Best Duke Team under Coach K

[MChambers]

Discuss your vote!

[Cameron]

According to some, because this commentary is discussed on Ozzie's handbag thing, this is all futile. Shame on you for not thinking outside the box.

Now back to reality...

Since this is an argument on the "best team", and not best national champion, I had to go with '99 Duke. That team was just plain nasty. Brand, Langdon, Avery, Maggette, Carrawell, Battier, James. Two national players of the year, three ACC players of the year, and five All-Americans among them.

Duke stormed into the Final Four in St. Petersburg with a 36-1 record, pumping in 92 points a night and outscoring its opponents by 26 points a game, the sixth best spread in NCAA history. During the first four rounds of the Tournament that year, the Blue Devils won by no less than 17 points, and thrashed a very talented Temple club 85-64 in the East regional final.

Through its first 37 games that season, Duke trailed only 24 minutes in the second half. That is unbelievable.

As far as the most talented, purely dominant team that Coach K has ever coached, this team is it. Duke's 1999 club was once in a lifetime, and that's saying something considering they didn't even cut down the nets. That people still refer to this outfit as the greatest college team they have ever seen is as solid a testament to '99's greatest as one can find.

[jv001]

Not only for winning the 2nd of two straight NCAA championships but for these players:

Christian Laettner
Bobby Hurley
Grant Hill
Thomas Hill
Brian Davis
Antonio Lang
Cherokee Parks
I know that the 1999 team had some star studded names on it, but none compare to Christian Laettner and Grant Hill. Throw in the best point guard in Duke history(maybe ncaa history) and Thomas Hill one of the better players in Duke history. I'm not talking about NBA play but college play. Go Duke!

[NYDukie]

Have to go with the 92 team. I know there is much love for the 99 team given their dominance (and I'm one of them), title or no title, but some tend to forget the 92 team's dominance also.

Another point, many state we should look past the 99 team's NC loss and look at how dominant a team it was. Well take a step back with the 92 team and look where their dominance began. Essentially, the 92 team was the same as the 91 team that won the NC that year and beat a team in UNLV, which is considered by many, to be one of the greatest teams ever, regardless of a NC or not. At the bear minimum, that UNLV team is the greatest team not to win a NC, effectively, better than the 99 Duke team putting our bias aside. Taking that into consideration, the 92 team which had many of their top rotation players on that 91 team, beat a UNLV team greater than the 99 Duke team. I know some will argue that this statement is like saying Harvard is on the same level as UNC this year since they beat BC which beat UNC but you have to think outside the box a bit here. I know their are many varying opinions but its hard to look past the fact that the 92 team beat arguably one of the greatest teams the year before, may have gone undefeated if not for Hurley's ankle injury, had one of the greatest college players of all time and had teamed with him 2 others considered among the best of this era.

It's a fun discussion but just wanted to bring more support to the 92 which is starting to be forgotten about a bit as time goes by. Damn, I'm feeling old as that was my senior year in H.S....LOL

[BlueDevilBaby]

^I'm on board with you on 92, and you are not so old - I was in my first year of law school and actually won the "bracket" on Duke's win. That was the last time I won anything associated with the NCAAT.

The 99 team may have had more athletic players, but I'll still take the 92 team over every other.

[Devils Rock]

Essentially, the 92 team was the same as the 91 team that won the NC that year and beat a team in UNLV, which is considered by many, to be one of the greatest teams ever, regardless of a NC or not. At the bear minimum, that UNLV team is the greatest team not to win a NC, effectively, better than the 99 Duke team putting our bias aside.

I too loved the 92 Team and I am going to say that the 91-92 team exhibited the greatest character of any of the great Duke teams. Yes They were dominant, but they also played hard as hell and smart as hell.

However, I must totally disagree with your remarks about the 99 team versus either 92 or the 91 Vegas team. Fortunately, I was able to dig up a small amount of historical data to bloster my case. The 99 Duke team won by an average of 24.66 points while playiing the 11th most difficult schedule in the country and in the #2 rated conference according to Jeff Sagarin. Unfortunatley, Sagarin ratings archives only go back to 1991, so I can't directly use them for the comparisson to UNLV. However, UNLV did win its games in 91 by an average of 27.3 points. Now even though I can't find ratings going back to 91, looking at ratings for the Big West conference in the first year they are available (99) is helpful. In that year, the big west was rated the #18 most difficult (it's almost like an oxymoron at that point) conference and most of the teams played a schedule strength that varied between #150-#200. The toughest schedule came it at #111 (North Texas). Now even though the Big West membership has changed somewhat over the years, it's easy to see why UNLV dominated their conference even in 91 when I believe the best non-UNLV teams in the conference in that era were NM State, UCSB and UT State. It's hard to imagine that a Duke team that won by 24.6 points/game in the ACC would not have absolutely decimated that conference by at least 30 a game. Yes, UNLV played (and crushed) a few good out of conference teams, but sort of like Memphis this year, it's just not enough to make an assessment. Also, from a purely visual standpoint, I have never, ever, ever seen a team that just absolutely punished teams the way the 99 team. It was like watching Bambi vs. Godzilla almost every time out. Sadly, they could have used the character of the 92 team in order to realize the all-time destiny that awaited them.

[Devils Rock]

^^
Just to clarify: i'm not trying to say that the UNLV team wasn't incredibly dominant (b/c they clearly were), but I'm not so sure they were a better team than the 99 Devils.

[Maxwell1977]

The '92 team faced vastly better competition. In '92 players rarely came out early. In '88, the incoming freshmen class was billed as possibly the best ever. It didn't make it, but was still very good.

[Maxwell1977]

^^
Just to clarify: i'm not trying to say that the UNLV team wasn't incredibly dominant (b/c they clearly were), but I'm not so sure they were a better team than the 99 Devils.

Well, the sports media was gearing up to annoint them as the best BB team of all time, if they had won the '91 NC.

[captmojo]

The next one. ;)
The best is yet to come.
Seriously.

[Underdog5]

92 team beat Michigan Fab 5 twice (including at Michigan and 20 point blow out in the final game), beat LSU with Shaq at LSU, beat UCLA at UCLA with Tracy Murray and Don McLean (ok they weren't all that), won ACC regular season and tournament (and ACC had a solid pro prospect on EVERY roster that year), and only lost 2 games (both on the road against strong ACC teams with chances to win each). I think 99 only appeared more dominant because the level of competition wasn't as strong until they faced the 1 team that matched up well that was out there... and they came up short.

[Truth]

Anyone that answers 1999 or 2001 should be obligated to include how many games of the 1992 season they watched...



Note: I don't necessarily disagree that 1999 or 2001 is the correct answer here, but I think 1992 gets ruled out WAYY TOO quickly because it was 17-years ago and likely beyond the scope of many posters...

[moonpie23]

oops.....it DID say best duke team....

my bad..


i'd say 99...i watched all games in 91-92...











covering up now ! :p

[mgtr]

The next one. ;)
The best is yet to come.
Seriously.

I agree completely. Next year's team is always going to be the best!

[DUKIE V(A)]

All of these teams as well as many others were great, but I gotta go with 1992. They defended their title and never lost their preseason #1 ranking despite a brutal schedule and injuries to multiple key players. They had incredible talent and depth and played great team ball on offense and defense. I must confess that I graduated in 92 and we all like to think our teams were better back in the day. The 1999 team was incredible and I still occasionally lose sleep over the 1999 loss in the final, but I'd put my money on 1992 in a one game showdown or seven game series. In the end, I think the 1992 team had too many shooters, too much defense, too much versatility, too much heart and too many intangibles for the 1999 team to overcome. For the record, I only saw the 1999 team play once in person.

[jipops]

'92 would absolutely mop the floor with the '99 team. There is no question.

I'd probably even take the '86 team over '99.

Here's my take on the '99 team. Sure they were talented. Brand was arguably the most talented low post player to ever play at Duke. Maggette was an athletic freak off the bench and there were other offensive options available. But I think what gets lost is the level of competition that team faced in conference that year. The ACC as a whole was dreadful. UNC was of little significance nationally (remember they lost to Weber St 1st round) and the only team that factored into any post season possiblities was Maryland with Steve Francis and Terrance Morris. That was it. So the undefeated ACC season while impressive, is lessened a bit. Also, I always found the '99 team's backcourt to be a bit suspect. Avery was good player but not a natural pg. The only other option on the team for a ball handler was Carrawell who while capable was not the type to initiate an offense. Langdon was a liability on defense as he was laterally challenged. Unfortunately I don't recall the '99 team's ooc schedule but I do recall the Cincinatti game where Melvin Levitt scooted past a much slower Langdon for a soaring dunk to win the game against Duke.

The '92 team was loaded with talent and versatility and like '99 they expected to win every game and dominate their opponent. While the '99 team featured one senior, one junior, and the rest freshmen and sophomores in it's regular rotation - '92 featured 2 seniors, 2 juniors, 2 sophomores, and a freshman among it's regular rotation. Oh yeah, and these guys were already proven winners. Unlike '99, there were few weaknesses in the '92 backcourt. Hurley was an absolute rock orchestrating the offense and Thomas Hill was a lock down defender who could be counted on to score at any time. Grant Hill more than filled in as capable ball handler though unlike Carrawell he could initiate offense quite well. Brian Davis and Antonio Lang were terrific role players providing defense and offense when needed. And then there was that Laettner guy. Cherokee Parks even provided ample support as a freshman. I'd take a freshman Parks over a sophomore Burgess.

I was fortunate enough to see both these teams play in person on multiple occasions. The '92 team was the most impressive Duke team I've ever seen.

[NYDukie]

I too loved the 92 Team and I am going to say that the 91-92 team exhibited the greatest character of any of the great Duke teams. Yes They were dominant, but they also played hard as hell and smart as hell.

However, I must totally disagree with your remarks about the 99 team versus either 92 or the 91 Vegas team. Fortunately, I was able to dig up a small amount of historical data to bloster my case. The 99 Duke team won by an average of 24.66 points while playiing the 11th most difficult schedule in the country and in the #2 rated conference according to Jeff Sagarin. Unfortunatley, Sagarin ratings archives only go back to 1991, so I can't directly use them for the comparisson to UNLV. However, UNLV did win its games in 91 by an average of 27.3 points. Now even though I can't find ratings going back to 91, looking at ratings for the Big West conference in the first year they are available (99) is helpful. In that year, the big west was rated the #18 most difficult (it's almost like an oxymoron at that point) conference and most of the teams played a schedule strength that varied between #150-#200. The toughest schedule came it at #111 (North Texas). Now even though the Big West membership has changed somewhat over the years, it's easy to see why UNLV dominated their conference even in 91 when I believe the best non-UNLV teams in the conference in that era were NM State, UCSB and UT State. It's hard to imagine that a Duke team that won by 24.6 points/game in the ACC would not have absolutely decimated that conference by at least 30 a game. Yes, UNLV played (and crushed) a few good out of conference teams, but sort of like Memphis this year, it's just not enough to make an assessment. Also, from a purely visual standpoint, I have never, ever, ever seen a team that just absolutely punished teams the way the 99 team. It was like watching Bambi vs. Godzilla almost every time out. Sadly, they could have used the character of the 92 team in order to realize the all-time destiny that awaited them.

I know its easy for us to break out statistics and say this team is that and that team is this. And I do realize you mentioned how "character" played a great role in both teams end results but I think the 92 had both character and a intimidation factor that most teams never had. Usually teams had one but not the other. Intimidation can come in many forms. The 91 UNLV team had a bravado and a physicality about them that made teams fear them. The 99 Duke team had a all in your face and physical nature to them. And the 92 initimidated others by their skill and self confidence that said "you have no chance to beat us". I think we all have a tendency to get caught up in the numbers, which is indicative of society as whole, which is a whole other thread...LOL

What I'm saying is that sports in general is not black and white, that there are many intangibles is what makes a great team and that's what I believe separates the 92 team from any of the other Duke teams.

[DukeDevilDeb]

I know its easy for us to break out statistics and say this team is that and that team is this. And I do realize you mentioned how "character" played a great role in both teams end results but I think the 92 had both character and a intimidation factor that most teams never had. Usually teams had one but not the other. Intimidation can come in many forms. The 91 UNLV team had a bravado and a physicality about them that made teams fear them. The 99 Duke team had a all in your face and physical nature to them. And the 92 initimidated others by their skill and self confidence that said "you have no chance to beat us". I think we all have a tendency to get caught up in the numbers, which is indicative of society as whole, which is a whole other thread...LOL

What I'm saying is that sports in general is not black and white, that there are many intangibles is what makes a great team and that's what I believe separates the 92 team from any of the other Duke teams.

I agree with everyone who has selected the 1992 team... that was a unique group of young men who, totally unexpectedly a year earlier had beaten the UNLV team that was supposed to be able to destroy them with both hands tied behind their backs...

The 92 team had swagger, confidence, incredible self-esteem, and real gut-level strength of character. I haven't seen much of that of late. If we could somehow clone Christian... but we can't dream, can we?

92 wins over 99 and all others... no question. Take it from someone who has watched every team that's mentioned.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

According to some, because this commentary is discussed on Ozzie's handbag thing, this is all futile.
What are you talking about? I don't have no stinking handbag! :eek::D

I voted 1992 by a nose over 1999. I think the 92 team would have beaten the 99 team. Both had great players, 92 had better chemistry.

[Cameron]

What are you talking about? I don't have no stinking handbag!


Haha :D

[Coballs]

92...by far. I'm not sure how a strong case can be made for the '99 team. '92 was a basketball machine that would have gone undefeated if Bobby Hurley had not broken his foot. They're still regarded as one of the great teams of the past several decades.
However, all that could have changed if "Here's the pass to Laettner...puts it up...." had not ended so perfectly. It's pretty amazing to consider how the legacy of a team, based upon an entire incredible season, would have been entirely different if one single play had a different result.

Remember these shirts?: "You can talk the game, but can you play the game? Duke: We can play."

[Edouble]

It's pretty amazing to consider how the legacy of a team, based upon an entire incredible season, would have been entirely different if one single play had a different result.


It's true. If Hill had underthrown the pass or Laettner had missed the shot, and Langdon had passed to Avery for the trifecta instead of the travel, I would have given my vote to the '99 squad.

I saw all games of both seasons, and both teams were incredible.

[Johnboy]

Remember these shirts?: "You can talk the game, but can you play the game? Duke: We can play."

I still have mine.

I voted '92, and even though I rank both '86 and '92 ahead of '99, that '99 team was incredible. I just think that the other two teams were more mature and more complete. The 1986 backcourt is Coach K's best - Amaker and Dawkins - though I'd say the 2001 backcourt gives them a run.

These are great discussions, because the teams are separated by so little - as mentioned above, if any of the following had happened: Bobby misses his shot against UNLV, Christian misses his shot against Kentucky, the team isn't gassed in the last 5 minutes of the '86 title game, or Trajan pulls out the win in '99, and our perceptions would be totally different. The other difficulty wit rating the teams going back to 1986 is that they were playing a different game then than they do now (and if you think I'm exaggerating, watch some pre-shot clock and three point line games - IIRC, there was a 45-second clock in '86).

[_Gary]

I voted '99 based solely on what I thought the original question was going for: "Best Team" (i.e. most talented, most dominant). I loved the '86 team and the Christian/Bobby/Grant teams tremendously. But watching that 1999 squad cut a gaping swath through the ACC was just a thing of beauty and power that I can't ignore. I still think that was the best college team I've ever seen. Perhaps a part of my love and admiration for that team was the way they destroyed UNC 3 times that year. I'll never forget Corey's wicked crossover in Chapel Hill where he all but broke some Heel defender's ankle on his way to a slam. I just loved that team and have to rank them as the best Duke squad of all time.

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

http://www.dukeupdate.com/Seasons/20012002_duke_blue_devils.htm

my favorite team and against Indiana - my least favorite Duke game ever... I hope we get a team that can put points on the board like that again.

[DUKIE V(A)]

JWill 2001-02 lighting up Kentucky in a 95-92 win has to be one of the great Duke performances (by an individual) of all-time.

[sagegrouse]

I voted '99 based solely on what I thought the original question was going for: "Best Team" (i.e. most talented, most dominant). I loved the '86 team and the Christian/Bobby/Grant teams tremendously. But watching that 1999 squad cut a gaping swath through the ACC was just a thing of beauty and power that I can't ignore. I still think that was the best college team I've ever seen. Perhaps a part of my love and admiration for that team was the way they destroyed UNC 3 times that year. I'll never forget Corey's wicked crossover in Chapel Hill where he all but broke some Heel defender's ankle on his way to a slam. I just loved that team and have to rank them as the best Duke squad of all time.

As a point of rebuttal t dominance in the ACC, I have four words for you: Antawn. Jamison. Vince. Carter. All of the above left early after the 1998 season.

As I have posted elsewhere, player by player and team by team, I favor 1992 and 2001 over 1999.

The 1992 team has three jerseys in the rafters. The 2001 team has (when healthy) four very, very good NBA players still playing plus JWill.

1999 was a young team with only one senior and one junior. K would never rate that team superior to 1992.

1999 did not have a penetrating playmaker comparable to Bobby Hurley or JWill, which proved to be a problem in the finals.

Also, the St. Pete FF was a very disappointing experience, and I am not holding myself responsible.

sagegrouse

[turnandburn55]

These are great discussions, because the teams are separated by so little - as mentioned above, if any of the following had happened: Bobby misses his shot against UNLV, Christian misses his shot against Kentucky, the team isn't gassed in the last 5 minutes of the '86 title game, or Trajan pulls out the win in '99, and our perceptions would be totally different.

Or if Jason Williams hits the last-second free throw against Indiana in '02...

Or if Luol Deng had managed to secure the rebound against Emeka Okafor in '04 with 30 seconds left...

It all comes down to poise. The Battier-led 2001 team had that in spades... for such a dominant team, they played a ton of close games, and after a miscue or two against Stanford and UNC, they always seemed to find a way to overcome adversity and close out tough games... in my book, that puts them ahead of the 1999 team for that alone.

[vlove]

by a whisker, I'll give the nod to the 92 squad, based on a criteria of who I think would win a hypothetical mathcup between them & 99 (or 86 for that matter). It's hard to envision that squad going down to defeat to anyone (even with the miracle needed against Kentucky), while unfort. with 86 & 99 I have miles of destroyed videotape proving their mortality.

One play I can think of that sums up the 92 squad perfectly was from the 2nd round NCAA tourney game against Iowa. Laettner gets called for a charge in the first half wiping out a fast break dunk, yet instead of turning to the ref to complain or throwing his arms in the air wondering what he did wrong, he turns to a teammate (Tony Lang I think) with a huge grin on his face & high fives him. That act was far more damaging to the opposition psyche than any 2 points could have been- it was basiclly "who cares if I got the foul & the basket is waved off, you know we're going to win anyway & I just dunked on you".

86 was a great, great team that won a then-record number of games & rose to the top of the ACC during what I would probably consider the conference's greatest era ever when you consider the other players in the conference coming through that time.

99 was a brutal juggernaut that absolutely annihilated its opposition, including some laughers against very talented Depaul & Maryland squads (ironically, the UMD "hostility" towards all things Duke really spawned from this season, for whatever reason). Unfort. in their biggest game everyone outside of Trajan & Elton collectively had probably their worst games of the season. To this day I probably have more "what-ifs" regarding this team- what if Shane hit a couple early open looks from 3 in the first half, what if C-Well & Avery were able to stay in front of Hamilton & El-Amin a little better, what if Avery brought the ball up instead of Trajan, what if the refs ignored Calhouns calls for a 3-second lane violation against Elton every time down the court... 10 years later its still depressing :(

[Troublemaker]

'92.

Mass underclass defections to the NBA didn't begin until '93/'94/'95 with guys like Webber, Hardaway, Stackhouse, and Wallace setting the trend. The high school to NBA trend didn't exist until after Garnett laid the groundwork in '95 with his jump.

The level of competition in the early 90's was just different.

Imagine if Greg Oden were ten times better and stayed until he was a senior. That was Alonzo Mourning. Now imagine if he had a clone playing alongside himself; that was Dikembe Mutombo. Now, imagine if Oden were 100 times better and stayed until he was a junior. That was Shaq. Beasley staying 4 years? That was LJ. Derrick Rose as a sophomore? Kenny Anderson.

Those things just don't happen anymore, and they didn't happen 10 years ago, either. Mateen Cleaves was a first-team All-American in 1999. Evan Eschemeyer, Chris Porter and Trajan Langon were second-team.

Love the '99 team. But they rolled an extremely weak ACC and nation to look more dominant than they really were.

Hurley > Avery
THill > Langdon
BD > Cwell
GHill > Battier
Laettner > Brand