitely has struggled.

Did I tell you that I've liked what I've seen from Marty, particularly his ability to get it into Zoubek in very effective ways? If I decided to give him minutes, I'd try to make them coincide with times that Zoubek was on the floor and look for both of them to create play--not make it an imperative, like calling "a play" that puts it in Marty's hands etc (too much pressure), but, then again, yeah, maybe that, but only after both had a few runs up and down the floor. "In my imaginary eye," as we used to say on long family trips, "I see this as an interesting prospect."

All Praise to Jumbo, these Phase pieces are masterpieces.

Kedsy

01-02-2009, 01:55 PM

Not to harp, but I think beyond some of the obvious concerns (Greg's role and whether or not he can contribute at a high level from here on out; outside shooting improving; Elliot growing into a solid bench player) is the 30 to 35 minutes a night we will be seeing from Gerald, Jon, and Kyle. As Jumbo stated, we only have a small sample size to go on, but at this point I do have to worry a tad about effectiveness (especially outside shooting) from Kyle once the heavy minutes start coming regularly. I'd still love to see Coach put his foot down and tell his assistants to monitor minutes and really keep the guys at 30 minutes maximum per game. I know that won't happen, but I do feel we have enough bodies that we could at least attempt to limit heavy minutes. As I said, a pipe dream for sure, but still... It is a concern in my book because Duke teams as of late have shown a tendency to be "worn down" more than normal in the last several years come late February and March.

I've said this about a zillion times in various threads, but do you really think if a 20 year old plays 35 minutes instead of 30 minutes in games twice a week there will be any lingering effect? On non-game days they practice for hours.

I'm a lot older than they are and when I play for 3 hours instead of 2 hours (and I mean hours, not minutes) I might feel it the next day, but certainly not 3 days later. And I don't even remember it a few weeks or months later (although, granted, the memory thing could be due to my age).

jimsumner

01-02-2009, 01:59 PM

Greybeard, with all due respect, I don't think there's anyone associated with this team that thinks Williams' best college position is now or is ever likely to be the point guard position.

sagegrouse

01-02-2009, 02:03 PM

But I used the word "embraced" deliberately. I think Paulus accepts the role of sixth man. But last year Jon embraced it, relished it, saw it as a way to make a statement.

I'm sure we see the distinction.

IMHO the difference is in who finishes a game. Last year, Jon was on the floor at the end of every crucial game -- because he was essential. Greg can accomplish the same thing -- esp. in games where we need his shooting and passing -- but it will be more difficult for him. Jon is incredibly versatile on the floor, so he can contribute in many ways.

I don't know how he gets a shooter's rhythm in his current role. And we really do need him.

sagegrouse
'As always, with me the "H" in IMHO is always silent'

Jumbo

01-02-2009, 02:04 PM

From certain folks I talked to while in Durham helping out with the Duke Basketball camp this past summer, there were a few NBA teams with rising interest in Greg's game. When that interest took flight and/or when it started to fade, I'm not sure. My guess is it started to blossom during Greg's great stretch last February, when he was heating the South with his breath taking launches from deep and leading the greatest conference in basketball (in a historical and, yes, a literal sense) as the most accurate point guard.

Would Greg have been drafted high -- or even at all -- with the great senior campaign many envisioned coming this year? Maybe not. But I definitely think there was interest, and others talked about it as well.

I have never heard a single person associated with the NBA talk about Greg Paulus as a potential pro player, and certainly not within the last year. I'm not saying you didn't hear what you heard, but the people doing the talking seem to have been poorly informed.

RainingThrees

01-02-2009, 02:16 PM

Look at http://www.draftexpress.com/ they usually are pretty accurate. I think the only 2 times Greg was on the NBA's radar was in high school and his freshmen year.

Cameron

01-02-2009, 02:24 PM

I have never heard a single person associated with the NBA talk about Greg Paulus as a potential pro player, and certainly not within the last year. I'm not saying you didn't hear what you heard, but the people doing the talking seem to have been poorly informed.

Maybe I should have been more clear in what I was trying to convey. More or less, from what I heard at the time, there were a few NBA teams that were interested in giving Greg "a go." I took that to mean that Greg might have a chance to work out with some clubs that had elevated curiosity, which would certainly be a good situation for Greg's chances at pro ball. It appears that it will never happen, however. Then again, perhaps that was never the case, Jumbo. You would know better than me.

Then again, I also heard (from fairly reliable Duke resources) that Greg was expected to be a scoring leader this year, and that his role would be focused chiefly on shooting the ball from three. More specifically, that Greg would be shooting the ball and looking to score more than he ever has in his career. Greg himself even seemed to be overly optimistic about how much of an offensive role he would have this winter, from what I remember.

Well, considering Greg's most active shooting game was against UNC Asheville, when he attempted eight shots from the field, I don't think that's going to be the case. Things could change, of course, as Greg becomes healthy and better adapts to his new role, but it doesn't appear they will dramatically. Not only are Greg's shot attempts down, but his minutes are as well.

As for the NBA comments, though, perhaps I over thought their true significance. I don't know. I do think he will have a very successful career overseas if he does decide to pursue one, however.

Jaymf7

01-02-2009, 02:26 PM

bird

01-02-2009, 02:27 PM

Greybeard, with all due respect, I don't think there's anyone associated with this team that thinks Williams' best college position is now or is ever likely to be the point guard position.

The last two games when I have looked at Williams I have thought Daniel Ewing. While Ewing was forced into point service almost on an emergency basis a couple of times, Ewing's game almost defined the phrase "wing player" for me.

sagegrouse

01-02-2009, 02:33 PM

I am concerned that Smith continues to chose to make dangerous plays to score the ball. I don't care if 10 in a row are WOW plays. He needs to cut that out, and save those times when he makes a great move that puts himself in danger for crucial moments. If he doesn't, that could pose the single biggest obstacle to this team's success this season.

Nolan is an explosive player with superior defensive skills. But as a "point guard," he is third on the team in assists -- behind Kyle and Jon and behind Kyle in assists per minute. Kyle, Jon and Gerald can create offense off the dribble or by great passing. Looks to me like PG is being redefined and distributing the ball wil be everyone's job.

All Praise to Jumbo, these Phase pieces are masterpieces.

I note that the master has moved from his Blue Period to his Rose Period. I look forward to his invention of Cubism, which should happen next year.

sagegrouse

greybeard

01-02-2009, 02:39 PM

Greybeard, with all due respect, I don't think there's anyone associated with this team that thinks Williams' best college position is now or is ever likely to be the point guard position.

I have not seen him much and will defer to you guys then. My best image of Williams, aside from his awesome rebounding ability for a guard on both ends, was the play I have referenced several times that many on the Board were hatin him for but blew my socks off: at the end of an early season laugher, he was leading a break and, at just past half court, let one go around his back, a long bounce pass that missed, but that spoke to me of a guy who can run a team, likes the ball in his hands and likes to create for others.

That's the list, a thin one indeed for my opinion. On the other hand, the kid seems to like the ball in his hands and I have to believe can break people down. Just my gut talking, JS, which I have to tell you is pretty formidible. :o

Cameron

01-02-2009, 02:42 PM

Your signature, with its reference to Blake, made me try to compare Paulus and Blake. It has been a while since I've seen Blake play, but he has certainly made a living in the NBA. Is he dramatically more athletic than a healthy Paulus? I know he had a lot more assists in college, but his teams were loaded. Blake's annoying strip of Williams at the end of a half sticks in my mind, but was he an elite (or merely pesky) defender?

The main differences between the games of Steve Blake and Greg Paulus are that Blake was/is a much better defender (Jason Williams has even admitted in the past that Blake was one of the toughest defenders he ever faced in college) and that the former Terrapin was/is a more deft ball handler. Blake isn't the most athletic or quick moving point in the game, but his handle is precise and hard to stop.

That said, however, Greg is a better shooter by a mile and I think that trait may have been what sparked professional interest at one time. Greg's shooting, especially last season, has been well above average during his tenure at Durham. He's a top five shooter in the Coach K era, which says an awful lot. He not only has unmeasured distance and accuracy when it comes to shooting, but Greg also has a propensity and ability to pull up and hit difficult shots at difficult angles in lighting quick fashion.

Jumbo

01-02-2009, 02:55 PM

Look at http://www.draftexpress.com/ they usually are pretty accurate. I think the only 2 times Greg was on the NBA's radar was in high school and his freshmen year.

Draft Express is hardly reliable at all. I prefer the info I get directly from horses' mouths.

Kedsy

01-02-2009, 02:55 PM

Your signature, with its reference to Blake, made me try to compare Paulus and Blake. It has been a while since I've seen Blake play, but he has certainly made a living in the NBA. Is he dramatically more athletic than a healthy Paulus? I know he had a lot more assists in college, but his teams were loaded. Blake's annoying strip of Williams at the end of a half sticks in my mind, but was he an elite (or merely pesky) defender? I'm not suggesting that I think Paulus will be a league player, but thought others might have more insight here.

Blake shut down Jason Williams on a pretty consistent basis, back in the day. The 10-points-in-a-minute game only happened because Blake fouled out with just over a minute remaining. That defensive ability alone made Blake a much better pro prospect than Paulus is now, as does the fact that Blake was a pretty spectacular playmaker at Maryland while Greg is a competent lead guard. The knock on Blake was he couldn't shoot, which is obviously an advantage to Greg if we're keeping score.

Jumbo

01-02-2009, 02:57 PM

geraldsneighbor

01-02-2009, 02:59 PM

Blake was (and is) much, much quicker than Paulus. Much better defender, handle was light years better, longer, better passer ... you get the idea.

I still am not a Blake fan, but I'll save that for another day.

jv001

01-02-2009, 03:00 PM

Blake was (and is) much, much quicker than Paulus. Much better defender, handle was light years better, longer, better passer ... you get the idea.

In other words Blake is an NBA player and Greg will probably not be an NBA player.

greybeard

01-02-2009, 03:17 PM

Nolan is an explosive player with superior defensive skills. But as a "point guard," he is third on the team in assists -- behind Kyle and Jon and behind Kyle in assists per minute. Kyle, Jon and Gerald can create offense off the dribble or by great passing. Looks to me like PG is being redefined and distributing the ball wil be everyone's job.sagegrouse

That began last year, and was one of the more innovative moves I've seen in a long time. The differences between last year and this are: 1. last year the point, Paulus, gave it up, and positioned himself to shoot the three, and the wings penetrated to the foul line and decided whether to attack the rim or kick; this year, Smith attacks the rim with abandon, and the wings attack the rim far less, and often (in G's case) off set plays from the left side; 2. last year Duke very rarely tried to attack the rim off the penetrating pass, particularly after Singler got too drained to post low and do the jobs at the other end being asked of him; 3. this year attacking the rim off a penetrating pass is a MAJOR feature of this offense; both Zoubek and Lance are seeing the ball a lot from passers who receive the ball and one-two it inside, rather than after deciding whether to shoot, dribble, etc.

So, to the extent that penetrating to the basket is considered a point guard function (I hate the point guard position as such) Smith is more of a point guard than Paulus. But, good point Sage, we really are not seeing traditional "point guard" play from Smith which I think is a good thing.

Blake was/is a throwback guard extraordinaire. Really a unique type of player--50s type star guard with a jump shot and more size than from that era. I could not believe that the Zards just let him go (they have not had a point guard since) and that, when they did, the Hawks did not gobble him up. Had they, that team would really be zooming at this point.

Been trying to think of who I would compare Blake to and it finally occurred to me. Take a few inches away to make them the same size, and take away all the considerable strength, explosiveness, speed, and jumping ability differences, and I believe you are looking at maybe Grant Hill--that kind of intelligence and generosity that maximizes the ability of the game to sing, the person who facilitates syncronicity without being noticed, who is more then willing to give up the ball from distance to start things off, as if to say to the defense, "on this side of the ball we play five man ball and are all leaders", and then to create something--a space to be filed, a lack of help against the ball, something with his next movement, to know when he needs to be dangerous in terms of scoring and being able to deliver, to be in control of options off the dribble and be satisfied with a good pass that creates opportunities for someone else to do something that opens things up further, but, again, to know when and be able to take it upon himself to create a shot and a good one for someone else or himself when he needs to. Grant-Hill like is how I see Blake.

jimsumner

01-02-2009, 03:30 PM

sagegrouse

01-02-2009, 03:38 PM

Blake shut down Jason Williams on a pretty consistent basis, back in the day. The 10-points-in-a-minute game only happened because Blake fouled out with just over a minute remaining. That defensive ability alone made Blake a much better pro prospect than Paulus is now, as does the fact that Blake was a pretty spectacular playmaker at Maryland while Greg is a competent lead guard. The knock on Blake was he couldn't shoot, which is obviously an advantage to Greg if we're keeping score.

Blake's dark point was the second half of the 1991 FF against Duke, when he basically disappeared. Pressed on offense, he would dribble over to the sideline and give up the ball to a teammate and never regain it.

He has done well in playing now for a number of years in the NBA. And I congratulate him.

sagegrouse

Saratoga2

01-02-2009, 03:45 PM

Excellent summary of many of my own feelings on the team at this juncture. SpecificalLy, i would like to comment further on 4 of the points.

1. What does Paulus have left?

Unlike those that feel Paulus has improved, I see a regression in his level of play. His decisions with the ball are not those of a senior and some of the shots he has jacked some up at inadvisable times or when he is not in a good position to shoot. His defense has looked flawed as well in the last few games. We have all seen him play solid ball in the past and know that he can be a tough determined kid, so what does it take for him to get back to being a solid contributor? I think he has to embrace the role available to him and make plays while avoiding trying to make spectacular passes. He also needs to take shots that open up for him and he needs to manage the game and clock. I am hoping he can do that, since the team really needs him.

2. Will we hold up defensively against good bigs?

Zoubek has become a much better player on both sides of the ball, but as Jumbo says, he can be foul prone. Thomas is our second big and has more trouble against good big players. He has also not learned to control his aggressiveness which has made him remain foul prone. While I am a fan of McClure, I think he is just too small to deal with good bigs inside. That leaves Plumlee. I think he has all of the physical capabilites of size and athletic ability to be a big help going forward. His problem has been one of adapting to the college game. He could see the light and make a suffient step to be a reliable backup player. We will need him.

3. Can Elliot Williams give us a solid 9 man rotation?

I would argue that we currently have a 7 man rotation with Paulus being in a malaise. Elliot has great abilities and has shown those in flashes. His rebounding has gotten attention and he can defend with his slashing approach to the game and athletic ability adding something to Dukes offense. Saying those good things about his game, he still makes mistakes offensively by driving himself into trouble and having issues with his handle. He also makes mistakes and gets lost defensively. In my view though, he is the best bet as being a contributor to the team during the next stretch.

4. Can we stay Healthy?

Realistically, if either Smith, Scheyer or Singler are injured, the team will struggle. Henderson also adds a great deal to the team, but Williams might be able to fill his shoes better than any others. We are not as deep as we thought going into the season, due to the regression of Paulus, and the slow development of Williams and Plumlee.

greybeard

01-02-2009, 03:59 PM

Steve Blake and Grant Hill.

Greybeard, I'm increasingly coming to the view that you throw this stuff out just to see if anyone takes you seriously. Having spent a good portion of a previous debate on the proposition that Jim O'Brien reminded you of Larry Bird and Brad Davis was a better point guard than Bob Cousy or Steve Nash, I'm going to sit this one out.

If you think about it, you take away the considerable physical gifts I mentioned, I am actually paying Grant a complement. You cannot seriously argue that Grant is contributing more to the Suns then Blake is to the Trailblazers.

Blake to me is a terrific talent. I believe that he was the player that made Maryland the team that it was when they had their day in the sun, every bit as much as Dixon. No Blake and that team would have gone nowhere; no Dixon, and they still might have been a great club. This season he is proving to be extremely valuable (important to the success of) a very talented Portland team.

O'Brien does remind me of Bird in his ability to create in diverse ways as a point forward. I never said that he was in Bird's league.

If I ever said that Brad Davis was better than Nash I was drunk. I doubt that I did, but if you say so, I take it back.

Nor do I recall ever saying that he was better than Cousey, but now that you mention it, I can't think of an aspect of the game in which Cousey was superior. You ever see Cousey play without Bill, not to mention Tommy, Sharmon, Sam and KC, Frank, Willie, Bailey, and I think even a young Hondo? I'd have to say that Brad would have been just as successful on those Celtics teams if he had been given Cousey's playing time. You disagree with that. I'd love to hear the analysis.

A 6' 4" Grant Hill with no hops, no blazing quickness or speed, no great strength (I hear he is terrifically strong), and you are really arguing that you think that that guy would be better as a college player than Blake? :rolleyes: Really?

slower

01-02-2009, 04:10 PM

A 6' 4" Grant Hill with no hops, no blazing quickness or speed, no great strength (I hear he is terrifically strong), and you are really arguing that you think that that guy would be better as a college player than Blake? :rolleyes: Really?

A 6'4" Grant Hill without any of these attributes IS NOT GRANT HILL!

And why do you use (in a different post) the phrase "Zards". Good Lord, just type the 2 extra letters to spell Wizards.

greybeard

01-02-2009, 04:28 PM

A 6'4" Grant Hill without any of these attributes IS NOT GRANT HILL!

Yes and no. Yes in exactly the sense that I said: his physical attributes plus all the things I mentioned that remind me of Blake make Hill one of the best players, certainly college players, I have seen. Take away those physical attributes, in my mind you still have a terrific ballplayer, a ballplayer very much like Steve Blake.

So, what precisely might your point here be?

And why do you use (in a different post) the phrase "Zards". Good Lord, just type the 2 extra letters to spell Wizards.

Simple, when I am typing fast and thinking faster I forget for a second how to spell the simplest of words (you think), and that would include whether there are two "z"s in the full name or one. So, to avoid slopping up an otherwise ariodite piece, I chose to write Zards (yeah, I know it is erudite but you really would not believe how long it took me to find the correct spelling (don't have spell check on DBR)). Sue me. :o

jv001

01-02-2009, 04:32 PM

Yes and no. Yes in exactly the sense that I said: his physical attributes plus all the things I mentioned that remind me of Blake make Hill one of the best players, certainly college players, I have seen. Take away those physical attributes, in my mind you still have a terrific ballplayer, a ballplayer very much like Steve Blake.

So, what precisely might your point here be?

Simple, when I am typing fast and thinking faster I forget for a second how to spell the simplest of words (you think), and that would include whether there are two "z"s in the full name or one. So, to avoid slopping up an otherwise ariodite piece, I chose to write Zards (yeah, I know it is erudite but you really would not believe how long it took me to find the correct spelling (don't have spell check on DBR)). Sue me. :o

Thanks graybeard, there for a moment I thought you were still celebrating New Years. Go Duke!

Karl Beem

01-02-2009, 04:41 PM

What Jim said.

greybeard

01-02-2009, 04:50 PM

What Jim said.

You still say "what Jim said" after I answered what Jim said with what I said? Wow, I could have sworn you were smarter than that, but maybe it was not all of what Jim said, in which case maybe you are less unsmart than it would seem. Or maybe you didn't have such a good New Year's Eve.

Whatever, do try to be nicer; that goes for jim too.

DevilCastDownfromDurham

01-02-2009, 04:53 PM

Blake's dark point was the second half of the 1991 FF against Duke . . .

In his defense, Blake was in elementary school at the time.:p

Seriously, all great point by Jumbo as usual. Watching the #1 PG in his class become Wes Miller has been one of the more frustrating experiences in my time as a Duke fan, doubly so since Greg has never had even a second of self-pity or bad attitude. I have so much admiration for how he has carried himself and so much confusion as to how this great talent has declined year-by-year. Greg will be a great coach in a few years, but, as others mentioned, he's a long shot (to say the very least) to play in the NBA.

Add me to the list of folks who are not concerned about our outside shooting but do still need to see some more before I count our frontcourt issues as resolved. This has been a weird stretch and we're still strongest at the 2-4 positions. I'm encouraged by what I've seen from Lance and Z and the #'s from 3 have been pretty ugly. But we're still basically the team we were last season (EMail is a classic SF/swing player. Please let's stop thinking about him as anything like a PG) with elite wings/forwards, shaky PG play, and questions marks in the post. Lots of ball yet to be played and I'm enjoying the ride so far.

Diddy

01-02-2009, 04:55 PM

Paulus's contributions are Key from here on out. We basically know what the triumverate of G, Jon, and Kyle will deliver most nights. The individual numbers will fluctuate, but as one of the big 3 has a bad night, I am confidant that one of the others will have a good night. Paulus is key. We need his outside shooting. I have said it before, but if his shot is not falling, he doesn't help the team that much.

He doesn't hurt the team either, but that is darning with faint praise.

I really take umbrage with a prior poster that said Nolan was too reckless. That risk seeking seems to bother some of the posters here.

Well, for all of those folks, welcome to high level Div 1 college basketball. When I say that, I am referring to FF and championship level basketball. To win championships, you need players who take chances. You cannot be risk averse and succeed at this level. That type of play killed Burgess's career, and it marked the downfalls of Ricky Price, Chappell, and numerous others. If you are going to win, you have to have players who can make big shots. Big might as well translate into risky. JJ hit big shots. By his senior year we were innoculated against the thought that NO ONE should take some of the shots he took. He would throw up long range threes with a hand in his face. He made most of them, so we didn't think of them as "bad" shots. But they were low percentage shots for 99% of the population. If Sean Dockery had been taking those same shots, this board would have melted down.

But to win, and I mean really win, you have to take those shots. It is the same with Nolan making plays. He willingness to attempt these risky plays, coupled with the fact that he can make these plays, must strike fear into the heart of opposing coaches. Nolan is a guy that you must account for on Defense. He has to be guarded, closely, at all times. Not so with Greg. His footspeed (ahem) means that his defender can slouch off onto Jon or G or Kyle (when Kyle is on the perimeter). Coaches can essentially dare Greg to beat them. If he is really hitting the three, then Duke wins. But that is not going to happen all that often, and coaches can live with that risk.

Now, I have long been a denigrator of Greg. I always liked his heart and his head. The rest of his body I was not too fond of. He simply lacked the base line athleticism to be a div 1 starter for a national power. As a backup, he is fantastic. He won't hurt the team, which for a bench player is the prime directive. He can deliver 15+ mpg on the perimeter so that better players can stay fresh. His willingness to embrace the role remains iffy.

Not that I blame him. For the first 3 years of his career he was questioned. Not least on this very board, with me being one of the most full throated detractors. But he heard it from the media, and certainly from opposing fans. The message was always the same, that he had no business as the starter at Duke. Now, Coach K has essentially joined that chorus. By elevating Nolan Smith to starting PG, Coach K has given creedance to an opinion that Greg had probably ignored for three years. The team is almost like a cult, with Coach K as the cult leader. That is necessary for teams to win. Now the father figure has basically said, you aren't good enough. Dealing with that is hard. It is. I don't completely blame him for not jumping for joy.

And now for something completely different.

I think that the MPG for our big three is more important than Jumbo does. I think that is the no. 2 issue going forward. More for Kyle than the other two. It is not just playing 30+ mpg. It is who you are playing those minutes against.

Up till now, Kyle has been playing against either PFs or SFs. He has not logged too many meaningful minutes against the opposing team's best player. Thank god. Against guys who are approximately his size, 30 mpg don't mean as much as against bigger players. Last year Kyle wore down not solely because of heavy minutes. Trying to drag Hans, Costner, Hickson, and others up and down the court is hard. The bigger the player, the more physical contact. Pushing against those big bodies is hard and it will gas you. Especially over time.

I know these are young guys, and they can play 30 mpg and bounce back. But they don't bounce all the way back. No one can. And if Kyle is logging 30mpg of hard time against opposing centers, he will fall off. 100% of the population would wear down, even a little. Suppose Kyle has to play big minutes against centers. Suppose he only decreases to 90% effectiveness. In the elite 8, that beats us. Our margin for error (and that of nearly every team in the ncaas) is paper thin. All of our players have to be effective, in their niche. But our big three have to bring it every night, as a group. Kyle more so than the other two, because we need his D, rebounding, and low post work. If he is a step slow, it will affect everything he does.

Managing his workload will be the most important facet of the coaching staff's job in Phase 3 (because Greg's embracing of his roll and effectiveness as a shooter are largely outside the Staff's contral). Keeping Kyle (relatively) fresh for a march run will be the deciding factor in Duke's run this post season.

jimsumner

01-02-2009, 05:00 PM

sagegrouse

01-02-2009, 05:01 PM

If you think about it, you take away the considerable physical gifts I mentioned, I am actually paying Grant a complement. You cannot seriously argue that Grant is contributing more to the Suns then Blake is to the Trailblazers.

O'Brien does remind me of Bird in his ability to create in diverse ways as a point forward. I never said that he was in Bird's league.

Taking away Grant's physical gifts and then comparing Grant and Steve Blake seems like a ridiculous exercise, IMHO (as ever, the H is silent). If Grant had minimal physical gifts, he would have developed a different game than he currently has, when he is still quicker at age 36 than almost anyone on the court.

WRT contributions this year, the positive point is that Steve Blake is really making his mark in the NBA. Not many people believed he would.

WRT to Jim O'Brien reminding you of Larry Bird: I am sorry, Greybeard, but Jim O'Brien STILL reminds me of Clarabell the Clown.

sagegrouse

Karl Beem

01-02-2009, 05:22 PM

You still say "what Jim said" after I answered what Jim said with what I said? Wow, I could have sworn you were smarter than that, but maybe it was not all of what Jim said, in which case maybe you are less unsmart than it would seem. Or maybe you didn't have such a good New Year's Eve.

Whatever, do try to be nicer; that goes for jim too.

Consider the possibility that I replied just after reading Jim's post. I'm sure I had a better NYE than you did.

Jeffrey

01-02-2009, 05:31 PM

greybeard

01-02-2009, 05:34 PM

Teams like Miami, NCST, Clemson, Pittsburgh, to name just a few, will put you down and not blink. This is big time basketball at its worst. If Smith is falling multiple times on his back playing mostly against cupcakes, I hate to think what's going to happen to him when he goes through a series of games in which coaches like Purdue's coach sends his kids out after some people.

I think that Smith has shown too much willingness to make plays in which he is as likely as not to fall with very little help as land on his feet. That might put fear in some people's eyes, but not in the eyes of players whose coaches believe that the way to beat a skill team like Duke is to rough them up and rough them up some more. No. I don't think that you play scared against such clubs. But, cultivating a style of play that has in it attacks on the basket that make you on the long side of vulnerable in the air would seem to me unwise.

Now, if that is all that Smith's got, by all means, he should use it. I have seen much, much more from him that that, and I think that he should put a lid on risky finishes, except if its a two point game with five minutes to go and the other team . . . . Then, even if it's Miami, if that is the only or best way to score the ball, you go for it.

What I find more problematic than Paulus' percentage from the three is K's apparent choice to move completely away from wing penetration to the foul line with the option to attack the glass if a lane presents itself. There might be a number of reasons that K chose to table that mode of initiating an offensive set, including, perhaps most prominently, Smith's ability to get to the rim and finish from the top of the key. Another possible explanation is that teams had found ways to stop that kind of attack toward the end of last season, and with an entire off season to study those who did so successfully, he might think it would not be effective. However, the ways teams seemed to stop the wing-based attack was bellying the dribblers out away from the foul line, staying at home on the three-shooters, and doubling quickly with a big, if a wing got to the foul line and started to go to the basket. One would like to think that with the showing that Zoubek and Lance have been making, that such double teams would be welcome now.

That then would leave teams with little option but to help from outside on the wing dribbler, which would open up the three. The problem for K is that Smith is on the floor most of the time and he is not the shooter from distance that Paulus is and, when Paulus is on the floor, Paulus as everyone has mentioned is not shooting particularly well. However, perhaps he would be shooting better if he were getting passes from inside out from Scheyer and Gerald and catching as he was stepping into the shot, as he was last year. Now the catches he makes are from different directions and probably with less opportunity and ease to catch (stepping in) to shoot. Just a thought.

On the other hand, there is a lot new in the offense this year that they are still perfecting (the half-court offense is far less together than it was at the same point last year) and diversifying further might actually be counterproductive.

Very complicated game this game of college basketball has become. Very.

greybeard

01-02-2009, 07:12 PM

When I was a kid, I was just as good as Jeff Mullins.

Except that Jeff was bigger than me, could jump higher than me, could shoot better than me, could dribble better than me, could rebound better than me, could pass better than me, could catch better than me, and had superior vision, strength, and hand-eye coordination.

But adjust for those slight variations, and we were pert near equal.

Essentially you're saying that Blake and Hill are both smart basketball players. So is David McClure, but he's not Grant. Why not compare Blake to any of the hundreds of intelligent, competent point guards who have graced the NBA over the years? A comparison that makes sense.

Speaking of Cousy (note the spelling), he played six seasons before Russell arrived in the NBA. He averaged around 19 points per game and led the league in assists four of those six seasons, placing second and third the other two.

He also was first-team All-NBA every single one of those pre-Russell years.

And I suspect most rational observers would agree that Cousy helped make Heinsohn, Howell, Sam Jones et. al. better players than they would have been with a lesser point guard at the reins.

It just so happens that Grant Hill played THE POINT at Duke and was amazingly great at it when he did. In fact, if I am not misstaken, more than one commentator said that he was probably better at it than Hurley, which I remember thinking a time or two myself. I recall thinking and hearing many people say also that Grant was a throw back player which was what made his game so special while he was at Duke, that he brought a quality to the game that captured a part of it that had been lost. That is why I personally enjoyed watching him so much much, at least a big part of it.

So, I compared Blake to a less athletic Grant because I thought and still think that there were/are many on this thread that would have that same appreciation of Grant's game that I do, the part that was not dependent upon, but rather just enhanced by, his terrific physical gifts. That is why I chose him as a comparison. And, to tell you the truth, I cannot think of a single pro point guard that I would compare Blake to, except maybe Cousy's contempory in NY, McQuire, who, like Blake, used to dribble real high and give it up easily way before he passed significantly past the half court line, if my memory serves which it probably does not.

As for Cousy before the Championship era, he would get killed if he had to deal with Davis, killed. Davis was much more athletic, much stronger, equally as clever (in my view), a much better jumper, and much better scorer of the ball. Put Davis back in the early 50s and he would have dominated, would have been an all star just as Cousy was, in my opinion.

You forgot to answer my question, which was what aspect of the game do you think Cousy was superior in.

BTW, Cousy was probably the third best guard on that team, and maybe the fourth best. They would have won those championships without him. Sam and KC were a more potent duo than Cousy and Sharmon were, at least in most people's view. What Cousy added in scoring over KC, KC made up for in defense, easily.

Heinsohn shot the ball from the corner with no one's help and scored most of the rest of his points driving to the basket from the left side and scoring on little hook shots. He didn't need anyone to get him assists and I doubt ever even got down the court when Cousy was running the fast break, which was his forte.

Bailly Howell had terrific inside moves, terrific, and tons of space to work with that had nothing to do with Cousy and his passing ability. Bailly had room because Russell was next to him, and he had inside moves that rivaled or bested any forward of his era.

As for Sam, stop being ridiculous. Sam was the best guard on that team and could get his shot whenever the hell he wanted. Sam was probably second only to Oscar, and most of the time that Sam was on the court he was playing with KC or Ramsey (or is it Ramsy), not Cousy.

Sharmon was a terrrific, terrific shooter who invented the art of moving without the ball. Probably passed it along to Hondo; definitely passed it along to the Laker's teams he coached, who were oh so much more successful than Cousy-coached teams, btw.

Sam, Sharmon, and Ramsey ran the wings of the break terrifically well and Cousy created terrific, terrific theater in the middle. But, let's me real here, he had some guys to run with (oh did I forget Russell trailing and Naulles (spelling, I know); the best in the business and they came in waves.

Cousy's biggest claim to fame was his flair, his flash, which was a poor man's version of the best ball handlers and guards of his time, most of whom were shut out from the league. Cousy created excitement and made people forget for a second the shut-out world, which the Globetrotters brought into everyone's livingroom at least once a year. And, I can tell you, once you saw Marcus Haynes dribble a basketball, you knew who you wanted to dribble like whenever you took the court and it was not Bob Cousy. You'd forget that for a time after watching Cousy, because running the break, and passing behind his back, and dribbling out the clock, well, he showed flash. And that is what made him a star, at least in my view.

Was Cousy a great part of bsketball history and terrific fun to watch. Sure. And, in his time he ws great, a terrific player. Had he not played on the Celtics with Bill Russell and those other super talents, however, he would be no more famous than Dick McGuire, and certainly get much less notice than Sam, or Lenny, or Guerin, or any number of his other contemporaries. Surely you know that.

And, while I did love his game, his best offensive weapon, aside from going to the basket, was a freakin push shot from distance that he shot from his hip while lifting his right knee. That and shooting a layup from a few inches off the ground, and flipping passes over his shoulder or behind his back, which happen to be skills that most good junior high basketball players of this era have mastered. And, you are giving me grief in insulting fashion because I prefer Davis' game to his?

And, I know that this might seem to you a sacrelig (screw it, I ain't got time), but I enjoyed watching Davis run the break more than any player I have ever watched including Magic. I thought he was terrific to watch, the way he would scoop the ball up with one hand off the dribble and in the same motion toss it with appropriate loft sometimes 30-40 feet ahead, sometimes a few feet left or right, was insane, I freakin LOVED SEEING IT. And, man could he finish, again often scooping it with one hand, never touching it with the other and elevating high and with considerable power.

On the break, you take Cousy and I'll take Brad; I really dug them both, but, to me, Brad was more special.

Actually, it wasn't just to me. If I remember right, when Brad arrived at Maryland, Lefty pushed Lucas to the wing and gave it to a rookie to run the show, especially the middle on the fast break. And, you think that my comparing him to a 6' 1" 1950's/early 60's guard deserves your derision. Who you think you are, and what's up with the sarcasm? Never mind, say what you want.

BTW,

greybeard

01-02-2009, 07:46 PM

WRT to Jim O'Brien reminding you of Larry Bird: I am sorry, Greybeard, but Jim O'Brien STILL reminds me of Clarabell the Clown. sagegrouse

If you knew me say 10-12 years ago, when my hair had some brown in it and there was enough of it on the sides to still curl in soft locks, you'd know how funny that reference to CTC really is. Suffice it to say that my oldest always had a wicked sense of humor. :o

I'm thinking my comment about Blake and Grant was written poorly. Taking Grant exactly as he is, Blake to me is the better player for his team than Grant is for his. I am sure that, IYHO (a short sound on the "h") you would find that even more hillarious than my take on O'Brien. What is this board for if you can't give a guy a few chuckles, right. HNY, SG, HNY

greybeard

01-02-2009, 07:50 PM

Consider the possibility that I replied just after reading Jim's post. I'm sure I had a better NYE than you did.

My wife would take humbridge at that, but, if you did, ATMPTY. ;)

Jumbo

01-02-2009, 07:53 PM

Folks, it would be really great if we could stop arguing about Bob Cousy, Steve Blake and New Year's Eve and stick to the topic at hand. No need to get nasty here. Thanks.

_Gary

01-02-2009, 08:34 PM

I've said this about a zillion times in various threads, but do you really think if a 20 year old plays 35 minutes instead of 30 minutes in games twice a week there will be any lingering effect? On non-game days they practice for hours.

I'm a lot older than they are and when I play for 3 hours instead of 2 hours (and I mean hours, not minutes) I might feel it the next day, but certainly not 3 days later. And I don't even remember it a few weeks or months later (although, granted, the memory thing could be due to my age).

The only thing I'm saying is that for about the last 5 or so years we've had either a player or players and/or the coaching staff reference the team as a whole or at least one key player (as in Kyle last year) being worn down or tired. Again, there has been some mention of developing a deeper bench or doing something off season so that we aren't "tired" come tourney time every year just before starting a new campaign. JJ mentioned it on more than one occasion while he was at Duke, and the coaching staff have mentioned it on more than one occasion in the last several years. I have never bought into the argument you are advancing. But no doubt you'll have many others who agree with you. I'm in the minority here on that issue in spite of the players/coaches saying something about it in one form or another over the last half dozen years or so.

Gary

77devil

01-02-2009, 09:24 PM

WRT to Jim O'Brien reminding you of Larry Bird: I am sorry, Greybeard, but Jim O'Brien STILL reminds me of Clarabell the Clown.
sagegrouse

I always thought Bozo the Clown was more appropriate.

Delaware

01-02-2009, 09:38 PM

That then would leave teams with little option but to help from outside on the wing dribbler, which would open up the three. The problem for K is that Smith is on the floor most of the time and he is not the shooter from distance that Paulus is and, when Paulus is on the floor, Paulus as everyone has mentioned is not shooting particularly well.

Early stats don't bear out your assertion.... Season Stats 3 pt FGs:

Paulus 13 of 42

Smith 13 of 34 (Nolan is essentially tied with Jon as top percentage on the team).

roywhite

01-02-2009, 10:53 PM

Early stats don't bear out your assertion.... Season Stats 3 pt FGs:

Paulus 13 of 42

Smith 13 of 34 (Nolan is essentially tied with Jon as top percentage on the team).

Let's be fair to Greg. As noted often here, he is struggling this year, which is at least partly due to injuries during the off-season and early in the season.

But Greg Paulus is a proven 3-point shooter. For the year 2007-08, he led the team in 3-pt FGs made (86) and 3-pt FG% of 42.3%, with no one else over 40%.

Truth

01-02-2009, 11:28 PM

Greg's shooting, especially last season, has been well above average during his tenure at Durham. He's a top five shooter in the Coach K era, which says an awful lot. He not only has unmeasured distance and accuracy when it comes to shooting, but Greg also has a propensity and ability to pull up and hit difficult shots at difficult angles in lighting quick fashion.

Trying to keep on Phase III topic here regarding Greg's 3pt shooting... the statement above has to be considered hyperbole. I really admire what Greg brings to the table, but I really do not think anyone is going to put him in the annals as one of K's Top 5 3-point shooters...

Without doing any research whatsoever I'd easily rank the following players over him, and I'm sure I'm missing some others:

JJ (obviously, he's unmatched)
Trajan (he was JJ before JJ)
JWill
Dunleavy
Chris Collins
I'd even be hard pressed to rank Greg ahead of Battier or Will Avery without further review...

geraldsneighbor

01-02-2009, 11:46 PM

What the previous poster was adding was that Greg is very undervalued as a shooter. Shooters go hot (see GP3 last Jan-Feb 98) and the go cold (See GP3 Nov-Dec). Its just how it goes. Greg single handily brought us back at NC State last year hit a few clutch triples from the outside. Last year he was peaking early. Hopefully for his and the teams sake that peak is achieved closer to March. I really value Greg's big time play. When we are on the road in Feb in an ACC gym, down late, we have a guy who has been there before and can rally the troops. Hopefully Nolan can too, but let's remember what this kid has give us and the talent, when healthy, he had.

Cameron

01-03-2009, 12:38 AM

Greg is this team's best outside shooter, no matter what has happened to this point in the season. That's it. Greg's our best. He has the best range, the best and quickest release, and has the best "feeling" that hangs off his shot, meaning that when he shoots, you expect it to go in every time.

And we all better hope he starts to find regular form, because, if he does not, we don't go very far in March.

Kedsy

01-03-2009, 12:56 AM

The only thing I'm saying is that for about the last 5 or so years we've had either a player or players and/or the coaching staff reference the team as a whole or at least one key player (as in Kyle last year) being worn down or tired. Again, there has been some mention of developing a deeper bench or doing something off season so that we aren't "tired" come tourney time every year just before starting a new campaign. JJ mentioned it on more than one occasion while he was at Duke, and the coaching staff have mentioned it on more than one occasion in the last several years. I have never bought into the argument you are advancing. But no doubt you'll have many others who agree with you. I'm in the minority here on that issue in spite of the players/coaches saying something about it in one form or another over the last half dozen years or so.

IMO, Kyle wore down last year because he (a) was a freshman; and (b) was routinely guarding guys who were bigger than him, which will tire your legs out a lot more than running. Also, Duke's practices are reportedly very intense and I think they happen pretty much every non-game day. I could imagine that playing at Duke's level (whether practice or game) every single day could wear someone out after several months, which is what I assumed happened to JJ and others. But I cannot imagine there's any difference between playing 30 minutes or 35 minutes per game twice a week, especially for a 20 year old. It just doesn't make sense based on my own observations and experiences.

greybeard

01-03-2009, 01:14 AM

IMO, Kyle wore down last year because he (a) was a freshman; and (b) was routinely guarding guys who were bigger than him, which will tire your legs out a lot more than running. Also, Duke's practices are reportedly very intense and I think they happen pretty much every non-game day. I could imagine that playing at Duke's level (whether practice or game) every single day could wear someone out after several months, which is what I assumed happened to JJ and others. But I cannot imagine there's any difference between playing 30 minutes or 35 minutes per game twice a week, especially for a 20 year old. It just doesn't make sense based on my own observations and experiences.

And, (C), teams started kicking the crap out of him when he posted low, which he did often and effectively in the first half of the season. There was a string of three games, Miami, Clemson, and NCST, I don't know that they were back to back but they were close in time, when the refs let Singler's defenders just lean, and push, and lean and push some more. Looked like Rugby.

Shooting threes I'd have to think is a lot about timing and rhythm. Like I said, this offense does not seem to be quite there yet. Might be an influence on the three percentages.

BlueintheFace

01-03-2009, 03:10 AM

Trying to keep on Phase III topic here regarding Greg's 3pt shooting... the statement above has to be considered hyperbole. I really admire what Greg brings to the table, but I really do not think anyone is going to put him in the annals as one of K's Top 5 3-point shooters...

Without doing any research whatsoever I'd easily rank the following players over him, and I'm sure I'm missing some others:

JJ (obviously, he's unmatched)
Trajan (he was JJ before JJ)
JWill
Dunleavy
Chris Collins
I'd even be hard pressed to rank Greg ahead of Battier or Will Avery without further review...

No but really, he is top 5 all time statistically

Redick shot 1126 three pointers at 40.5%
Paulus has shot 805 three pointers thus far in his career at 40.5%

I believe he is currently 4th or 5th all time at Duke in 3pt %

Collins and Dunleavy don't crack the top 10 and had far fewer attempts than Greg

Vincetaylor

01-03-2009, 03:38 AM

ncexnyc

01-03-2009, 11:37 AM

IMO, Kyle wore down last year because he (a) was a freshman; and (b) was routinely guarding guys who were bigger than him, which will tire your legs out a lot more than running. Also, Duke's practices are reportedly very intense and I think they happen pretty much every non-game day. I could imagine that playing at Duke's level (whether practice or game) every single day could wear someone out after several months, which is what I assumed happened to JJ and others. But I cannot imagine there's any difference between playing 30 minutes or 35 minutes per game twice a week, especially for a 20 year old. It just doesn't make sense based on my own observations and experiences.
You might want to look over your post and look at the arguement you are putting forth.

If intense practices, constant grinding with bigs can eventually wear down a player by seasons end as you speculate. Why do you not believe that playing extra minutes of extremely intense, emotion packed basketball won't also contribute to this eventual wearing down?

I honestly don't see how you can seperate just one factor from the total scheme.

Coach K discussed something prior to the start of the season. Something along the lines that recent teams felt pressured to win and when they did, they didn't savor the victory, but rather expressed a sense of relief that they won.

Is it possible that the mental grind of playing so many minutes in tough, down to the wire games takes more of a toll on a player than the actual physical part of it?

greybeard

01-03-2009, 12:10 PM

I always thought Bozo the Clown was more appropriate.

If you do not know, you might be too young, Sagegrouse was making a reference to a famous historical figure, a TV character on a child's program from our youth, the early days of TV, that actually was quite funny, and I acknowledged that. Calling someone Bozo, whether it is Jim O'Brien, or an oblique reference to me, is not funny. Why do it?

jv001

01-03-2009, 12:31 PM

I think Greg's shooting problems come from a lack of confidence because he seems to be over his injuries. Last year he was starting and shot the ball well. He would take what I would consider very quick shots, but he hit a good percentage of them. So no one complained. This year he's coming off the bench cold and he's not hitting those same shots. Matter of fact he has stopped shooting so quickly and is not taking as many 3 pointers. I still say all he needs is a break out game making 4 or 5 three pointers and he will be just fine. When that happens his overall play will improve and he will be a valuable contributor to this team. I hope it comes against VT. They deserve it. Go Duke!

sagegrouse

01-03-2009, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by 77devil
I always thought Bozo the Clown was more appropriate.

If you do not know, you might be too young, Sagegrouse was making a reference to a famous historical figure, a TV character on a child's program from our youth, the early days of TV, that actually was quite funny, and I acknowledged that. Calling someone Bozo, whether it is Jim O'Brien, or an oblique reference to me, is not funny. Why do it?

Greybeard: 77devil is on the same wave length as you and me. He believes -- and he may be right -- that the better comparison for the clown-faced Terp with wispy red hair is Bozo, not Clarabell. Both are creatures of 50's TV (Clarabell is better known because of the Howdy Doody show and because the Clarabell actor, Bob Keeshan, later became Captain Kangaroo.)

Someone with better Internet skills could retrieve and present pictures of all three for the DBR readers to decide. But trust me, Jim O'Brien was an odd-looking dude.

sagegrouse

_Gary

01-03-2009, 12:50 PM

Diddy

01-03-2009, 01:45 PM

Enough talk about Paulus' 3-point shooting. This team's long term(tourney) success depends on Henderson taking his game to the next level. If he isn't at least 2nd team all-acc caliber by year end, this team will not make it past the Sweet 16.

Amen. Greg will either shoot better, or he won't. If he starts hitting, it will essentially be nothing but sprinkles on top of the cupcake. If he doesn't get hot, then he will basically still be able to provide solid backup mpg to keep the starters fresh.

Hendo is the key to the season. Not that he is the best player, or that he is playing the best this year. Jon is playing great, and Kyle's importance as a big is huge.

But Hendo has to get better. I really thought he would be competitive for ACC POY this year. At the very least, I thought 1st team All ACC at the very least. So far, he hasn't lived up to that. But he is rounding into a great player. His last few games have been great.

The team tempo and dynamic changed tremendously this past year, and some of those changes, while necessary, do not necessarily play to Hendo's strengths.

Para Exemplo: Lance and Zoubs (and Plums) emergence. Last year, we had no true low post presence. Kyle worked hard, but he is an inside out, or outside in, type of player. Hendo's game is predicated on drives, either to the basket or for a pull up jumper. Last year, the lane was clear because Duke didn't have a player down there. This year, there are a lot more players in the post. Zoubs is huge, and takes up a lot of space, reducing the driving lanes available to the team. Same, to a lesser extent, with Lance.

Also, last year the PG spent most of his time on the perimeter. This year, Nolan drives a lot, further reducing the driving lanes.

I think Hendo has had to learn a different style of ball due to the reduced amount of space in the lane. He has figured it out. He was already playing good D and rebounding OK. Now his scoring is creeping up. With our big three clicking, and the subs, posts, and Nolan all dangerous, Duke is a multifacted team capable of beating anyone. But Hendo has to keep it going, and keep improving.

Kedsy

01-03-2009, 02:29 PM

You might want to look over your post and look at the arguement you are putting forth.

If intense practices, constant grinding with bigs can eventually wear down a player by seasons end as you speculate. Why do you not believe that playing extra minutes of extremely intense, emotion packed basketball won't also contribute to this eventual wearing down?

I honestly don't see how you can seperate just one factor from the total scheme.

Coach K discussed something prior to the start of the season. Something along the lines that recent teams felt pressured to win and when they did, they didn't savor the victory, but rather expressed a sense of relief that they won.

Is it possible that the mental grind of playing so many minutes in tough, down to the wire games takes more of a toll on a player than the actual physical part of it?

If they were playing 60 minutes a game instead of 30 I might agree with you (and, yes, I realize that would be a lot of overtime). I'm sorry but I don't see either a significant physical or mental toll in playing an additional 5 minutes, twice a week.

And it is not me who is "separat[ing] one factor from the total scheme," it is you. You don't object to the practices or anything else, you just want to make sure they play 30 minutes instead of 35. All I'm saying is that one small factor is insignificant compared to everything else.

Truth

01-03-2009, 03:34 PM

No but really, he is top 5 all time statistically

Redick shot 1126 three pointers at 40.5%
Paulus has shot 805 three pointers thus far in his career at 40.5%

I believe he is currently 4th or 5th all time at Duke in 3pt %

Collins and Dunleavy don't crack the top 10 and had far fewer attempts than Greg

I can't argue with the stats... like I said, I did not do any research for my prior post.

On purely emotional level, I do not think Greg is going to be remembered as a Top 5 three-point shooter in the K era, even if he ranks in the Top 5 in 3FG%. I just don't feel that Greg has had a sufficient number of defining three-point moments -- he's had a few, but the players listed above had career-defining ones. Hopefully, Greg will have several defining outbursts over the remainder of the season and this whole discussion will be moot.

ncexnyc

01-03-2009, 03:43 PM

If they were playing 60 minutes a game instead of 30 I might agree with you (and, yes, I realize that would be a lot of overtime). I'm sorry but I don't see either a significant physical or mental toll in playing an additional 5 minutes, twice a week.

And it is not me who is "separat[ing] one factor from the total scheme," it is you. You don't object to the practices or anything else, you just want to make sure they play 30 minutes instead of 35. All I'm saying is that one small factor is insignificant compared to everything else.
I'm sorry, but somehow you're not doing a good job of comprehending what you're reading. "I honestly don't see how you can seperate just one factor from the total scheme", is what I clearly stated. I'm sure most people understand that I view all of the factors mentioned as having a cumulative effect on the players.

I'm sorry if my last comment may have misled you into thinking I view it more as mental fatigue, but that isn't the case. I honestly think it's everything combined.

sagegrouse

01-03-2009, 03:48 PM

Amen. Greg will either shoot better, or he won't. If he starts hitting, it will essentially be nothing but sprinkles on top of the cupcake. If he doesn't get hot, then he will basically still be able to provide solid backup mpg to keep the starters fresh.

Hendo is the key to the season. Not that he is the best player, or that he is playing the best this year. Jon is playing great, and Kyle's importance as a big is huge.

But Hendo has to get better.

There will be several games this year where we need to outshoot the other team. I think we need Paulus to be hitting to win. Now, if Gerald, Kyle, and Jon are all-world, then maybe we are enough better that we don't have to rely on the three against anybody. I wouldn't count on it. I think we need another weapon -- Go Greg.

sagegrouse

Truth

01-03-2009, 03:58 PM

I'm sorry, but somehow you're not doing a good job of comprehending what you're reading. "I honestly don't see how you can seperate just one factor from the total scheme", is what I clearly stated. I'm sure most people understand that I view all of the factors mentioned as having a cumulative effect on the players.

I'm sorry if my last comment may have misled you into thinking I view it more as mental fatigue, but that isn't the case. I honestly think it's everything combined.

Let me try a stab at this...

I believe Kedsy is stating that the cumulative time a given Duke player spends in an actual game is so minute compared to the amount of time the player spends in practice that an argument about 5-10 minutes of energy spent/conserved in game-time is virtually irrelevant.

Per player time spent in practice per week: 720 minutes (4 hours/day x 3 days per week) = 12 hours or 720 minutes (could be more, could be less, I'm estimating here based on how often I'd see the team in Cameron when I was a student; nothing scientific here unfortunately)

Time spent in game each week: 80 (if a player plays two FULL games)

In other words, a given, high-PT player could spend approximately 10% of his basketball time in games and 90% in practice. The argument being put forth here is that an adjustment in game time down to ~8% by reducing minutes to 70 instead of 80 is rather inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

Truth

01-03-2009, 04:03 PM

Where do we go down the stretch of a close game?
I laugh when people talk about Duke lacking a go-to guy. Singler wants to take big shots. Scheyer wants to take big shots. Henderson wants to take big shots. Duke has go-to guys. Still, I'm interested to see how we utilize them in big spots. Is it the high screen/roll with Scheyer and Singler? Iso for one of the three guys? Gerald in the post? When we most need a bucket, what is the one thing we can count on most? Maybe there doesn't have to be one thing, but I'm interested in seeing if K thinks so and if a pattern emerges late in games.

For every near-off-topic post that I make about PT, I feel obligated to make another on-topic post regarding Phase III :)

I share your opinion here, Jumbo, that Duke has "go-to guys" -- but is there a difference between having go-to guys vs. a single go-to guy? I am compelled to believe that having multiple go-to players is preferable, but I can see the argument that the lack of a single, clearly identified go-to person could work against Duke in some close finishes. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out, particularly if any of the players mentioned (Gerald, Kyle, Jon) will step up to be THE go-to guy.

A slight tangent: If we need a go-to three pointer late, I think the ball is going to Greg.

greybeard

01-03-2009, 04:28 PM

For every near-off-topic post that I make about PT, I feel obligated to make another on-topic post regarding Phase III :)

I share your opinion here, Jumbo, that Duke has "go-to guys" -- but is there a difference between having go-to guys vs. a single go-to guy? I am compelled to believe that having multiple go-to players is preferable, but I can see the argument that the lack of a single, clearly identified go-to person could work against Duke in some close finishes. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out, particularly if any of the players mentioned (Gerald, Kyle, Jon) will step up to be THE go-to guy.

A slight tangent: If we need a go-to three pointer late, I think the ball is going to Greg.

If I was an opposing coach, I wouldn't be happy about Smith's catching it 15-17 feet away with a guy guarding him and nobody helping behind. I wouldn't be happy at that prospect one little bit.

BTW, I know that this will draw derision, but who has the best shooting and probably foul shooting percentage on the team. If everybody's guarding all these shooters? Yes, I understand all the serservations, but: 1. this is not like hitting a 5 iron to a super hard green at the Masters; 2. how many game winners are scored by the guy other than the "go-to" guy (out of three last second game winners in the playoffs I can remember, MJ took one; the guys who made the other two, one was hot that game (Paxton) the other was terribly off (Kerr)). Yeah, I know, he'll be on the bench, but if . . . . ;)

Kedsy

01-03-2009, 05:08 PM

Let me try a stab at this...

I believe Kedsy is stating that the cumulative time a given Duke player spends in an actual game is so minute compared to the amount of time the player spends in practice that an argument about 5-10 minutes of energy spent/conserved in game-time is virtually irrelevant.

Per player time spent in practice per week: 720 minutes (4 hours/day x 3 days per week) = 12 hours or 720 minutes (could be more, could be less, I'm estimating here based on how often I'd see the team in Cameron when I was a student; nothing scientific here unfortunately)

Time spent in game each week: 80 (if a player plays two FULL games)

In other words, a given, high-PT player could spend approximately 10% of his basketball time in games and 90% in practice. The argument being put forth here is that an adjustment in game time down to ~8% by reducing minutes to 70 instead of 80 is rather inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, thank you, this is what I'm trying to say. Frankly, I'm surprised the team only practices 3 days a week; I expected it was four or five days.

I would also note that Kyle Singler played only 29 minutes a game last year (and he had the 2nd most minutes on the team). Would anyone recommend fewer minutes than that for him this year? Shane Battier in 2000-01 played 35 minutes a game and appeared chipper enough in the NCAA championship game. Duke may have worn down toward the end of the past few seasons, but I'm pretty sure minutes per game was not the issue.

_Gary

01-03-2009, 05:17 PM

Duke may have worn down toward the end of the past few seasons, but I'm pretty sure minutes per game was not the issue.

And yet both players and coaches have talked specifically about "bench strength" and such at the beginning of each new season for a good bit. So I'm not going to be as quick to dismiss the issue as some others are. I'm not saying that playing big minutes is the only reason, but the bottom line is that we've seen some tired teams in March more recently than we have in times past. I think this is indisputable when even players and coaches mention it. But I won't belabor the point any more because I don't want to see the thread veer off topic.

greybeard

01-03-2009, 07:06 PM

Greybeard: 77devil is on the same wave length as you and me. He believes -- and he may be right -- that the better comparison for the clown-faced Terp with wispy red hair is Bozo, not Clarabell. Both are creatures of 50's TV (Clarabell is better known because of the Howdy Doody show and because the Clarabell actor, Bob Keeshan, later became Captain Kangaroo.)

Someone with better Internet skills could retrieve and present pictures of all three for the DBR readers to decide. But trust me, Jim O'Brien was an odd-looking dude.

sagegrouse

In Brooklyn, we watched Howdy Doody; didn't know that Bozo the Clown was a TV character. Someone called you a Bozo, you had to take issue with him--in our parlence, it meant that "you was beyond studpid." Sometimes I am. Peace, 77, and thanks SG.

BlueintheFace

01-03-2009, 07:10 PM

This team's long term(tourney) success depends on Henderson taking his game to the next level. If he isn't at least 2nd team all-acc caliber by year end, this team will not make it past the Sweet 16.

I believe this now as I did at the beginning of the year, but I think Sweet 16 is a bit harsh. We have so much balance. I was thinking that we need G to be great to be a final four team. He doesn't need to be 2nd Team All-ACC, just 2nd Team-All ACC caliber in the tournament. I actually think that this will happen. G just plays so much better when he is really needed and his adrenaline is going (see- last year's tournament).

I am actually a bit more worried about Kyle's consistency. Kyle seems to be emerging as our most forceful and aggressive player. He takes a lot of shots, and as we saw in the Michigan game, he will just keep shooting those threes if they are open to him. He just isn't a great three point shooter though. However, it is worth pointing out that he has really pushed his game inside a bit more in the last few games. After the Michigan game he was averaging about 5 3pt attempts/ game. The last three games, the most he has attempted has been 3. I would add to the list.

How will Kyle's Shot selection pan out against ACC competition (and Davidson, Georgetown)? How many threes will he attempt/ game

I would also add,

Will December Jon translate in to ACC Jon?

Jon has played amazing this December, but the competition hasn't been the highest quality at times. I am very curious to see what Jon's numbers look like against ACC teams?

Indoor66

01-03-2009, 07:16 PM

Will December Jon translate in to ACC Jon?

Jon has played amazing this December, but the competition hasn't been the highest quality at times. I am very curious to see what Jon's numbers look like against ACC teams?

I believe the same could be said for every player at every school in Div I as they now approach their January forward schedule.

BlueintheFace

01-03-2009, 07:32 PM

I believe the same could be said for every player at every school in Div I as they now approach their January forward schedule.

awwww, somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed today Mr. Grumpy.

Your comment is not only inaccurate, but if one were to assume that it was, it would add absolutely nothing to the discussion.

The reason why this question is an interesting one for Jon and not everyone else is because in November, Jon averaged 12ppg at 41% on fg. In December he averaged 16.8 ppg at 56% on fg. Seems like a pretty interesting difference, no?

Truth

01-03-2009, 07:37 PM

Yes, thank you, this is what I'm trying to say. Frankly, I'm surprised the team only practices 3 days a week; I expected it was four or five days.

I would not be surprised if the team did practice 4 or 5 days a week. I simply did not want to over-estimate the practice number for the sake of making my point. I wouldn't be surprised if the practice time vs. game time ratio is even more skewed, thus making game time minutes even more irelevant in terms of overall fatigue.

Truth

01-03-2009, 07:43 PM

And yet both players and coaches have talked specifically about "bench strength" and such at the beginning of each new season for a good bit. So I'm not going to be as quick to dismiss the issue as some others are. I'm not saying that playing big minutes is the only reason, but the bottom line is that we've seen some tired teams in March more recently than we have in times past. I think this is indisputable when even players and coaches mention it. But I won't belabor the point any more because I don't want to see the thread veer off topic.

I think we're not as far apart in our views as you might think. I too have heard coaches and players talk about being fatigued at the end of the season, and I am not arguing with them (who would argue against K?!). That said, I do not ever recall any players or coaches indicating the source of the fatigue was playing too many minutes over the course of the season. The difference is subtle. I agree that we've had tired teams of late (afterall, the players and coaches have said as much), but I disagree that total game minutes played would even make the short list of causes.

77devil

01-03-2009, 08:13 PM

If you do not know, you might be too young, Sagegrouse was making a reference to a famous historical figure, a TV character on a child's program from our youth, the early days of TV, that actually was quite funny, and I acknowledged that.

Hold on there fella. So was I. If you had been in Duke/Cameron Indoor Stadium during O'Brien's career you would have heard him called Bozo many times in reference to his flowing red, curly mane.

Calling someone Bozo, whether it is Jim O'Brien, or an oblique reference to me, is not funny. Why do it?

I can assure you that it was not an oblique reference to you. I don't read your posts.

Carlos

01-03-2009, 11:07 PM

Let's be fair to Greg. As noted often here, he is struggling this year, which is at least partly due to injuries during the off-season and early in the season.

But Greg Paulus is a proven 3-point shooter. For the year 2007-08, he led the team in 3-pt FGs made (86) and 3-pt FG% of 42.3%, with no one else over 40%.

It took 4 pages but someone finally hit on a critical point here regarding Paulus' shooting. Earlier in the year his injury to his shooting arm was so bad that he couldn't make a fist. Duke has historically undersold the severity of injuries and Paulus has been such a solid threat from three in the last two seasons that I have to believe that he's not 100% at this point. The question of whether his play will come around to the same level in previous seasons has a lot to do with if his health comes around to the same level as previous seasons.

Enough talk about Paulus' 3-point shooting. This team's long term(tourney) success depends on Henderson taking his game to the next level. If he isn't at least 2nd team all-acc caliber by year end, this team will not make it past the Sweet 16.

Another great point here (although I would hesitate to say what Duke's prospects are for the tourney since there are so many variables in the mix). What made Henderson so tough when he was playing well last season was his ability to take the ball to the basket and score or to hit the pull up jumper in the lane. Right now he's attacking the rim but he's yet to show that intermediate game.

A couple of factors may play into that. Unless you've been living under a rock you've probably heard the stories of all the work Henderson's done on his outside shot. That's work has paid off as he's increased his accuracy thus far by about 5 percentage points. But he's also taking more threes each game by a significant amount. Through the first 12 games of last season he had taken 133 shots, of which 23 were threes (17% of all his attempts). This season he's taken 107 shots of which 33 were threes (31%). Has the emphasis on the deep shot come at the expense of that intermediate game that made him so special?

The other thing to remember is that last season Duke played most of those games with very limited minutes from Zoubek. Having a traditional back to the basket center like Zoubek makes for a different dynamic on the court than when you have Thomas and Singler out there. While Thomas is definitely not a guy who can drag an opposing center too far from the basket you have to respect him out there more than you do Zoubs. So that lane may be a bit more crowded this year than it was last season.

In any event, Henderson's ability to get that part of his offensive repertoire back on track (or, for fans of TV color commentatorspeak - get it untracked) is one more small thing that can contribute to the overall success of the team.

greybeard

01-04-2009, 12:35 AM

I can assure you that it was not an oblique reference to you. I don't read your posts.

What does it mean that you don't read my posts but respond to them when they are quoted in other people's posts. Some special kind of duke haiku no doubt.

BTW, for the record, I am not a fan of the Cameron Crazy practice of insulting guest players; doesn't do it for me, don't know why a grown man would put the same kind of energy behind repeating such comments. That is not where I understood SG to be coming from, at least I hope.

Later, 77Duke; very interesting, you don't read em, eh, now there's a real bummer.

gw67

01-04-2009, 10:39 AM

First, let me second Carlos' comments re Paulus' shooting and Henderson's mid-range game. Both comments are right on the money.

Second, I saw a bunch of Maryland games in the early 70's and O'Brien's fizzy red hair (mini afro) led many to refer to him as Bozo. I don't recall it being mean spirited and Jim took it in stride. He attended a game a few years ago along with others from Lefty's great teams of that era and even some of the old timers joked about his hair on the radio. By the way, his career at Maryland overlapped Elmore, McMillian, Lucas and that bunch. He was an excellent college player and he played a couple of years in the pros.

gw67

ncexnyc

01-04-2009, 11:29 AM

In Brooklyn, we watched Howdy Doody; didn't know that Bozo the Clown was a TV character. Someone called you a Bozo, you had to take issue with him--in our parlence, it meant that "you was beyond studpid." Sometimes I am. Peace, 77, and thanks SG.
WOW, you're from Brooklyn and you didn't know Bozo was a TV character? That makes you either very old or very young. Bozo was a staple on WPIX, channel 11, from 1959-1964. Since you mention Howdy Doody, you've probably got a few years on me.;)

greybeard

01-04-2009, 06:24 PM

WOW, you're from Brooklyn and you didn't know Bozo was a TV character? That makes you either very old or very young. Bozo was a staple on WPIX, channel 11, from 1959-1964. Since you mention Howdy Doody, you've probably got a few years on me.;)

By '59, I was entering high school on Long Island, 9th grade at GW Hewlett High School. Only time I heard the term "Bozo," was when someone was calling someone else a real idiot, as in "You are a real Bozo."

Jim was a funny looking guy; good to hear he was okay with people teasing him about that. If I had game like he did, in any kind of venue, I'm probably have thicker skin too, which would not be a bad thing, no? ;)

Jeffrey

01-20-2009, 06:45 PM

Hi,

Before the season began, I thought we would be at this stage of the season thinking our best players were:

1. Gerald
2. Kyle
3. Jon
4. Nolan

IMO, the season-to-date order has been:

1. Jon
2. Kyle
3. Gerald
4. Nolan

I've been extremely impressed by almost all aspects of Jon's game this season. Even when Jon is asked to play out of position, I'm usually impressed. For example, IMO, he did a much better job running the point than Greg did when Nolan hurt his knee.

I don't believe that Greg will make or break this team as much as Gerald will. If Gerald meets his pre-season expectations for 1st team ACC, then I think we're a Final 4 level team. If not, then I don't think we see the final weekend.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Hi,

I think the player rankings I mentioned above have changed substantially since the post was made 18 days ago and G has been our best player over the last 4-5 games. I don't see how we would have gone far in March if Gerald had continued to be our third or fourth best player. As a result of G's substantial improvement, I now believe we're a legitimate Final 4 level team with the best defensive in college hoops and many offensive weapons. I really like this team and look forward to UNC!

Best regards,
Jeffrey

loran16

01-20-2009, 10:24 PM

I figure its time for another look at all this, given that we're halfway through.

What does Greg Paulus have left?
This is directly tied to the question above, in that Paulus' greatest ability to help the team is with his shooting. But this goes beyond Greg's stroke. He looks beaten down -- physically, mentally, emotionally. He lost his job to a better player. That stings, especially for a senior. He's been beaten up for three-plus years, and not just his body, but his psyche -- even by his own fans. He needs to find a way to shake that all off and contribute. Yes, his role is diminished, but it's still important. Duke needs another shooter and a steady reserve in the backcourt. Can Greg summon enough strength to provide that? At this point, the answer isn't a simple "He's a veteran -- when he's healthy, he'll be fine." And the answer needs to come during this period.

The Answer? He's come through big the last 3 games, and looks like he can start hitting those 3s again. Which is good, because Nolan's looked dead at times.

What happens with increased minutes?
You can bet your sweet bottom that in close games against good teams, Jon Scheyer, Kyle Singler and Gerald Henderson all will play 30-plus minutes. Scheyer and Singler will probably get 35-plus, in fact. These guys haven't been forced to log major minutes on a consistent basis yet, but we got enough early tests to see what Scheyer and Singler would look like with an increased workload. (Henderson has only played 30-plus once this year, against Xavier. He was excellent: 19 pts, 2 reb, 1 ast, 3 stl, 1 blk, .667 FG%, .667 3PT%, 1.000 FT%.)
Scheyer and Singler have each gone 30-plus five times. The sample size is small, and I wouldn't really read much into it, but Scheyer has been absolutely fantastic when playing big minutes, while Singler's shooting has suffered.
Scheyer: 19 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 1.8 spg, .547 FG%, .478 3PT%, .929 FT%.
Singler: 16 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 4.0 apg, 1.4 spg, .424 FG%, .290 3PT%, .625 FT%

Singler seemed to be a bit down in the first halves of the last two games, and scheyer looked bad in this one....still, might be minor.

Nolan Smith has looked a bit tired and weak at times in the last 3-4 games, however, and unlike the others it IS his first time playing major minutes. Something to think about.

G on the other hand, well. He's just awesome.

How will we hold up defensively against good bigs?
We're all thrilled with the improvement form Zoubek and Thomas so far, especially on offense. But we really haven't faced much in the way of strong interior play. Now they'll go through a series of challenges. It's not that I'm worried about low-post guys going off for big scoring games. Even if that happens, Duke can win. But Zoubek and Thomas need to do a reasonable job on the defensive boards and keep providing Duke with a balanced attack at both ends of the court. To do that, they have to stay on the floor. Both guys are quite foul prone, and that should only be a bigger issue against better teams that attack Duke's interior more successfully. Yes, Plumlee is available behind both of them and McClure and Singler certainly can play together at the 4/5. But Lance and Brian need to prove that they can play against quality opponents without fouling.

Both of these guys haven't fouled much the last two games. But they've looked slow and weak, and conference bigs are pushing them around. We've gone to a heavy McClure move and even put in Miles, but still this has been a disappointment recently. God knows how these two will do vs Wake's big 3.

Where do we go down the stretch of a close game?
I laugh when people talk about Duke lacking a go-to guy. Singler wants to take big shots. Scheyer wants to take big shots. Henderson wants to take big shots. Duke has go-to guys. Still, I'm interested to see how we utilize them in big spots. Is it the high screen/roll with Scheyer and Singler? Iso for one of the three guys? Gerald in the post? When we most need a bucket, what is the one thing we can count on most? Maybe there doesn't have to be one thing, but I'm interested in seeing if K thinks so and if a pattern emerges late in games.

Ummmm, How about Gerald Henderson. Nuff said.

Jumbo

01-20-2009, 10:25 PM

I usually like to let the whole phase play out before rendering judgment.

Jeffrey

01-21-2009, 09:36 AM

I usually like to let the whole phase play out before rendering judgment.

Hi,

Sorry about that. Your thread, your rules. I was merely expressing my excitement about G's very substantial improvement and how I think that substantially increases our March potential.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Jumbo

01-21-2009, 02:18 PM

Hi,

Sorry about that. Your thread, your rules. I was merely expressing my excitement about G's very substantial improvement and how I think that substantially increases our March potential.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Oh, no worries, and certainly no rules. I was actually responding to Loran, not you, and just expressing my personal preference in wanting to see how all the games play out. But, as to your point, G is certainly answering a number of questions.

jv001

01-21-2009, 03:17 PM

Hi,

Sorry about that. Your thread, your rules. I was merely expressing my excitement about G's very substantial improvement and how I think that substantially increases our March potential.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Jeffrey I believe you are correct if Gerald continues to play like this it will definetly help us in March. By March I look for Jon to be back playing lights out and Greg to be shooting like he can. If we get just alittle out of our #5 position without having Kyle play for long mins, we will be a tough out in the NCAA tourney. Like I said I like this team. Go Duke!

RepoMan

02-13-2009, 12:41 PM

OK, Jumbo.

Where are we? We need orientation, namely your Phase III assessment and Phase IV game plan! Thanks in advance

Wander

02-13-2009, 12:48 PM

OK, Jumbo.

Where are we? We need orientation, namely your Phase III assessment and Phase IV game plan! Thanks in advance

Man, I just read through his questions again, and it's amazing how perfectly the answer to one of his questions explains our recent slide. Well done Jumbo.

Jumbo

02-13-2009, 08:53 PM

OK, Jumbo.

Where are we? We need orientation, namely your Phase III assessment and Phase IV game plan! Thanks in advance

Sorry -- I've been extremely busy lately, but promise to have my Phase III evaluation and Phase IV questions up before the BC game.

shadowfax336

02-13-2009, 09:51 PM

Man, I just read through his questions again, and it's amazing how perfectly the answer to one of his questions explains our recent slide. Well done Jumbo.

I assume you mean the falling back into old habits on offense one?

mgtr

02-13-2009, 10:13 PM

The view is that Gerald has done well the last few games. I think his best performances are ahead of him. He needs to grab this team by the ying-yangs and run with it. He could score 30-40 points a game with his ability. If others refuse to step up, then he needs to. Enough of pgs pounding the ball into the hardwood. Give, G the ball, and let him do what he will.
In addition to making things happen for himself, he will spark others to do something good for the team. With the right starter fluid (Gerald on fire), we could finish out the season with a string of 100 point games. I love the thought -- now we need to make it happen.

Bay Area Duke Fan

02-13-2009, 11:09 PM

Ignatius07

02-14-2009, 12:11 AM

Gerald certainly did not play well in the second half on Wednesday. I think it will take improved play from both Gerald and Kyle for this team to be successful. Gerald has not played consistently well at Duke, and I really don't expect that to change. Kyle and Gerald must step up and lead this team.

Gerald has played more consistently at a high level over the ACC season than anybody on the team. As far as I can remember, the second half against UNC was his first half of the ACC where he tried to take over but wasn't able to.

Wander

02-14-2009, 08:20 AM

I assume you mean the falling back into old habits on offense one?

Yeah, it's kind of scary how true that seems.

Saratoga2

02-14-2009, 11:51 AM

Phase III is over and I look forward to your new insights. My own take on your points follows:

Can we break free from three?
We have shown some flexibility with Scheyer, Henderson and Smith getting inside. Still no consistent play inside from our 5 spot. Except for Henderson, our inside game can be neutralized by a team with athletic shot blockers. Out three point shooting has improved of late with Scheyer, Paulus and Henderson doing better and Singler also starting to hit.

What does Greg Paulus have left?

Paulus has started to give us the tenacious and tough play of the past. He is hitting asome shots now and can guard less athletic off guards well enough. He doesn't have the speed to go against quick guards nor to run the fast break effectively. Going forward, he can be an asset to the team if used wisely.

What happens with increased minutes?

As expected, Singler, Scheyer and Henderson are getting heavy minutes. Coach K has been searching for the right combination with his other players with McClure and Thomas getting the most minutes for the bigs and Paulus and Smith for the remaining guard minutes. Zoubek seems to have relinquished minutes to those two.

To me Smith has the highest potential and should get a higher share of the guard minutes going forward. Williams should also get some of the minutes, since he has tons of potential. Pocius just doesn't do well in game situations. For the bigs, Plumlee has qualities that should earn him minutes going into phase IV. I don't think the quality at the bigs is really superior to what he brings.

How will we hold up defensively against good bigs?

In other posts I have alluded to Thomas playing very hard but not with a great deal of game understanding or technique. Zoubek only seems effective defensively near the basket and McClure has played well defensively but is still 6'6" and light to compete inside against really good bigs. Perhaps in phase IV, Plumlee will get additional playing time and give us. Czyz doesn't seem to be an answer this year.

Where do we go down the stretch of a close game?

I don't think we lack people willing to take the shot down the stretch with Henderson, Singler and Scheyer all willing to be the man. In addition, Smith seems to have emerged during phase IV and offers quickness and foul shooting ability and should be in the game at the end. He still makes mistakes dribbling into a crowd or getting himself in the air with no suitable pass, but I do see those defects diminishing.

Can Elliot Williams give us a solid nine-man rotation?
Clearly he didn't get a lot of PT in key games, and he is still making freshman mistakes, however, his quickness and athleticism is definetly there. He is long and handles the ball as well as Henderson. We needed minutes from him against UNC, but none were given. Lets hope the coaches see him as a resource going down the stretch.

Will the offensive diversity continue against better opponents, or will we fall back into familiar habits when the going gets tough? .

I haven't noticed much improvement with our bigs and don't think any will give us presence inside with the possible exception of Plumlee, if he is used. Smith's improvement on offense is a big plus as is Paulus coming out of his shooting slump. We have gained during phase IV but still not much use of our inside players. Perhaps they are just not competitive against other quality bigs in the ACC.

Can we stay healthy?
We have to date. Very little injury and perhaps a little illness, but we go into phse IV, basically healthy.

Looking forward to the run into the tournaments.

Jumbo

02-14-2009, 03:08 PM

As promised, here's a recap of Phase III before we move on to Phase IV. Obviously it was a tough and important run of games, and it ended in a way that has people concerned. So that’s why I was struck and somewhat comforted by something I wrote at the very top of the post in this thread, way back on Jan. 2: “It's a good, long, difficult stretch, but there's still time left after that to make more changes.”

I’m glad I wrote that, as it’s helping me maintain proper perspective going forward. But, first, that as-promised look back:

“Can we break free from three?”
I was more optimistic about this on Jan. 2 than I am now. I no longer expect a major upgrade in our three-point shooting. I think we’ve shown the capability to get hot for stretches, and hopefully those stretches will come when we need them most. But, no, Duke has not broken free from three.

"What does Greg Paulus have left?"
Apparently, more than I thought. He certainly doesn’t look “defeated” anymore, as I contended a few weeks ago. If nothing else, he’s more confident, he’s playing hard and he’s not afraid to take big shots. He can help this team. I still believe that he can help most as a shooter off the bench, rather than playing major minutes as the starting point guard. But he can help. That’s a positive development.

"What happens with increased minutes?"
Here’s what the guys looked like with 30-plus minutes going into this period:

Henderson: One game against Xavier: 19 pts, 2 reb, 1 ast, 3 stl, 1 blk, .667 FG%, .667 3PT%, 1.000 FT%.)
Scheyer (5 games): 19 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 1.8 spg, .547 FG%, .478 3PT%, .929 FT%.
Singler (5 games): 16 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 4.0 apg, 1.4 spg, .424 FG%, .290 3PT%, .625 FT%

Here’s how they did with 30-plus minutes during this phase:
Henderson (8 games): 19.9 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 2.6 apg, 2.1 spg, 0.8 bpg, 2.9 TPG, .542 FG%, .429 3PT%, .607 FT%.
Scheyer (9 games): 13.9 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.2 spg, 0.0 bpg, 1.6 TPG, .315 FG%, .306 3PT%, .844 FT%
Singler (8 games): 18.9 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 2.3 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.8 bpg, 3.1 TPG, .415 FG%, .378 3PT%, .667 FT%

Henderson actually improved. Scheyer hit his slump and played much worse. Singler's results were varied. And even if we were to decide that the guys played worse with more minutes, that doesn’t mean we can isolate the cause. I will contend strongly that any negative read into those stats has more to do with playing against tougher opponents than big minutes causing fatigue and diminished results. I guess I can’t prove that, though.

"How will we hold up defensively against good bigs?"

My biggest concern, actually, was foul trouble for Zoubek and Thomas. In that regard, they’ve done okay. And Duke has remained a solid rebounding team. Plus, other than Booker, an opposing big hasn’t truly gone off against us. That said, the interior defense was part of an overall decline in team D over the latter part of this phase.

"Where do we go down the stretch of a close game?"
You know, this was another good sign. The two really tight finishes were against Wake and Miami. Against Wake, guys stepped up and made plays down the stretch. Henderson obviously hit a huge jumper when we needed it most. Kyle responded. Scheyer, even though he was ice-cold, wasn’t afraid to launch a potentially game winning three. Yes,, we lost, but that was on a fluky play. That game gave me confidence about Duke’s late-game execution.
And the Miami game was obviously more of the same. Paulus hit a huge three. G and Singler hit huge shots. Scheyer stepped up and made plays. At this point, I don’t have any reason to fear this team’s ability to win a game that comes down the last minute, based on what we saw during Phase III.

"Can Elliot Williams give us a solid nine-man rotation?"
Sadly, that hasn’t happened. I’m a fan of Elliot, and believe he can help us in the future. But right now, there’s a legit dropoff between his play and that of the other reserves in the regular rotation. I don’t have a problem going with eight guys moving forward, although I will hold out hope that the light somehow pops on for Elliot this month. But I don’t expect that kind of a development at this point.

"Will the offensive diversity continue against better opponents, or will we fall back into familiar habits when the going gets tough?"
Yes and no. With a couple of exceptions (like Maryland), we really haven’t been able to utilize Zoubek in the way we had prior to this phase. That’s a shame, and I’m not sure whether that will change.

However, just as I was ready to rant about Duke becoming stagnant on offense again, we’ve seen two positive developments. It started in the second half of the Miami game against, of all things, a zone. Duke started moving way more without the ball, made the extra pass, swung the ball quicker. And that was one of the brightest aspects of the Carolina game, too. Yes, UNC’s D was really bad in the first half. But Duke ran some effective motion, and even the set plays involved more movement and passing, rather than the simple stuff we run through our elbow series. Sometimes, we just shot too quickly. But we didn't have to work as hard to score. That's something.

The posting of Henderson has continued when he has the right matchup. I’d still like to see more of Kyle on the block. This area was not as consistent as I would have liked during Phase III, but it didn’t evaporate by any means, either. I'm actually surprised that I just wrote that. This is a good thing.

"Can we stay healthy?"
We know that some guys are banged up (like Nolan) and I’m sure there are more nagging injuries that we don’t know about. But everyone’s playing. And that’s critical. Look at what happened to UConn with Jerome Dyson. Or Carolina with Ginyard and Zeller. If nothing else, we should thank our lucky stars that all our guys have been able to suit up, and that our most serious injury was a fluky cut on Marty’s hand. I can only hope that we remain lucky in this area.

So, let's hope that looking back only does one thing for the team -- inspires them to improve and move on. I'm certainly ready. And I'll explain how in Phase IV, coming soon!

Highlander

02-14-2009, 03:11 PM

Looks like Jumbo beat me by 3 minutes, but here are my thoughts:

Can we break free from three?
Doesn't look like it. We are an outside-in team, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I think the outside shooting of this team is critical to our success at the elite levels. We just don't have enough firepower IMO to win it all unless we're hitting from the outside. Knowing this, we need to ensure we are taking (and hitting) as many good shots as possible, and are in good position for the long rebounds.

What does Greg Paulus have left?

At this point Greg is what he is, which is a good outside shooter, decent distributor, and a less than stellar on-the-ball defender. He's also emerged as the leader of the team, and legitimately won back his starting spot from Nolan Smith. Going forward we will need to continue to leverage Greg's strengths and help compensate for his weaknesses. Guarding someone like Tyrese Rice, Jeff Teague, or Ty Lawson will be a problem, but these guys are a problem for almost everyone they face, not just Greg.

What happens with increased minutes?

Other than the second half against UNC where we seemed to leave most of our shots short, I haven't seen a big difference in play with increased minutes. Coach K has taken to playing almost everyone in the first half (UNC being an exception) to see who plays well and what matchups work, then shortening the rotation in the second half.

I agree that Brian and Nolan need to pick up their games if we are going to be successful.

How will we hold up defensively against good bigs?

Defensively, I think we're playing OK, although Brian is definitely our weakest post defender at the moment. McClure has been a nice surprise, and his rebounding and defense have both been big pluses. Still, he's only 6'6", so there is a limit to what he can do in the post.

Where do we go down the stretch of a close game?

No longer an issue. Henderson is our #1 option, with Singler and Scheyer #2 and #2, in either order. I'm comfortable with any of the three of them taking a big shot. Plus Paulus hit a huge shot via Miami in the closing minutes, and obviously isn't shy. We have a lot of options here.

Can Elliot Williams give us a solid nine-man rotation?

Not really. He's looking awfly green and lost on defense. On offense, he's not reliable from the outside and doesn't protect the ball well when driving. I hope he'll improve, but so far he has a ways to go before he's a regular member of the rotation.

Will the offensive diversity continue against better opponents, or will we fall back into familiar habits when the going gets tough? .

We have 3 guys who can lead us in scoring on any given night, and another two guards both capable of giving us anywhere from 7-18 points each. Our post guys don't give us much offense other than garbage baskets. It would be nice if they could evolve into a legitimate threat, as it would open things up for the big 3. As it stands now, we usually only have 3-4 guys on the court at a time who are a threat to score, which hurts us on offense.

Can we stay healthy?

So Far, So good.