PDA

View Full Version : Today's Coach K Press Conference



watzone
10-15-2009, 03:54 PM
Listen for yourself. Part I is opening statements and Part II is Q and A. Part III coming. About thirty minutes total - http://bluedevilnation.net/2009/10/bdn-audio-coach-ks-opening-comments/

ChicagoCrazy84
10-15-2009, 05:26 PM
Listening to it as I type!

Greg_Newton
10-15-2009, 06:02 PM
Here's some quotes from it: http://www.wralsportsfan.com/duke/story/6218155/

A couple things K said:

-Miles is up 18 lbs from last season, Lance is up 8lbs. (I also hadn't noticed that Zoubs is down 20 lbs from last season... our frontcourt would look completely different even without Mason!)

-Ryan is a "very smart player" and will contribute right away. A great shooter and has been playing almost exclusively on the perimeter in preseason drills to improve his quickness and footwork.

-Not only will it be his biggest team ever, it's also a very athletic team.

Greg_Newton
10-16-2009, 12:40 AM
Couple other things I thought were interesting:

-When discussing heights, Coach K called Kyle 6'9 and Nolan 6'3 or 6'4. Seems like he'd see them enough that that wouldn't be wildly inaccurate, at least.

-Lance might sub in for Nolan at times, leaving a lineup of:
Jon (6'5)
Lance (6'8)
Kyle (6'9)
Mason (6'11)
Miles (6'10)

...which would sure be interesting.

-Key for Miles starting/playing a big role: keeping it simple and understanding his role. Basically, getting really good at finishing, rebounding, screening and running, and not worrying about anything else.

-Nolan is "as good a player as we've had" in the preseason.

-Singler may be bringing the ball up some (point forward, anyone?).

-If there was a today, Andre wouldn't just be the first guard sub, he'd be the first perimeter sub (meaning 1-3 spots).

devilboomer
10-16-2009, 09:01 AM
Couple other things I thought were interesting:

-If there was a today, Andre wouldn't just be the first guard sub, he'd be the first perimeter sub (meaning 1-3 spots).

I'd have to think this means Singler slides over to the 4 and one of the Plums remain, giving us a lineup of Nolan, Scheyer, Dawkins, Singler, Mason.

jimsumner
10-16-2009, 01:00 PM
I get the feeling K is thinking of Scheyer, Smith, Singler, Dawkins, Kelly, and Davidson as perimeter players, with Thomas, Plumlee, Plumlee, and Zoubek as post players.

Not sure where Czyz fits in.

But Singler and maybe Kelly will play inside some this year.

roywhite
10-16-2009, 01:13 PM
I get the feeling K is thinking of Scheyer, Smith, Singler, Dawkins, Kelly, and Davidson as perimeter players, with Thomas, Plumlee, Plumlee, and Zoubek as post players.

Not sure where Czyz fits in.

But Singler and maybe Kelly will play inside some this year.

Trying to think of a previous Duke team under Coach K that had this much size.

The 1988/89 team had Abdelnaby, Laettner, and Ferry playing key roles; the roster also included Clay Buckley, Crawford Palmer, and George Burgin, but they really didn't play much.

jipops
10-16-2009, 01:14 PM
I get the feeling K is thinking of Scheyer, Smith, Singler, Dawkins, Kelly, and Davidson as perimeter players, with Thomas, Plumlee, Plumlee, and Zoubek as post players.

Not sure where Czyz fits in.

But Singler and maybe Kelly will play inside some this year.

I get the impression it's going to be quite a challenge for Kelly to carve out a role. MP2 and Dawkins seem a little more defined. But having Kelly be a perimeter guy in some cases and front court guy in others... seems like a lot for a freshman to try to adjust to.

jipops
10-16-2009, 01:17 PM
Trying to think of a previous Duke team under Coach K that had this much size.

The 1988/89 team had Abdelnaby, Laettner, and Ferry playing key roles; the roster also included Clay Buckley, Crawford Palmer, and George Burgin, but they really didn't play much.

The '02-'03 squad had:

6-9 fr. Shelden Williams
6-10 fr. Shavlik Randlolph
6-10 fr. Michael Thompson
6-11 sr. Casey Sanders
6-10 jr. Nick Horvath

by late February Dahntay Jones was the starting pf.

MChambers
10-16-2009, 02:25 PM
The '02-'03 squad had:

6-9 fr. Shelden Williams
6-10 fr. Shavlik Randlolph
6-10 fr. Michael Thompson
6-11 sr. Casey Sanders
6-10 jr. Nick Horvath

by late February Dahntay Jones was the starting pf.

These examples worry me, because they remind me that K's best teams have featured very mobile players. Twin towers haven't generally been as good. I assume it is mostly an issue with man-to-man defense, but haven't bothered to do any research or anything.

jimsumner
10-16-2009, 02:53 PM
"These examples worry me, because they remind me that K's best teams have featured very mobile players. Twin towers haven't generally been as good."


True. But are size and mobility mutually exclusive?

Check out 1989 and 1990 for examples of K's ability to adequately utilize twin towers.

MChambers
10-16-2009, 02:59 PM
"These examples worry me, because they remind me that K's best teams have featured very mobile players. Twin towers haven't generally been as good."


True. But are size and mobility mutually exclusive?

Check out 1989 and 1990 for examples of K's ability to adequately utilize twin towers.

1989 was a good year, I'll give you that, but 1990 was not that good. Yes, the team made the NCAA finals, but it was probably the weakest of coach K's teams to reach the final four. The team finished the regular season poorly and didn't do well in the ACC tournament. It made the final four by the narrowest of margins, the first Laettner last second shot, got by an overrated Arkansas team, and got hammered in the finals.

I'm willing to think that coach K may have learned a thing or two in 19 years. I'm also willing to hope that this team is sufficiently talented to have an edge on the 1990 roster.

I think a lot will depend on how successfully the coaching staff can adjust the team's approach to fit the roster.

jipops
10-16-2009, 03:21 PM
1989 was a good year, I'll give you that, but 1990 was not that good. Yes, the team made the NCAA finals, but it was probably the weakest of coach K's teams to reach the final four. The team finished the regular season poorly and didn't do well in the ACC tournament. It made the final four by the narrowest of margins, the first Laettner last second shot, got by an overrated Arkansas team, and got hammered in the finals.

I'm willing to think that coach K may have learned a thing or two in 19 years. I'm also willing to hope that this team is sufficiently talented to have an edge on the 1990 roster.

I think a lot will depend on how successfully the coaching staff can adjust the team's approach to fit the roster.

1990 was not a good year, are you serious? If we are at all able to replicate the 1990 season myself and pretty much the rest of the Duke fan base will be ecstatic. Sure the '90 reg season didn't end on a strong note. But let's remember that team was being directed by a freshman pg who was rarely resting on the bench.

theAlaskanBear
10-16-2009, 03:26 PM
Got to listen to part I and II...is III somewhere?


Anyways, I am really excited about the season. I think the most important notes from what I heard:

Team will run a motion offense, he talked alot about cutting, advancing the ball through passing, movement without the ball. We could be seeing some "princeton" offense (my words not his, anyone else think this?). It would make sense with out personnel. Coach K really emphasized rebounding, to the point where he made a joke god asking him during a thunderstorm about rebounding.

About player roles:

He blamed himself and the coaches for not putting Nolan in position to play his strengths last year, and he said while Nolan is the only person on the team who can break down defenders with the dribble, he is not good enough to run the offense through that. So Nolan I would guess Nolan becomes a SG/wing scorer for most of the year and plays really aggressive.

Thomas will play the 6th defensive utility man role. He talked about Thomas guarding 1-5 on the floor, perimeter defense and forward offense (think about the opposite of Singler, who will be playing perimeter offense at times, but probably gaurding the 3 or 4.

Talked about the benefits of being healthy to start the season! Said both Nolan and Dawkins have had really good falls.

I agree that Ryan will have the hardest time finding a role, but it will not be playing inside...he would be a perimeter offensive threat, and would be hidden defensively down low I think. Think Taylor King.

Man I cant wait!!!!!!! Especially with my Cards so embarassingly bounced from the BB playoffs!

jipops
10-16-2009, 03:27 PM
These examples worry me, because they remind me that K's best teams have featured very mobile players. Twin towers haven't generally been as good. I assume it is mostly an issue with man-to-man defense, but haven't bothered to do any research or anything.

I don't think it's the best example though. Michael Thompson was obviously not ready to contribute, Shav suffered a foot injury early, Horvath was a career spot player, and Casey could never get himself a reliable set of hands. There even ended up being a HUGE difference between freshman Shelden and senior Shelden.

I'm confident that the bigs we feature this season bring a much broader skill set than what we featured back in '02-'03.

jimsumner
10-16-2009, 03:40 PM
"but 1990 was not that good. Yes, the team made the NCAA finals, but it was probably the weakest of coach K's teams to reach the final four"

Right. I really sneer at that team. The nerve of them making the NCAA title game.

SMO
10-16-2009, 03:48 PM
Couple other things I thought were interesting:

-When discussing heights, Coach K called Kyle 6'9 and Nolan 6'3 or 6'4. Seems like he'd see them enough that that wouldn't be wildly inaccurate, at least.


I recall reading that Nolan's father grew something like 4-6 inches while in college. That would be a crazy big lineup if Nolan is a legit 6'3" or 6'4".

devildeac
10-16-2009, 04:18 PM
"These examples worry me, because they remind me that K's best teams have featured very mobile players. Twin towers haven't generally been as good."


True. But are size and mobility mutually exclusive?

Check out 1989 and 1990 for examples of K's ability to adequately utilize twin towers.

2004 was pretty good, too, IIRC, except for some marginal (cough) officiating in the national semi-final game.

jimsumner
10-16-2009, 04:48 PM
FWIW, the 1990 team started two 6'10/11" players and somehow averaged 89.1 ppg.

MChambers
10-16-2009, 08:52 PM
2004 was pretty good, too, IIRC, except for some marginal (cough) officiating in the national semi-final game.

2004 wasn't twin towers. Deng got most of the minutes at the 4.

MChambers
10-16-2009, 09:02 PM
"but 1990 was not that good. Yes, the team made the NCAA finals, but it was probably the weakest of coach K's teams to reach the final four"

Right. I really sneer at that team. The nerve of them making the NCAA title game.

Jim,

Wow, I think you're making way too much of what I wrote. I didn't sneer at the 1990 team. Those are your words, not mine.

If this team makes the NCAA finals, I'll be very happy, so by that standard doing as well as the 1990 team would be great. But the 1990 team wasn't a strong team by Coach K standards. It was ranked 15 in the final AP poll. I don't think most folks here would think this team would be satisfied with that ranking.

All I'm trying to say is that Coach K teams have generally been stronger when they've featured lots of mobile swing players and very good team speed. You have to concede that this team cannot play traditional Coach K defense. Maybe they will be very successful playing a different style. I hope so, but I fear it will be a challenge. Hope I'm wrong.

Matt

brevity
10-16-2009, 09:06 PM
1989 was a good year, I'll give you that, but 1990 was not that good. Yes, the team made the NCAA finals, but it was probably the weakest of coach K's teams to reach the final four. The team finished the regular season poorly and didn't do well in the ACC tournament. It made the final four by the narrowest of margins, the first Laettner last second shot, got by an overrated Arkansas team, and got hammered in the finals.

You can agree or disagree, but this was a compelling and carefully worded assessment that deserved better than instant antagonism. You should read "not that good" as "not THAT good," and only in the context of Coach K's Final Four squads. Nowhere does the writer say that the 1990 team's play was "bad" or even "not good." My only quibble with the statement is that I would restrict the discussion to Duke's 1988-1992 Final Four squads, for clarity and fairness, and not those teams before and after that era.

Careful writing demands careful reading. This is the problem with message boards.

MChambers
10-16-2009, 09:21 PM
I appreciate the support!

OldPhiKap
10-16-2009, 09:57 PM
Wow. We've gone from "K can't recruit the big guys" to "K can't win when he gets the big guys."

Maybe we'd be better with a five-guard line-up.

jimsumner
10-16-2009, 11:04 PM
The 1989 Duke team finished second in the ACC regular-season at 9-5.

The 1990 Duke team finished second in the ACC regular-season at 9-5.

The 1989 team lost 2 of its final 3 regular-season games

The 1990 team lost 3 of its final 4 regular-season games.

The 1989 team lost in the ACC Tournament finals.

The 1990 team lost in the ACC Tournament semi-finals.

The 1989 team made it to the Final Four, where it lost its opener.

The 1990 team made it to the Final Four, where it won its opener and lost in the title game.

The 1989 team ended its season 28-8.

The 1990 team ended its season 29-9.

Note that the 1990 team was replacing the national player of the year and started a true freshman at point guard.

We're discounting because they didn't win the ACC Tournament? Neither did the 1989, 1991, 1994, or 2004 teams. Only three of K's first seven FF teams won the ACCT.

We're discounting because they didn't win the ACC regular season? Neither did the 1988 or 1989 teams.

We're discounting because they advanced to the Final Four on a Laettner buzzer-beater? So, there goes 1992.

The 1986 team trailed Mississippi Valley State for 30 minutes. The 1988 team barely got by Rhode Island. North Carolina's 1982 team barely beat James Madison, Kansas barely beat Murray State in 1988. Many more examples. Many. If dominating every game in the NCAA Tournament is the minimum standard for being good, then the list is going to be pretty small.

How the 1989 team qualifies as good and the 1990 team misses that standard just eludes me. Every Final Four team in my opinion is pretty darn good. Even if they were the "weakest" Final Four team.

jipops
10-16-2009, 11:31 PM
The 1989 Duke team finished second in the ACC regular-season at 9-5.

The 1990 Duke team finished second in the ACC regular-season at 9-5.

The 1989 team lost 2 of its final 3 regular-season games

The 1990 team lost 3 of its final 4 regular-season games.

The 1989 team lost in the ACC Tournament finals.

The 1990 team lost in the ACC Tournament semi-finals.

The 1989 team made it to the Final Four, where it lost its opener.

The 1990 team made it to the Final Four, where it won its opener and lost in the title game.

The 1989 team ended its season 28-8.

The 1990 team ended its season 29-9.

Note that the 1990 team was replacing the national player of the year and started a true freshman at point guard.

We're discounting because they didn't win the ACC Tournament? Neither did the 1989, 1991, 1994, or 2004 teams. Only three of K's first seven FF teams won the ACCT.

We're discounting because they didn't win the ACC regular season? Neither did the 1988 or 1989 teams.

We're discounting because they advanced to the Final Four on a Laettner buzzer-beater? So, there goes 1992.

The 1986 team trailed Mississippi Valley State for 30 minutes. The 1988 team barely got by Rhode Island. North Carolina's 1982 team barely beat James Madison, Kansas barely beat Murray State in 1988. Many more examples. Many. If dominating every game in the NCAA Tournament is the minimum standard for being good, then the list is going to be pretty small.

How the 1989 team qualifies as good and the 1990 team misses that standard just eludes me. Every Final Four team in my opinion is pretty darn good. Even if they were the "weakest" Final Four team.

Now why do you have to go and end another argument with more stats and sanity :)

MChambers
10-17-2009, 07:05 AM
The 1989 Duke team finished second in the ACC regular-season at 9-5.

The 1990 Duke team finished second in the ACC regular-season at 9-5.

The 1989 team lost 2 of its final 3 regular-season games

The 1990 team lost 3 of its final 4 regular-season games.

The 1989 team lost in the ACC Tournament finals.

The 1990 team lost in the ACC Tournament semi-finals.

The 1989 team made it to the Final Four, where it lost its opener.

The 1990 team made it to the Final Four, where it won its opener and lost in the title game.

The 1989 team ended its season 28-8.

The 1990 team ended its season 29-9.

Note that the 1990 team was replacing the national player of the year and started a true freshman at point guard.

We're discounting because they didn't win the ACC Tournament? Neither did the 1989, 1991, 1994, or 2004 teams. Only three of K's first seven FF teams won the ACCT.

We're discounting because they didn't win the ACC regular season? Neither did the 1988 or 1989 teams.

We're discounting because they advanced to the Final Four on a Laettner buzzer-beater? So, there goes 1992.

The 1986 team trailed Mississippi Valley State for 30 minutes. The 1988 team barely got by Rhode Island. North Carolina's 1982 team barely beat James Madison, Kansas barely beat Murray State in 1988. Many more examples. Many. If dominating every game in the NCAA Tournament is the minimum standard for being good, then the list is going to be pretty small.

How the 1989 team qualifies as good and the 1990 team misses that standard just eludes me. Every Final Four team in my opinion is pretty darn good. Even if they were the "weakest" Final Four team.

Jim, here's some statistical evidence. The 1989 team was ranked 9 in the final AP poll; the 1990 team was ranked 15. That 15 ranking was the second lowest for a Duke men's team between 1984 and 1994 (the lowest being 17 in 1987, clearly a rebuilding year).

I'm not saying it was a bad team by any standard. I'm just saying that relative to most coach K teams it struggled. Yes, it did going on a very nice run in the NCAA tournament, and even spanked a favored Arkansas team in the final four. But it absolutely got crushed in the finals, as most will painfully remember.

To get back to my original point, I think that coach K teams have tended to be better teams when they have been quicker than most of their opponents. I don't know how you measure quickness, so we can't test that statistically. I was citing the 1990 team as an example of a team that wasn't all that quick and at times struggled.

This year's team won't be quicker than most of its opponents. It will be taller, however. I'm looking forward to seeing how the coaches adjust
to having a bigger, but not quicker team, but I have my worries.

Any more quibbles or sarcasm?

jimsumner
10-17-2009, 09:59 AM
I hope I'm not quibbling but the final AP poll was taken before the end of the NCAA Tournament. If six spots in the AP poll is your bestevidence that the 1989 team was good and the 1990 wasn't, well I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

For the record, the 1979, 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2005 teams were all ranked higher than the 1989 team in the Final AP poll. Great teams?

MChambers
10-17-2009, 01:14 PM
I hope I'm not quibbling but the final AP poll was taken before the end of the NCAA Tournament. If six spots in the AP poll is your bestevidence that the 1989 team was good and the 1990 wasn't, well I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

For the record, the 1979, 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2005 teams were all ranked higher than the 1989 team in the Final AP poll. Great teams?

No, I don't think any of those were great. Not sure what your point is. The 1979 team was awfully good, but those end of the year injuries and illness ended any chances of a good tournament.

I do think the 2000 and 2003 teams were awfully good, quite a bit better than 1990 and better than 1989.

sagegrouse
10-17-2009, 05:40 PM
I do think the 2000 and 2003 teams were awfully good, quite a bit better than 1990 and better than 1989.

Oh, my goodness! The 2000 team consisted of Shane, Carrawell, Nate Dog and three freshmen; no one else played as much as ten minutes per game. The real question about this over-achieving team is how it managed to bamboozle the rest of the ACC and sport a 15-1 record (18-1, when the tourney is counted). The team lost in the round of 16 (lets agree not to call it "sweet" until we start winning these games again). I prefer the freshman-laden 1998 team, which was also 15-1 IIRC (but losing in the ACC finals). This team just needed to hold a 17-pt. lead against UKy to make the FF.

The 2003 team was another team that relied on freshmen. There was CDu, Daniel Ewing, Dahntay, and Casey Sanders, who were joined by JJ, Shel and Shav among the leading scorers. This team ran the table at home but struggled on the road, going 3-5 in conference away games. We made the ACC finals, beating UNC in the semis, thanks to Daniel Ewing. The finals were gonna be won by State, which was playing very well, until freshman JJ went totally nuts the last 10 minutes of the game, ending up with 30 points and giving the Devils an unexpected victory.

I think the 1990 team was pretty darned good in a tougher conference. Clemson and GT were ranked teams, and UNC was pretty good. The Duke team featured senior Phil Henderson (our all-time under-rated player IMHO), So. Laettner, Sr. Alaa, and Sr. Brickey. They were pretty darned good, with Brian Davis and Greg Koubek also available. Hurley was a freshman and deathly ill in the final game, which did have some effect on the margin. This team beat UConn on a buzzer-beater (after UConn had done the same thing to Clemson one round earlier) and then rallied from seven points down with seven minutes left to absolutely rout a tough Arkansas team by 14. Arkansas has been unfairly disparaged, but it sent Lee Mayberry, Todd Day and Oliver Miller onto the court. The Ark. game was one of the most courageous performances I have ever seen by a Duke team.

Yeah I was there for the UNLV beatdown at McNichols arena in Denver, but that turned out to be a rallying cry for 1991.

sagegrouse
'In fact, McNichols was the last time I saw Art Heyman.'

jimsumner
10-17-2009, 06:32 PM
"Not sure what your point is

I thought the point was obvious.

Ignoring all other comparisons between 1989 and 1990, you have determined that the distinction between good and not so good is the final AP rankings of 9 and 15 respectively.

The 1979 et. al. teams were all ranked 9 or higher in the final AP poll. None even sniffed the Final Four. Do they meet your criteria?

The 1985 and 1993 Duke teams were ranked 10th in the Final AP poll. Both won one NCAA game. By your standards, they were both better than the 1990 team that won five games in the NCAAs.

The genesis of this discussion was the suggestion that K could not be successful with a lineup that started twin towers. I pointed out two teams that advanced to the Final Four starting two players 6'10" or taller.

I think those two teams were quite successful. I'm sorry you disagree and can't imagine anything further I can add to the discussion.

MChambers
10-17-2009, 08:53 PM
Oh, my goodness! The 2000 team consisted of Shane, Carrawell, Nate Dog and three freshmen; no one else played as much as ten minutes per game. The real question about this over-achieving team is how it managed to bamboozle the rest of the ACC and sport a 15-1 record (18-1, when the tourney is counted). The team lost in the round of 16 (lets agree not to call it "sweet" until we start winning these games again). I prefer the freshman-laden 1998 team, which was also 15-1 IIRC (but losing in the ACC finals). This team just needed to hold a 17-pt. lead against UKy to make the FF.

The 2003 team was another team that relied on freshmen. There was CDu, Daniel Ewing, Dahntay, and Casey Sanders, who were joined by JJ, Shel and Shav among the leading scorers. This team ran the table at home but struggled on the road, going 3-5 in conference away games. We made the ACC finals, beating UNC in the semis, thanks to Daniel Ewing. The finals were gonna be won by State, which was playing very well, until freshman JJ went totally nuts the last 10 minutes of the game, ending up with 30 points and giving the Devils an unexpected victory.

I think the 1990 team was pretty darned good in a tougher conference. Clemson and GT were ranked teams, and UNC was pretty good. The Duke team featured senior Phil Henderson (our all-time under-rated player IMHO), So. Laettner, Sr. Alaa, and Sr. Brickey. They were pretty darned good, with Brian Davis and Greg Koubek also available. Hurley was a freshman and deathly ill in the final game, which did have some effect on the margin. This team beat UConn on a buzzer-beater (after UConn had done the same thing to Clemson one round earlier) and then rallied from seven points down with seven minutes left to absolutely rout a tough Arkansas team by 14. Arkansas has been unfairly disparaged, but it sent Lee Mayberry, Todd Day and Oliver Miller onto the court. The Ark. game was one of the most courageous performances I have ever seen by a Duke team.

Yeah I was there for the UNLV beatdown at McNichols arena in Denver, but that turned out to be a rallying cry for 1991.

sagegrouse
'In fact, McNichols was the last time I saw Art Heyman.'

If Dunleavy hadn't gotten mono, the 2000 team would have gone further.

On 2003, I confess. I was confusing the team with 2004.

Again, I'm just trying to point out that Coach K has thrived with smaller, quicker teams, not twin towers. Do you have a response to that?

I think the 2008 Olympic team is a pretty good indication of Coach K's preferred style. Do you agree? Or do you just want to quibble over my assessment of the 1990 team?

sagegrouse
10-19-2009, 08:25 AM
If Dunleavy hadn't gotten mono, the 2000 team would have gone further.

On 2003, I confess. I was confusing the team with 2004.

Again, I'm just trying to point out that Coach K has thrived with smaller, quicker teams, not twin towers. Do you have a response to that?

I think the 2008 Olympic team is a pretty good indication of Coach K's preferred style. Do you agree? Or do you just want to quibble over my assessment of the 1990 team?

I agree with you on your points about Coach K and smaller, quicker teams. As I have said before, I think his ideal team would be five Grant Hills, because the parts are totally interchangeable.

sagegrouse
'I also answer "Yes!" to your question, "Or do you just want to quibble over my assessment of the 1990 team?" '

OldPhiKap
10-19-2009, 09:10 AM
I think that K devises a game plan and approach based upon the best players he has. This year, that seems to include a lot of big bodies.

Perhaps the reason that "Twin Towers" have not been a staple of our game in past years is because Aala Abdulnaby, John Smith, Casey Saunders, Marty "the Puma" Nessley, Taymon Domzalski, etc. do not have the skill sets of Miles, Mason and Singler.

I dare say that if it doesn't work, K will adjust to something different. He is not shy about making major changes in February or even March.

Anyway, back to the squabble. The 1986 Team will always be best in my eyes and I don't care who disagrees.

jv001
10-19-2009, 11:06 AM
I think that K devises a game plan and approach based upon the best players he has. This year, that seems to include a lot of big bodies.

Perhaps the reason that "Twin Towers" have not been a staple of our game in past years is because Aala Abdulnaby, John Smith, Casey Saunders, Marty "the Puma" Nessley, Taymon Domzalski, etc. do not have the skill sets of Miles, Mason and Singler.

I dare say that if it doesn't work, K will adjust to something different. He is not shy about making major changes in February or even March.

Anyway, back to the squabble. The 1986 Team will always be best in my eyes and I don't care who disagrees.

I don't think I would put Aala and John Smith with the others. Aala and John were pretty good players by their senior years. Go Duke!

jimsumner
10-19-2009, 11:51 AM
"Aala Abdulnaby, John Smith, Casey Saunders, Marty "the Puma" Nessley, Taymon Domzalski"

Alaa's early problem was lack of focus and intensity. As a senior he averaged 15.1/6.6/ made third-team All-ACC and was a first-round NBA draft pick. It's Abdelnaby, btw.

Smith started as a soph in 1987, averaging 11.9 ppg. As Alaa improved and guys like Laettner came along, he moved to the wing. He was pretty skilled but at 6'8", 215, I'm not sure he qualifies as a "tower."

Domzalski peaked as a freshman. He made the ACC All-freshman team but was hurt most of his sophomore season. Should have been redshirted. By the time he was a junior he had been passed by McLeod, Brand, and Battier. An interesting might-have-been.

Marty and Casey were not skilled. You can't teach height. Evidently, you can't teach catching a basketball, either.

Some of us think the 1989 Ferry/Abdelnaby/Laettner 4/5 combo and the 1990 Laettner/Abdelnaby combo were reasonably skilled and those teams were reasonably competent examples of the fact that a Duke team with twin towers isn't hopelessly overmatched.

MChambers
10-19-2009, 01:05 PM
"Aala Abdulnaby, John Smith, Casey Saunders, Marty "the Puma" Nessley, Taymon Domzalski"

Alaa's early problem was lack of focus and intensity. As a senior he averaged 15.1/6.6/ made third-team All-ACC and was a first-round NBA draft pick. It's Abdelnaby, btw.

Smith started as a soph in 1987, averaging 11.9 ppg. As Alaa improved and guys like Laettner came along, he moved to the wing. He was pretty skilled but at 6'8", 215, I'm not sure he qualifies as a "tower."

Domzalski peaked as a freshman. He made the ACC All-freshman team but was hurt most of his sophomore season. Should have been redshirted. By the time he was a junior he had been passed by McLeod, Brand, and Battier. An interesting might-have-been.

Marty and Casey were not skilled. You can't teach height. Evidently, you can't teach catching a basketball, either.

Some of us think the 1989 Ferry/Abdelnaby/Laettner 4/5 combo and the 1990 Laettner/Abdelnaby combo were reasonably skilled and those teams were reasonably competent examples of the fact that a Duke team with twin towers isn't hopelessly overmatched.

I certainly agree with all of this, especially your player reviews, and wasn't trying to say a Duke team with twin towers is hopelessly overmatched. I don't think anyone else was saying it either.

Just trying to say that having twin towers isn't a preferred approach for Coach K and will require strategic changes, even compromises, especially on defense.

MChambers
10-19-2009, 01:09 PM
I agree with you on your points about Coach K and smaller, quicker teams. As I have said before, I think his ideal team would be five Grant Hills, because the parts are totally interchangeable.

sagegrouse
'I also answer "Yes!" to your question, "Or do you just want to quibble over my assessment of the 1990 team?" '

Maybe three Grants and two Shanes?

OldPhiKap
10-19-2009, 01:47 PM
"Aala Abdulnaby, John Smith, Casey Saunders, Marty "the Puma" Nessley, Taymon Domzalski"

Alaa's early problem was lack of focus and intensity. As a senior he averaged 15.1/6.6/ made third-team All-ACC and was a first-round NBA draft pick. It's Abdelnaby, btw.

Smith started as a soph in 1987, averaging 11.9 ppg. As Alaa improved and guys like Laettner came along, he moved to the wing. He was pretty skilled but at 6'8", 215, I'm not sure he qualifies as a "tower."

Domzalski peaked as a freshman. He made the ACC All-freshman team but was hurt most of his sophomore season. Should have been redshirted. By the time he was a junior he had been passed by McLeod, Brand, and Battier. An interesting might-have-been.

Marty and Casey were not skilled. You can't teach height. Evidently, you can't teach catching a basketball, either.

Some of us think the 1989 Ferry/Abdelnaby/Laettner 4/5 combo and the 1990 Laettner/Abdelnaby combo were reasonably skilled and those teams were reasonably competent examples of the fact that a Duke team with twin towers isn't hopelessly overmatched.

I agree with this (and thanks for the spelling of Alaa's name -- it's been awhile). My overall point is that K comes up with a plan based upon the best talent he has that year. If it turns out to be big guys this year, so be it.
I do not think we can go from "K can't recruit the big guys" to "K can't handle having too many big guys." Fact is, K does well with whatever talent and skill sets he has at hand.

Singler is a singularly gifted player. Miles and Mason apparently have mongo upside. Z gives maximum effort. Lance plays big for "only" 6'8". I don't see how folks look at that and see a negative. If this team ends up being bigger than most of K's other teams, it will be because we have more big talent than usual and it fits the style of game he wants to run.

jv001
10-19-2009, 01:57 PM
"Aala Abdulnaby, John Smith, Casey Saunders, Marty "the Puma" Nessley, Taymon Domzalski"

Alaa's early problem was lack of focus and intensity. As a senior he averaged 15.1/6.6/ made third-team All-ACC and was a first-round NBA draft pick. It's Abdelnaby, btw.

Smith started as a soph in 1987, averaging 11.9 ppg. As Alaa improved and guys like Laettner came along, he moved to the wing. He was pretty skilled but at 6'8", 215, I'm not sure he qualifies as a "tower."

Some of us think the 1989 Ferry/Abdelnaby/Laettner 4/5 combo and the 1990 Laettner/Abdelnaby combo were reasonably skilled and those teams were reasonably competent examples of the fact that a Duke team with twin towers isn't hopelessly overmatched.

Put me in those that think '89 Ferry/Alaa/Christian was one of the best front lines we have had at Duke. I believe that group could have been addressed as the Tri-Towers and the 1990 Laettner/Alaa was a very good Twin Tower team. I still believe they could play with any Duke team. Just my opinion. Go Duke!

MulletMan
10-19-2009, 02:18 PM
Marty and Casey were not skilled. You can't teach height. Evidently, you can't teach catching a basketball, either.



:D

Its this time of year, you know, the week after the Blue-White game, when I long for Casey Sanders. Its Sanders, BTW.

I love Casey, and we don't win the Title without him giving us some servicable minutes, but I used to have a standing bet with a friend every game. He got pts+rebounds and I got fouls+times fallen down. I should have just been getting fouls. :rolleyes:

sagegrouse
10-19-2009, 07:37 PM
Maybe three Grants and two Shanes?

No repeats: Grant, Shane, Luol, Dunleavy, and another one in a similar mold -- Tinkerbell, Jack Marin, Spanarkel, Mark Alarie. Although Jack was getting a bit long in the tooth the last time I saw him.

sagegrouse

MChambers
10-19-2009, 08:26 PM
No repeats: Grant, Shane, Luol, Dunleavy, and another one in a similar mold -- Tinkerbell, Jack Marin, Spanarkel, Mark Alarie. Although Jack was getting a bit long in the tooth the last time I saw him.

sagegrouse

If you want to keep it in the Coach K teams, David Henderson. Awfully tough defender.

Kedsy
10-19-2009, 08:35 PM
If you want to keep it in the Coach K teams, David Henderson. Awfully tough defender.

If you want a tough defender, how about Billy King? Or is he too short and/or offensively challenged for this team?

Edouble
10-20-2009, 12:56 AM
No repeats: Grant, Shane, Luol, Dunleavy, and another one in a similar mold -- Tinkerbell, Jack Marin, Spanarkel, Mark Alarie. Although Jack was getting a bit long in the tooth the last time I saw him.

sagegrouse

Hmmm, maybe McBob to play point, or McLeod for his 3 point shooting?