Is Scheyer Next Year's Presumptive Starting PG?

[slower]

Based on developments so far, I guess that's one possibility. Opinions?

[CDu]

Based on developments so far, I guess that's one possibility. Opinions?

Well, considering that he's the starting PG right now, and we currently have no incoming PG, I'd say there's a strong possibility of him starting there again next year. However, there are a LOT of factors to consider.

I think it will depend on the following:
- Henderson's decision
- the Wall situation
- Smith's development
- Williams's development
- The interaction with any two or more of the previous factors

If Henderson goes, then we may go with Williams and Scheyer on the wings with Smith or whomever we may recruit at PG. If Henderson stays, I think the probability of Scheyer playing PG again goes up. If we get Wall, I'd suspect he'll play PG. If we don't, the probably of Scheyer playing PG goes up. If Smith starts to regain his early-season form over the summer and early next year, he could reclaim the PG spot and push Scheyer back to the wing.

Further, a combination of two or more of those factors could shake up the lineup even more. You get the picture.

[slower]

Well, considering that he's the starting PG right now, and we currently have no incoming PG, I'd say there's a strong possibility of him starting there again next year. However, there are a LOT of factors to consider.

I think it will depend on the following:
- Henderson's decision
- the Wall situation
- Smith's development
- Williams's development
- The interaction with any two or more of the previous factors

If Henderson goes, then we may go with Williams and Scheyer on the wings with Smith or whomever we may recruit at PG. If Henderson stays, I think the probability of Scheyer playing PG again goes up. If we get Wall, I'd suspect he'll play PG. If we don't, the probably of Scheyer playing PG goes up. If Smith starts to regain his early-season form over the summer and early next year, he could reclaim the PG spot and push Scheyer back to the wing.

Further, a combination of two or more of those factors could shake up the lineup even more. You get the picture.

Pretty much the same picture that I'm seeing. Just thought I'd throw some red meat to the dogs. :D

[ddsdevil]

Best case scenario is that Nolan becomes the PG that we expected this season. If so, then obviously he starts. Even if we do land Darrius Smith or Bledsoe, I really can't see either getting quality minutes, much less starting. My hope is that Nolan develops over the off-season. I think he is the key for us to be an ACC contender. However, Scheyer is handling the point very well so far and I could see him and Nolan sharing time there. But my hope is that Nolan starts.

PG: Nolan
SG: Scheyer
SF: Elliot
PF: Singler (hopefully)
C: Miles or Lance

[yancem]

Well, considering that he's the starting PG right now, and we currently have no incoming PG, I'd say there's a strong possibility of him starting there again next year. However, there are a LOT of factors to consider.

I think it will depend on the following:
- Henderson's decision
- the Wall situation
- Smith's development
- Williams's development
- The interaction with any two or more of the previous factors

If Henderson goes, then we may go with Williams and Scheyer on the wings with Smith or whomever we may recruit at PG. If Henderson stays, I think the probability of Scheyer playing PG again goes up. If we get Wall, I'd suspect he'll play PG. If we don't, the probably of Scheyer playing PG goes up. If Smith starts to regain his early-season form over the summer and early next year, he could reclaim the PG spot and push Scheyer back to the wing.

Further, a combination of two or more of those factors could shake up the lineup even more. You get the picture.

Actually, I'm not sure that Henderson's decision will have much of an impact. If Smith doesn't regain his confidence as a pg then offensively he will play the 2 and defensively either he or Williams will guard the 1. A bigger factor in my mind his Scheyer's shooting. If he regains his shooting touch, then he maybe better off the ball. If he struggles with his shot or it is inconsistent again next year, then he is probably better on the ball so that he has we can take advantage of his other strengths. Regardless, if we don't sign Wall he will be playing at least some pg, either primarily or as the back up. There really aren't any other good options.

[loran16]

I'm gonna guess no, at least at the start of nonconference, nolan will be the starting point barring John Wall coming.

If this isn't working out, K can put Jon back at the point, but it's really not optimal...Jon's good at the point but he's not a true point guard, something which Nolan should be trying to become.

[Devilsfan]

I wish we had these kind of positive problems upfront.

[houstondukie]

I'm gonna guess no, at least at the start of nonconference, nolan will be the starting point barring John Wall coming.

If this isn't working out, K can put Jon back at the point, but it's really not optimal...Jon's good at the point but he's not a true point guard, something which Nolan should be trying to become.

But what if the position Scheyer "should be trying to become" is also PG?

I could actually see Scheyer as a backup PG in the NBA, since he is 6'5, a very smart player, plays good defense, and doesn't turn the ball over. No way he plays in the NBA as a SG.

[roywhite]

Jon at PG is working. The team is winning and turnovers are down. I'd say yes, he should continue at PG.

Jon is scoring as well, if not better, as a PG:
18 vs ST. Johns
30 vs Wake
12 vs MD
16 vs Va Tech

Avg. of 19 pts/game. and getting to the line more, which is a good thing in many ways.

We do want to see Nolan healthy and contributing, but why not keep Jon at PG?

[MADevil30]

on's good at the point but he's not a true point guard

I don't see why Jon's being (or not being) a "true" point guard matters. He has really limited our turnovers since taking the position and has also seen his scoring increase at the same time. Will he be able to blow by defenders a la Ty Lawson? No. Will he match up against the opposition's quickest guy? No. But given what he's done it doesn't matter; I'll take a scoring guard who doesn't turn the ball over any day.

[MChambers]

On offense, maybe Jon should run the point. It has been working pretty well last four games.

On defense, he isn't and hasn't been the point guard. Currently, Eliot is playing point on defense. Earlier in the year, it was Nolan. Greg backs them up.

As far as the title of this thread goes, it seems a little presumptuous. It's up to Coach K, and none of us know what he thinks. I'm willing to bet, however, that he'll wait to see how the players look in the fall before making any plans.

[Jumbo]

Back in the day, there weren't "point guards" and "shooting guards." There were just guards. That's how I see/hope the situation evolves. Ideally, both Jon and Nolan will be confident initiating the offense or playing off the ball, and the offense will be tailored to their skills. Might as well throw Elliot into that mix too.

[CLT Devil]

If I had to guess I would say that Nolan will be the starting PG next year (if Wall Doesnt come that is) and I think he will do well. He played very well at the beginning of the season but obviously of late has not done well. I think a lot is mental....taking bad shots, silly fouls. He has all the skills it takes to run the point and defend at the point, more so than Scheyer. I do like the ball in Scheyer's hands as good things tend to happen, but he's just not as quick as Nolan. If Nolan can get back on track even this year I could see him playing a crucial role down the stretch.

[davekay1971]

To reply, I'm going to go with 2 assumptions, both of which may be erroneous...

1) Henderson stays
2) We don't get Wall.

In that case, I think our lineup will look like:
Jon at the PG
Nolan or EWill at the 2
Hendu at the 3
Singler at the 4
Plumlee/Plumlee/Kelly at the 4/5

Assuming Hendu goes:
Jon at the PG
Nolan or Ewill at the 2
Singler at the 3
Kelly at the 4
Plumlee (^2) at the 5

If Wall comes in, I bet Jon still starts at the 1 to open the season, but if Wall is as good as advertised, he may get significant minutes at the 1. If we get Wall and keep Hendu, we will be overloaded with perimeter players and K will have a major chemistry experiment on his hands...not that there is any coach in the nation who's better equipped to deal with it. If Hendu stays and Wall comes, look for Nolan to transfer.

[CLT Devil]

I don't understand...If HendO stays and Wall comes, why would Nolan transfer? He would have to sit out a year, and then the next season both of those guys are out...he would be the only pg on the roster other than a freshman (and Scheyer of course). Maybe I'm missing something.

Am I the only one that thinks Nolan can still be a very good pg for this team? I think I'm also the only one that firmy believes another freshman (Plumlee) should be getting loads more PT?

[gumbomoop]

Back in the day, there weren't "point guards" and "shooting guards." There were just guards. That's how I see/hope the situation evolves. Ideally, both Jon and Nolan will be confident initiating the offense or playing off the ball, and the offense will be tailored to their skills. Might as well throw Elliot into that mix too.

I agree with every word here [e.g., "just guards... see/hope... ideally... tailored"] and with roywhite's comments about Jon doing just fine at pg.

Taking a worst-case scenario, which seems an assumption in the thread as started, that means G leaves and Wall doesn't come, Bledsoe neither. OK, we still got 3 good guards, all Jumbo's "just guards," or what are now probably called "combo" guards. But they're all good, each with particular strengths, including - we all know this -Nolan. Under this worst-case scenario, we don't have the perfect classic pg next year [yes, like this year, but things have worked out well so far], but we got Final 4 talent on the perimeter, because...... both Singler and Kelly can play some 3, easily.

So, we all hope it's in G's best interest to return, and he does. But if not, and no one else comes in, we're still quite strong on the outside, imo.

[jv001]

Jon is playing very well at the PG/PF position. We're not turning the ball over like b4 and Elliot has given us a big lift. Next year I see Jon playing the same position for Duke University. But that's a year away so I'm not going to worry too much about it right now. I'm more concerned with Florida State's length and Toney Douglas play right now. Go Duke!

[CDu]

Back in the day, there weren't "point guards" and "shooting guards." There were just guards. That's how I see/hope the situation evolves. Ideally, both Jon and Nolan will be confident initiating the offense or playing off the ball, and the offense will be tailored to their skills. Might as well throw Elliot into that mix too.

Well, back in the day, we didn't believe that taking a walk was a good thing in baseball. Back in the day, people didn't believe in swinging for the fences. Back in the day, the three point shot was considered a low-percentage play. Back in the day, people called travelling.

The game has definitely evolved, and nowadays most good/great teams have true point guards. Can we win in spite of not having that? Sure. We may very well have to do so, given the allotment of players that we'll have. But I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that you'd hope to not have a guy who's comfortable as a true playmaking PG.

That said, I agree with your description of what we'll try to do (have Smith and Scheyer as combo guards) is what will happen. I don't think it's ideal in today's bball environment, but I think we have to personal to get away with it for the most part (especially if Henderson sticks around and/or Williams steps up).

[pfrduke]

If Hendu stays and Wall comes, look for Nolan to transfer.

Can we all agree not to make ridiculous speculations about "if X, so-and-so will transfer"? It's not productive discussion for anyone.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

The answer to the question which began this thread is off in the future. When the time comes to determine the line ups, I think Coach K will base his decisions regarding who plays at what position on speed and skill at that point in time. In the meantime, there are a number of important games remaining in this season. Each game offers the current players opportunities to develop in a variety of ways.

[davekay1971]

Can we all agree not to make ridiculous speculations about "if X, so-and-so will transfer"? It's not productive discussion for anyone.

Nope, can't make that agreement. First of all, it's not totally ridiculous - Nolan considered transferring last summer. And, if he's looking at competing for time with Wall, who I understand to be the 2nd coming, Jon, Hendu, and EWill, who was getting more PT than Nolan before the injury, the kid might think hard about some things in the offseason. Second, this is a Duke basketball website, and speculation is part of the conversation here.

To be clear, I really, really like Nolan's game. He was a key part of what made our defense so good earlier this year. I've been among the chorus hoping that he gets his groove back, because we're clearly improved when he's at his best. His injury was terrible, and I hope he recovers fully and in time to tear it up in the post-season. So I hope he stays right here and adds to what appears to be a loaded perimeter game.

But I'm still going to call out a possibility if I think it's legitimate and potential food for discussion. Disagree with the possibility if you like, ignore it if you think it's not appropriate food for discussion. But don't look for me to avoid the topic because you don't like it.

[pfrduke]

Well, back in the day, we didn't believe that taking a walk was a good thing in baseball. Back in the day, people didn't believe in swinging for the fences. Back in the day, the three point shot was considered a low-percentage play. Back in the day, people called travelling.

The game has definitely evolved, and nowadays most good/great teams have true point guards. Can we win in spite of not having that? Sure. We may very well have to do so, given the allotment of players that we'll have. But I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that you'd hope to not have a guy who's comfortable as a true playmaking PG.

That said, I agree with your description of what we'll try to do (have Smith and Scheyer as combo guards) is what will happen. I don't think it's ideal in today's bball environment, but I think we have to personal to get away with it for the most part (especially if Henderson sticks around and/or Williams steps up).

I think there are really two important "point guard" characteristics for a team to be able to employ. 1) Beating a guy off the dribble, and 2) Being able to either score or distribute to an open teammate once #1 has occurred. It really doesn't matter if the guy doing those things is the point guard or the center so long as they can happen. The notion that there needs to be only one guy on a team responsible for doing these things (and that he needs to be a "point guard") is, I think, too narrow. Next year, we will be able to put a variety of guys on the court who can do 1 and 2 with varying degrees of success (Smith and Williams are good at 1, but not at 2 yet; Singler and Scheyer are better at 2 than at 1, depending on matchups). Plus, we can make 1 easier by good passing and screening that gets the defense out of step.

[davekay1971]

All in all, I think Jumbo's point about classifying our guys as guards rather than 1 and 2 designations makes sense with this team. Leaving Wall out of the equation, we really don't have a classic PG this year, and won't next year. Scheyer has done a great job running the offense, better (IMHO) than either Smith or Paulus. That being said, Smith certainly has the capability to to do the job. Both Smith and Paulus (and EWill) are capable scorers as well. With the motion offense we run, once the ball gets into the half court, all 5 players have the potential to score or set up the score. Coach K does a great job, of course, in adjusting to the personnel at hand. When we have a classic PG (Hurley, Amaker, etc), the offense takes on the look of having a true floor general. When we don't, the motion offense allows all players on the court to set up the play. When working well, it works, as Knight observed, like an orchestra.

[CDu]

I think there are really two important "point guard" characteristics for a team to be able to employ. 1) Beating a guy off the dribble, and 2) Being able to either score or distribute to an open teammate once #1 has occurred. It really doesn't matter if the guy doing those things is the point guard or the center so long as they can happen.

Completely agree.


The notion that there needs to be only one guy on a team responsible for doing these things (and that he needs to be a "point guard") is, I think, too narrow.

Agree again. I've never said it HAS to be a "point guard." The better term would be playmaker. It's just that the easiest way to get a true playmaker (a guy who can easily penetrate off the dribble AND score or distribute for others) tends to be in the form of a point guard. Hence the evolution of the game toward that type of player.


Next year, we will be able to put a variety of guys on the court who can do 1 and 2 with varying degrees of success (Smith and Williams are good at 1, but not at 2 yet; Singler and Scheyer are better at 2 than at 1, depending on matchups). Plus, we can make 1 easier by good passing and screening that gets the defense out of step.

I mostly agree. I certainly agree on Smith and Williams. I'd actually say Scheyer is a bit better at skill #1 than skill #2 - he's definitely more a scorer/foul drawer than a distributor. Singler is just so solid at everything and has a knack for being in the right place, but I don't think playmaking is his forte.

Based on that, I don't think we have a true playmaker. As I said, we may very well have the versatility on offense to get away without a true playmaker, though. We've done so to some degree this year, though a large part of that has been that Henderson has become such a dominant offensive player.

[slower]

Taking a worst-case scenario, which seems an assumption in the thread as started...

Why would Jon playing point be a worst-case scenario? Seems to be working just fine right now. It was just a question - one that apparently should not have been asked. I'm happy with ALL of our guys. I LOVE Nolan, think E-Will will totally bust out next year, and Jon is the smartest player I've seen in a long time.

Also, Wall appears to be the real deal and Bledsoe feels like he would be a great fit. So it sounds like we're blessed with many good options for next year.

My question was presumptive, NOT presumptuous, as stated by some other poster. Shouldn't have started the thread in the first place - no sense in us turning on each other. Sorry.

Mods, feel free to lock this one. Appears to be creating unnecessary tension.

[jimsumner]

K has had some pretty good teams with two lead guards, either of whom could initiate the offense.

Amaker-Dawkins
Collins-Capel
Williams-Duhon
Ewing-Dockery

Amaker and Snyder played together effectively in '87, Wojo and Avery in '98.

No reason why Scheyer and Smith can't do the same next season. Don't get too hung up on nomenclature.

[NashvilleDevil]

Will he be able to blow by defenders a la Ty Lawson? No.

I didn't know Ty Lawson played defense

[flyingdutchdevil]

I didn't know Ty Lawson played defense

Think he is referring to blowing past defenders much as Lawson blows past defenders, not Lawson being the defender...

Also, from what I heard, its down to Memphis and Duke for Wall. A couple of months ago, I laughed at the notion of Wall coming to Duke - he already had so many schools chasing him.

If Wall doesn't come, Bledsoe will come, but I really don't see him playing that much his freshman year. He is still pretty damn raw. Thus, IMO, Scheyer will continue to play point. Smith will take the 2, and Elliot will be the next G. And yes, IMO, I think G is gone. It's in our (Duke fans) best interest for him to stay, but IMO it is in his best interest to leave. According to a number of draft sites, G is a clear lottery pick and his stock has never been higher.

[MChambers]

And yes, IMO, I think G is gone. It's in our (Duke fans) best interest for him to stay, but IMO it is in his best interest to leave. According to a number of draft sites, G is a clear lottery pick and his stock has never been higher.

Just for the record, many posters here think that there are many valid reasons to stay and that a player should not necessarily leave just because he's a lottery pick.

[CDu]

Just for the record, many posters here think that there are many valid reasons to stay and that a player should not necessarily leave just because he's a lottery pick.

Yup. Not everyone makes the decision based solely on draft stock. Exhibit A: Jason Williams. He'd have been the #1 pick after his sophomore year. Instead, he chose to return because he wanted to get his degree.

Obviously not everyone makes that decision. For some guys, their only goal is the NBA. But it's certainly not unheard of for a guy to stick around even though he could have been a lottery pick.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Just for the record, many posters here think that there are many valid reasons to stay and that a player should not necessarily leave just because he's a lottery pick.

I would have to disagree. If you stay and you are considered a lottery pick, there is more that can go wrong than right. The ceiling is jumping up a few places - the bottom can be really really really bad. You have to weigh the risks. I hate to bring this up as an example, but I'm sure McRoberts regrets not leaving when he was a clear lottery pick in 2006 (and for the record, I didn't think McBob was ready at all. G, on the other hand, while he can still learn a lot, I feel is ready).

Also, how many players leave early who aren't ready? I'd say the majority of lottery picks. It sucks, but it's true. It's because the NBA drafts on potential, not pure skill. And G has a whole range of potential. A player like Hanstravel, who is one of the best college players in the modern era, doesn't have that much potential. G does.


Yup. Not everyone makes the decision based solely on draft stock. Exhibit A: Jason Williams. He'd have been the #1 pick after his sophomore year. Instead, he chose to return because he wanted to get his degree.

Obviously not everyone makes that decision. For some guys, their only goal is the NBA. But it's certainly not unheard of for a guy to stick around even though he could have been a lottery pick.

As you stated, it's the exception, not the rule. For all we know, G may have enough credits to graduate early. Or he could value education and come back a la Dunleavy. G's stock is already high. What's the best that could happen? Also, G is a junior. And seniors' stock isn't as high because, according to a lot of analysts, they are already 'old'. In last year's draft, John Thompson was the first senior choosen at 12. In 2007, it was Acie Law at 11. G is considered a top 10 pick by many and by the way he is playing, he may even get higher than that come draft time.

Bottom line, I want G to stay, but that is for selfish reasons. If I were in his shoes, and I'm clearly not, then I would bolt. Duke treated me well, and I treated it well.

For the record, I know this isn't the place to post NBA posts, and this will be my last response.

[Jumbo]

Well, back in the day, we didn't believe that taking a walk was a good thing in baseball. Back in the day, people didn't believe in swinging for the fences. Back in the day, the three point shot was considered a low-percentage play. Back in the day, people called travelling.

The game has definitely evolved, and nowadays most good/great teams have true point guards. Can we win in spite of not having that? Sure. We may very well have to do so, given the allotment of players that we'll have. But I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that you'd hope to not have a guy who's comfortable as a true playmaking PG.

That said, I agree with your description of what we'll try to do (have Smith and Scheyer as combo guards) is what will happen. I don't think it's ideal in today's bball environment, but I think we have to personal to get away with it for the most part (especially if Henderson sticks around and/or Williams steps up).

Wow. That's really quite a leap. Do the Lakers employ a true point guard? Do the Cavs? Did the Bulls? (And yes, there are examples that don't involve top-flight NBA players.) The point is, you can run an offense that doesn't involve this modern invention of the "true point guard." You just need guys who can make plays for themselves and others. But yeah, clearly the idea of running an offense without a true point guard is totally akin to Moneyball. It's clearly so antiquated that a team would have no chance to make the Final Four running an offense that doesn't differentiate between the 1 and the 2 in any way. Oh, wait, didn't Georgetown run the Princeton Offense two years ago? Oops.

[Jumbo]

Nope, can't make that agreement. First of all, it's not totally ridiculous - Nolan considered transferring last summer. And, if he's looking at competing for time with Wall, who I understand to be the 2nd coming, Jon, Hendu, and EWill, who was getting more PT than Nolan before the injury, the kid might think hard about some things in the offseason. Second, this is a Duke basketball website, and speculation is part of the conversation here.

To be clear, I really, really like Nolan's game. He was a key part of what made our defense so good earlier this year. I've been among the chorus hoping that he gets his groove back, because we're clearly improved when he's at his best. His injury was terrible, and I hope he recovers fully and in time to tear it up in the post-season. So I hope he stays right here and adds to what appears to be a loaded perimeter game.

But I'm still going to call out a possibility if I think it's legitimate and potential food for discussion. Disagree with the possibility if you like, ignore it if you think it's not appropriate food for discussion. But don't look for me to avoid the topic because you don't like it.

Well, you're going to make that agreement, because it's unacceptable. It's rumor-mongering, and that's not allowed on these boards. Nolan has given no indication that he will transfer, it's highly unlikely that John Wall will be at Duke and it's quite probably that Gerald Henderson will go pro. So, let me say this again -- could everyone please stop speculating about next season and enjoy what's left of this one?We'll have months to do that all summer. Sheesh.

[Indoor66]

Well, you're going to make that agreement, because it's unacceptable. It's rumor-mongering, and that's not allowed on these boards. Nolan has given no indication that he will transfer, it's highly unlikely that John Wall will be at Duke and it's quite probably that Gerald Henderson will go pro. So, let me say this again -- could everyone please stop speculating about next season and enjoy what's left of this one?We'll have months to do that all summer. Sheesh.

Thanks for saying that Jumbo. I probably would have received an infraction had I responded to many of the posts in this thread. Then, I learned long ago to take life as it comes and not wish my life away by living too far in the future!

[CDu]

Wow. That's really quite a leap. Do the Lakers employ a true point guard? Do the Cavs? Did the Bulls? (And yes, there are examples that don't involve top-flight NBA players.) The point is, you can run an offense that doesn't involve this modern invention of the "true point guard." You just need guys who can make plays for themselves and others. But yeah, clearly the idea of running an offense without a true point guard is totally akin to Moneyball. It's clearly so antiquated that a team would have no chance to make the Final Four running an offense that doesn't differentiate between the 1 and the 2 in any way. Oh, wait, didn't Georgetown run the Princeton Offense two years ago? Oops.

You've used lot of snark, considering that I in fact noted that it is possible to run an offense without a true point guard. OBVIOUSLY it is possible to run an offense without a true point. I just said it's EASIER to run an offense with one.

But I'll play along. The examples you've listed all include incredible playmakers. As I note in another post, the term point guard should be replaced with playmakers. Think the Cavs would be a functional team if you replace LeBron with Larry Hughes? How about if the Lakers replaced Kobe with Hughes? How about the Bulls replacing Jordan with John Starks?

My point was that the game has evolved such that it's a lot harder to succeed without a true playmaker. There are clearly examples of systems that can work, such as the Princeton offense (though that is an incredibly difficult offense to run). It may be that Scheyer, Williams, or Smith develop into stronger playmakers. And it may be that we have enough versatility to get by. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't make life a lot easier if we had a true playmaker.

And you did a good job pointing out Georgetown. However, I wouldn't argue that the one team that's made the Final Four without a playmaker in the last several years proves that having a true playmaker isn't a good idea.

[CDu]

Well, you're going to make that agreement, because it's unacceptable. It's rumor-mongering, and that's not allowed on these boards. Nolan has given no indication that he will transfer, it's highly unlikely that John Wall will be at Duke and it's quite probably that Gerald Henderson will go pro. So, let me say this again -- could everyone please stop speculating about next season and enjoy what's left of this one?We'll have months to do that all summer. Sheesh.

I agree that rumor-mongering and speculating is not acceptable. It's certainly inappropriate to debate very personal decisions such as going pro or transferring. But I disagree with your next-to-last sentence. Don't you think it's possible that one can enjoy the rest of this season AND talk about next season as well?

[Jumbo]

You've used lot of snark, considering that I in fact noted that it is possible to run an offense without a true point guard. OBVIOUSLY it is possible to run an offense without a true point. I just said it's EASIER to run an offense with one.

But I'll play along. The examples you've listed all include incredible playmakers. As I note in another post, the term point guard should be replaced with playmakers. Think the Cavs would be a functional team if you replace LeBron with Larry Hughes? How about if the Lakers replaced Kobe with Hughes? How about the Bulls replacing Jordan with John Starks?

My point was that the game has evolved such that it's a lot harder to succeed without a true playmaker. There are clearly examples of systems that can work, such as the Princeton offense (though that is an incredibly difficult offense to run). It may be that Scheyer, Williams, or Smith develop into stronger playmakers. And it may be that we have enough versatility to get by. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't make life a lot easier if we had a true playmaker.

And you did a good job pointing out Georgetown. However, I wouldn't argue that the one team that's made the Final Four without a playmaker in the last several years proves that having a true playmaker isn't a good idea.

I agree that you need playmakers. But I think Duke has playmakers.

[Jumbo]

I agree that rumor-mongering and speculating is not acceptable. It's certainly inappropriate to debate very personal decisions such as going pro or transferring. But I disagree with your next-to-last sentence. Don't you think it's possible that one can enjoy the rest of this season AND talk about next season as well?

Yes, it's possible. But doesn't all the speculation get a bit ... pointless? I mean, we have people talking about their gut feelings about what Gerald will decide, inventing transfer rumors, plotting lineups with/without guys who haven't finished showing us what they can do this season. Sure, I have some concerns about next season, and I think I have a pretty good feel for who will be here and who won't. And I imagine if Gerald goes, for instance, I'll be worried about our perimeter depth for a while. But right now, Gerald is here, leading a team that has a shot to win a national title. Doesn't it make sense to focus on that for the next month?

[CDu]

I agree that you need playmakers. But I think Duke has playmakers.

If one or more of Smith, Scheyer, and Williams steps up their game, I agree with you. I'm not quite sold yet on those three as playmakers, but that remains to be seen. I'm not saying that those guys aren't already terrific players or don't have the ability to become even more terrific. It's just that I'm not ready to call those guys great playmakers (yet). Maybe they have it in them and just haven't had the need/opportunity to fully show it.

It's also worth noting that, if Henderson returns, we'll have enough individual firepower that we don't need a true playmaker (kind of like this year).

This is not an easily quantifiable question, so it's probably not worth further debate. Feel free to disagree if you like. But I fear we'd quickly be getting too minute into the abstract.

[Jumbo]

If one or more of Smith, Scheyer, and Williams steps up their game, I agree with you. I'm not quite sold yet on those three as playmakers, but that remains to be seen. I'm not saying that those guys aren't already terrific players or don't have the ability to become even more terrific. It's just that I'm not ready to call those guys great playmakers (yet). Maybe they have it in them and just haven't had the need/opportunity to fully show it.

It's also worth noting that, if Henderson returns, we'll have enough individual firepower that we don't need a true playmaker (kind of like this year).

This is not an easily quantifiable question, so it's probably not worth further debate. Feel free to disagree if you like. But I fear we'd quickly be getting too minute into the abstract.

Can't Singler be a playmaker, too?

[CDu]

Yes, it's possible. But doesn't all the speculation get a bit ... pointless? I mean, we have people talking about their gut feelings about what Gerald will decide, inventing transfer rumors, plotting lineups with/without guys who haven't finished showing us what they can do this season. Sure, I have some concerns about next season, and I think I have a pretty good feel for who will be here and who won't. And I imagine if Gerald goes, for instance, I'll be worried about our perimeter depth for a while. But right now, Gerald is here, leading a team that has a shot to win a national title. Doesn't it make sense to focus on that for the next month?

My point is that I see no reason one can't do both (note - this does not mean speculating on going pro or transferring). I'm very interested and focused on what we do for the next month. At the same time, I enjoy talking about what we might have next year. There's plenty of time to do both, in my opinion.

With regard to your first question, wouldn't you agree that a LOT of stuff we talk about is kind of pointless? I mean, we're going to see what happens in the next month regardless of what we talk about. The discussions (so long as they don't get too contentious, too personal, or too offensive to anyone, are just a means of entertainment and a means to talk about Duke basketball. We can discuss this season or we can discuss next season. But this season is going to happen one way or the other, just like next season is going to happen one way or the other, right?

So what's wrong with talking about the potential strengths and weaknesses of next year's team while still getting excited about March?

[CDu]

Can't Singler be a playmaker, too?

I don't see him as a true playmaker either. Though perhaps he can develop into that as well. There's no reason he couldn't, given his position.

[Jumbo]

With regard to your first question, wouldn't you agree that a LOT of stuff we talk about is kind of pointless?

Absolutely.

[gumbomoop]

Why would Jon playing point be a worst-case scenario? Seems to be working just fine right now. It was just a question - one that apparently should not have been asked. I'm happy with ALL of our guys. I LOVE Nolan, think E-Will will totally bust out next year, and Jon is the smartest player I've seen in a long time.

Also, Wall appears to be the real deal and Bledsoe feels like he would be a great fit. So it sounds like we're blessed with many good options for next year.

My question was presumptive, NOT presumptuous, as stated by some other poster. Shouldn't have started the thread in the first place - no sense in us turning on each other. Sorry.

Mods, feel free to lock this one. Appears to be creating unnecessary tension.

Sorry, I probably inferred rather than you implied a problem. But the substance of my point agrees with you and several other posters: Scheyer's really good wherever he plays, including starting pg.

Moreover, my own (not your) phrasing, "worst case scenario," referred to losing G, not getting Wall, Bledsoe, and thus being slim generally on the perimeter. It didn't refer to Scheyer being not good enough as pg.

And although I'm with those who think these boards can easily accommodate, right now, looking forward both long-term - to next year, and then to '10-'11 - and short-term - tomorrow night and 10 games after that - I can understand the frustration of those who get irritated at too, too much speculation at a time of great anticipation about how this season will turn out. So I'll go looking to the pre-game FSU thread, and pontificate there about how good Douglas is.........

[DukeDevilDeb]

Can we all agree not to make ridiculous speculations about "if X, so-and-so will transfer"? It's not productive discussion for anyone.

I agree. It does nothing for the team and nothing for the fans to speculate about player unhappiness and transferring. Somehow this topic arises periodically, and I wish the moderators would just delete it every time it does.

I just hope Nolan gets better physically. He didn't look good on the bench at VT... I'm glad Coach is keeping him out and giving him a chance to get well.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think there are really two important "point guard" characteristics for a team to be able to employ. 1) Beating a guy off the dribble, and 2) Being able to either score or distribute to an open teammate once #1 has occurred. It really doesn't matter if the guy doing those things is the point guard or the center so long as they can happen. The notion that there needs to be only one guy on a team responsible for doing these things (and that he needs to be a "point guard") is, I think, too narrow. Next year, we will be able to put a variety of guys on the court who can do 1 and 2 with varying degrees of success (Smith and Williams are good at 1, but not at 2 yet; Singler and Scheyer are better at 2 than at 1, depending on matchups). Plus, we can make 1 easier by good passing and screening that gets the defense out of step.

I completely agree with both 1 and 2, but I think it's the unlisted "3" that has killed us a few times this year, most noticeably in the UNC game... 3 - stay in front of the ballcarrier. When Lawson broke us down in the second half it was because none of our guys were able to stay in front of Lawson on the drive.

Our guys play the best when we are running quick offensive sets/breaks created by our defense. This isn't a possibility when we have the porous PG defensive play.

This is what I see as generally being the delineating factor between our existing PG's (Paulus, Smith, Williams, Scheyer). Paulus plays a very aggressive and enthusiastic defense, but not a very fundamentally sound or athletic version. Smith and Williams are all very skilled defenders on the dribble (UNC not-with-standing) but not super-aggressive. Scheyer thrives better defensively at a 2/3/4 where he can not be as worried about stopping the drive-n-dish.

Offensively, the only PG we've had in the few decades who could really create points for themselves (not necessarily for the team) was Jason Williams. Ty Lawson is not the sort of PG that K looks for. He generally looks for more "classic" PGs that create an offensive flow rather than breaking your ankles and getting to the rim.

Having said all this, I think the way to tie this hypothetical discussion back to the discussion of this year's team is: Is having Scheyer running the point the best possible situation for this team?

Scheyer seems to be fostering better decision-making on offense (fewer early in the shot clock 3's, more cuts to the lane) and the team seems to have tapped into an inner-toughness since moving the Scheyer/Williams at the top, so I am going to say that going with this combo, and having Paulus and Smith coming situationally off the bench to add different facets to the team has been a big boost.

Thoughts?

[davekay1971]

Well, you're going to make that agreement, because it's unacceptable. It's rumor-mongering, and that's not allowed on these boards. Nolan has given no indication that he will transfer, it's highly unlikely that John Wall will be at Duke and it's quite probably that Gerald Henderson will go pro. So, let me say this again -- could everyone please stop speculating about next season and enjoy what's left of this one?We'll have months to do that all summer. Sheesh.

Beg to differ with you, Jumbo, it's not rumor mongering. That would be me implying in any way, shape, or form that I had heard from some source or another that he was gone. I never said that and wouldn't say that, because it's not true. It's my speculation, pure and simple, and, for the record, completely without external support of any kind. Feel free to dismiss it.

As for enjoying this season, amen. It has been and continues to be a beautiful season. I was one of those, at the end of last season, that argued that we should appreciate that season as the success that it was, regardless of the loss to WVU. I also argued that this season could be a huge success, which I think it has been. This is a great team to watch, and not just because the W-L record looks nice. They've grown together and as a team, and it's been a treat for us as fans.

I'm not sure I see the connection you imply between speculating about next year and whether or not people are appreciating/enjoying this year. I'm sure Coach K and his staff are enjoying every moment of this year, while they are preparing and thinking about next year and years beyond. Fans like me have nothing much to contribute in terms of preparing for years beyond, but it's still natural for us, as fans, to think about it even as we enjoy what's happening right now. Tonight I'll be watching and enjoying the game against FSU, enjoying it (more if we're winning than losing, of course). But I'll also be looking at guys like Williams and Scheyer and Singler and (hopefully) Henderson and thinking about how they are developing as the core of next season's team.

Finally, are you going to mandate no speculation regarding whether or not G is going into the draft? Because most of the posts on this site regarding that subject have as much supporting evidence as my speculation about Smith - none whatsoever. Wouldn't want any rumor-mongering regarding whether or not G is going into the draft, would we?

[dgoore97]

Isn't G our playmaker?

also the thing i think Scheyer brings at the point aside from criteria 1-3, though somewhat related to the absence of turnovers, is poise. he's not the quickest, strongest highest jumping by far, but he never gets rattled and that is HUGE. never thought i would say it but i love having him controlling the tempo.

as for the discussion of what we can discuss. fwiw as long as its meant in good spirits and is not harmful to our team, players or coach, i think it should be fair game to be discussed.

[CDu]

Isn't G our playmaker?

also the thing i think Scheyer brings at the point aside from criteria 1-3, though somewhat related to the absence of turnovers, is poise. he's not the quickest, strongest highest jumping by far, but he never gets rattled and that is HUGE. never thought i would say it but i love having him controlling the tempo.

as for the discussion of what we can discuss. fwiw as long as its meant in good spirits and is not harmful to our team, players or coach, i think it should be fair game to be discussed.

The discussion in this thread is focused on next year's team. There's a possibility (though certainly no guarantee) that Henderson may be in the NBA next year. Hopefully he'll be here next year, though. And if he is, there's no reason why next year's offense shouldn't be better than this year's, with improvements from everyone and the additions of two gifted offensive players in Plumlee and Kelly.

That said, Henderson is clearly gifted at getting to the basket and finishing. But he's still very much a work in progress in terms of creating for others. I think the same is true for all of our playmaking options at the moment (Smith, Scheyer, Singler, Henderson, Williams). They're wing-oriented offensive players. They're pretty good (in some cases very good) at creating opportunities for themselves, but they're still learning to create for others.

[pfrduke]

I completely agree with both 1 and 2, but I think it's the unlisted "3" that has killed us a few times this year, most noticeably in the UNC game... 3 - stay in front of the ballcarrier. When Lawson broke us down in the second half it was because none of our guys were able to stay in front of Lawson on the drive.

I agree, with one caveat - this doesn't need to be the same person. Ideally, yes, you'd have a guy who can create and also be a lock-down defender on the other end. But next year, for example, Elliot Williams may be the guy who gets the opponents' best perimeter player every game, even if he's not the guy who has primary playmaking responsibility on offense.

There are roles to be played on both the offensive and defensive side of the court. The role of "point guard" may be played by a different person on each end of the court.

[gumbomoop]

.I think the way to tie this hypothetical discussion back to the discussion of this year's team is: Is having Scheyer running the point the best possible situation for this team?

Scheyer seems to be fostering better decision-making on offense (fewer early in the shot clock 3's, more cuts to the lane) and the team seems to have tapped into an inner-toughness since moving the Scheyer/Williams at the top, so I am going to say that going with this combo, and having Paulus and Smith coming situationally off the bench to add different facets to the team has been a big boost.

Thoughts?

Nice job, MD, of gently soothing passions about whether we should even be talking about next year --- and I agree with those who say it's what we do all the time, think obsessively about Duke ball in every, every regard, whom are we recruiting, what happens if X leaves or Y doesn't arrive, while at same time worrying about the next game --- by shifting the Scheyer-hypothetical back to our final 11 games this season [which number, by itself, would suggest that Scheyer and all others were pretty much at just the right spot].

I like your "inner toughness" reference to Scheyer. I have commented in earlier posts through the season that Scheyer has terrific, among very, very best in the land, court awareness. [And as an aside, I'd truly welcome other posters to gimme a name or two of other great court-awareness players this year or even recently.] And I've twice (now thrice) quoted Playcaller's early-season, off-handed but absolutely telling, comment: "Jon Scheyer is really good at playing basketball."