PDA

View Full Version : Recruiting homerun



Dopeshop
06-25-2009, 09:51 AM
I gloried in the days when Duke was in the mix for just about all the top players,went head to head with the best prograns and came out #1 a lot of the time . Times have changed ,the "one and done " problem is serious,but I'd wish so much Duke could land a top 5 player with the accompanying fanfare....
I thought we had a real boost when Kobe and LaBron declared that had they gone to college ,Coach K would be the coach for them. Is there anything on the horizon that might qualify as a recruiting coup ? Just lamenting...

CDu
06-25-2009, 09:56 AM
I gloried in the days when Duke was in the mix for just about all the top players,went head to head with the best prograns and came out #1 a lot of the time . Times have changed ,the "one and done " problem is serious,but I'd wish so much Duke could land a top 5 player with the accompanying fanfare....
I thought we had a real boost when Kobe and LaBron declared that had they gone to college ,Coach K would be the coach for them. Is there anything on the horizon that might qualify as a recruiting coup ? Just lamenting...

The hope is that we land two of those for the 2010 class in Knight and Barnes. Irving might qualify as well. And we already have Dawkins, who is a top-tier prospect. But getting Barnes would be taht top-5 player you're looking for. And getting Knight (or maybe Irving) would be a similar boon.

As for this year's class, maybe Plumlee or Kelly will surprise folks and emerge from the 15-25 territory into the top-5. But either way, next year's recruiting class (which is still very much a work in progress) is a HUGE step for Duke. I think they need to land at least one of those three guys I mentioned, if not two (they won't get all three because Irving and Knight are substitutes).

JG Nothing
06-25-2009, 11:47 AM
I gloried in the days when Duke was in the mix for just about all the top players,went head to head with the best prograns and came out #1 a lot of the time . Times have changed ,the "one and done " problem is serious,but I'd wish so much Duke could land a top 5 player with the accompanying fanfare....
I thought we had a real boost when Kobe and LaBron declared that had they gone to college ,Coach K would be the coach for them. Is there anything on the horizon that might qualify as a recruiting coup ? Just lamenting...

IIRC, Deng, Livingston, McRoberts, and Singler were all widely regarded as top five recruits. All were recruited within the past five years.

Classof06
06-25-2009, 11:51 AM
One cannot deny that Duke is simply not getting the same type of players it has gotten in the past. The reality is that with the "one-and-done" rule and other factors, the landscape of college basketball has changed. And, based on what I've seen, kids simply don't want to go to Duke like they did 5-10 years ago. Kids like Jon Brockman, Branden Wright, Patrick Patterson, Greg Monroe and Kenny Boynton are kids Duke probably would've landed five, six years ago, no problem. That is obviously not the case anymore.

The fact that we went after John Wall was, in my opinion, a clear admission of desparation on Kryzyzewski's part. There's just no way Duke would've touched that kid as recently as one or two years ago. Not a chance.

When you look at the aforementioned facts and combine that with the transfers (Thompson, Boateng, Boykin, King), the early departures (Randolph, McRoberts, Pocius) and the recruiting misses (the transfers, Zoubek, Thomas and Paulus in my opinion), one just can't overlook the issues, no matter how royal blue one's glasses may be tinted.

I agree with CDu that the 2010 recruiting class will serve as the ultimate referendum on where exactly this thing is headed. But right now, things are certainly not peachy. I know a lot of people on here don't want to read or hear that but it is what it is.

jimsumner
06-25-2009, 12:02 PM
"IIRC, Deng, Livingston, McRoberts, and Singler were all widely regarded as top five recruits. All were recruited within the past five years. "

Time sure does fly when you're having fun. Deng and Livingston both fall outside the five-year window. Deng, in fact signed his LOI with Duke in the fall of 2002, Livingston in the fall of 2003.

McRoberts and Singler were indeed consensus top-5 picks. Gerald Henderson wasn't but he's about eight hours away from being an NBA lottery pick.

roywhite
06-25-2009, 12:02 PM
One cannot deny that Duke is simply not getting the same type of players it has gotten in the past. The reality is that with the "one-and-done" rule and other factors, the landscape of college basketball has changed. And, based on what I've seen, kids simply don't want to go to Duke like they did 5-10 years ago. Kids like Jon Brockman, Branden Wright, Patrick Patterson, Greg Monroe and Kenny Boynton are kids Duke probably would've landed five, six years ago, no problem. That is obviously not the case anymore.

The fact that we went after John Wall was, in my opinion, a clear admission of desparation on Kryzyzewski's part. There's just no way Duke would've touched that kid as recently as one or two years ago. Not a chance.

When you look at the aforementioned facts and combine that with the transfers (Thompson, Boateng, Boykin, King), the early departures (Randolph, McRoberts, Pocius) and the recruiting misses (the transfers, Zoubek, Thomas and Paulus in my opinion), one just can't overlook the issues, no matter how royal blue one's glasses may be tinted.

I agree with CDu that the 2010 recruiting class will serve as the ultimate referendum on where exactly this thing is headed. But right now, things are certainly not peachy. I know a lot of people on here don't want to read or hear that but it is what it is.

We have competition for top recruits, but get our share. McRoberts and Singler were both top 10 rated, or even top 5. Nolan Smith was ranked in the top 10 on many lists, and Elliot Williams in the top 20. Harrison Barnes is rated as #1 or certainly top 5 in the class of 2010, with Duke receiving strong consideration. Brandon Knight is also ranked in the top 5, and Kyrie Irving in the top 20; both are considering Duke. Commit Andre Dawkins is ranked in the top 20 on some lists.

As to Kenny Boynton, he was beaten out for the U-19 team by Seth Curry...that's Seth Curry of Duke.

The recruiting well has hardly run dry.

jimsumner
06-25-2009, 12:11 PM
Let me follow-up on my Henderson reference. I'm not sure why top five is such a magical number. Grant Hill was a third-team Parade All-America. Most recruiting gurus ranked Hill well behind Darrin Hancock. Yes, that Darrin Hancock.

Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, Christian Laettner, Bobby Hurley, J.J. Redick, and Shelden Williams were not consensus top fives, not even consensus top tens.

Forty-eight hours ago Duke was a consensus pre-season top-five. Because of an unusual and quite unfortunate set of circumstances, that status has changed. And not because of recruiting failures.

Wander
06-25-2009, 12:22 PM
We have competition for top recruits, but get our share. McRoberts and Singler were both top 10 rated, or even top 5. Nolan Smith was ranked in the top 10 on many lists, and Elliot Williams in the top 20. Harrison Barnes is rated as #1 or certainly top 5 in the class of 2010, with Duke receiving strong consideration. Brandon Knight is also ranked in the top 5, and Kyrie Irving in the top 20; both are considering Duke. Commit Andre Dawkins is ranked in the top 20 on some lists.

As to Kenny Boynton, he was beaten out for the U-19 team by Seth Curry...that's Seth Curry of Duke.

The recruiting well has hardly run dry.


As I said in earlier, I believe we have only one player on the team who was in the Top 20 of their class. I could be wrong, but we certainly only have one who was in the Top 10. And he's completely lived up to expectations (I would say exceeded). We had another last year, and he also was quite good.

My point is that the truly elite recruits we're getting are doing just fine. We just haven't landed enough of them the past few years.

Wander
06-25-2009, 12:26 PM
Because of an unusual and quite unfortunate set of circumstances, that status has changed. And not because of recruiting failures.

It's called making your own luck. You don't get yourself into a situation where you only have three guards on the roster, because (a) it sucks to only have three guards on the roster and (b) you never know when something crazy and uncontrollable can happen, like a season ending injury or a transfer for non-basketball reasons.

I'm not on the "our recruiting sucks" bandwagon because I think our 2010 class will be great, but recruiting failures are EXACTLY the reason we're in the position that we're in (specifically, Boynton, Bledsoe, Wall).

NSDukeFan
06-25-2009, 12:45 PM
Let me follow-up on my Henderson reference. I'm not sure why top five is such a magical number. Grant Hill was a third-team Parade All-America. Most recruiting gurus ranked Hill well behind Darrin Hancock. Yes, that Darrin Hancock.

Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, Christian Laettner, Bobby Hurley, J.J. Redick, and Shelden Williams were not consensus top fives, not even consensus top tens.

Forty-eight hours ago Duke was a consensus pre-season top-five. Because of an unusual and quite unfortunate set of circumstances, that status has changed. And not because of recruiting failures.

POTD in my mind. Thanks for the perspective and the reminder of where our previous stars came from. We have a couple of players coming in this year who were ranked in the top 20 by some recruiting "experts". Hopefully, they will eventually turn out to be great players, as well.

roywhite
06-25-2009, 12:50 PM
As I said in earlier, I believe we have only one player on the team who was in the Top 20 of their class. I could be wrong, but we certainly only have one who was in the Top 10. And he's completely lived up to expectations (I would say exceeded). We had another last year, and he also was quite good.

My point is that the truly elite recruits we're getting are doing just fine. We just haven't landed enough of them the past few years.

Okay, let's try to be accurate here, if you'll accept this source, which is a composite of the ranking services. http://rscihoops.com/

The number of top 20 recruits on our 2009-10 roster is 5.

That includes:

HS Class 2009
Ryan Kelly #14
Mason Plumlee #18

HS Class 2007
Kyle Singler #5
Nolan Smith #19

HS Class 2006
Lance Thomas #20


In addition, there are 4 other top 20 players who have been on recent Duke rosters.

Elliot Williams #15 in Class of 2008, Gerald Henderson #10 in Class of 2006, Josh McRoberts #1 in Class of 2005, and Greg Paulus #13 in Class of 2005.

I haven't counted the number of top 20 recruits during this period for UNC, Kansas, or other schools, but Duke's total would have to be one of the highest.

The class of 2010 is also likely to have some consensus top 20 recruits who go to Duke.

Kfanarmy
06-25-2009, 12:53 PM
and the recruiting misses (the transfers, Zoubek, Thomas and Paulus in my opinion)

I don't consider any of these guys misses...Zoubek has had injury issues and has had a short tether. Had he stayed healthy, both players likely would've had exceptional seasons last year...Paulus' numbers before the past year suggest he wasn't a miss in any case.

jimsumner
06-25-2009, 01:03 PM
"As I said in earlier, I believe we have only one player on the team who was in the Top 20 of their class. I could be wrong"

You are wrong. The RSCI site gives consensus rankings of recruits.

Class of 2009 Ryan Kelly 14 Mason Plumlee 18

Class of 2008 Elliott Williams 15, Olek Czyz 66 Miles Plumlee 81

Class of 2007 Kyle Singler 5, Nolan Smith 19, Taylor King 24

Class of 2006 Gerald Henderson 10, Lance Thomas 20, Brian Zoubek 25, Jon Scheyer 28; note that Scheyer's ranking was skewed by one outlier, who inexplicably ranked him 71st.

So, in the last four years, Duke has recruited 2 top 10s, 7 top 20s, and 10 top 30s. For a variety of reasons, Duke has lost seven years of eligibilty from this group, one from Henderson, three from King, three from Williams.

No, Duke didn't sign everybody they recruited. So, I guess in fantasy land, that constitutes "failure." Duke had three elite guards for next year's team but "failed" to recruit a fourth for next season as a hedge that one of them would have a family member become gravely ill. Because, who couldn't see that one coming.

Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps one of the reasons Boynton and McDonald turned down Duke is because they saw Smith, Scheyer, and Williams on the roster and wondered where their PT was coming from?

And does anyone think it strange that we're arguing about this stuff when a member of the Duke community has a family member facing a grave illness? Some things are more important than ACC hoops. I hope we don't lose sight of this.

NSDukeFan
06-25-2009, 01:04 PM
Okay, let's try to be accurate here, if you'll accept this source, which is a composite of the ranking services. http://rscihoops.com/

The number of top 20 recruits on our 2009-10 roster is 5.

That includes:

HS Class 2009
Ryan Kelly #14
Mason Plumlee #18

HS Class 2007
Kyle Singler #5
Nolan Smith #19

HS Class 2006
Lance Thomas #20


In addition, there are 4 other top 20 players who have been on recent Duke rosters.

Elliot Williams #15 in Class of 2008, Gerald Henderson #10 in Class of 2006, Josh McRoberts #1 in Class of 2005, and Greg Paulus #13 in Class of 2005.

I haven't counted the number of top 20 recruits during this period for UNC, Kansas, or other schools, but Duke's total would have to be one of the highest.

The class of 2010 is also likely to have some consensus top 20 recruits who go to Duke.

Thanks for that. I looked on Scout and Rivals sites, but couldn't remember the site where they had the composite rankings.
Are there 5 teams in the country who wouldn't love to have that kind of talent? (I could also add and have the olympic coach and legend coaching the team?) And 20 that even though unbalanced still wouldn't love to have our line-up? My quick answer without studying every team, including the mid-majors:p, would be an no.

airowe
06-25-2009, 01:07 PM
I'm not on the "our recruiting sucks" bandwagon because I think our 2010 class will be great, but recruiting failures are EXACTLY the reason we're in the position that we're in (specifically, Boynton, Bledsoe, Wall).

How is Bledsoe a recruiting failure if we never offered him?

While I agree we haven't had the top recruiting class in any of the past couple of years, it appears the coaching staff has adjusted their recruiting strategy and has cast a much wider net than in recent memory. We have offered a number of the top players in the '10-'11 class and have secured 3 quality recruits.

While I'm admittedly optimistic about this year's team, I don't believe we are a Final Four team. This will mark the first time in K's tenure that Duke has not been to a Final Four in a five-year period and I trust in the staff to not let that gap last much longer.

Scorp4me
06-25-2009, 01:17 PM
How many wins did we have last year? Who won the ACC? Come on guys, if K wants to try to get it done (and he has been) by avoiding the high profile players and the one and dones then it's fine with me. In fact I'm disappointed he recruited someone who said he was only around for a year. As far as I'm concerned he can stay away from them, give me a John Scheyers or even Greg Paulus any day.

Wander
06-25-2009, 01:20 PM
Okay, let's try to be accurate here, if you'll accept this source, which is a composite of the ranking services. http://rscihoops.com/

Sounds good to me - just so you know I didn't pull that stat out of thin air, I looked at rivals, which has:

Lance: #42

Nolan: #39
Singler: #5

Kelley: #20 (missed him)
Plumlee: #55

My point was never that our recruiting has been bad recently. Just that we only have one truly elite recruit on this year's team. I agree we've had other elite recruits recently, and will have more in the near future.

Wander
06-25-2009, 01:31 PM
jimsumner;301086Duke had three elite guards for next year's team but "failed" to recruit a fourth for next season as a hedge that one of them would have a family member become gravely ill. Because, who couldn't see that one coming.

Once again, it's called making your own luck. It's a bad idea to only have three guards on your roster, no matter how elite they are (and I don't think Nolan or Elliot have earned the right to be called elite college guards yet, though that could very well change this season).

It's also called "depth." Depth isn't just about being able to play at a Roy Williams pace, it's also about minimizing damage done if something unexpected happens to one of your players and they can't play for some/all of the season. Of course it's not anyone's fault that Elliot's mom is sick, and I think he made the right decision in moving closer to home. But it absolutely is the coaches' fault that we were in a situation where an unexpected departure did pretty close to the maximum amount of possible damage to the basketball team.

I'm not worried about the program because, as I've said, we look to have a great class in 2010. I am worried about this particular season.

Wander
06-25-2009, 02:18 PM
Also just FYI (tried to edit this in, but too late), unlike many, I don't think we need any changes at all on the staff. Just that they screwed up this one particular instance. As most have pointed out, the next few years after 09-10 look fantastic.

CDu
06-25-2009, 02:49 PM
Also just FYI (tried to edit this in, but too late), unlike many, I don't think we need any changes at all on the staff. Just that they screwed up this one particular instance. As most have pointed out, the next few years after 09-10 look fantastic.

Agree wholeheartedly. They missed on a few guys that would have been great gets at guard for the incoming class, got bad news with Pocius choosing not to return for his last year of eligibility, and Williams leaving due to unforeseen reasons.

Even great programs can make mistakes. This year just happened to be one, where they got caught unprepared. I don't see it as necessarily a systemic problem. But I do think it was a case where they were unprepared.

Next year's class is already very good and may get spectacular if we add Barnes and Knight/Irving to Curry, Dawkins, et al.

Devil in the Blue Dress
06-25-2009, 03:23 PM
"As I said in earlier, I believe we have only one player on the team who was in the Top 20 of their class. I could be wrong"

You are wrong. The RSCI site gives consensus rankings of recruits.

Class of 2009 Ryan Kelly 14 Mason Plumlee 18

Class of 2008 Elliott Williams 15, Olek Czyz 66 Miles Plumlee 81

Class of 2007 Kyle Singler 5, Nolan Smith 19, Taylor King 24

Class of 2006 Gerald Henderson 10, Lance Thomas 20, Brian Zoubek 25, Jon Scheyer 28; note that Scheyer's ranking was skewed by one outlier, who inexplicably ranked him 71st.

So, in the last four years, Duke has recruited 2 top 10s, 7 top 20s, and 10 top 30s. For a variety of reasons, Duke has lost seven years of eligibilty from this group, one from Henderson, three from King, three from Williams.

No, Duke didn't sign everybody they recruited. So, I guess in fantasy land, that constitutes "failure." Duke had three elite guards for next year's team but "failed" to recruit a fourth for next season as a hedge that one of them would have a family member become gravely ill. Because, who couldn't see that one coming.

Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps one of the reasons Boynton and McDonald turned down Duke is because they saw Smith, Scheyer, and Williams on the roster and wondered where their PT was coming from?

And does anyone think it strange that we're arguing about this stuff when a member of the Duke community has a family member facing a grave illness? Some things are more important than ACC hoops. I hope we don't lose sight of this.

Jim, you have a way with words and your knowledge of Duke's athletic programs is impressive and out of the ordinary. You are absolutely right to focus our attention on what's really important. I look forward to seeing you when the football season cranks up in a few short weeks.

SupaDave
06-25-2009, 03:29 PM
Once again, it's called making your own luck. It's a bad idea to only have three guards on your roster, no matter how elite they are (and I don't think Nolan or Elliot have earned the right to be called elite college guards yet, though that could very well change this season).

It's also called "depth." Depth isn't just about being able to play at a Roy Williams pace, it's also about minimizing damage done if something unexpected happens to one of your players and they can't play for some/all of the season. Of course it's not anyone's fault that Elliot's mom is sick, and I think he made the right decision in moving closer to home. But it absolutely is the coaches' fault that we were in a situation where an unexpected departure did pretty close to the maximum amount of possible damage to the basketball team.

I'm not worried about the program because, as I've said, we look to have a great class in 2010. I am worried about this particular season.

You totally missed the point Jim was making. With more experienced players on the roster who would have most definitely beat out Boynton and the rest this year for playing, what "elite" recruit wants to wait on the bench? Every recruit we've lost we've pretty much loss to immediate playing time...

DevilCastDownfromDurham
06-25-2009, 03:37 PM
Every recruit we've lost we've pretty much loss to immediate playing time...

I don't think John Wall was afraid of earning minutes on a team with 2 guards and a wing. I don't think Bledsoe was scared off by Nolan Smith. I don't think Patterson, Monroe, et al were scared off by the giant hole in the paint that we've had since Shel hung his jersey up in the rafters. There's a great conversation to be had about why we've whiffed on so many recruits since 2004, but I don't think "playing time" was a serious factor for any top 25 recruit, especially the 1 and 5 guys that we've had a desperate need for over the past few seasons.

theAlaskanBear
06-25-2009, 03:46 PM
The original poster mentioned the Olympics, so I thought I would broach that topic. I think the olympic experience will reap dividends for Duke recruiting, but it is going to take a few years for next crop of basketball players to mature and graduate. I just dont think the the olympics is that big of a deal to 17-18 yr olds alreay looking at schools.Its a big deal with older folks who remember the first NBA-player olympics, and maybe it will make a much bigger difference with the players just a couple years younger? Who knows.

That said, would be unethical to have someone like Kobe at our practice/training facilities when high profile recruit drops by? ;)

Honestly I just think we are in an outlier year. It is impossible for elite programs to not have off years. Hell, we even won the ACC last year...just goes to show you hgow high expectations are. I mean even programs like Carolina have had to suffer through the Guthridge, Dougherty years. Next year could be a down year, or it could be a surprisingly good year. With players like Curry and Dawkins in the pipeline, a little bit of patience in order

jimsumner
06-25-2009, 03:46 PM
I think we need to dispell the suggestion that Duke somehow missed on Eric Bledsoe. There was some mutual interest but lots of Duke fans got their hopes up based on a quote from Bledsoe about Duke being his favorite school growing up. It seemed like there might be a chance.

But the young man's academic profile was such that Duke simply could not recruit him. Nate James saw Bledsoe play and there was some additional contact. But Bledsoe never visited Duke, he was not offered a scholarship, and I don't believe he and Krzyzewski have ever met, although I could be wrong on the last point.

It simply makes no sense to lump Bledsoe in with Boynton or Patterson as Duke misses.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
06-25-2009, 04:08 PM
I think we need to dispell the suggestion that Duke somehow missed on Eric Bledsoe. There was some mutual interest but lots of Duke fans got their hopes up based on a quote from Bledsoe about Duke being his favorite school growing up. It seemed like there might be a chance.

But the young man's academic profile was such that Duke simply could not recruit him. Nate James saw Bledsoe play and there was some additional contact. But Bledsoe never visited Duke, he was not offered a scholarship, and I don't believe he and Krzyzewski have ever met, although I could be wrong on the last point.

It simply makes no sense to lump Bledsoe in with Boynton or Patterson as Duke misses.

That's definitely a fair point, and I'm certainly guilty of hoping for a way to bring in a PG as good as Bledsoe for a team that was already in pretty dire straits at the 1. I still very much stand by the idea that none of our recruiting misses have been because a five star recruit was just so terrified of having to beat out the guys we had. As Kyle and Elliot have shown, great players will play early and often in K's system. And every 5 star recruit thinks they are a great player.

JasonEvans
06-25-2009, 04:19 PM
I looked at rivals, which has:

(snip)

Plumlee: #55

Ummm, wow. What a joke of a ranking. That is a real outlier from everyone else who rank him as one of the 20 elite recruits in the land.

--Jason "if Mason does not play 20+ mins/game next year, I will be quite surprised" Evans

jimsumner
06-25-2009, 04:32 PM
The RSCI http://rscihoops.com/ averages seven recruiting services to produce a consensus ranking. Six of the seven rank McDonald's and Parade All-American Mason Plumlee from 10 to 21 and he averages out to the consensus # 18 recruit.

So, I'm curious why a poster would choose to list the one service that ranks him not so high over the six services that do consider Plumlee to be an elite prospect.

miramar
06-25-2009, 04:54 PM
It's easy to drive yourself crazy with recruiting rankings, but as the website says:

RSCI is pronounced "risky" because drawing definitive conclusion from any such rankings is, indeed, "risky" at best.

jimsumner
06-25-2009, 05:01 PM
"RSCI is pronounced "risky" because drawing definitive conclusion from any such rankings is, indeed, "risky" at best."

Sure. But if one is inclined to draw even a tentative conclusion, wouldn't one be more accurate using an average of a number of sources rather than cherry-picking the one that supports one's view-point?

dball
06-25-2009, 05:14 PM
Grant Hill was a third-team Parade All-America. Most recruiting gurus ranked Hill well behind Darrin Hancock. Yes, that Darrin Hancock.


Yeah, remember how much it hurt losing a great recruit like DH, especially to Huckleberry Hound. Jayhawks' coach Roy Williams stated that, "Darrin is one of the best athletes in the nation and he will be one of the best athletes ever to put on a Kansas uniform."

Hancock averaged 7.5 pts in the 92-93 season. That was Hancock's only college season. He signed with UNLV (surprise!) but was academically ineligible and went to Junior College for two years before playing the one year at Kansas.

But, in all seriousness, he was a great high school player.

dukeimac
06-25-2009, 05:16 PM
It is not no such what they come in rated at but what you do with them after they get here.

Both the coaches and players have to be committed. And that is what the problem is with today's players.

Back in the day, Hurley, Grant, etc. might have come in rated high but they played 4 years, committed, before they left. Thus the rating wasn't so much of a deal and the coaches could work with them.

Today, just about any kid rated in the top 20 or 25 is looking at the pros and how they can get there the quickest. Coaches can't get them to focus on what they need to do now, the players think about tomorrow. How much playing time they will get, how their game fits the NBA, etc.

The biggest evidence of this is Wall. He chose Kentucky because Cali will coach him for the pros while Coach K coaches for the college game with work on their pro game.

Thus rankings of players is like ranking the top 25 teams. All BS. Duke has been ranked pretty nicely going into the NCAAs the last 3 years and where did they end up, no where near their ranking. I don't care who is ranked #1, that team needs to win it all to be #1 or the player that is ranked #1 he needs to help his team win it all. If they don't it doesn't really matter.

Oriole Way
06-25-2009, 06:24 PM
Agree wholeheartedly. They missed on a few guys that would have been great gets at guard for the incoming class, got bad news with Pocius choosing not to return for his last year of eligibility, and Williams leaving due to unforeseen reasons.

Even great programs can make mistakes. This year just happened to be one, where they got caught unprepared. I don't see it as necessarily a systemic problem. But I do think it was a case where they were unprepared.

Next year's class is already very good and may get spectacular if we add Barnes and Knight/Irving to Curry, Dawkins, et al.

I agree that our recruiting is looking significantly better with the 2010 class, and that this guard shortage next season is a result of some bad luck. But I do think there's been a systemic problem with recruiting, and I also think that Duke's precarious roster for next season is partly a result of an inferior recruiting effort over the past 3 or 4 seasons.

One problem with our recruiting, which I would consider systemic up to a point, is Coach K's tendency to go hard after one player and not have a backup plan, when a backup plan would make sense not only in terms of helping the team, but creating depth in case of injuries or transfers.

The way he went after Patrick Patterson, Greg Monroe, and Kenny Boynton as if there were no other players in their class capable of making an impact for Duke is troubling to me, and I think it was a mistake. I understand there were other guys like Greg Echenique who also passed on Duke, but it has seemed to me for several seasons that Duke hasn't cast a wide enough net for recruits that could address areas of need. I have a hard time believing that no one at all wants to come to Duke. What I do believe is that K's Olympic committment has seriously hurt the program because some indeterminant amount of focus and time has been diverted away from the Duke program over the past 3+ seasons.

The all-or-nothing approach to the top recuits, in my opinion, has hurt. Who knows whether the Olympic gig has contributed to the staff's reluctance to explore other options, but I think it's reasonable to second guess when such a time-consuming process (coaching Team USA) has directly coincided with a lull in recruiting, poor regular season finishes, and early exits from the NCAA tournament.

jimsumner
06-25-2009, 06:56 PM
"The way he went after Patrick Patterson, Greg Monroe, and Kenny Boynton as if there were no other players in their class capable of making an impact for Duke is troubling to me, and I think it was a mistake."

For the life of me, I do not understand why Patterson's name keeps coming up in this context.

The first big man Duke looked at in this class was Blake Griffin. Duke saw him in some spring events, liked him a great deal, and made initial contacts that he would be their top priority at the post. But Griffin already had a brother at Oklahoma and he committed to the Sooners fairly early in the process.

Duke then focused on Kevin Love and Gary Johnson. Duke and Love came to a parting of ways for a variety of reasons and Love was off the table. Johnson was an under-sized post but a tough, inside competitor. But he committed to Texas.

By this point, Duke had signed Kyle Singler, Nolan Smith, and Taylor King but still had hopes of filling out the class with a post player. Patterson was the only player available in the spring of 2007 who fit Duke's needs. Duke made inroads, got an official visit and made his final three.

Patterson was the fallback.

So, exactly how did Duke consider Patterson the only post player in the country capable of making an impact? Who else should Duke have targeted in that class?

COYS
06-25-2009, 08:57 PM
The biggest evidence of this is Wall. He chose Kentucky because Cali will coach him for the pros while Coach K coaches for the college game with work on their pro game.


This is quite the faulty way of thinking, although I guess it is unfortunately very prevalent. K's players find success in the NBA at a rate far higher than virtually every other school (pay only article but basically shows that Duke has the most draft picks since the start of the lottery system and that the success rate for Duke's athletes is near the top: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/insider/news/story?id=4252038). Actually, Cal's players have generally underperformed. Derek Rose has the chance to be only the second player after Marcus Camby to meet or exceed his draft position expectations.

Oriole Way
06-26-2009, 12:36 AM
"The way he went after Patrick Patterson, Greg Monroe, and Kenny Boynton as if there were no other players in their class capable of making an impact for Duke is troubling to me, and I think it was a mistake."

For the life of me, I do not understand why Patterson's name keeps coming up in this context.

The first big man Duke looked at in this class was Blake Griffin. Duke saw him in some spring events, liked him a great deal, and made initial contacts that he would be their top priority at the post. But Griffin already had a brother at Oklahoma and he committed to the Sooners fairly early in the process.

Duke then focused on Kevin Love and Gary Johnson. Duke and Love came to a parting of ways for a variety of reasons and Love was off the table. Johnson was an under-sized post but a tough, inside competitor. But he committed to Texas.

By this point, Duke had signed Kyle Singler, Nolan Smith, and Taylor King but still had hopes of filling out the class with a post player. Patterson was the only player available in the spring of 2007 who fit Duke's needs. Duke made inroads, got an official visit and made his final three.

Patterson was the fallback.

So, exactly how did Duke consider Patterson the only post player in the country capable of making an impact? Who else should Duke have targeted in that class?

My point is that the staff didn't identify enough power forward prospects in that class. You mentioning just 4 players total would seem to validate my thinking.

Many posters on this board have been clamoring for an athletic, back-to-the-basket power forward for years, including around the time of Patterson's recruitment. It should have been more of a priority to get a player of Patterson's style of play, to the point where it shouldn't have come to Patterson being a "fallback" - a term you use which is confusing to me, because Patterson was an important recruit for Duke and many of us were hoping he would choose Duke throughout a rather publicized recruiting process. I distinctly remember Taylor King talking about selling Patterson on coming to Duke during the McDonald's AA game competitions. Just because Duke entered the picture later than Florida, and just because he announced late in the signing period, didn't make Patterson a fallback.

As I mentioned, Duke should have identified a broader group of power forwards to pursue in that class, with the goal of securing at least one commitment. You mentioned 3 other guys, one of which had a brother already playing on another team and another who had handlers/meddling relatives and issues which came along with them - in other words, they were never serious targets past the initial stages. The problem is that the coaching staff's mentality seemed to mirror your very summary of the situation - "Griffin's following his brother, can't get him... Love's dad is a problem and they want to be bigger than the program, no thanks... Damn, Patterson made a mistake and chose Kentucky... Oh well, we've already got Singler, Smith, and King, we're good to go!" Obviously, I have no idea exactly how many prospects the staff looked at, but based on all the recruiting information we had about kids the staff was looking at, we didn't make enough of an effort to identify other PF's. We should have been involved with at least a handful of additional prospects from the beginning of the recruiting period.

That same propensity to recruit only one or two players has now seemingly applied to guards in subsequent seasons (Leslie McDonald, Kenny Boyton). If K had made it a priority to have secondary options to McDonald and Boyton (for depth, the way he has apparently recruited Tyler Thornton, for example), we wouldn't be in such a dire situation right now.

COYS
06-26-2009, 01:52 AM
That same propensity to recruit only one or two players has now seemingly applied to guards in subsequent seasons (Leslie McDonald, Kenny Boyton). If K had made it a priority to have secondary options to McDonald and Boyton (for depth, the way he has apparently recruited Tyler Thornton, for example), we wouldn't be in such a dire situation right now.

I certainly think you are right that it can be argued that the staff should have cast a wider net in the past few years to make certain that a few misses here and there won't handicap the team. That being said, I think it is very clear that the staff has changed its tune with regard to the class of 2010 and 2011. As for what happened in 2007, 2008, and 2009, I'm not quite convinced that the net was as small as you seem to imply. I think Jim's point was that Patterson was a miss, but he was also the 4th PF we recruited that year with guys like Love failing to pan out for a variety of reasons. I don't think that K's now seemingly older recruiting style of targeting a select few players, developing a strong relationship with them and letting that player know fully well that he has time to evaluate his options and make an informed decision without the fear of 5 other recruits grabbing all the available scholarships was a bad strategy at all. However, it does have its weaknesses in that moving on to second or third options is harder because the staff jumps into the game so late by today's recruiting standards. I think it will be interesting to see how K and the staff continue to prioritize building relationships and identifying players that will be good fits for the program while also casting a wider net and making more frequent early offers to juniors and sophomores.

Kedsy
06-26-2009, 08:37 AM
Many posters on this board have been clamoring for an athletic, back-to-the-basket power forward for years, including around the time of Patterson's recruitment. It should have been more of a priority to get a player of Patterson's style of play * * *


Yeah, K should always recruit based on what "many posters on this board" clamor for.



As I mentioned, Duke should have identified a broader group of power forwards to pursue in that class, with the goal of securing at least one commitment. You mentioned 3 other guys, one of which had a brother already playing on another team and another who had handlers/meddling relatives and issues which came along with them - in other words, they were never serious targets past the initial stages. The problem is that the coaching staff's mentality seemed to mirror your very summary of the situation - "Griffin's following his brother, can't get him... Love's dad is a problem and they want to be bigger than the program, no thanks... Damn, Patterson made a mistake and chose Kentucky... Oh well, we've already got Singler, Smith, and King, we're good to go!" Obviously, I have no idea exactly how many prospects the staff looked at, but based on all the recruiting information we had about kids the staff was looking at, we didn't make enough of an effort to identify other PF's. We should have been involved with at least a handful of additional prospects from the beginning of the recruiting period.

That same propensity to recruit only one or two players has now seemingly applied to guards in subsequent seasons (Leslie McDonald, Kenny Boyton). If K had made it a priority to have secondary options to McDonald and Boyton (for depth, the way he has apparently recruited Tyler Thornton, for example), we wouldn't be in such a dire situation right now.

Well, when you get a high-division 1 coaching job you can do things differently. No doubt you'll be able to do better than the Duke staff.

vango
06-26-2009, 09:15 AM
I agree that our recruiting is looking significantly better with the 2010 class, and that this guard shortage next season is a result of some bad luck. But I do think there's been a systemic problem with recruiting, and I also think that Duke's precarious roster for next season is partly a result of an inferior recruiting effort over the past 3 or 4 seasons.

One problem with our recruiting, which I would consider systemic up to a point, is Coach K's tendency to go hard after one player and not have a backup plan, when a backup plan would make sense not only in terms of helping the team, but creating depth in case of injuries or transfers.

The way he went after Patrick Patterson, Greg Monroe, and Kenny Boynton as if there were no other players in their class capable of making an impact for Duke is troubling to me, and I think it was a mistake. I understand there were other guys like Greg Echenique who also passed on Duke, but it has seemed to me for several seasons that Duke hasn't cast a wide enough net for recruits that could address areas of need. I have a hard time believing that no one at all wants to come to Duke. What I do believe is that K's Olympic committment has seriously hurt the program because some indeterminant amount of focus and time has been diverted away from the Duke program over the past 3+ seasons.

The all-or-nothing approach to the top recuits, in my opinion, has hurt. Who knows whether the Olympic gig has contributed to the staff's reluctance to explore other options, but I think it's reasonable to second guess when such a time-consuming process (coaching Team USA) has directly coincided with a lull in recruiting, poor regular season finishes, and early exits from the NCAA tournament.

+1. Unexpected things happen, but for a successful major college program to be left with 0 point guards and 2 shooting guards entering a season is inexcusable to me. I haven't won a national championship or recruited players and I like where we're headed for our 2010 class but something hasn't worked for us during the past couple of years. Everyone strikes out on recruits - but I have been befuddled on the inability to fill glaring holes for several years now.

I usually get beat up here for saying anything negative - and that's OK. But, I think Oriole Way is on point here.

rotogod00
06-26-2009, 09:46 AM
Let me follow-up on my Henderson reference. I'm not sure why top five is such a magical number. Grant Hill was a third-team Parade All-America. Most recruiting gurus ranked Hill well behind Darrin Hancock. Yes, that Darrin Hancock.

Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, Christian Laettner, Bobby Hurley, J.J. Redick, and Shelden Williams were not consensus top fives, not even consensus top tens.

Forty-eight hours ago Duke was a consensus pre-season top-five. Because of an unusual and quite unfortunate set of circumstances, that status has changed. And not because of recruiting failures.

where?

jimsumner
06-26-2009, 10:36 AM
"You mentioning just 4 players total would seem to validate my thinking. "

Right. I'm glad you picked up on that nuance. Some might have thought that bringing Griffin, Johnson, and Love into the discussion was somehow an attempt to refute your assertion that Duke put all of its eggs in the Patterson basket.

Oriole Way
06-26-2009, 03:37 PM
"You mentioning just 4 players total would seem to validate my thinking. "

Right. I'm glad you picked up on that nuance. Some might have thought that bringing Griffin, Johnson, and Love into the discussion was somehow an attempt to refute your assertion that Duke put all of its eggs in the Patterson basket.

And as I said (and as you also pointed out), Love and Griffin were never serious options. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Oriole Way
06-26-2009, 03:43 PM
Yeah, K should always recruit based on what "many posters on this board" clamor for.



Well, when you get a high-division 1 coaching job you can do things differently. No doubt you'll be able to do better than the Duke staff.

Not sure why I ever reply to these types of posts, but come on, this is a message board for precisely discussing these kinds of things. I'm merely sharing my thoughts on the team in the past and the future.

No, I don't expect the staff to give a damn about what I or anything else thinks. No, I don't think I could do a better job than the staff. But I reserve my right to express my opinions.

I believe my opinions are well-informed, and as someone who went to Duke and has followed the team closely for more than a decade, I also believe my perspective adds something to most discussions. If you don't respect that, I'm not sure why you're even here.

Kedsy
06-26-2009, 04:54 PM
Not sure why I ever reply to these types of posts, but come on, this is a message board for precisely discussing these kinds of things. I'm merely sharing my thoughts on the team in the past and the future.

No, I don't expect the staff to give a damn about what I or anything else thinks. No, I don't think I could do a better job than the staff. But I reserve my right to express my opinions.

I believe my opinions are well-informed, and as someone who went to Duke and has followed the team closely for more than a decade, I also believe my perspective adds something to most discussions. If you don't respect that, I'm not sure why you're even here.

I don't have any problem with anybody looking forward and posting their thoughts and opinions and concerns regarding the future of the Duke team. That's what the board is for.

However, I see no value in looking at the past and constantly finding fault and casting blame, which is what your posts seem to do more often than not.

I also don't see why my respect of your perspective should have any bearing on my own participation in the boards, although perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statement.

Owen Meany
06-26-2009, 05:25 PM
And as I said (and as you also pointed out), Love and Griffin were never serious options. We'll have to agree to disagree.


No offense intended, but you feel so strongly about your opinion that you aren't understanding what Jim is saying. You state that Coach K "went after Patrick Patterson, Greg Monroe, and Kenny Boynton as if there were no other players in their class". Jim explains that the coaches actually went after 3 other players before turning their attention to Patterson and you think that this "validates your thinking"? Four players were given real consideration for that scholarship. That is hardly putting all your eggs in one basket. Coach K does a wonderful job of identifying players who can be successful both on and off the court at Duke. The fans pride themselves on having "Duke"-type guys who can be true student-athletes. (On more than one occasion I've seen Harrison Barnes described as a "Duke Kid" from non-Duke fans). If this is to continue, then I'm not sure how much wider the "net" is going to get for 1 particular position in a give year. If you consider the top 30 players in a class (this is fair, especially since some are complaining that Duke isn't landing the "top 5" type players, once its pointed out we continue to get "top 20" guys) - that would average out to 6 players at each position. That includes the Lance Stephens of the worlds, the guys who commit to Kentucky in 8th grade, those tucked away at Laurinburg Institute by Calipari, etc. How many would truly be a good fit at Duke? I think 4 guys is pretty good, especially with Singler and King in the fold, both who would be serviceable, at least, in a pinch.


Jim never stated that the other players "were never serious targets past the initial stages." It takes time to recruit kids and to get to know them and their families. Also, kids change. For the first couple of years I read about Kevin Love he sounded like a dream come true for Duke fans - everything I read was complimentary. He also had a strong interest in Duke. Only later in the process did you begin to hear stories about his father, his ego, etc. Early on much attention was given to his close friendship with Kyle Singler. Only later did it appear that the presence of Love would be an impediment to landing Kyle rather than an inducement. I think this may have been a significant factor in why Love was eventually dropped - but it was not very early in the process.


As far as Griffin following his brother to Oklahoma goes - I would bet a fair amount of money that most players with a sibling playing major college basketball do not play at the same school. If Duke had not targeted Griffin for this reason it would have been incomprehensible.


I do think Coach K has cast a much narrower net than some coaches in the past - and I do think it costs him on occasion. But I think that he has started to widen his focus, and that going after 4 players for one position is not at all unreasonable. You can't look back in hindsight and say - well since they didn't come they were never viable options to begin with.


I also think its important to realize that Coach K's focused recruiting tactics are likely why he has been so successful in the past. How soon we forget the crowing over Redick's class when he went 6 for 6 - "choosing" rather than recruiting. Again and again recruits have mentioned that Duke only offers a select few guys and that it is an honor to be among those select few. Coach K, and the "exclusiveness" of the Duke basketball "family" are Duke's biggest draws. I don't think you can overestimate the impact this has on recruits and, perhaps more importantly, their parents. This has helped helped Duke land the "cream of the crop" recruits such as Laettner, Battier, Brand, Williams, Hill, Redick, Hurley, Singler etc (insert National Player of the Year/ First Team All American here). But there are going to be misses along the way. But all in all the coaches to a great job.


If you don't think their is such thing as a "Duke Kid", just wait around and see what happens if, God-forbid, Barnes should choose anywhere other than Duke. Despite no proclamations by Barnes himself, he has been labled a Duke kid ever since fans learned his name. He can literally chose any school he wants, all with their unique advantages (and many closer to home). But Coach K has been so successful getting this "type" of kid that it will be considered a major setback should he choose anywhere else other than Duke, regardless of his reasons. Hopefully this won't happen. Hopefully Coach K's intense focus on Barnes conveys the fact that he is Duke's guy, not just another recruit. And I hope this outweighs any other factors that may not favor Duke (recent tournament success, proximity to home, etc). I think it just might. And then when can all take his recruitment for granted (well, he's a Duke kid, K didn't really have to recruit him, etc) just like we have Singler and countless others - and move on to complaining about the one that got away.

ACCBBallFan
06-26-2009, 06:07 PM
I am not sure if it was earlier on this thread or on another thread or Duke board, but again Jim Sumner explained why the net can only be cast so widely.

The only time you want to have two open offers for guys that play the same position is if you are ambivalent as to which one accepts first.

If there is a definite picking order and your backup plan guy accepts first, that either makes your primary guy choose elsewhere, or you get both but the backup is disenchanted for being recruited over.

I doubt the kids are upset with the way coach K does it. The ones he offers they know they are his first choice. The ones his staff stays in contact know there is interest, but it is contingent on what the primary guy does so that if he goes elsewhere, they are Duke's new primary guy, and if he accepts Duke, they might prefer the PT elsewhere rather than being already committed but not much PT on horizon, given the other higher valued guy and the incumbents with experience in the Duke system.

When guys like JJ and Shelden were on the team, after Paulus and McRoberts, all you are going to get is guys like McClure and Pocius as role players. Same as point earlier made that last year Duke has G, Jon, Greg, Nolan, Elliott and Marty with only Greg gone for sure.

So it might look to the recruit that they probably sit the first year as Elliott did most of the year and then get their PT year two while many of them have a 1-3 year horizon in mind for when they jump to NBA.

Once Elliott played so well the last month, looks to recruits not already committed like he may not be the easiest guy to outplay to get PT, since Scheyer plays for sure and G may not go NBA until last minute confirmation in mid-June.

Kedsy
06-26-2009, 06:15 PM
I also believe my perspective adds something to most discussions.

Look, I don't want to start a bench clearing brouhaha, but I would like to say one more thing on this topic. In my view when you say things like "Duke is officially a mid-major team" it really doesn't add anything to the discussion whatsoever. Quite the opposite.

It is (and should be) perfectly OK to express disappointment if something like Elliot leaving happens, but there's no need to be so negative about it, is there?

HB TAYLOR
06-26-2009, 06:25 PM
One cannot deny that Duke is simply not getting the same type of players it has gotten in the past. The reality is that with the "one-and-done" rule and other factors, the landscape of college basketball has changed. And, based on what I've seen, kids simply don't want to go to Duke like they did 5-10 years ago. Kids like Jon Brockman, Branden Wright, Patrick Patterson, Greg Monroe and Kenny Boynton are kids Duke probably would've landed five, six years ago, no problem. That is obviously not the case anymore.

The fact that we went after John Wall was, in my opinion, a clear admission of desparation on Kryzyzewski's part. There's just no way Duke would've touched that kid as recently as one or two years ago. Not a chance.

When you look at the aforementioned facts and combine that with the transfers (Thompson, Boateng, Boykin, King), the early departures (Randolph, McRoberts, Pocius) and the recruiting misses (the transfers, Zoubek, Thomas and Paulus in my opinion), one just can't overlook the issues, no matter how royal blue one's glasses may be tinted.

I agree with CDu that the 2010 recruiting class will serve as the ultimate referendum on where exactly this thing is headed. But right now, things are certainly not peachy. I know a lot of people on here don't want to read or hear that but it is what it is.
You are, in my opnion, 100% right!

NSDukeFan
06-26-2009, 10:32 PM
Originally Posted by Oriole Way
I also believe my perspective adds something to most discussions.


Look, I don't want to start a bench clearing brouhaha, but I would like to say one more thing on this topic. In my view when you say things like "Duke is officially a mid-major team" it really doesn't add anything to the discussion whatsoever. Quite the opposite.

It is (and should be) perfectly OK to express disappointment if something like Elliot leaving happens, but there's no need to be so negative about it, is there?

Thank you Kedsy, I also don't want to start a brouhaha, but a combatative, negative perspective doesn't necessarily add something just by being contrarian.

COYS
06-26-2009, 11:25 PM
You are, in my opnion, 100% right!

Wow, so I guess Dawkins, Curry, Hairston, and Thornton are all going to be busts, as well. Seriously, even if we don't land anyone else for 2010, a potential lineup with Smith, Curry, Dawkins, Plumlee and Kelly is far from a catastrophe . . . and that's if Singler bolts for the NBA.

Kewlswim
06-26-2009, 11:32 PM
Wow, so I guess Dawkins, Curry, Hairston, and Thornton are all going to be busts, as well. Seriously, even if we don't land anyone else for 2010, a potential lineup with Smith, Curry, Dawkins, Plumlee and Kelly is far from a catastrophe . . . and that's if Singler bolts for the NBA.

Coys,

I think the ink is all but dry on Singler leaving after next year. I would be shocked if he stayed another year. If he does stay another year I hope it isn't because something bad happened and he was not able to play and had to stay. Let's enjoy his play next year and then rejoice if he stays another year, but understand that he may have bigger prizes on his mind--similar to what happened with G.

GO DUKE!

Oriole Way
06-27-2009, 12:31 AM
Look, I don't want to start a bench clearing brouhaha, but I would like to say one more thing on this topic. In my view when you say things like "Duke is officially a mid-major team" it really doesn't add anything to the discussion whatsoever. Quite the opposite.

It is (and should be) perfectly OK to express disappointment if something like Elliot leaving happens, but there's no need to be so negative about it, is there?

I think you took that comment a little too negatively. I honestly think our roster looks like that of a Butler or Gonzaga, in a variety of ways. That's not a slam on the program, it's simply something I never expected to see. I should have said that Duke's 2010 roster looks like that of a good mid-major team. Either way, there is potential for disaster next season if one of our two guards gets hurt.

I also don't understand why you focus on my first comment and ignore the majority of the rest of my post. I simply opened with an observation about our roster for next season.


I don't have any problem with anybody looking forward and posting their thoughts and opinions and concerns regarding the future of the Duke team. That's what the board is for.

However, I see no value in looking at the past and constantly finding fault and casting blame, which is what your posts seem to do more often than not.

I also don't see why my respect of your perspective should have any bearing on my own participation in the boards, although perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statement.

I am more critical than the average poster here, but whenever I identify problems with the program, I feel that they are justified, and I am usually providing constructive criticism with concrete solutions. For example, I was a huge critic of Coach K's roster management last season, and I specifically called for Jon Scheyer to play the point and Elliot Williams to be moved into the starting lineup when the team was struggling in the midst of ACC play. That's precisely what K wound up doing, and the team was better off for it.

In this case, I am calling for K to make two moves that will benefit the team next season and in the long run: to use a scholarship on an emergency guard this summer, and to turn down the Olympic coaching gig. Those two things have been huge themes in all my posts recently; I think they are both good courses of action to take. I'm not merely assigning blame, I'm explaining what I believe to be some problems in the past, hoping the staff learns from them (in the case of 2010's recruiting class, I believe they have started to do so) and advocating solutions. I strongly disagree with your perception of my posts.

Owen Meany: I appreciate your thoughts, and I will address your post specifically when I have some more time. I think the disagreement between Jim and I is largely a case of semantics, and/or my inability to properly articulate my criticisms of Duke's recruiting between 2005 and 2009.

El_Diablo
06-27-2009, 01:03 AM
Okay, for your "emergency guard" described above, to whom should Coach K offer a scholarship then?

I assume you have someone in mind, and that he's a better option than Jordan Davidson. And I assume you've analyzed the impact (down the road) of tying up a scholarship on this player, and you still think it's a good idea for the program. This sounds like a really great deal that this guy is available--who is he? Is he interested in playing for Duke? What are his grades like?

gep
06-27-2009, 01:04 AM
In this case, I am calling for K to make two moves that will benefit the team next season and in the long run: to use a scholarship on an emergency guard this summer, and to turn down the Olympic coaching gig.

I'd like to comment on your 2 items above.

1. There's been a bunch of opinions on an "emergency" guard... I'm on the side of not doing it... but maybe for slightly different reasons. I think it may "use up" a scholarship, since I also think that, as others have said, when Coach K commits to a recruit, he sticks with him, and doesn't do it for "one year", in which case, it will be "used up". But my thought is that will an "emergency" guard, at this point in time, be that much better than Jordan Davidson. Jordan, after all, has spend a few years in the system, knows what is expected, etc. Whereas, this "emergency" guard, has to learn everything... especially more so if he's a freshman. I guess I' a push-over for the Reggie Love, Lee Melchioni, Nick Horvath, Matt Christensen, etc stories... especially Patrick Davidson:D

2. I totally agree that with the sudden change in the situation at hand, that this is Coach K's "calling" to turn down the Olympics offer. More than ever, Duke needs every minute of Coach K's time and attention. Either way, I look forward for a very exciting, and unknown, season...:)

edit: p.s. sorry El_D... I was typing when you posted above...

Faison1
06-27-2009, 07:46 AM
Let me follow-up on my Henderson reference. I'm not sure why top five is such a magical number. Grant Hill was a third-team Parade All-America. Most recruiting gurus ranked Hill well behind Darrin Hancock. Yes, that Darrin Hancock.

Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, Christian Laettner, Bobby Hurley, J.J. Redick, and Shelden Williams were not consensus top fives, not even consensus top tens.

Forty-eight hours ago Duke was a consensus pre-season top-five. Because of an unusual and quite unfortunate set of circumstances, that status has changed. And not because of recruiting failures.

Hey Jim....please don't take this as a sign of disrespect, because I follow your posts very closely, and I ALWAYS enjoy reading your thoughts. I have often referenced your article on recruiting a couple years back, and even started a thread about it when I felt the board needed a more positive spin.

Anyway, my question to you is: throwing out rankings, do you think recruiting has been good/effective the last 5-6 years?

roywhite
06-27-2009, 07:53 AM
Hey Jim....please don't take this as a sign of disrespect, because I follow your posts very closely, and I ALWAYS enjoy reading your thoughts. I have often referenced your article on recruiting a couple years back, and even started a thread about it when I felt the board needed a more positive spin.

Anyway, my question to you is: throwing out rankings, do you think recruiting has been good/effective the last 5-6 years?

Is this a common question of teams that win 30 games?

cspan37421
06-27-2009, 08:01 AM
Hey Jim....please don't take this as a sign of disrespect, because I follow your posts very closely, and I ALWAYS enjoy reading your thoughts. I have often referenced your article on recruiting a couple years back, and even started a thread about it when I felt the board needed a more positive spin.

Anyway, my question to you is: throwing out rankings, do you think recruiting has been good/effective the last 5-6 years?

Jim can offer his own answer, but let me say I'm in his corner on this, because some seem to be mixing up recruiting success with player development. You say "ignoring rankings," but how can one judge recruiting other than by what is known about the player at the time of recruitment? If you judge them by how much they contribute 2-4 years down the road, aren't you mixing in development as a factor?

The best illustration I can think of is Greg Paulus. Out of high school he was a huge win in terms of recruiting. Based on what was known of him then, the consensus opinion, he can't possibly have been considered a recruiting "miss." That he ended up not starting for the team as a senior has nothing whatever to do with recruiting.

all the panic around here borders on "destructively negative" imo.

Faison1
06-27-2009, 08:05 AM
Is this a common question of teams that win 30 games?

I hear that argument a lot, but are you satisfied with where we are?

Faison1
06-27-2009, 08:07 AM
Jim can offer his own answer, but let me say I'm in his corner on this, because some seem to be mixing up recruiting success with player development. You say "ignoring rankings," but how can one judge recruiting other than by what is known about the player at the time of recruitment? If you judge them by how much they contribute 2-4 years down the road, aren't you mixing in development as a factor?

The best illustration I can think of is Greg Paulus. Out of high school he was a huge win in terms of recruiting. Based on what was known of him then, the consensus opinion, he can't possibly have been considered a recruiting "miss." That he ended up not starting for the team as a senior has nothing whatever to do with recruiting.

all the panic around here borders on "destructively negative" imo.

Who said anything about "panic"? I simply asked Jim a question. Recruiting is more than rankings....hence my question on effectiveness.

Devilsfan
06-27-2009, 08:58 AM
I think landing Barnes and Knight and staying home taking care of business instead of puting much of one's (Coach and his staff) focus on 2012 and the Olympics would return Duke to the top of college basketball and definitely help get the athletic moniitary contributions back to prerecession days. It's merely an assumption that gifts taper off in hard economic times.

NSDukeFan
06-27-2009, 08:59 AM
I think you took that comment a little too negatively. I honestly think our roster looks like that of a Butler or Gonzaga, in a variety of ways. That's not a slam on the program, it's simply something I never expected to see. I should have said that Duke's 2010 roster looks like that of a good mid-major team. Either way, there is potential for disaster next season if one of our two guards gets hurt.

I also don't understand why you focus on my first comment and ignore the majority of the rest of my post. I simply opened with an observation about our roster for next season.



I am more critical than the average poster here, but whenever I identify problems with the program, I feel that they are justified, and I am usually providing constructive criticism with concrete solutions. For example, I was a huge critic of Coach K's roster management last season, and I specifically called for Jon Scheyer to play the point and Elliot Williams to be moved into the starting lineup when the team was struggling in the midst of ACC play. That's precisely what K wound up doing, and the team was better off for it.

In this case, I am calling for K to make two moves that will benefit the team next season and in the long run: to use a scholarship on an emergency guard this summer, and to turn down the Olympic coaching gig. Those two things have been huge themes in all my posts recently; I think they are both good courses of action to take. I'm not merely assigning blame, I'm explaining what I believe to be some problems in the past, hoping the staff learns from them (in the case of 2010's recruiting class, I believe they have started to do so) and advocating solutions. I strongly disagree with your perception of my posts.

Owen Meany: I appreciate your thoughts, and I will address your post specifically when I have some more time. I think the disagreement between Jim and I is largely a case of semantics, and/or my inability to properly articulate my criticisms of Duke's recruiting between 2005 and 2009.

I feel bad I was a little harsh in an earlier post, as this in my opinion is a solid post. I disagree with a lot of it, but I never have a problem with constructive criticism and an explanation of a person's rationale. I agree you are more critical than most and feel there is obviously a place for contrarian comment on a discussion board. I just think that some times the comments (and this is by no means just you) can get into the destructive criticism or just complaining. I guess I am an optimist and like to also hear of solutions rather than just problems or sky is falling talk.

As to your mid-major comment, I think this post is very far from your original post as saying we are like a "mid-major" and comparing our roster to Gonzaga and Butler may be the same in your mind, but I certainly find these very far apart. Even saying we have a roster like a good mid-major isn't the same as the Zags had a roster that only a dozen to teams wouldn't have wanted to have last year, and I would guess Butler will be in a similar (top 15-18) boat this year.

I realize that some people expect Duke to be better than top 12-18 every year and in the final four every year or four at worst, and that has happened in the past, but is it realistic for that always to be the case, if players leave early, we miss on some recruits, some players need to be closer to family?

We have had some recruiting hits and misses lately, and may be a little undermanned next year to make a final four run. I think people may be a little disappointed after not being in the FF for a few years with the potential this team had next year for a final four run, but things happen, and the coaches cannot have a contingency plan for every scenario. To consistently be in the top 25, be competitive in the race for ACC supremacy, make the NCAAs and have a good chance to advance to the second weekend (which are my expectations for this year) is something that I don't think should be taken for granted.

Back to the original topic of this thread, if we hit one more homerun for the 2010 recruiting class (are Dawkins, Curry and Hairston, MP2 and Kelly all triples? or are some of them HRs) we have the chance to be in the same situation that we were this year before G and EWill left, final four favorites. And if we hit two more homeruns (Barnes and Knight or Irving) and a grandslam (Singler staying), we would likely be pre-season 1 or 2. But it is going to be fun to see how are guys develop and how K works with this team this year in the meantime.

NSDukeFan
06-27-2009, 09:01 AM
I hear that argument a lot, but are you satisfied with where we are?

but very much so, see my above post for where I think we are.

NSDukeFan
06-27-2009, 09:10 AM
I think landing Barnes and Knight and staying home taking care of business instead of puting much of one's (Coach and his staff) focus on 2012 and the Olympics would return Duke to the top of college basketball and definitely help get the athletic moniitary contributions back to prerecession days. It's merely an assumption that gifts taper off in hard economic times.

I think landing Barnes and Knight by itself would return Duke to the top of college basketball and K can decide whatever he wants for the Olympics, as he has obviously earned it and seems to be able to manage his time exceptionally well.

Devilsfan
06-27-2009, 09:29 AM
He (K) has definitely earned the right to do whatever he wants, that's a given. Splitting your coaching no matter how good you manage your time is not the best senario for Duke players, thats all. I admire Coach K and will fully support whatever he decides once he announces his intentions. He has given us so much to be proud of over his tenure at Duke.

Kedsy
06-27-2009, 08:32 PM
I strongly disagree with your perception of my posts.

You're certainly free to disagree, but I don't think I'm the only one who perceives them that way. It's not just recently, either; I have for some time considered you to be a very negative poster. Perhaps it's just a matter of style.

Scorp4me
06-27-2009, 09:31 PM
...and staying home taking care of business instead of puting much of one's (Coach and his staff) focus on 2012 and the Olympics would return Duke to the top of college basketball...

Coaching AND winning with the Olympics is a recruiting advantage that will show dividends down the road. I believe it was several of kids in the Williams/Boozer class that cited winning the championships in 91/92 as reasons they wanted to come to Duke. Things like this show up later when the 12 and 13 year olds are 18 and ready to commit to a college. That is of course assuming K stays around long enough to take advantage of it.

But the simple fact is there is only one college coach who can reap the benefits of also being the Olympic coach. If you think Roy is hot now, just wait til he joins that elite club. If K wants to coach fine, if he doesn't fine, but "staying at home and taking care of business" isn't as cut and dry as you make it out.

Cumae Sybl
06-29-2009, 11:42 AM
Wow, so I guess Dawkins, Curry, Hairston, and Thornton are all going to be busts, as well. Seriously, even if we don't land anyone else for 2010, a potential lineup with Smith, Curry, Dawkins, Plumlee and Kelly is far from a catastrophe . . . and that's if Singler bolts for the NBA.

That potential starting lineup isn't bad. But there is only 1 guard backup in Thornton, and he is not exactly gangbusters at this point. He appears to be a solid backup, but the dropoff from whoever he comes in for would be extreme at this point. And the frontline would be ok, with the Plums (who could be co-starters) and Kelly and Hairston. But, at this point, that is a group with a HUGE question mark hanging over it.

Sure, even with no additions to the current group we would be OK in 2011, but we would hardly be a national threat. We might be one of the better teams in the conference, but that really speaks more to a conference that right now can expect massive attrition after next year than to Duke raising its own level. With the lineup you mentioned, I don't see Duke as a top 10 team. Somewhere in the 10-20 range, which isn't bad, but then Duke is really just another quality team on the national landscape, and I am not happy with that.

Devilsfan
06-29-2009, 12:11 PM
Bolts? You mean applies for a job that if successful will instantly make him a very weathy individual is a better way of looking at Singler's decission, imo.

DukeBlood
06-29-2009, 12:31 PM
That potential starting lineup isn't bad. But there is only 1 guard backup in Thornton, and he is not exactly gangbusters at this point. He appears to be a solid backup, but the dropoff from whoever he comes in for would be extreme at this point. And the frontline would be ok, with the Plums (who could be co-starters) and Kelly and Hairston. But, at this point, that is a group with a HUGE question mark hanging over it.

Sure, even with no additions to the current group we would be OK in 2011, but we would hardly be a national threat. We might be one of the better teams in the conference, but that really speaks more to a conference that right now can expect massive attrition after next year than to Duke raising its own level. With the lineup you mentioned, I don't see Duke as a top 10 team. Somewhere in the 10-20 range, which isn't bad, but then Duke is really just another quality team on the national landscape, and I am not happy with that.

Smith
Curry
Dawkins/Kelly
Plumlee
Plumlee

I would be happy with a similiar line-up. Alot more bad luck would have to come Duke's way for that line-up to happen. Harrison Barnes would have to choose someone other then Duke. Kyle goes to the NBA.. and Duke doesn't land any of the other top-notch prospects. Seeing this years events unfold it is possible but look for Duke's luck to change.

I see Duke landing atleast two more recruits. One being a PG(Knight/Irving/McCallum/Jackson) and the other being Barnes/Ferguson or someone of that mold

Cumae Sybl
06-29-2009, 12:32 PM
Bolts? You mean applies for a job that if successful will instantly make him a very weathy individual is a better way of looking at Singler's decission, imo.

For Reals.

I am not sure Kyle will ever be an all star, or a high lottery pick, but, he is a first round selection, and likely 7-10 year nba player, whenever he comes out.

And realistically, next year is a good year for him to come out. After next year, draftniks will be all about what he CAN DO. After his senior year, all they will talk about is what he CAN'T DO. And that list has some key entries.

He isn't a great athlete, and may be a tweener on position. He has a high level of skill, and is very tough, but his athleticism at the NBA level is a negative. Not a huge negative, but a negative.

As other posters said, Kyle would appear to me to be all but gone next year.

Devilsfan
06-29-2009, 04:03 PM
What happened during the Barnes visit to the schools in the triangle. Lots of previsit hype then I must have missed something. How was his visit?

Cumae Sybl
06-29-2009, 04:16 PM
What happened during the Barnes visit to the schools in the triangle. Lots of previsit hype then I must have missed something. How was his visit?

Only he and the staff know how it really went. Pay sites aren't that reliable because the kids never badmouth a program, instead using the same meaningless platitudes over and over again.

Rather than the quality of the visit, I am heartened by the quantity. He has been to Duke numerous times, and can't seem to get within a few hours of the place without stopping by for a visit.

It may come to nothing, but I really like that he has come so often.