PDA

View Full Version : Early Prediction



greybeard
09-19-2009, 11:03 PM
Back for a quickie. I really, really like Duke off the dribble this season. I think Dawkins and Kelly give Duke much more off the dribble than it has had in years. Plumbee II is the center they haven't had, as in perhaps never.

I don't believe in making picks, but I would not be surprised if they win the entire thing. Nice visiting, folks. The best in the upcoming season, which is what I think you just might have.

ricks68
09-20-2009, 01:29 AM
Trust in Grey. He knows of what he speaks. Seriously.

ricks

4decadedukie
09-20-2009, 08:36 AM
Thanks, I had not thought of this but it seems sensible.

Azdukefan
09-20-2009, 06:49 PM
Back for a quickie. I really, really like Duke off the dribble this season. I think Dawkins and Kelly give Duke much more off the dribble than it has had in years. Plumbee II is the center they haven't had, as in perhaps never.

I don't believe in making picks, but I would not be surprised if they win the entire thing. Nice visiting, folks. The best in the upcoming season, which is what I think you just might have.

Disagree: Dawkins and Kelly while great and I am ecstatic to have both are not known off the dribble guys. In fact as much as I love AD, I am under the impression that his handle is the most suspect part of his game and R.Kelly is just not as fleet a foot as someone needs to be to utilize the bounce.

Agree-Winning the whole damn thing is within reason. I believe that being the best team (CHECK) in the best conference (CHECK) means you have a shot at winning six in a row in late March/early April.

Jim3k
09-20-2009, 07:10 PM
Back for a quickie.

Are you over your mad?

ACCBBallFan
09-21-2009, 08:05 AM
Disagree: Dawkins and Kelly while great and I am ecstatic to have both are not known off the dribble guys. In fact as much as I love AD, I am under the impression that his handle is the most suspect part of his game and R.Kelly is just not as fleet a foot as someone needs to be to utilize the bounce.

Agree-Winning the whole damn thing is within reason. I believe that being the best team (CHECK) in the best conference (CHECK) means you have a shot at winning six in a row in late March/early April.That's my impression as well.

OP makes a good point though that Duke could really spread the floor in certain scenarios with:

Scheyer/Smith
Smith/Dawkins
Dawkins/Singler
Singler/Kelly
Kelly/Mason

I know coach K is committed to having Kyle play the 3 but in this lineup he would have to guard the more mobile big while Kelly would have a Pittsnoggle type of role.

In other situations coach K would leverage Lance's and Zoubek's experience and defense/size respectively plus Miles' bulk and mobility for a big man.

I do think Olek in limited action will be much improved, just that the team composition has improved as much or more in parallel, (Marty Syndrome) and Olek doe not really have a position yet.

He is not a PG and PF is overcrowded. Best prospects seem to be WF where competition is Kelly, Dawkins and Lance from defensive perspective, or center which is a strange combination.

Czyz is Duke's second heaviest guy and his leaping ability makes up for height, assuming he learns nuances of the game on both ends. From a supply-demand standpoint, Duke's most critical need may be backup SG behind first backup Dawkins.

It's kind of like the Dunleavy days when coach K has players who can play multiple positions to offset the low number of bodies on the roster.

weezie
09-21-2009, 08:25 AM
Plumbee II is the center they haven't had, as in perhaps never.


Couldn't agree more. If he's anywhere near as good as you and I think he is, and if he's a quick learner, then we have ourselves a super big man.

flyingdutchdevil
09-21-2009, 09:37 AM
IMO, I think another reason why our chances are really good this year is because the playing field just isn't as good as in the last couple of years. Two years ago, there were so many stacked teams (Kansas, UNC, Memphis, UCLA, etc). Last year, UNC was ridiculous. This year, I really don't see a team that is superior to others. Sure - Kansas has two great players but a plethora of inexperienced players. Kentucky is the same. UNC has another great recruiting class but it's clearly not the same team. MSU is experienced, but for some reason no one is giving them that much credit. Duke is experienced, big, versatile and well coached. Sure - we are as thin in the backcourt as Kate Moss and aren't as athletic as last year, but I really like our chances.

gumbomoop
09-21-2009, 10:20 AM
IMO, I think another reason why our chances are really good this year is because the playing field just isn't as good as in the last couple of years.

Yes, this is probably the most important "external" factor that should give us reason to have high expectations. Any of 5 or 6 teams could break from the pack by March [KU, UK , Mich St, Texas, 'Nova - who am I forgetting??], probably not UNC or Duke. But only UK seems to have even a modest chance of doing so, and for that to happen many, many new guys, great talents undoubtedly, have to learn a system and each other pretty fast.

So, agreeing with fdd, I'd say the playing field is solid, Duke begins in 2d-not-quite-1st tier, but 1st tier is neither unbeatable nor unreachable.

airowe
09-21-2009, 10:56 AM
Yes, this is probably the most important "external" factor that should give us reason to have high expectations. Any of 5 or 6 teams could break from the pack by March [KU, UK , Mich St, Texas, 'Nova - who am I forgetting??], probably not UNC or Duke. But only UK seems to have even a modest chance of doing so, and for that to happen many, many new guys, great talents undoubtedly, have to learn a system and each other pretty fast.

So, agreeing with fdd, I'd say the playing field is solid, Duke begins in 2d-not-quite-1st tier, but 1st tier is neither unbeatable nor unreachable.

KU has a lot more experience and just as much talent, if not more than UK. Talent gets you into the tournament and the Sweet Sixteen, experience gets you to the Final Four and is the key to winning it all.

greybeard
09-21-2009, 12:37 PM
You don't need to be there first, just at a different time. Kelly is quick, not fast but quick, he has real good control of the ball, brings it up to shooting creatively, has wide shoulders and length. Also, he has the eyes of an actor. I think that he is going to hurt guys off the dribble on pull up shots, the better the athlete, the better for him.

As for Dawkins, from the film I've seen, which is little, he can cover as much or as little ground as he wants off one or two dribbles, maybe three, and collects himself well going either way; seems to have no meaningful rotation when he stops to elevate; and I like his release alot.

But, hey, this is just barbershop talk before the summer ends (I always stretch the facts, right), so maybe you other guys are right.

For you old guys, Kelly, think Jimmy O'Brien here, am I right this time? Just teasing.

Sandman
09-21-2009, 07:16 PM
I amexcited about this year's team -- so much so that I already have my ticket and reservations for Indianapolis. Duke WILL be there!!

Welcome2DaSlopes
09-21-2009, 07:30 PM
I hope your right

gumbomoop
09-22-2009, 07:21 AM
KU has a lot more experience and just as much talent, if not more than UK. Talent gets you into the tournament and the Sweet Sixteen, experience gets you to the Final Four and is the key to winning it all.

True that KU has more experienced talent than UK, but not like UNC, Pitt, UConn last year. My point was to support the idea that one advantage this year for Duke [and all hopefuls] is that no one begins the season looking like they could become as impressive as '08-'09 Heels.

So while I definitely agree that KU should be preseason #1, I don't think they're the team that we might speculate could break way above the pack. I still think UK has more potential to do that, because of Wall, Cousins, Patterson, et al. But even at that, I don't think they will. I don't think any team will become '08-'09-UNC-like-superb.

Which leads back to the point: the preseason top-tier is very good, but not intimidating, so 2d-tier [incl. Duke, UNC, Purdue, others] can be optimistic.

airowe
09-22-2009, 07:36 AM
True that KU has more experienced talent than UK, but not like UNC, Pitt, UConn last year. My point was to support the idea that one advantage this year for Duke [and all hopefuls] is that no one begins the season looking like they could become as impressive as '08-'09 Heels.

So while I definitely agree that KU should be preseason #1, I don't think they're the team that we might speculate could break way above the pack. I still think UK has more potential to do that, because of Wall, Cousins, Patterson, et al. But even at that, I don't think they will. I don't think any team will become '08-'09-UNC-like-superb.

Which leads back to the point: the preseason top-tier is very good, but not intimidating, so 2d-tier [incl. Duke, UNC, Purdue, others] can be optimistic.

I absolutely agree with everything you said. I also think, as has been stated numerous timesin posts throughout the summer, that Duke's height, at all positions, is going to create some serious matchup problems for nearly every team we play. Prior to seeing Mason play in the Pro-Am I agreed that we may give up some athleticism because of that height on D, but I'm bullish on his abilities, as many others more knowledgeable than me are.

I like our chances this year to get to Indy.