Big Man Solutions

[BlueintheFace]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/seth_davis/01/29/mailbag/index.html

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/in_the_paint/posts/45321-wake-win-shows-dukes-inside-game-still-wanting

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/goodmanonfox

All of these are articles that pretty much say, "nothing has changed, Duke can't win in March without a dominant big man."

I don't believe this to be true, but from reading the post-game comments, I am obviously in the minority right now. So, I would like to gage everybody's thoughts on the situation this year and our prospects. Keep it holy people.

[geraldsneighbor]

Duke lost by 2 on the road to the number 4 team in the country. If they would've shot 35 3's and lost by 10 I'd give you that. This isn't last years team. Duke may not have a "scoring post player" but Kyle Singler and Gerald Henderson don't rely on the 3. The people who write this don't watch game I guess. Duke also out-rebounded Wake. Look, if a stud on the post is what you need, why hasn't UNC won a NC with Hansbrough? Obviously there is more to the equation then just that. Duke lost to WVU last year because they were a more athletic team. Duke is very athletic this year and I think that has a huge thing to do when it comes to March. Talk about killing a team over 1 loss in January.

[BlueintheFace]

I tried to add a poll, but I waited too long and the options have too many characters. Here are the options as I see them. Please Choose one.

Option 1: Do NOTHING. All we need is good rebounding and defense from our post men. Let Jon, Kyle, and G lead us to the promised land.

Option 2: Roll the dice and play Plumlee as much as possible for the remainder of the season.

Option 3: More Zoubek! Play him until his hands are stronger than bear traps and he has the endurance of a kenyan marathon runner.

Option 4: Go small. Play Dave as much as possible because this isn't the same team as last year and we can do much better with a small lineup now. See how we just did against Wake on the road.

Option 5: Who cares, we don't have the big men to compete for a Final Four no matter what.

[CameronCrazy'11]

Last year we couldn't hold our own on the boards and could do nothing to stop good big men from scoring in the paint. This year's team doesn't have those weaknesses.

[RPS]

I tried to add a poll, but I waited too long and the options have too many characters. Here are the options as I see them. Please Choose one.None of the above and all of the above (except for #5). There are no complete teams out there, as usual. They all have strengths and weaknesses, ups and downs. Performance levels won't be remotely constant. Plans, strategies, match-ups and rotations can and should vary from game to game. We're talking about kids too, remember. Duke is one of a dozen or so teams with legitimate NC aspirations. We won't be the favorite, but we have a real shot. That's good enough for me.

[geraldsneighbor]

I tried to add a poll, but I waited too long and the options have too many characters. Here are the options as I see them. Please Choose one.

Option 1: Do NOTHING. All we need is good rebounding and defense from our post men. Let Jon, Kyle, and G lead us to the promised land.

Option 2: Roll the dice and play Plumlee as much as possible for the remainder of the season.

Option 3: More Zoubek! Play him until his hands are stronger than bear traps and he has the endurance of a kenyan marathon runner.

Option 4: Go small. Play Dave as much as possible because this isn't the same team as last year and we can do much better with a small lineup now. See how we just did against Wake on the road.

Option 5: Who cares, we don't have the big men to compete for a Final Four no matter what.


I think Plumlee needs more burn because he plays well laterally. That being said, Dave IMO has emerged to be deserving of a starting spot. Hes a leader and plays with tremendous intensity. The first 4 options at times all need/can be used. Let's not panic though.

[CDu]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/seth_davis/01/29/mailbag/index.html

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/in_the_paint/posts/45321-wake-win-shows-dukes-inside-game-still-wanting

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/goodmanonfox

All of these are articles that pretty much say, "nothing has changed, Duke can't win in March without a dominant big man."

I don't believe this to be true, but from reading the post-game comments, I am obviously in the minority right now. So, I would like to gage everybody's thoughts on the situation this year and our prospects. Keep it holy people.

I vehemently disagree with the notion that we need a dominant big man (defined I guess as a true post player, as Singler is dominant and big-ish) to win in March. I think we simply need a functional presence from the center to win in March. Right now, we're not getting that.

With Henderson and Singler at the 3 and 4, we're getting plenty of points and rebounds. We just need a functional presence in their to complement them inside. In ideal matchups, Zoubek can do that. But March isn't going to offer ideal matchups. Thomas is still too spastic and isn't really a post presence. Plumlee offers the most hope, but he's very rough around the edges right now.

But we don't need dominance by any means. And to be completely honest, this team is talented enough on the perimeter to win IN SPITE of our post issues. We nearly beat a Top-5 team on their court despite shooting 4-22 from 3pt range, getting virtually nothing from our fourth and fifth scoring options, and getting a largely bland performance from our third best scorer. A couple of breaks our way and we're celebrating a huge win, and we would have done it without a dominant center.

I would certainly rather have a functional post presence, and hopefully we can start to get that down the stretch. But we're capable of getting by without it, and certainly don't need a dominant presence.

[CameronCrazy'11]

I kind of like K's minute-by-minute approach that we seem to be using, rotating Zoubek, Plumlee, Thomas, and McClure in depending on the match-ups and who is playing well.

[Channing]

whatever the solution is - it was nice to see a Duke big man (Plumlee) run the pick and roll, not fumble the catch, and dunk with authority rather than trying to lay it up and having it rejected.

[SMO]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/seth_davis/01/29/mailbag/index.html

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/in_the_paint/posts/45321-wake-win-shows-dukes-inside-game-still-wanting

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/goodmanonfox

All of these are articles that pretty much say, "nothing has changed, Duke can't win in March without a dominant big man."

I don't believe this to be true, but from reading the post-game comments, I am obviously in the minority right now. So, I would like to gage everybody's thoughts on the situation this year and our prospects. Keep it holy people.

The fact that these people get paid to write this is mystifying. Did they watch the game??? Anyway, an easy way to make this nonsense go away is continue to win. Then they can write about how Duke's toughness and grit overcome its big man deficiency.

[I_am_a_Blue_Devil]

For some reason, I feel as though Miles turned the page last night. He still had a few lackluster moments, but had a couple really big plays on both ends of the floor. I think we will see an emergence from him over the next 2 weeks and for the rest of the season. He needs some confidence, and playing well in a game of that magnitude, plus UVA on Sunday, may be just the thing we need to solidify the post.

[Kedsy]

Option 1: Do NOTHING. All we need is good rebounding and defense from our post men. Let Jon, Kyle, and G lead us to the promised land.

What we're doing now is working. The most recent game against Wake should be seen as a positive rather than a negative. Or, put another way, just because we lose a game doesn't mean there's something terribly wrong. There isn't.

Although I would add that what we need from them is rebounding, defense, and forcing the other team to guard them -- which Zoubek at the least is doing for us, as I have said elsewhere.

[CDu]

For some reason, I feel as though Miles turned the page last night. He still had a few lackluster moments, but had a couple really big plays on both ends of the floor. I think we will see an emergence from him over the next 2 weeks and for the rest of the season. He needs some confidence, and playing well in a game of that magnitude, plus UVA on Sunday, may be just the thing we need to solidify the post.

I think you might be being a bit optimistic here. Plumlee did have a nice finish on what was really a nice play by Scheyer. But aside from that, Plumlee had just one rebound and committed two fouls in seven minutes.

I'm not ready to say he's turned the corner based on one play. Remember - he threw down a pretty nice alley-oop earlier this season, and that didn't lead to continued success.

I hope he starts to figure it out, because he has a combination of size and athleticism that we can't get from anyone else on the team. But I think he's still got a ways to go, which is completely understandable for a freshman big man.

[SMO]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/seth_davis/01/29/mailbag/index.html

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/in_the_paint/posts/45321-wake-win-shows-dukes-inside-game-still-wanting

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/goodmanonfox

All of these are articles that pretty much say, "nothing has changed, Duke can't win in March without a dominant big man."

I don't believe this to be true, but from reading the post-game comments, I am obviously in the minority right now. So, I would like to gage everybody's thoughts on the situation this year and our prospects. Keep it holy people.

On a related note, Pat Forde (whom I have often criticized for unfair criticism of Duke) called our team "tough as a $2 steak", which they should take as a real compliment.

[gumbomoop]

I tried to add a poll, but I waited too long and the options have too many characters. Here are the options as I see them. Please Choose one.

Option 1: Do NOTHING. All we need is good rebounding and defense from our post men. Let Jon, Kyle, and G lead us to the promised land.

Option 2: Roll the dice and play Plumlee as much as possible for the remainder of the season.

Option 3: More Zoubek! Play him until his hands are stronger than bear traps and he has the endurance of a kenyan marathon runner.

Option 4: Go small. Play Dave as much as possible because this isn't the same team as last year and we can do much better with a small lineup now. See how we just did against Wake on the road.

Option 5: Who cares, we don't have the big men to compete for a Final Four no matter what.

I prefer that Option 4 become Option 1, followed by Option 2 remaining Option 2. It's painful, sometimes, watching Z, though he comes through occasionally, too. Ditto for LT: painful to watch him "create havoc" mostly for himself, yet, he, too, sometimes helps. But neither are very consistent, which is what DMc is and has been and will be all season. DMc blocks out, blocks shots, rebounds and defends far better than Z or LT.

So, I hope DMc plays 25 min/gm..... at the 5, mostly, though, hell, with all the switching Duke does, DMc will guard lots of smaller folks, too. Anyhow, keep KS guarding the 4's.

Having said all this, I was as frustrated as everyone else [well, perhaps not quite as frustrated as K.....] with the defensive lapses at end of each half, but overall pleased with the late comeback, and confident in this very exciting team. It was a hard-fought game; looking forward to rematch.

[Rich]

I didn't read the other two articles, but I don't think the Seth Davis article says that at all. He mentions how Wake's perimeter size has affected opponents, including UNC and Duke last night. Tough to argue with that given our 3-point shooting percentages. And he discusses how our 5 spot isn't producing right now. Tough to argue with that too. It's been a point of contention by fans on this Board as well. He also specifically says that Duke is much tougher than it has been the past two years and that even with being outsized, we almost pulled it out last night. I don't see where he says we can't win in March without a dominant big man.

[Wander]

A lot of you guys are only looking at this from a defensive standpoint. Our post defense is fine as is and our rebounding is much improved from last year, but we still have craptastic interior scoring. I'm not saying we can't make a Final Four, but it's a completely legitimate weakness to point out.

[CDu]

I didn't read the other two articles, but I don't think the Seth Davis article says that at all. He mentions how Wake's perimeter size has affected opponents, including UNC and Duke last night. Tough to argue with that given our 3-point shooting percentages. And he discusses how our 5 spot isn't producing right now. Tough to argue with that too. It's been a point of contention by fans on this Board as well. He also specifically says that Duke is much tougher than it has been the past two years and that even with being outsized, we almost pulled it out last night. I don't see where he says we can't win in March without a dominant big man.

Actually, the second article doesn't say anything about a dominant big man either. It just says that Wake's size gave us trouble inside (which it did) and that our post players (Zoubek and Thomas specifically) weren't up to the challenge (they didn't appear to be).

The last article comes closest to saying we can't win without a dominant big man, but even it falls short of that. It says that it would be hard to imagine Duke winning it all without a force down low and with a questionable point guard situation.

It's sort of misleading to say that the media is saying we need a dominant big man to win. They seem to be saying we need a presence in the post to win it all, and that what we have in Zoubek and Thomas doesn't seem to be that presence. I'd agree with the second part of that statement based on what we've seen in ACC play from those two. And while I think we COULD win without a consistent presence there, I think there should be no argument that getting a more consistent presence from that spot would greatly improve our chances.

[dcarp23]

I'm not sure that not having a big time big man had a whole lot to do with the outcome of last night's game. Sportswriters (painting with a very broad brush) tend to make a lot of sweeping conclusions based a limited viewing or investigation of a game, particulary in a sport like college basketball where there are so many teams playing so few (relatively) games.

Last night, Duke held Wake to 70 points. Pomeroy predicted a final score of Duke 74-Wake 71 based on past performance. Had, for instance, Williams three and Henderson's layup that were 3/4 of the way down stayed down, Duke basically would have reached its mark. Duke held Wake to its projected mark, and if 1) Henderson and Smith had avoided some of the turnovers that led to fast break points on the other end or 2) Duke had been able to keep Smith out of the lane during that four or five possession stretch, Duke might have held Wake under 60. If anything hurt Duke last night, in my opinion, it was guard play.

It would be nice to have Blake Griffin on this team, but it's certainly not necessary. Duke lost to one of the top teams in the country by a margin of victory that was expected by most. Duke might not run away with the national championship, but the squad as built can contend as well as anyone.

[greybeard]

I didn't see the first half accept for the last minute or two. I don't know whether it was this period or later, but I can recall K taking Z out or perhpas it was during halftime when V reported that K told Z that he needed more aggression from Z, that he needed Z to be quick and fierce to the goal. I don't recall seeing Z after that.

Z does not seem to be going about his business at least last night in the manner that K wants. We have seen I think in the last few games that K will pull Z when that happens.

That is not to say that Z cannot and will not make a meaningful contribution to this team's run. I think he can and hope that he will.

Wake has the biggest front line in basketball, and until last night I did not appreciate what a defensive force that freshman can be. Maybe he just had a terrific night. At any rate, no one in my opinion can be hatin on anyone for not being effective against Wake's bigs on offense last night, imo.

I am not sure that Duke will need to beat Wake in the tournament to win. If they do, if last night proved anything, we know that Duke can, if it must, even when Wake has the home court and plays what I would guess for them is just about their best game, or close to it. How you get from there to saying that Duke cannot win for any particular reason is, I think, what proves America is such a great country: people can get paid good money for saying just about anything.

Some configuration of the options presented will be enough to get it done. Duke has enough ways to go in the middle on offense/defense to beat anybody.

The prognostications from the talking heads do not impress. The game is played on the floor, each night. On any given night, no one in their right mind wants Duke!

[RPS]

I am not sure that Duke will need to beat Wake in the tournament to win. If they do, if last night proved anything, we know that Duke can, if it must, even when Wake has the home court and plays what I would guess for them is just about their best game, or close to it. How you get from there to saying that Duke cannot win for any particular reason is, I think, what proves America is such a great country: people can get paid good money for saying just about anything.Last night's game was a great regular season ACC game contested by two teams with legitimate Final Four aspirations. One of the things I particularly liked about it is that it was played at a very high level, especially defensively, but each team can also quite appropriately say that they can and almost surely will get better. I don't think it was Wake's "best game" any more than it was our best game.


The prognostications from the talking heads do not impress. The game is played on the floor, each night. On any given night, no one in their right mind wants Duke!Absolutely.

[Devilsfan]

Dave has proven his worthiness by his play. I remember listening to Coach Wojo in Las Vegas give cudos to all the returning upper classmen naming them one by one but never mentioning Dave. It was like he didn't figure in Duke's plans this Fall. He's earned every minute he gets on the court. Hats off to our best preforming front court player. Hard work does pay off.

[CameronCrazy'11]

Duke's best team on the court might be Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler. Though small, that line-up plays a lot bigger than it is. And it can defend just about anything.

[Oriole Way]

Plumlee needs more minutes, and he needs to start getting them immediately. I can't think of a better team for him to get extended minutes than Virginia, and I wouldn't mine seeing him start.

I think Lance Thomas needs to get less minutes, and those minutes should go to Miles. Until Lance starts contributing offensively, which probably won't happen this season, I think he needs to fall towards the end of the rotation.

[gumbomoop]

Duke's best team on the court might be Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler. Though small, that line-up plays a lot bigger than it is. And it can defend just about anything.

Yes, I think right now this is at least our "last-5-minutes-of-tight-games" lineup. And, to revisit and revise a long-standing debate, I wonder whether most would now agree that this end-of-game lineup does NOT require KS to defend the 5, because (1) DMc is a fierce defender who knows positioning, is strong and athletic (now that healthy), and blocks out (better than anyone on team, period), and (2) with the usually effective switching, anyone might be defending a post player temporarily.

[miramar]

It wouldn't be accurate to say that Duke can't win or won't win or whatever, especially in a year without a clear #1. The teams going to the Final 4 will be those that really come together in March, and there are plenty of strong candidates to do so. The picture has changed from only a few weeks ago, when some thought that Carolina would go undefeated (how times change). We should keep that in mind when we read the articles, which represent only a snapshot in time. I found the second article by Mandell particularly lame in that sense.

Having said that, we would be having a completely different conversation if Duke had a solid (not great) big man who averaged 10 points and 8 rebounds.

BTW, Coach K recently had his annual meeting with the students, and he told them that Plumlee was the most talented of the centers, but that big men often have the toughest transition from high school to college. If Miles can make a solid contribution to the team down the stretch, that would make a huge difference. The potential is definitely there, so the question is whether that will happen this year or down the road.

[devildownunder]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/seth_davis/01/29/mailbag/index.html

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/in_the_paint/posts/45321-wake-win-shows-dukes-inside-game-still-wanting

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/goodmanonfox

All of these are articles that pretty much say, "nothing has changed, Duke can't win in March without a dominant big man."

I don't believe this to be true, but from reading the post-game comments, I am obviously in the minority right now. So, I would like to gage everybody's thoughts on the situation this year and our prospects. Keep it holy people.

All of the articles have arguments that oversimplify the situation and display little understanding of all that was seemingly in play at the Joel last night. Duke, overall, held its own with Wake inside, outrebounding the deacs and snatching 15 OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS -- not if you're dominated inside, you don't.

That said, Duke did suffer last night from interior shortcomings. The offense worked outside-in, by necessity, and we had not real interior big body on the floor for that last play, meaning Johnson got to go up against 6'5" Dave McClure, instead of a big man. Also, Z apparently needs a lot of work before he'll be able to finish inside against other big players (DUNK IT!).

So while I think it's pretty obvious that those writers don't have a comprehensive grasp of the situation, the point still stands that Duke has to shore things up inside some more if we're to be successful at the top of the ACC and in the post-season.

[devildownunder]

Yes, I think right now this is at least our "last-5-minutes-of-tight-games" lineup. And, to revisit and revise a long-standing debate, I wonder whether most would now agree that this end-of-game lineup does NOT require KS to defend the 5, because (1) DMc is a fierce defender who knows positioning, is strong and athletic (now that healthy), and blocks out (better than anyone on team, period), and (2) with the usually effective switching, anyone might be defending a post player temporarily.

Speaking of ends of games, one of the writers (Seth?) said Z might have helped cause Johnson to miss inside on that last play. I think the idea that you'd want Z or maybe Plumlee in there in that spot makes sense, especially when there was almost no time left, so you didn't have to worry about how you'd get him out of the game for the offensive end. Not saying he definitely would have saved the day there, just that we knew we had to defend the interior in that spot and it would have been nice to have a big body out there.

Does anyone know whether K has said anything about why neither Z nor Plumlee was in for that play?

[greybeard]

I don't think it was Wake's "best game" any more than it was our best game.

I didn't say it was their "best game," but pretty close to it. The kid who blocked all those shots, some meeting guys like Gerald and Eliot at their apex, if his timing is like that all the time, ouch. A guy goes for the ball that much and he doesn't get in more foul trouble, or burnt for leaving a tad too early (a drop off pass) or late (a foul) and it has got to be a really, really good game for you is what I was meaning. There must have been at least four such blocks that I saw and I didn't see the first half. To me, that's like Gerald's first half run against Georgetown.

Each of those blocks were at least three point plays, plus. The plus--you take away sure baskets off of startling good moves (dispiriting to the other team, emboldening to your exterior defenders, gets Teague and the other guard and Johnson out into the open court, and takes the pressure off your offense to score the ball.) That's just talking about 1 player. He picks up two fouls in the first half trying to make those plays, I don't care what the other guys do, how much better they play in another game, Wake itself in my meaning can't play better, or at least not much better.

Like I said, the kid played super the second half, absolutely super, and Duke, with only two players scoring, outscored Wake by 3. Best, better, whatever; you're right, using those terms always gets one into trouble, at least me. :o

[chrisheery]

I tried to add a poll, but I waited too long and the options have too many characters. Here are the options as I see them. Please Choose one.

Option 1: Do NOTHING. All we need is good rebounding and defense from our post men. Let Jon, Kyle, and G lead us to the promised land.

Option 2: Roll the dice and play Plumlee as much as possible for the remainder of the season.

Option 3: More Zoubek! Play him until his hands are stronger than bear traps and he has the endurance of a kenyan marathon runner.

Option 4: Go small. Play Dave as much as possible because this isn't the same team as last year and we can do much better with a small lineup now. See how we just did against Wake on the road.

Option 5: Who cares, we don't have the big men to compete for a Final Four no matter what.



Option 6: Start McClure instead of Scheyer (at least until Scheyer starts shooting well again) and let he and Gerald post the guy guarding them. McClure played center/forward in high school and has decent post moves. Then, Plumlee, Lance (yeah, even Zoubek) and Singler can do the dirty work instead of trying to post. Maybe? Hmm?

[devildownunder]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/seth_davis/01/29/mailbag/index.html

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/in_the_paint/posts/45321-wake-win-shows-dukes-inside-game-still-wanting

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/goodmanonfox

All of these are articles that pretty much say, "nothing has changed, Duke can't win in March without a dominant big man."

I don't believe this to be true, but from reading the post-game comments, I am obviously in the minority right now. So, I would like to gage everybody's thoughts on the situation this year and our prospects. Keep it holy people.

These writers are dismissing our chances based on this one game, as if we came out and did a faceplant or something. We lost by 2, on a last-second shot, to a legit top-5 team, on the road, in conference play. Frankly, I feel better about this team's chances down the road in March, and yes April, now than I did before the Wake game.

[jv001]

Option 6: Start McClure instead of Scheyer (at least until Scheyer starts shooting well again) and let he and Gerald post the guy guarding them. McClure played center/forward in high school and has decent post moves. Then, Plumlee, Lance (yeah, even Zoubek) and Singler can do the dirty work instead of trying to post. Maybe? Hmm?

If McClure starts or gets starter mins, it should not be for Jon because he is our best ball handler(when it comes to assists to TOs). Dave should come in for Zoubs, Kyle and Gerald. I want to see Miles get some of the mins also. I'm tired of seeing Brian and Lance get their shots blocked at point blank range. When Jon, Kyle or Gerald give the ball to them in position to score and get it blocked it has to be discouraging. Go Duke!

[RPS]

I didn't say it was their "best game," but pretty close to it.That's what I took you to mean and I still disagree. Aminu was great. He's a freshman, so it remains to be seen if last night was a peak or a stepping stone. I'm guessing the latter, but even if I'm wrong, Johnson (despite 4 blocks and the game-winner) was much less than he can be and often is, Teague was only so-so (4-14 and just 2 assists), and McFarland had merely a decent game in limited minutes due to fouls. Smith and Weaver were excellent and Williams was fine, but that doesn't add up to a great performance overall. From a broader perspective, Wake's D was outstanding, but FTs and outside shooting were spotty at best (typically) and they will be very unhappy with how they played once the lead hit 13. Duke gets credit for a lot of that, obviously, and Duke can play much better too. Wake is very young, remember. That's often a negative, of course, but it also suggests the possibility of greater upside than we might otherwise expect. I see Duke winning in CIS and any tournament game (in Atlanta and/or the NCAAs) would be a terrific match-up. I like our chances and would expect Duke to be favored on a neutral court. But I think it's "whistling past the graveyard" to think we saw anything like Wake's best last night.

[CDu]

I don't understand why people keep responding to the idea that a productive post presence would with the statement "our best lineup is with McClure as the fifth player." That is for the most part true (there are certain matchups where Zoubek gives us more, but those tend to be against undersized, underathletic bigs like Neal at Maryland), but it doesn't refute the point.

McClure is a very solid role player on this team. HOWEVER, just because he's more productive than our other lesser bigs doesn't mean that we wouldn't be better off against elite teams with a true post presence.

McClure is very valuable because of his defense, his rebounding, and his versatility. But he's best suited to play the wings or smaller big men. When he's in, Singler generally takes the big man. And while he's a good rebounder, he's not really the shot-changing post presence.

We can certainly get by without a true post presence (aside from Singler obviously), but the point those media folks are making is that life would be a lot easier if one or more of Zoubek, Thomas, or Plumlee was a consistent post presence. They aren't saying we need to play Zoubek/Thomas/Plumlee rather than McClure - they're saying we need to get more out of Zoubek/Thomas/Plumlee. That's much different.

[devildownunder]

That's what I took you to mean and I still disagree. Aminu was great. He's a freshman, so it remains to be seen if last night was a peak or a stepping stone. I'm guessing the latter, but even if I'm wrong, Johnson (despite 4 blocks and the game-winner) was much less than he can be and often is, Teague was only so-so (4-14 and just 2 assists), and McFarland had merely a decent game in limited minutes due to fouls. Smith and Weaver were excellent and Williams was fine, but that doesn't add up to a great performance overall. From a broader perspective, Wake's D was outstanding, but FTs and outside shooting were spotty at best (typically) and they will be very unhappy with how they played once the lead hit 13. Duke gets credit for a lot of that, obviously, and Duke can play much better too. Wake is very young, remember. That's often a negative, of course, but it also suggests the possibility of greater upside than we might otherwise expect. I see Duke winning in CIS and any tournament game (in Atlanta and/or the NCAAs) would be a terrific match-up. I like our chances and would expect Duke to be favored on a neutral court. But I think it's "whistling past the graveyard" to think we saw anything like Wake's best last night.


It's probably less than coincidence that neither team looked its best when up against top-notch competition. I think each side can rightly take credit or blame for the performances of the opposition.

[devildownunder]

I don't understand why people keep responding to the idea that a productive post presence would with the statement "our best lineup is with McClure as the fifth player." That is for the most part true (there are certain matchups where Zoubek gives us more, but those tend to be against undersized, underathletic bigs like Neal at Maryland), but it doesn't refute the point.

McClure is a very solid role player on this team. HOWEVER, just because he's more productive than our other lesser bigs doesn't mean that we wouldn't be better off against elite teams with a true post presence.

McClure is very valuable because of his defense, his rebounding, and his versatility. But he's best suited to play the wings or smaller big men. When he's in, Singler generally takes the big man. And while he's a good rebounder, he's not really the shot-changing post presence.

We can certainly get by without a true post presence (aside from Singler obviously), but the point those media folks are making is that life would be a lot easier if one or more of Zoubek, Thomas, or Plumlee was a consistent post presence. They aren't saying we need to play Zoubek/Thomas/Plumlee rather than McClure - they're saying we need to get more out of Zoubek/Thomas/Plumlee. That's much different.


I think those articles treat us a bit more harshly than that but I think your assessment of our situation is accurate.

[devildownunder]

It's probably less than coincidence that neither team looked its best when up against top-notch competition. I think each side can rightly take credit or blame for the performances of the opposition.

That should read MORE than coincidence. Ugh.

[greybeard]

That's what I took you to mean and I still disagree. Aminu was great. He's a freshman, so it remains to be seen if last night was a peak or a stepping stone. I'm guessing the latter, but even if I'm wrong, Johnson (despite 4 blocks and the game-winner) was much less than he can be and often is, Teague was only so-so (4-14 and just 2 assists), and McFarland had merely a decent game in limited minutes due to fouls. Smith and Weaver were excellent and Williams was fine, but that doesn't add up to a great performance overall. From a broader perspective, Wake's D was outstanding, but FTs and outside shooting were spotty at best (typically) and they will be very unhappy with how they played once the lead hit 13. Duke gets credit for a lot of that, obviously, and Duke can play much better too. Wake is very young, remember. That's often a negative, of course, but it also suggests the possibility of greater upside than we might otherwise expect. I see Duke winning in CIS and any tournament game (in Atlanta and/or the NCAAs) would be a terrific match-up. I like our chances and would expect Duke to be favored on a neutral court. But I think it's "whistling past the graveyard" to think we saw anything like Wake's best last night.

The kid has a better game, please remember to write, okay? Teague did have a tough time. Me, I think that there's nothing that he can do about that. But we'll have to see. Well put together position.

[Kedsy]

Does anyone know whether K has said anything about why neither Z nor Plumlee was in for that play?

I haven't heard anything from K, but perhaps he was worried they might pick up a foul?

[Kedsy]

McClure is very valuable because of his defense, his rebounding, and his versatility. But he's best suited to play the wings or smaller big men. When he's in, Singler generally takes the big man. And while he's a good rebounder, he's not really the shot-changing post presence.

We can certainly get by without a true post presence (aside from Singler obviously), but the point those media folks are making is that life would be a lot easier if one or more of Zoubek, Thomas, or Plumlee was a consistent post presence. They aren't saying we need to play Zoubek/Thomas/Plumlee rather than McClure - they're saying we need to get more out of Zoubek/Thomas/Plumlee. That's much different.

On defense, Zoubek has been a "shot-changing post presence" in most of our games this year. On offense, I agree he needs to play against less athletic and/or shorter players in order to shine. Although even against bigger and more athletic players he needs to be guarded, and to me that combined with his defense and rebounding is sufficient on this team. IMO, we have enough offense that we don't need a Carlos Boozer down low (not that I'd mind if we had one, but we don't and I still think we're fine).

[geraldsneighbor]

If we didn't shoot 33 percent none of this would be a worry right now. Make some more jump shots and less turnovers and the problem is solves IMO.

[devildownunder]

I haven't heard anything from K, but perhaps he was worried they might pick up a foul?

quite possible, or many he just thought "I'm going with the guys who have been my best five tonight". I'm wondering about the play but I'm not full-out questioning it. I'd just like to hear him say something about it because had to have occurred to him to put a big body out there, especially since he did say post-game that the plan was to force them to take a jumpshot.

[Kedsy]

quite possible, or many he just thought "I'm going with the guys who have been my best five tonight". I'm wondering about the play but I'm not full-out questioning it. I'd just like to hear him say something about it because had to have occurred to him to put a big body out there, especially since he did say post-game that the plan was to force them to take a jumpshot.

It's an excellent point; you have to think Zoubek could have forced a more difficult pass if he was on the inbounder or forced a jump shot if he was under the basket.

On the other hand, if he's in, who is he in for? Assume you want McClure shadowing Teague and Nolan Smith is our best perimeter defender (which is important if you're trying to force a jump shot), you'd have to take out Henderson, Singler, or Scheyer to get Zoubek in the game, and they're all really good defenders too. It's a tough choice.

[Reddevil]

I kind of like K's minute-by-minute approach that we seem to be using, rotating Zoubek, Plumlee, Thomas, and McClure in depending on the match-ups and who is playing well.

This is the "chess game" for the coaching staff to play, and we've got our very own Bobby Fisher on the sidelines. This dynamic gives the team a built-in way of creating different looks to the opposition. A perceived weakness can be a strength. Coach V used constantly changing "junk" defenses to accomplish this. This Duke edition can throw several different looks at an opponent by subbing at this position. It also means there are 20 fouls to give so they should play aggressively - not recklessly, but enough to keep the pressure on the other teams bigs, and get them in foul trouble. It looked like K was trying to get Z to be more aggressive so even if he is blocked or the ball does not go in, he can draw contact and get fouled. I think we will see this dynamic play out going forward.

[flyingdutchdevil]

This is one of the best threads that I've read on this site in a while.

Probably the most interesting part is the situation with McClure. While I love McClure and believe that he should be a starter, he can't for two reasons. One, and this has been stated many times, he would have to play the 4 and Singler the 5. That experiment was successful last year until mid-March pulled in and Singler was completely gased. Secondly, and maybe even more important, McClure's offense is so limited. With Singler and G already handling the majority of the offense lately, Duke needs Scheyer and Nolan to step up. Replacing a usually reliable offensive threat (like Scheyer) with a player who is so reluctant to shoot the call (like McClure) would only put more pressure on G and Singler to score. That is not a good thing at all.

Thus, we need the three-headed monster of Z/LT/MP1 (or should I say kitty cat? Forgive me, but I have not been impressed with Zoubs or LT of late) to step up. Stop pump-faking and if you're double teamed, pass the ball out.

Question: on a side note but related to this thread, why don't big recruits seem to like Duke? From 1-4, we always get solid recruits. Ever since McRoberts (I know, say what you will, but he was a much better 5 than anyone we've had in a while), we haven't had anyone even decent (MP1 and MP2 may disprove my theory, but they have yet to prove themselves). Also, in the 2010 class, we don't have a solid 5 recruit. Hairston is clearly a 4, and will be a sick one at that.

[geraldsneighbor]

This is one of the best threads that I've read on this site in a while.

Probably the most interesting part is the situation with McClure. While I love McClure and believe that he should be a starter, he can't for two reasons. One, and this has been stated many times, he would have to play the 4 and Singler the 5. That experiment was successful last year until mid-March pulled in and Singler was completely gased. Secondly, and maybe even more important, McClure's offense is so limited. With Singler and G already handling the majority of the offense lately, Duke needs Scheyer and Nolan to step up. Replacing a usually reliable offensive threat (like Scheyer) with a player who is so reluctant to shoot the call (like McClure) would only put more pressure on G and Singler to score. That is not a good thing at all.

Thus, we need the three-headed monster of Z/LT/MP1 (or should I say kitty cat? Forgive me, but I have not been impressed with Zoubs or LT of late) to step up. Stop pump-faking and if you're double teamed, pass the ball out.

Question: on a side note but related to this thread, why don't big recruits seem to like Duke? From 1-4, we always get solid recruits. Ever since McRoberts (I know, say what you will, but he was a much better 5 than anyone we've had in a while), we haven't had anyone even decent (MP1 and MP2 may disprove my theory, but they have yet to prove themselves). Also, in the 2010 class, we don't have a solid 5 recruit. Hairston is clearly a 4, and will be a sick one at that.

You make some good points and I agree playing Kyle at the 5 is too much. I think however if the situation calls for it in March, we have to do it. It is just tough for me to fathom how much LT has regressed. We are talking about a guy who scored in double figures last year in Chapel Hill (granted some were garbage buckets) but we need guys to start rebounding. I think Miles showed us vs. G'town he can play and maybe it is time he does play. I think the one thing alot of people maybe missing to with Scheyer is he has played a crap load of minutes. I'm not making an excuse for the kid but in these UVA, St. John's, and Maryland games of the world I think E-Will and GP need more time at the 2 to help spell him. His jumper has been short and I think this could be a sign of fatigue.

[jv001]

This is one of the best threads that I've read on this site in a while.


Question: on a side note but related to this thread, why don't big recruits seem to like Duke? From 1-4, we always get solid recruits. Ever since McRoberts (I know, say what you will, but he was a much better 5 than anyone we've had in a while), we haven't had anyone even decent (MP1 and MP2 may disprove my theory, but they have yet to prove themselves). Also, in the 2010 class, we don't have a solid 5 recruit. Hairston is clearly a 4, and will be a sick one at that.

I have asked myself the same question. We recruit big men but we just don't land them. I know that there are not that many big guys that qualify to play for Duke and some just don't work out. But I've wondered why we don't recruit a bruiser that is maybe a 3 or 4 star athlete. I believe our coaching staff could do the same things other teams do in preparing these guys to really help out in their junior and senior years. Like you I have wondered about this. Go Duke!

[devildownunder]

It's an excellent point; you have to think Zoubek could have forced a more difficult pass if he was on the inbounder or forced a jump shot if he was under the basket.

On the other hand, if he's in, who is he in for? Assume you want McClure shadowing Teague and Nolan Smith is our best perimeter defender (which is important if you're trying to force a jump shot), you'd have to take out Henderson, Singler, or Scheyer to get Zoubek in the game, and they're all really good defenders too. It's a tough choice.

A good question, someone would have to come out. Since it's strictly to guard the basket and only for one possession, I'd probably go with Scheyer. He's an excellent defender, I know, but for that one situation I think Z's size might be more valuable. Even if he just stood there w/his hands up.

No knock on Scheyer here, it's just that somebody has to come out. Alternatively, could take out Smith but, as you say, he's your best on the ball on the perimeter.

[Fish80]

I have asked myself the same question. We recruit big men but we just don't land them. I know that there are not that many big guys that qualify to play for Duke and some just don't work out. But I've wondered why we don't recruit a bruiser that is maybe a 3 or 4 star athlete. I believe our coaching staff could do the same things other teams do in preparing these guys to really help out in their junior and senior years. Like you I have wondered about this. Go Duke!

IMHO, the statement that we don't land big men is not accurate.

Since 2000 we've had 9 players 6'10" or taller on the roster. Eric Boateng would still be on the roster if he hadn't transferred. Zoubek and Plumlee are big men still here.

And two of our best big men in that period were listed at 6'9": Carlos Boozer and Shelden Williams.

[gumbomoop]

I don't understand why people keep responding to the idea that a productive post presence would with the statement "our best lineup is with McClure as the fifth player." That is for the most part true (there are certain matchups where Zoubek gives us more, but those tend to be against undersized, underathletic bigs like Neal at Maryland), but it doesn't refute the point.

McClure is a very solid role player on this team. HOWEVER, just because he's more productive than our other lesser bigs doesn't mean that we wouldn't be better off against elite teams with a true post presence.

McClure is very valuable because of his defense, his rebounding, and his versatility. But he's best suited to play the wings or smaller big men. When he's in, Singler generally takes the big man. And while he's a good rebounder, he's not really the shot-changing post presence.

We can certainly get by without a true post presence (aside from Singler obviously), but the point those media folks are making is that life would be a lot easier if one or more of Zoubek, Thomas, or Plumlee was a consistent post presence. They aren't saying we need to play Zoubek/Thomas/Plumlee rather than McClure - they're saying we need to get more out of Zoubek/Thomas/Plumlee. That's much different.

As a self-confessed DMc fanatic, I can't disagree with your solid insights here. Just to clarify, however, one can claim our best lineup in most tight games includes DMc, given that, thus far, we've had no very productive post presence from the others. So, we all hope for and I think can expect some intermittent production from Z, MP1, and LT, but virtually no one on these boards thinks we're likely to get either offensive or defensive production consistently from them. That leaves DMc, whose defensive consistency is superb.

And you're right that DMc isn't a "shot-changing post presence," which on occasion, i.e., intermittently, Z is, but DMc does block shots, not as ostentatiously as G, but effectively.

[gumbomoop]

This is one of the best threads that I've read on this site in a while.

Probably the most interesting part is the situation with McClure. While I love McClure and believe that he should be a starter, he can't for two reasons. One, and this has been stated many times, he would have to play the 4 and Singler the 5.

DMc fanatic here, yet again. I don't particularly care whether he starts, now that it appears he's getting major minutes, except for those occasions (we all hope will increase, soon) when Z, LT, or MP1 produces.

Assuming, however, that DMc will continue to get more minutes than any of those 3, I'm not convinced that this requires KS to guard the 5, and doubt, but can't quite remember, that KS has been guarding the 5 when he and DMc are on the floor together as our 2 "bigs."

Two reasons: (1) DMc guards guys of all sizes unusually effectively. I doubt that KS, for example, would be more effective on most 5's, and we all know that KS needs energy for offense, whereas DMc...... ummmm..... doesn't.

I've remarked on this before, ad nauseum, but now that DMc's healthy, he's really a defensive demon. True, he can't push really, really big guys [so we're gonna have trouble with Hans, D.Blair, Griffin], but he positions and blocks out so well that opposing 5's don't get second shots.

(2) So much defensive switching that almost anyone might wind up guarding the opposing 5 on any screen.

[jv001]

IMHO, the statement that we don't land big men is not accurate.

Since 2000 we've had 9 players 6'10" or taller on the roster. Eric Boateng would still be on the roster if he hadn't transferred. Zoubek and Plumlee are big men still here.

And two of our best big men in that period were listed at 6'9": Carlos Boozer and Shelden Williams.

I'm sorry if I was not clear in my post. I meant I would like to see Duke get a big man that's a bruiser. One that is long in length and can play defense and rebound with ACC caliber players. Some of the big men we have recruited since 2000 are: Boozer, Boateng, Dunleavy, Horvath, McRoberts, Randolph, C. Sanders, M. Thompson, L. Thomas, S. Williams, & Zoubek. Out of these Boozer, McRoberts & Williams are what I would call bruisers who had length and could play defense and rebound with ACC players. These players were all 5 star recruits and 2 of the 3 left early for the NBA. Maybe I'm wrong but most of the 3 & 4 star big men that get better by the time they are juniors are valuable to their teams success. Like I said in my previous post, I said that these young men don't always turn out like we hoped. It's certainly not an exact science. This was not a complaint. It was a question. Go Duke!

[CarterTheGreat]

I think Plumlee needs more burn because he plays well laterally. That being said, Dave IMO has emerged to be deserving of a starting spot. Hes a leader and plays with tremendous intensity. The first 4 options at times all need/can be used. Let's not panic though.

It is time for Plumlee to start again. I agree there are no reasons to panic. Wake played a great game to beat us, BUT this was not a one time thing with Zoubek. He has had weak hands and poor post moves all year long. Maybe some time on the pine will motivate him. He has got to do something b/c he cannot continue to play the way he has recently. A 7'1 guy should never get blocked as consistently as he does. And for the naysayers that think otherwise, learn some basketball basics. He needs to work on his hands, receiving the pass, and finishing. He does not do any of that well. His defense and footwork has vastly improved, most likely due to recovering from the injury, but it's go time Z. Play your position right or move over and let the kid get some run.

[COYS]

I'm sorry if I was not clear in my post. I meant I would like to see Duke get a big man that's a bruiser. One that is long in length and can play defense and rebound with ACC caliber players. Some of the big men we have recruited since 2000 are: Boozer, Boateng, Dunleavy, Horvath, McRoberts, Randolph, C. Sanders, M. Thompson, L. Thomas, S. Williams, & Zoubek. Out of these Boozer, McRoberts & Williams are what I would call bruisers who had length and could play defense and rebound with ACC players. These players were all 5 star recruits and 2 of the 3 left early for the NBA. Maybe I'm wrong but most of the 3 & 4 star big men that get better by the time they are juniors are valuable to their teams success. Like I said in my previous post, I said that these young men don't always turn out like we hoped. It's certainly not an exact science. This was not a complaint. It was a question. Go Duke!

I think the answer to this concern is very simple. You can't get everyone you recruit . . . ever. NBA caliber bigs don't come along all that frequently, even if Duke was spoiled for a few years when we went from Brand to Boozer to Williams. How many programs can claim to have that much success with big men for 9 years running? Not many. How many times in Duke's history can we claim that same sort of extended success with big men recruits? The fact of the matter is, sometimes things don't work out as you might hope . . . and that's that. I mean, if Coach K had won merely one more recruiting battle and landed Patrick Patterson, we would not even be having this discussion. Next year's recruiting class, though small, brings loads of talent at the 4 and the 5. 2010's class is still far from done, as we're in the running for Josh Smith (rated as the top big by many gurus for that year's recruiting class) as well as the stud sg/sf Harrison Barnes and others. Honestly, I think many Duke fans who are concerned about the recent "trend" of missing our top big man recruits are still spoiled from the ridiculous amount of success and luck that contributed to that period from 1998 -2006. I always hated that idea that many in the media repeated about how Duke "doesn't recruit, Duke selects" that was popular for a little while. We win some recruits and we lose some, just like everybody else. Some of our prospects exceed our expectations, some don't . . . just like on every other team.

[Fish80]

I'm sorry if I was not clear in my post. I meant I would like to see Duke get a big man that's a bruiser. One that is long in length and can play defense and rebound with ACC caliber players. Some of the big men we have recruited since 2000 are: Boozer, Boateng, Dunleavy, Horvath, McRoberts, Randolph, C. Sanders, M. Thompson, L. Thomas, S. Williams, & Zoubek. Out of these Boozer, McRoberts & Williams are what I would call bruisers who had length and could play defense and rebound with ACC players. These players were all 5 star recruits and 2 of the 3 left early for the NBA. Maybe I'm wrong but most of the 3 & 4 star big men that get better by the time they are juniors are valuable to their teams success. Like I said in my previous post, I said that these young men don't always turn out like we hoped. It's certainly not an exact science. This was not a complaint. It was a question. Go Duke!

I too would love to get another Boozer or another Williams. But there just aren't that many of those guys out there. We have two big guys in the incoming class (RK and MP2). They're not bruisers yet, but both have tremendous upside.

I never thought of McRoberts as a bruiser. To me it seemed like he didn't want to bang around inside.

[Acymetric]

I too would love to get another Boozer or another Williams. But there just aren't that many of those guys out there. We have two big guys in the incoming class (RK and MP2). They're not bruisers yet, but both have tremendous upside.

I never thought of McRoberts as a bruiser. To me it seemed like he didn't want to bang around inside.

Thats only a perception because he wasn't a star on the offensive end and was a good ball handler away from the basket. I believe he had pretty good rebounding and shot blocking numbers, difficult to achieve if you avoid any kind of banging.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I also want to clarify a few points. First, I know that in recruiting, you lose some and win some. Secondly, I understand that we have recruited a bunch of tall players of late. Third, I know that there aren't an infinite amount of Sheldens, Carloses and Eltons out there.

But the truth is, we have lost out on a large amount of big men recruits since 2004. In comparison with the guards / forwards, it's statistically significant. Jon Brockman, Brandon Wright, Patrick Patterson, Eric Murphy, Reeves Nelson, Kevin Love - we all recruited these players to a certain extent and a few of them very heavily. In terms of guards, not so much. We lost Boykin, but that is the only guard that we really coveted (I don't think we really cared to much for Leslie McDonald) whom we lost.

Looking at our track record, it's so strange that this is happening and I have no explination for it. Elton, Boozer and Shelden all had amazing college carriers and 2 of the 3 are excelling in the NBA (sorry Shelden, although your insurance policy with your wife is a smart move ;)). This should be a huge asset to recruits. In all honesty, I don't get it.

Any thoughs?

[BD80]

... First, I know that in recruiting, you lose some and win some. ... Third, I know that there aren't an infinite amount of Sheldens, Carloses and Eltons out there.

But the truth is, we have lost out on a large amount of big men recruits since 2004. ... Jon Brockman, Brandon Wright, Patrick Patterson, Eric Murphy, Reeves Nelson, Kevin Love ...

... I have no explination for it. ... Any thoughs?

Far from an infinite amount of big men, they are extremely rare, and the competition for each big men is fierce. We were competing with virtually every big name program for each of the big men listed. As for guards, we tend to get "involved" with those that show interest in us - thus our greater rate of success. It is a sign of our recruiting power that we can get listed in almost any player's top five if we try hard. Top five doesn't get you a commitment, ask Kenny Boynton. Monroe would have really fit our system well, but Brockman was the miss that really hurt.

[quickgtp]

I believe that Josh Hairston will develop into a potential "5." He is currently pushing 6'9, and while he is a bit lanky, he could fill out to be a Shelden Williams type post player. IF this happens we would be pretty set with MP1 and Hairston anchoring the middle.

[RelativeWays]

Dave is our utility player who's there to make defensive plays, rebounds, little things that count more than you realize, and maybe a putback or two. Because of that, he'll always have a spot on the team and will always get burn. Hustle guys are wonderful and Dave is one of those players who can make such a big impact and never score a point. Due to what he is for us, I don't lump him with the other 3. Dave gets minutes because of what he CAN do, not what the others cant.

As far as LT, Zoubs and Miles, I say go with Miles because he's the most talented of the 3, he has the biggest upside (not to mention 3 years left as opposed to 1) and he can be the most offensively productive. If Mason gets a lot of PT next year then Miles already has on court chemistry with him so there's another benefit. I'd have Z as the backup and LT float between the 4 and 5 depending on who needs to be subbed, who has foul trouble and who he matches up against. I really thought these guys were turning the corner, Z has been a bit static but LT just can't seem to make it over the hump. I really like both of these guys but they're quickly devolving to little more than foul takers at this point. They could be a lot better.

[chrisheery]

I'm sorry if I was not clear in my post. I meant I would like to see Duke get a big man that's a bruiser. One that is long in length and can play defense and rebound with ACC caliber players. Some of the big men we have recruited since 2000 are: Boozer, Boateng, Dunleavy, Horvath, McRoberts, Randolph, C. Sanders, M. Thompson, L. Thomas, S. Williams, & Zoubek. Out of these Boozer, McRoberts & Williams are what I would call bruisers who had length and could play defense and rebound with ACC players. These players were all 5 star recruits and 2 of the 3 left early for the NBA. Maybe I'm wrong but most of the 3 & 4 star big men that get better by the time they are juniors are valuable to their teams success. Like I said in my previous post, I said that these young men don't always turn out like we hoped. It's certainly not an exact science. This was not a complaint. It was a question. Go Duke!

McRoberts was a bruiser? I'd have to say you are mistaken. If had any heart or toughness he would have been a stud. Instead, he was a guy almost everyone was glad to see go even though he was our most talented player.

[FireOgilvie]

I believe that Josh Hairston will develop into a potential "5." He is currently pushing 6'9, and while he is a bit lanky, he could fill out to be a Shelden Williams type post player. IF this happens we would be pretty set with MP1 and Hairston anchoring the middle.

He'd have to put on at least 40 pounds of muscle just to get to where Shelden was coming out of high school. I really don't see it. I think he'll be much more effective as a "4." We'll also have Plumlee, Plumlee, and Kelly who all have a height advantage.

[jv001]

McRoberts was a bruiser? I'd have to say you are mistaken. If had any heart or toughness he would have been a stud. Instead, he was a guy almost everyone was glad to see go even though he was our most talented player.

You are correct in that McRoberts was not a bruiser but he was a good defender and rebounder. I said that maybe we should not always just recruit the 5 star post player, but recruit some 6-8 to 6-10 player with a solid build that can turn into a solid post player by his junior year. There are just a few real good big men each year and all don't qualify to enroll at Duke. So that narrows the field. Just my take on Duke and big men. Go Duke!

[houstondukie]

Projected Size Next Year:

(in parenthesis, my expectations on weight gain over the summer)

PF Ryan Kelly 6’10 205 (6’9 215)
PF Lance Thomas 6’8 220 (6’8 225)
PF Kyle Singler 6’8 235 (6'8 245)
PF/C Mason Plumnee 6’11 210 (6’11 230)
C Miles Plumnee 6’10 230 (6’10 240)
C Brian Zoubek 7’1 280 (7’1 280)

[houstondukie]

Projected Size Next Year:

(in parenthesis, my expectations on weight gain over the summer)

PF Ryan Kelly 6’10 205 (6’9 215)
PF Lance Thomas 6’8 220 (6’8 225)
PF Kyle Singler 6’8 235 (6'8 245)
PF/C Mason Plumnee 6’11 210 (6’11 230)
C Miles Plumnee 6’10 230 (6’10 240)
C Brian Zoubek 7’1 280 (7’1 280)

Just noticed it, but obviously I don't expect Kelly to shrink an inch by next year. Too late to edit it.

[quickgtp]

Well Hairston currently sits at the same height Shelden was as a junior is HS: 6'8.5 and Shelden was about 15 pounds heavier @ around 230. Hairston is around 215 right now, and I believe he has more room to grow into his frame, and plenty of time to do it since he is another year + before joining the devils.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Projected Size Next Year:

(in parenthesis, my expectations on weight gain over the summer)

PF Ryan Kelly 6’10 205 (6’9 215)
PF Lance Thomas 6’8 220 (6’8 225)
PF Kyle Singler 6’8 235 (6'8 245)
PF/C Mason Plumnee 6’11 210 (6’11 230)
C Miles Plumnee 6’10 230 (6’10 240)
C Brian Zoubek 7’1 280 (7’1 280)

Being tall doesn't mean that you have a great post game. Right now, we have a 7'1, a 6'10 and a 6'8 in the post (an average of 6'10) manning the post and it's not the greatest post team in the ACC.

As Jv001 has been repeating, a bruiser would be great; someone who would hold down the fort on defense and have little trouble with put backs. And I can assume that there are guys out there 6'9 and above and weigh at least 250-270 who are 3/4 star recruits. A lesser man's Dejuan Blair is the perfect example. He's only 6'7, but that kid that own nearly any center in the league.

Speaking of which, I heard that Dejuan Blair loved Duke growing up and would have committed to us had we recruited him. I'm not blaming the coaching staff at all - if we recruited every one who loved Duke, we would have around 30 walk-ons a year. But that said, it would be lovely to have Blair on our team...

[Saratoga2]

I think cpach K realizes what he has for big men this year and knows that he has to apply those in the best possible way based on matchups.

I was tied up on business in Houston the night of the Wake game, so didn't see the game. Based on reading the many comments on the board the story line seemed to read that Zoubek wasn't mobile enough to deal with the Wake big men, Lance seemed to be out of position on defense fairly often, David played his usual solid defense and Plumlee had the size and mobility to provide hope that he can develop enough to provide to be more competitive against big and athletic front lines. Alsso, from the stat line, it was clear that none of our big men, with the exception of Singler was either an offensive force or rebounded well.

I assume that coach K watches the game very closely and is more aware of the strengths and weaknesses of his players and realizes they are what he has to work with this year. My guess is that he will apply them situationally and give Plumlee more playing time as the season develops. The team is solid as long as the remaining players do not get hurt.

[slower]

McRoberts was a bruiser? I'd have to say you are mistaken. If had any heart or toughness he would have been a stud. Instead, he was a guy almost everyone was glad to see go even though he was our most talented player.

Hate on McRoberts all you want, but he would be a quantum improvement over our current centers.

[CDu]

McRoberts was a bruiser? I'd have to say you are mistaken. If had any heart or toughness he would have been a stud. Instead, he was a guy almost everyone was glad to see go even though he was our most talented player.

Heart and toughness were not McRoberts' problem. You don't average the numbers he averaged (in terms of rebounds and blocks) if you're soft.

McRoberts' problem was that he wasn't a good shooter/scorer, and we needed him to be that. He was a versatile offensive player and a very capable and willing post defender. But he was asked to do something he wasn't capable of doing (i.e., carrying the scoring burden) on an inexperienced team. It had nothing to do with heart.

[ncexnyc]

Heart and toughness were not McRoberts' problem. You don't average the numbers he averaged (in terms of rebounds and blocks) if you're soft.

McRoberts' problem was that he wasn't a good shooter/scorer, and we needed him to be that. He was a versatile offensive player and a very capable and willing post defender. But he was asked to do something he wasn't capable of doing (i.e., carrying the scoring burden) on an inexperienced team. It had nothing to do with heart.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head, unfortunately no matter how many times it's said some people be always be down on McRoberts because he left.

[houstondukie]

Heart and toughness were not McRoberts' problem. You don't average the numbers he averaged (in terms of rebounds and blocks) if you're soft.

McRoberts' problem was that he wasn't a good shooter/scorer, and we needed him to be that. He was a versatile offensive player and a very capable and willing post defender. But he was asked to do something he wasn't capable of doing (i.e., carrying the scoring burden) on an inexperienced team. It had nothing to do with heart.

Agree 100%.

People forget how GREAT, not good, McRoberts was on DEFENSE and Duke was a very good defensive team during Josh's sophomore season. Duke, however, was HORRIBLE on OFFENSE and a big reason was McRoberts couldn't score effectively (he was a great passer, though). It was excruciatingly painful to watch us on offense, but we won 20+ games because we were a defensive-minded team, much like this year's team except that we're even better on defense and now we have experience and scorers on offense.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

Option 6: Start McClure instead of Scheyer (at least until Scheyer starts shooting well again) and let he and Gerald post the guy guarding them. McClure played center/forward in high school and has decent post moves. Then, Plumlee, Lance (yeah, even Zoubek) and Singler can do the dirty work instead of trying to post. Maybe? Hmm?


I like this idea. You have to do something to get him going. Has he ben playing too many minutes. He did play a lot of PG in the WF game, maybe that had an affect on his rhythm, I don't know.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

Agree 100%.

People forget how GREAT, not good, McRoberts was on DEFENSE and Duke was a very good defensive team during Josh's sophomore season. Duke, however, was HORRIBLE on OFFENSE and a big reason was McRoberts couldn't score effectively (he was a great passer, though). It was excruciatingly painful to watch us on offense, but we won 20+ games because we were a defensive-minded team, much like this year's team except that we're even better on defense and now we have experience and scorers on offense.


It was excruciatingly painful to watch them on offense. It was the ONE YEAR I remember watching Duke games and thinking "this is not very fun to watch." They were brutal.

[Lulu]

Forgive me for not reading every post, but there might be something to the original article if you check out Duke's most recent final four teams.

We clearly need a bruiser, but not just any bruiser - a sophomore bruiser. We had sophomore Williams in '04, sophomore Boozer in '01, and sophomore Brand in '99. That must be the trick for Duke to get deep into the tournament.

[pfrduke]

As Jv001 has been repeating, a bruiser would be great; someone who would hold down the fort on defense and have little trouble with put backs.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but you just described Zoubek's play this season. He's "held down the fort on defense" very, very well. When he has been in the game, Duke's numbers are better on just about every defensive stat. Opponents shoot just .364 on 2-point shots. They get their shots blocked over 10% of the time. Duke gets over 70% of available defensive rebounds. Etc. This is even true in ACC play - Duke's defensive rating with Brian in the game against ACC opponents is 69.28, which means we've given up just 106 points in the 153 possessions he's played.

He also has had, overall "little trouble with put-backs." He's been an effective offensive rebounder all season long, and actually has really nice touch with tip-ins around the basket.

Brian has obvious limitations. He's not a guy we can regularly feed the ball to in the post and ask to create. And he has trouble keeping up with the most talented big men we go up against. But I think he does make it much harder for them to score and, in general, does all the things we want from a post player who can't be a primary option on offense.

[DukeDevilDeb]

I too would love to get another Boozer or another Williams. But there just aren't that many of those guys out there. We have two big guys in the incoming class (RK and MP2). They're not bruisers yet, but both have tremendous upside.

I never thought of McRoberts as a bruiser. To me it seemed like he didn't want to bang around inside.

I agree with you. Josh had the POTENTIAL to be potent force in the paint, but that wasn't where he liked to be, wasn't where he felt comfortable. Let's face it: McRoberts much preferred leading the break to banging with the bigs on the boards (like that alliteration?!).

Despite all what if's, this team has been terrific this year. As to the game against Wake, who can explain the lack of passion in the first 32 minutes? And who can explain how we lost to Wake and VT won?

Coach K would invoke the basketball gods here! :)

[Kedsy]

And who can explain how we lost to Wake and VT won?

Not to mention Georgia Tech. Wake just seems to have a problem with technical schools. Or would it be technicalities?

[geraldsneighbor]

Lance offered us alot last year mainly around this time. The best he played in a Duke jersey was in Chapel Hill. That game he used a variety of post moves and head fakes, and scored in double figures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlHdIDFZzXc

If you look at that video, you'll see how important LT was in that game. If he can return to that form and with a healthy Zoub, we are obviously a better team then we were last year. In our 2 postseason losses last year we got a grand total of 10 points out of those two. I don't think we need them to put up 15 and 10 but to be solid contributors and give us garbage buckets and help us get second chance points. If LT plays like he did vs. UNC last year, with the poise and touch he had down low, I really believe team like UNC, UConn, and Oklahoma are now teams we can match size-wise.

[Diddy]

I'm not sure if you realize it, but you just described Zoubek's play this season. He's "held down the fort on defense" very, very well. When he has been in the game, Duke's numbers are better on just about every defensive stat. Opponents shoot just .364 on 2-point shots. They get their shots blocked over 10% of the time. Duke gets over 70% of available defensive rebounds. Etc. This is even true in ACC play - Duke's defensive rating with Brian in the game against ACC opponents is 69.28, which means we've given up just 106 points in the 153 possessions he's played.

He also has had, overall "little trouble with put-backs." He's been an effective offensive rebounder all season long, and actually has really nice touch with tip-ins around the basket.

Brian has obvious limitations. He's not a guy we can regularly feed the ball to in the post and ask to create. And he has trouble keeping up with the most talented big men we go up against. But I think he does make it much harder for them to score and, in general, does all the things we want from a post player who can't be a primary option on offense.

This is the very problem plaguing Duke right now. Z does all the things you say, against weak opposition. He is successful against the type of teams we will see up until the Sweet 16 or Elite 8. Against the better teams, he completely disappears. I am not worried about his play vs the VTs, GTs, UMDs, NCSUs of the world. How he fares against the UNCs and WFUs are the real bellweather. We all crack on the Big East, but that Conf is full of sguads that can and will go after you on the post. Not just them. Many of the top teams have strong interior play.

Duke will be better this year than last. We will get out of the first Weekend, relatively easily. The Swee 16 matchup will probably be winnable. But from that level on in, opposition teams will have the beef to go after us down low. To beat on us. If Brian, and LT, and Plum, can't provide solid D and rebounding vs those teams, then the season will be lost.

Duke needs a run to the FF to prove to recruits, and the world, that Duke is still Duke.

A deep March run would cure a lot of ills in this program, and its perception.

[Kedsy]

A deep March run would cure a lot of ills in this program, and its perception.

Personally, I don't think the program has a lot of "ills" that need curing. I'm also fairly certain that, even if you only look at the past five years, all but a handful of Division 1 teams would be thrilled to catch whatever disease has been plaguing Duke.

[chrisheery]

Heart and toughness were not McRoberts' problem. You don't average the numbers he averaged (in terms of rebounds and blocks) if you're soft.

McRoberts' problem was that he wasn't a good shooter/scorer, and we needed him to be that. He was a versatile offensive player and a very capable and willing post defender. But he was asked to do something he wasn't capable of doing (i.e., carrying the scoring burden) on an inexperienced team. It had nothing to do with heart.


i disagree. i think he was a whiny baby that no one on the team liked. he wanted to be the leader, but you can't lead when no one respects you. he complained at every call, blamed his teammates for his mistakes, and never finished a big play when it counted most.

i'm surprised there are this many people who thought mcroberts was good. he was an embarrassment.

[chrisheery]

Forgive me for not reading every post, but there might be something to the original article if you check out Duke's most recent final four teams.

We clearly need a bruiser, but not just any bruiser - a sophomore bruiser. We had sophomore Williams in '04, sophomore Boozer in '01, and sophomore Brand in '99. That must be the trick for Duke to get deep into the tournament.

Didn't Boozer not even start in the tournament until the Championship game? I think so . . .

[pfrduke]

Didn't Boozer not even start in the tournament until the Championship game? I think so . . .

He didn't start in the championship game, either, but played 30 minutes off the bench. He played 4 games in the tournament (UCLA, USC, Maryland, Arizona), and played 22, 22, 25, and 30 minutes, respectively.

[AtlDuke72]

I have asked myself the same question. We recruit big men but we just don't land them. I know that there are not that many big guys that qualify to play for Duke and some just don't work out. But I've wondered why we don't recruit a bruiser that is maybe a 3 or 4 star athlete. I believe our coaching staff could do the same things other teams do in preparing these guys to really help out in their junior and senior years. Like you I have wondered about this. Go Duke!

You mean like Olek Czyz?