PDA

View Full Version : 09-10 ACC Season Previews



airowe
08-18-2009, 07:25 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/notebook?page=notebook/shootaround/acc

sagegrouse
08-18-2009, 08:27 AM
Good stuff in this article. -- sagegrouse

airowe
08-18-2009, 08:38 AM
There was a lot of good info in the article, but it makes me wonder how much of its factual when they start talking about Miles playing opposite Kyle Singler in the post. Maybe ACCBBallFan can fact-check for us.

gumbomoop
08-18-2009, 09:04 AM
There was a lot of good info in the article, but it makes me wonder how much of its factual when they start talking about Miles playing opposite Kyle Singler in the post. Maybe ACCBBallFan can fact-check for us.

Despite the near-tie between Z and MP2 in the "Who starts at center" thread poll, many posters surely think MP1 will log basically same minutes at 5 as Z, i.e., 15 each [with MP2 splitting his 20 or so mpg between 4 and 5]. So it seems plausible to me that MP1 gets this mention, esp as the real point made in the analysis is that the MPs together must have an impact. We all agree, right? But..... the phrase "opposite KS" is puzzling, perhaps uninformed, as the general assumption is that KS is preparing for a lot more time on perimeter [at least on O].

As for Bilas's projections, what's he know that we don't? He's got Miami at #5, which really, really surprises me. On paper, they look like #9-10 to me. And he pushes BC down to 10, despite saying they "won't fall far." Huh?

miramar
08-18-2009, 09:26 AM
I'm not sure that UNC is still the king, but I can't argue with this:

"How much the Plumlee brothers develop could go quite a way toward how successful Duke is inside."

Although I would say it's more like how successful Duke will be overall.

ChicagoCrazy84
08-18-2009, 10:17 AM
I'm not sure that UNC is still the king, but I can't argue with this:

"How much the Plumlee brothers develop could go quite a way toward how successful Duke is inside."

Although I would say it's more like how successful Duke will be overall.


Yeah, I thought that was an odd thing to say by Katz. It's like, duh!!!

If the Plumlee brothers develop into formidable post men, Duke will be tops in the ACC and probably a top 5 team. Their athleticism alone would be difficult to deal with, but with both of them possessing a good amount of maturity and skill could make them (and Duke) dangerous.

Chitowndevil
08-18-2009, 11:36 AM
UNC is getting, and I think will continue to get, a little more love than I expected in the preseason polls. My thoughts on UNC are more similar to the quote under "What One Coach is Saying". I think Larry Drew, while capable, is going to be a notable step down from Felton and Lawson, and I seriously wonder how good the vaunted Carolina secondary break is going to be when they're no longer going to have the fastest player on the court at PG in every game they play. In my opinion a lot of the reason their secondary break is/was so effective is defenses having to sag off Felton and Lawson to prevent dribble penetration.

I also think Carolina will be a mediocre at best shooting team, as Lawson, Ellington, and Green were the only Tar Heels to attempt more than 100 3 pointers last season. Bobby Frasor had the next most attempts (73) and shot 27% from the perimeter with an atrocious 0.9 points per shot.

whereinthehellami
08-18-2009, 12:21 PM
Those are some tough early season games for UNC. KY, MSU, and TX. At this point I think they lose 2 out of those 3.

UrinalCake
08-18-2009, 12:23 PM
I didn't think I'd EVER be reading this statement:

"The [UCONN] Huskies don't have the inside game to match the Blue Devils..."

CMARTZ
08-18-2009, 12:45 PM
Those are some tough early season games for UNC. KY, MSU, and TX. At this point I think they lose 2 out of those 3.

Wow I had no idea UNC's OOC schedule was so difficult this year. They don't even get a break between those games...

weezie
08-18-2009, 12:56 PM
Wow I had no idea UNC's OOC schedule was so difficult this year. They don't even get a break between those games...


Indeed. Welcome to the "post-championship season" thrills.

Greg_Newton
08-18-2009, 02:34 PM
Slam has us at #14. Worth the read if you like overly negative, poorly informed, typo-full articles about Duke basketball and "John" Scheyer in particular.

However, I kind of like seeing us consistently ranked relatively low in preseason rankings. Those involved in the program seem very confident in our prospects (as I am), and it would be nice to be seen as underrated/exceeding expectations for once.

ChicagoCrazy84
08-18-2009, 05:34 PM
Slam has us at #14. Worth the read if you like overly negative, poorly informed, typo-full articles about Duke basketball and "John" Scheyer in particular.

However, I kind of like seeing us consistently ranked relatively low in preseason rankings. Those involved in the program seem very confident in our prospects (as I am), and it would be nice to be seen as underrated/exceeding expectations for once.


You know, I don't think it was that bad of a preview. Just because you think he rated us lower than you think we should be, it doesn't mean his article is a piece. He has good points and I don't think he was overly negative. He complemented the heck out of John Scheyer. He gave more credit to Nolan Smith, Thomas, and Zoubek than others will and he was spot on with the incoming freshman. Do I think #14 is about right? Probably not, but then again, I am biased.
I did think it was interesting that he did not mention Andre Dawkins being that it was published today. It will make a huge difference in the success of this year's team, but I don't think it will necessarily make us an Elite 8 team. Preseason rankings are just a barometer and I won't take any of them seriously, even the ones that have us rated 5-10. Just don't bash the guy's knowledge and grammatical capabilities just because he has Duke at 14.

Greg_Newton
08-18-2009, 06:22 PM
You know, I don't think it was that bad of a preview. Just because you think he rated us lower than you think we should be, it doesn't mean his article is a piece. He has good points and I don't think he was overly negative. He complemented the heck out of John Scheyer. He gave more credit to Nolan Smith, Thomas, and Zoubek than others will and he was spot on with the incoming freshman. Do I think #14 is about right? Probably not, but then again, I am biased.
I did think it was interesting that he did not mention Andre Dawkins being that it was published today. It will make a huge difference in the success of this year's team, but I don't think it will necessarily make us an Elite 8 team. Preseason rankings are just a barometer and I won't take any of them seriously, even the ones that have us rated 5-10. Just don't bash the guy's knowledge and grammatical capabilities just because he has Duke at 14.

His ranking was my favorite part of the article... I personally like seeing Duke ranked low in the preseason, and don't necessarily think they should be any higher based on past precedent. That wasn't my issue at all.

I said "poorly informed" because he doesn't mention Andre Dawkins, says Ryan Kelly will be crucial to our frontcourt's prospects next year yet completely ignores Miles Plumlee, doesn't seem to be aware of Singler's switch to the perimeter, claims Mason isn't big enough to play in the paint (check recent reports), and spells Jon's name wrong. I think most posters here could have written a more accurate and relevant piece. The original version also had 3-4 obvious typos (which look to have been fixed by now).

I'll admit though, my comments were probably colored by the thinly veiled anti-Duke sentiment. Subtly implying Scheyer is a typical "Duke cry baby on the floor" and ending his piece with the following passage doesn't exactly endear the author to me... especially when the analysis is less in-depth and informed than most threads on this free message board. It struck me as just playing into the popular negative Duke stereotypes instead of taking the time to do his own thorough research.


What this team is built for is the regular season, much like previous Duke teams. The Dukies always manage to win in the ballpark of 25 games during the regular season and get a seed in the Tournament that maybe they don’t deserve, but hey, they’ve got the name. Will this team make a deep run into March? No, but they will have an overachieving regular season that lands them a national ranking."

(working link: http://www.slamonline.com/online/college-hs/college/2009/08/college-basketball-preseason-top-25-countdown-3/)

ACCBBallFan
08-19-2009, 12:20 AM
Wow I had no idea UNC's OOC schedule was so difficult this year. They don't even get a break between those games...When one looks at overall body of work (UNC has much more favorable ACC unbalanced schedule this year), the SOS is very comparable.

Looks to me like West Virginia has the toughest strength of schedule vs. the number of top teams:

Villanova - 1 H/H
Purdue J01
Butler N29?
Clemson N27?
Minnesota N29?
MS St -3 @Once
Ohio St . J23
UCONN - 3 Once
Louisville -4 @Once
TX A&M -7 N27?
UCLA N29?
Georgetown -6 @Once
Syracuse -5 @Once
Notre Dame -9 Once
Pittsburgh -8 H/H Long Beach St N26
Portland N29?
Mississippi - 8 @D23

If instead of merely counting the number of highly ranked teams, I give more weight to higher ranked teams, then SOS order is

260 - MN
245 - Ohio St
231 - Iowa
223 - W VA
221 - UCLA

218 - TX A*&M
217 - Wisc
204 - Penn St
192 - Duke
191 - Illini

189 - UNC
189 - Michigan
188 - UCONN
188 - Northwestern
188 - Marquette
187 - Prdue
186 - Mich St
186 - Georgetown

B10 racks up a lot of SOS points with Home and Homes as ACC used to do

With respect to ACC finish, knotted at top as usual, 8 potential NCAA teams and 4 underlings,

unless Frank Haith's hype about his Nova transfer comes true.

376 ACC UNC - 1 (2nd easiest unbalanced schedule)
365 ACC Duke -2

261 ACC Clemson -3 (toughest unbalanced schedule)

118 ACC Maryland -4 (3rd toughest)
105 ACC Wake Forest -5 (4th toughest)
103 ACC Boston College -6
101 ACC GA Tech -7 (2nd toughest)
091 ACC FSU -8

026 ACC Va Tech -9
020 ACC Miami-Fl - 10 (3rd easiest schedule)
000 ACC NC St - 11 (4th easiest)
000 ACC UVA - 12 (easiest ACC unbalanced schedule)

If you alkso factor in ACC unbalanced schedule, that evens things out even more, and could push Clemson back into the middle of the pack with 5 other teams:

Strength Schedule

946 Clemson

936 GA Tech
926 MD
923 Wake

919 VA Tech
918 BC
910 Duke

894 FSU
887 NC ST

880 Miami
878 UNC

863 UVA

El_Diablo
08-22-2009, 07:03 PM
Another ACC preview, this one from rivals:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news;_ylt=AtH9WkpMmhG1GZ7zUQNJe1nevbYF?slug=jn-accrank082109&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Weak article overall. This little tidbit is silly on a couple levels:


thereís no way the Tar Heels donít repeat as conference champs

It's pretty hard to repeat if you didn't win the ACC championship the year before...

gwwilburn
08-23-2009, 11:25 AM
At least (supposed) Duke-ophile Dick Vitale has the Blue Devils ranked ahead of the Heels. ;) (Here we go again.)
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/dickvitale/news/story?id=4361336
P.S. Kentucky at #2!? I know they may be better than us, but 2!?!

ChicagoCrazy84
08-23-2009, 01:50 PM
Yeah, #2?? I think that is a stretch. They will consistently be a top 10 team, but I do think their youth and lack of an outside shooter will hurt them at times. They are good enough to go to a Final Four, but I don't think they will get there. I am calling it now!

COYS
08-24-2009, 12:09 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/basketball/mens/news/story?id=4406582

I know that freshman earn court time by their defense under K . . . at least when there are already a few offensively talented upperclassmen on the roster, but is it possible we (meaning most on the board) are sleeping on Kelly a little too much? I'm not sure I agree with the article that Kelly has more of a chance to break out for Duke than Mason if only because Mason has a chance to fill a bigger need where there is no entrenched starter while Kelly appears to have many similarities to Singler on the offensive end. That being said, if Kelly's offensive skills are as advanced as this article indicates, I could see many situations where a lineup of Scheyer, Smith, Singler, Kelly, and Miles/Mason/Zoubek/Thomas could be very effective during stretches of games, especially against the right team. You could also see a situation at the end of games where Duke is holding a relatively close lead where Kelly flips with Thomas for offense(free throw shooting) and defense. Despite the loaded front court. I definitely think there may be more of a possibility than we think that Kelly will get some significant playing time.

sagegrouse
08-24-2009, 02:23 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/basketball/mens/news/story?id=4406582

I know that freshman earn court time by their defense under K . . . at least when there are already a few offensively talented upperclassmen on the roster, but is it possible we (meaning most on the board) are sleeping on Kelly a little too much? I'm not sure I agree with the article that Kelly has more of a chance to break out for Duke than Mason if only because Mason has a chance to fill a bigger need where there is no entrenched starter while Kelly appears to have many similarities to Singler on the offensive end. That being said, if Kelly's offensive skills are as advanced as this article indicates, I could see many situations where a lineup of Scheyer, Smith, Singler, Kelly, and Miles/Mason/Zoubek/Thomas could be very effective during stretches of games, especially against the right team. You could also see a situation at the end of games where Duke is holding a relatively close lead where Kelly flips with Thomas for offense(free throw shooting) and defense. Despite the loaded front court. I definitely think there may be more of a possibility than we think that Kelly will get some significant playing time.

You may be right. But, based on the evidence in the K era, I am unwilling to hang a lot of hopes on freshmen hoopsters until the season is underway. For every Brand, Ferry, Laettner, or Boozer, there are at least two others who were also hyped but did not make much of a contribution until later in the career. Who? Try Nessley, Alaa, Crawford Palmer, Eric Meek, Newton, Chris Burgess, Shav, plus the current roster of bigs (Z, LT, MP1).

And then, of course, there was the hysteria over Olek Czyz on the Board last summer and the hopes for MP1 last year when he was named as a starter. It pays to be cautious about freshmen 6-9 or taller.

Now, the talk about Mason Plumlee is of a different character. When Jon Scheyer says he is one of the most talented players he has ever played with and Chris collins says something equally positive, then I am almost ready to give him a key role on the team (in my imaginative Duke basketball kingdom in the sky). But, we'll see.....

WRT Kelly, I read all about his skill level but wonder whether his 18YO body is up to the rough-and-tumble of major college basketball. The best thing that could happen for Ryan is exactly what is happening. No talk, no expectations, no pressure. Anything that happens in a positive way will be viewed as a gift by the fans, the coaches and his teammates.

sagegrouse

NSDukeFan
08-24-2009, 02:57 PM
You may be right. But, based on the evidence in the K era, I am unwilling to hang a lot of hopes on freshmen hoopsters until the season is underway. For every Brand, Ferry, Laettner, or Boozer, there are at least two others who were also hyped but did not make much of a contribution until later in the career. Who? Try Nessley, Alaa, Crawford Palmer, Eric Meek, Newton, Chris Burgess, Shav, plus the current roster of bigs (Z, LT, MP1).

And then, of course, there was the hysteria over Olek Czyz on the Board last summer and the hopes for MP1 last year when he was named as a starter. It pays to be cautious about freshmen 6-9 or taller.

Now, the talk about Mason Plumlee is of a different character. When Jon Scheyer says he is one of the most talented players he has ever played with and Chris collins says something equally positive, then I am almost ready to give him a key role on the team (in my imaginative Duke basketball kingdom in the sky). But, we'll see.....

WRT Kelly, I read all about his skill level but wonder whether his 18YO body is up to the rough-and-tumble of major college basketball. The best thing that could happen for Ryan is exactly what is happening. No talk, no expectations, no pressure. Anything that happens in a positive way will be viewed as a gift by the fans, the coaches and his teammates.

sagegrouse

I agree with your overall point, which is why I have low expectations about how much Dawkins will score this year, except for the comparison of Ryan vs. Olek and Miles. Ryan is the 14th ranked incoming freshman (RSCI) in the country, while Olek was 66th and Miles 81st among last year's frosh. I realize that there may be a crowded frontcourt this year (yippee!), but I do expect some kind of contribution from Ryan, though the under-the-radar, low expectation situation he is in may be a good one.

gumbomoop
10-12-2009, 07:28 AM
As I'm clueless re Barnes and Irving, I thought to stick to the present, and restart this strangely ancient, but right-now relevant, thread on ACC prognostication.

I've seen several hoops mags, but I'll focus here on what still strikes me as Bilas's [see OP link] somewhat inexplicable prediction. I've stated on some thread that other than likely top-2-tier UNC/Duke, and likely bottom-3-tier Miami/NCSt/Uva, that the other 7 are a "middle muddle." So I'm acknowledging that predicting spots 3-9 is, well, unpredictable.

Still, for the life of me I can't see Bilas's logic in placing both Wake and Miami ahead of GaTech, FSU, and Clemson. [Nor do I see BC way down at 10, but I'll let that go for now.] Bilas is a bright fellow, but what's the logic here? Surely GaT has lot more talent than Wake and Miami. Is Hewitt that horrible? Surely FSU has more talent than Miami, so is Hamilton a dud?

Does Wake really have loads of talent? Ish may settle down and be a fine PG. But can Aminu really dominate? Really?

I got Wake and Miami a lot lower than Bilas, and GaT a lot higher.

So, posterizers, forget, for just a moment, future NCs with Barnes/Irving, and talk a bit about '09-'10. Please confirm for me that Bilas is just being weird. Thanks.

airowe
03-03-2010, 12:12 AM
I thought it was funny to look back at these as we're getting closer to the end of the regular season...

loldevilz
03-03-2010, 12:37 AM
Slam has us at #14. Worth the read if you like overly negative, poorly informed, typo-full articles about Duke basketball and "John" Scheyer in particular.

However, I kind of like seeing us consistently ranked relatively low in preseason rankings. Those involved in the program seem very confident in our prospects (as I am), and it would be nice to be seen as underrated/exceeding expectations for once.

Seriously, this has been the story the whole season...and continues.