PDA

View Full Version : Phase 0 2009-10



Pages : [1] 2

Jumbo
10-15-2009, 08:17 PM
So, I figured with this whole Countdown to Craziness thing about to happen, it was time to begin this year's "Phase" reports. In case you're new, or smart enough to usually avoid whatever I post, a couple of years ago I decided to break the season down the way NFL coaches do -- into small chunks or "phases." Anyway, it's led to a series of posts throughout the year examining key questions/factors to follow during a given stretch of games. So, let's consider Phase 0 to be Countdown to Craziness (and the official start of practice) to the moment right before the first regular season game tips off. (We'll include the exhibitions in this phase, that way. Yay.)

Because we're defining the "phase" that way, we won't actually be able to see some of the results until the next time period. But that's OK, because I'll keep this focused on things that would need to be accomplished in practice, anyway. So here's what I'll be wondering about as practice begins and the team works its way to the start of the season.

1) Can Duke stay healthy?
Here's a hint -- this will be in the same spot of every "phase" post this season. It's a huge issue for obvious reasons. And while there's not much the team or K can do to control this issue, it's has to be a major concern.

2) Is Mason Plumlee as good as I think he will be?
The most common theme among everyone associated with the program who I've spoken to over the last several months is that Mason is a complete stud, an immediate difference-maker, the best guy we've had up front in years. He's not a guy who you'll dump the ball into in the post, but he'll rebound block shots, play inside/out on offense, get easy buckets off lobs and offensive rebounds, pass, screen and generally play an athletic/intelligent game that makes everything flow more fluidly. Are these incredibly high expectations for a freshman? Absolutely? Are they warranted? We'll find out soon.

3) Is Ryan Kelly better prepared to contribute than I anticipate?
Contrary to Plumlee, the buzz on Kelly is that he's not as advanced. The obvious difference is in their overall athleticism -- Plumlee is a plus-level athlete for his size, Kelly is relatively slow, without hops and needs to gain strength. My expectations for Kelly are similar to what they were for Taylor King a couple of years ago -- he'll play situationally, and maybe knock down some jumpers, but there are several players ahead of him in the pecking order so that I do not expect major contributions as a freshman. The question is whether he is able to pick up enough things -- particularly on defense -- over the next month to change that.

4) Is the Miles Plumlee buzz more warranted than last year?
If you remember what happened in the preseason last year, word started to circulate that Plumlee had separated himself in practice and would open the season as a starter. That happened, and it obviously didn't last. He had clear weaknesss -- almost as if he wasn't quite comfortable with his own size/athleticism just yet. But there's been good buzz about him this summer too, and if he's grown into his body, he has the most upside of his competitors at the 5, with the exception of his brother. If he can catch and finish, there's strong possibility of a Plumlee-Plumlee starting frontcourt, because he simply has more physical gifts than Zoubek, Thomas or Kelly.

5) What will the shape of our defense look like?
We've heard rumblings about some zone. I don't love zone D. I don't mind the idea, though, of pulling back/altering the pressure in our man D and funneling more guys into our taller players in the paint, though. We'll finally have some shot-blocking with the Plumlees. Plus, this will alleviate a big concern of mine -- Nolan Smith's propensity to get in foul trouble. We can't ask him to pressure the other point guard as intensely and expect him to play as many minutes as we need. This also directly relates to the next area I want to watch ...

6) Are we about to see Lance Thomas embrace a very different role?
With the two Plumlees and Zoubek, Thomas should never have to play the 5, which is great. Hopefully, the fact that he's not taking a pounding in the paint on a nightly basis will leave him quicker and more explosive. And he has already shown a skill -- albeit in limited quantities -- that could make him extremely valuable this year. He's actually a good perimeter defender. Remember when Duke put him on Ish Smith last year? I think it's highly likely that Thomas becomes the team's de facto defensive stopper this year, guarding top wings. I know Singler will be just fine offensively at the 3, and I think he can do a fine job staying in front of smaller guys. And Scheyer has already shown he's an outstanding wing defender. But given the strain that will be placed on those guys offensively, it might make a lot of sense to have Singler guard, say, an offensively challenged 4-man for a while and let Thomas take the other team's best wing. It's not that he's Billy King, but if all he has to worry about his defense, it gives him a calling card; a purpose. And it gives this team better perimeter depth than we might expect just thinking about the roster in a conventional way.

7) Is Nolan Smith ready to attack, attack, attack?
No more worries about competing with a 3-year starter for playing time. No more worries about figuring out how to run an offense without the natural instincts to do so. Is it any surprise, then, that Nolan Smith seems to have a totally different attitude and confidence level heading into the season? What I want to see, then, is a consistent version of what we saw late last season -- where Smith is an attacking force off the ball. Scheyer will get people the ball in position to score. Smith doesn't have to worry about setting them up -- he just needs to use his gifts and instincts as a scorer to get to the bucket and knock down jumpers. If he does that, and stops thinking so much out there, he'll be a much better player than we've seen.

8) Will the offense feature more motion and screening?
As I said, I'm completely comfortable with Scheyer running the point. In fact, if Duke asks him to play the role of a conventional PG, I have no doubt that he can get into the lane more often than some people imagine, hand out a fair number of assists per game, and do everything else that people expect a point guard to do. And in spots, I'm sure that will happen. I think his more natural position, in fact, is the point -- he's at his best with the ball in his hands, and I've been saying that for four years. That said, Duke needs him to score, too. And he can do that effectively taking guys off the ball. Plenty of offenses -- from pure flex to the Princeton or, wait for it, pure motion -- utilize 2-guard fronts or sets that don't require a traditional PG. With Scheyer, Singler, Smith and Mason Plumlee, Duke has guys who can handle, pass and shoot. They all understand the game well. The ideal way to exploit that, then, is not a drive and kick system. It's one that involves quicker ball movement, more screens, more instinctive reads. The sense I get is that K is planning to go back to something that resembles that system a bit more. Considering how stagnant we've looked at times in recent years, I'll believe it when I see it, but I'll hold out plenty of hope.

9) How quickly can Andre Dawkins get up to speed?
In an ideal world, Dawkins will be able to play about half the game right away. In an ideal world, Duke will feel comfortable closing tight games with a lineup of Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason. But Andre obviously got a late start; how quickly he can learn the fundamentals of Duke's system and the college game in general.

10) Are there any surprises in store?
It's weird -- for a season with so much turnover in personnel and style, I feel as if I have a pretty good idea of what this team will look like come opening night. We'll rely on a Big 4 of Scheyer, Singler, Mason and Smith. One of Thomas, Miles and Zoubek will also start; Thomas will play 4 and Zoubek and Plumlee will split time in the middle when Mason isn't playing 5. If Zoubek struggles, Kelly could take his time. Czyz is a longshot to receive any real playing time. But maybe something (good) will happen to change that over the next few weeks. Maybe the system will look different. You never know.

What I do know, though, are these things. (And if you know me, I'm hardly one for hyperbole and I readily identify weaknesses with the team). You won't find a combo in the country that's clearly better than Scheyer/Singler. This is a tight, hard-working group with a lot of upside -- maybe more upside than any team we've had in a while. And because of that upside, if everything works out just right, it can compete for a championship -- the biggest one. Hopefully Phase 0 goes according to plan and starts Duke off along that path.

RainingThrees
10-15-2009, 08:26 PM
Excellent! This one thread summarizes nearly every summer hypothetical thread on this board. Running a motion offense will be really interesting, and possibly switching to a zone is change I can believe in.

Wander
10-15-2009, 08:37 PM
Is it too early to start the Singler NPOY bandwagon? I predict at least two quadruple-doubles (points, rebounds, assists, steals) and one double-triple (100+ points, 100+ rebounds).

Mike Corey
10-15-2009, 08:37 PM
I've been looking forward to Jumbo's inaugural phase post of 2009 since the season came to a close against Villanova, and as usual, he did not disappoint.

It's hard to quibble with anything he's penned--particularly because I don't think I could withstand Jumbo's rapier-like counterarguments--so I'll only add that I share my enthusiasm for what Duke basketball appears on the cusp of doing, which is to say, something it hasn't been able to do in the past few seasons.

The buzz on Mason Plumlee is up to a steady roar. His athleticism has wowed those who've observed him closely, but so too has his comfort with the ball in the post, the area where his older brother struggled the most during his freshman campaign. He'll not be a banger in the post, but will instead need to utilize his quicks and his strength to make things happen. He'll be aided, of course, by the fact that defenses will be less capable of playing "help" defense because of our triumvirate of experienced and proven talents on the perimeter/wing. Similarly, our perimeter guys will have a little more space to go to work, and to make things happen offensively--off the dribble and otherwise.

The possibilities as a result have me very curious and very eager to see what we can do with the ball in our hands.

This team is extremely close, and extremely loose, and extremely confident. I don't know that we've had that in a while.

And Jumbo's breakdown is as good a summary of what to look for and hope for as you'll find anywhere. Here's hoping we grade out well in Phase 0.

BD80
10-15-2009, 08:45 PM
Is it too early to start the Singler NPOY bandwagon? I predict ... one double-triple (100+ points, 100+ rebounds).

Why, that hasn't been done since Elliot Richards played for the Diablos!

BlueintheFace
10-15-2009, 08:46 PM
Oh its this time of year again eh? I guess that means its time for the flood of responses making more points...

11) Ball Security

I am very interested to see what the motion looks like. In recent times we have looked to get the ball out to the wings and let our athletic swingmen dribble the ball in order to change/draw in the defense and create opportunities. However, now that we don't have a Gerald Henderson or Demarcus Nelson to break people down off the dribble with that first step and drive in to the lane, we will really be looking to PASS the ball in to scoring positions a lot more. It seems we will be moving the defenses with activity OFF THE BALL a lot more. What does this mean? Lots of passing... lots of quick ball movement. Combine lots of quick ball movement with quite a few key freshmen.... will turnovers become an issue?

roywhite
10-15-2009, 09:01 PM
To Point#1 on the list, the importance of staying healthy---it's good to see that we're not coming into the season after significant surgeries and re-hab which seemed to be the case in a few recent years.

I've read that Ryan was sick during the summer and lost a bunch of weight, but seems to be regaining the weight and strength.

jimsumner
10-15-2009, 10:16 PM
A few comments.

"Is Mason Plumlee is good as I think he will be?"

The buzz is that Mason is going to be real, real good, real, real soon.

"Is Ryan Kelly better prepared to contribute than I anticipate?"

The word is that Kelly has a very advanced skill set, great smarts, and is a great perimeter shooter. He's about 220. The big question, IMO, is lateral quickeness. I think his intangibles are better than those of Taylor King, who simply never looked comfortable or happy at Duke. K seems to be thinking of Kelly as a perimeter player. Still, right now I think Kelly is about number nine in the rotation.

"Is the Miles Plumlee buzz more warranted than last year?"

Mason says Miles is the best of the brothers. Last year, Miles looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights. He seems so much more poised this year. He's up to about 240 and supposedly has worked very, very hard in the off-season. I think confidence is the key. Can he fight through bad times? Last year he couldn't.

" What will the shape of our defense look like."

K talked today about using Duke's length without overextending that length. Does that mean zone? Who knows? But he also talked about using defense to dictate tempo. I think we'll see situational zone but I'll be astonished if K goes too far away from the man-to-man principles that have defined his program.


"Are we about to see Lance Thomas embrace a very different role?"

Talk about your irony. Thomas is up to 228 yet may play less inside than earlier in his career, when he weighed much less. Both he and K say he will guard the other team's best offensive player, whether that be a 1 or a 5. Still, I hope we won't be seeing Thomas guard those 260-pounders anymore. I do think we'll see Thomas as the nominal 4 on offense, 3 on defense.

He also says he's been working n his mid-range jumper and ball-handling. I doubt whether he'll be a primary offensive option but the ability to knock down the open 15-footer would be nice.

"Is Nolan Smith ready to attack, attack, attack?"

Based on what I've heard, Smith could be ready for a big, big year. I was told that Smith has been the best player on the floor on a regular basis. I think playing off the ball has liberated him. You're right about the confidence. He just exudes it. Last year, he didn't.

"Will the offense feature more motion and screening?"

K says that Duke will be a motion team this year. Except for Zoubek, this seems to fit the skill set and personalities of just about the entire team.

And Scheyer definitely thinks of himself as a point guard. Duke also expects its rebounding prowess to give them more fast-break opportunities. They want to run. On the other hand, will Duke get as many fast-break opportunities off of its D? Could be a wash.


"How quickly can Andre Dawkins get up to speed?"

What I'm hearing about Dawkins is that he is a great shooter and athlete but Duke wants him to be more assertive. Like you said, he didn't have the advantage of summer school to acclimate, so it may take awhile. Fortunately, Duke has enough early-season push-overs for Dawkins to get some PT.



"Are there any surprises in store?"

Well, they wouldn't be surprises, would they? :)

jipops
10-15-2009, 10:25 PM
A little disappointing to hear such a buzz about Kelly and I too feel he may very well struggle to find meaningful minutes in such a crowded front court. But unlike King, it does appear he's able to bring much more to the table offensively than just spotting up to shoot. Kelly's ability to defend will of course determine what kind of time he can get out there.

Now that Singler will be more of a perimeter player, Thomas and Zoubek are the only experienced front court players we have. Seems as though Zoubek may need to figure into some end of game situations as a result.

Newton_14
10-15-2009, 10:33 PM
Great stuff as always Jumbo!

I actually did a search last night to see when you posted the first "Phase" post last season. With the season now upon us I was really looking forward to that. You did not disappoint!

I am excited about this season as well. Will be there tomorrow night to see for myself how the guys look. I think you are spot on about the role Lance will play and I think he will do well as a stopper on the perimeter.

I think we are going to see Singler take his game to a whole new level that will be scary good. I expect Nolan is now ready to perform at a high level consistently, and Jon will be Jon and perhaps raise his game a notch.

Add to that a possible budding star in Mason and a confident and improved Miles, plus 4 very different options coming off the bench and this team has great potential.

Obviously Jon, Nolan, and Andre have to avoid the injury bug, but other than that there are a lot more pluses than minuses.. that's my take.

Thanks Jumbo for a great Phase 0 post!

Go Duke!

jimsumner
10-15-2009, 10:34 PM
I think Singler still qualifies as a front-court player, just more of what traditional nomenclature calls a 3 rather than a 4.

And there will be times when he'll be on the court with Scheyer, Smith, and Dawkins, especially end-of-game, with-the-ball situations, when foul shooting and ball handling take primacy.

I also see Kelly in the game in those situations. Kid can shoot. Don't interpret anything I'm saying as negative towards Kelly. But the things he does well, Singler does better, and Duke needs Thomas' D at the other forward more than they need Kelly's O. As a general rule. But there will be times this year when Duke absolutely will need Ryan Kelly to come off the bench and perform at a high level.

Newton_14
10-15-2009, 10:45 PM
I think Singler still qualifies as a front-court player, just more of what traditional nomenclature calls a 3 rather than a 4.

And there will be times when he'll be on the court with Scheyer, Smith, and Dawkins, especially end-of-game, with-the-ball situations, when foul shooting and ball handling take primacy.

I also see Kelly in the game in those situations. Kid can shoot. Don't interpret anything I'm saying as negative towards Kelly. But the things he does well, Singler does better, and Duke needs Thomas' D at the other forward more than they need Kelly's O. As a general rule. But there will be times this year when Duke absolutely will need Ryan Kelly to come off the bench and perform at a high level.

Jim, one of the things that killed the team last year, especially in the nova game, was having too many guys on the floor that were not a threat to score. Am I right in thinking that problem goes away this year?

It would be real nice for the opposing team to have to guard all 5 guys rather than only 2 or 3...evens the odds a bit you know;)

jimsumner
10-15-2009, 10:52 PM
Ideally, you'd have five guys who are threats to score and lock-down defenders.

Doesn't work that way very often.

That's why I'm anxious to see if Thomas really has improved his ball skills. Given his experience and defensive abilities, I'd like to have him on the floor a lot. But if he's going to miss half of his foul shots and if the opposition doesn't have to account for him when Duke has the ball, then choices have to be made.

Hopefully, Duke's renewed devotion to a motion offense will showcase his mobility.

Jumbo
10-15-2009, 11:09 PM
Jim, one of the things that killed the team last year, especially in the nova game, was having too many guys on the floor that were not a threat to score. Am I right in thinking that problem goes away this year?

It would be real nice for the opposing team to have to guard all 5 guys rather than only 2 or 3...evens the odds a bit you know;)

Thanks for the props in your earlier post. Last year, especially when we had Smith, Scheyer, Henderson and Singler, we had four guys on the court who could score. I think it'll likely be the same this year -- usually one non-scorer on the court.

The difference is that a) Smith, Scheyer and Singler should all be better and b) this might sound weird considering Henderson's gone, but we should be able to score a bit easier. That's because of Mason Plumlee, but also Miles. Their size and athleticism give us a bit more margin for error, offensively. We can have a bad trip down the court, but one of them can make an athleticially play, grab an offensive board and score. If a guard drives and lobs the ball up toward the rim, Mason will catch and finish. That's been a problem with our bigs in recent years. Cheap buckets are huge, especially against top defensive teams, and we'll get more this season.

dukelifer
10-15-2009, 11:25 PM
Thanks for the props in your earlier post. Last year, especially when we had Smith, Scheyer, Henderson and Singler, we had four guys on the court who could score. I think it'll likely be the same this year -- usually one non-scorer on the court.

The difference is that a) Smith, Scheyer and Singler should all be better and b) this might sound weird considering Henderson's gone, but we should be able to score a bit easier. That's because of Mason Plumlee, but also Miles. Their size and athleticism give us a bit more margin for error, offensively. We can have a bad trip down the court, but one of them can make an athleticially play, grab an offensive board and score. If a guard drives and lobs the ball up toward the rim, Mason will catch and finish. That's been a problem with our bigs in recent years. Cheap buckets are huge, especially against top defensive teams, and we'll get more this season.

I am looking forward to seeing the guys in person tomorrow. I am also thinking Miles will step up this year- big brothers like to lead. Kelly will need to grow into his body and learn to play at this level. I expect like King, he will contribute most in games where Duke is ahead and he can float. But he is going to work hard and that has to count for something. For me, Dawkins is the X factor. He may be like Elliot last year- it will take him a while to get in the flow - but once he figures it out- he may be a big player and hit big shots. Duke will have a lot of bodies to work with- but as usual it will come down to the three S's- Scheyer, Smith and Singler. They need to stay in games and stay healthy for Duke to do well. If Zoubs or Thomas decide to pull an Abdelnaby - and have a senior season to remember- Duke could be very, very good.

loran16
10-16-2009, 01:06 AM
Are we really comparing Ryan Kelly to Taylor King now? are we really that low?

Kelly is a 5 star, as opposed to King's 4 star, and Kelly was ranked by Scout at least higher than Plumlee.

Now does that mean Kelly will be better than Plumlee? Of course not. But Taylor King was an oversized small forward/shooting guard who was too slow to defend and could do nothing but shoot.
If we really now believe Kelly is that slow and nonathletic, i'll be shocked. I mean that's really really a low expectation...King was a poor player for Duke. Seriously.

I don't expect Kelly to start. But i expect him to play some decent minutes, lets say 8 minutes a game at minimum. And I expect him to be IN the game during key situations and me not to be crying because of it. I'd rather he be in the game than Lance Thomas at any point (Previous posters know my stance on Lance)

I mean, seriously King didn't need to grow into his body, he needed to SHRINK OUT OF IT. That comparison is so low as to be ridiculous. If at the end of the season we're still going with that comparison...then MP2 better be damn good. Because we could use the help of the other 5 star power forward we've recruited.

juise
10-16-2009, 01:14 AM
King was a poor player for Duke. Seriously.

I don't think this is entirely fair. I think "limited player" is more accurate. Anyone who scores 27 points in a game is not simply "poor," even if he wasn't ready for ACC competition yet. He was one-dimensional and a defensive liability as a freshman, but let's not pretend like Duke's staff has never developed a player before.

Having said all that, I think that Ryan Kelly is definitely a step above Taylor. Let's hope he's more ready to play.

loran16
10-16-2009, 01:19 AM
I don't think this is entirely fair. I think "limited player" is more accurate. Anyone who scores 27 points in a game is not simply "poor," even if he wasn't ready for ACC competition yet. He was one-dimensional and a defensive liability as a freshman, but let's not pretend like Duke's staff has never developed a player before.

Having said all that, I think that Ryan Kelly is definitely a step above Taylor. Let's hope he's more ready to play.

Eastern Carolina and Wisconsin iirc? Anyhow, the problem with King was that he literally only could shoot, and that he couldn't be on the floor against any opponent who you required some decent defense against. Also he was horribly streaky and prone to bad shot selection.

Sooo yeah, let's hope Kelly is more ready to play. I expect him to be at LEAST servicable on defense, as well as a more balanced player on the offensive side.

The Comparison sets a low standard for him to live up to.

SilkyJ
10-16-2009, 02:59 AM
You won't find a combo in the country that's clearly better than Scheyer/Singler.

I agree with 99.99%, Jumbo, and am enthused to hear the MP2 buzz seems legit coming from those in the know.

The only thing I would dare to question is the above quote. I thought the general consensus was that Sherron Collins/Cole Aldrich are the #1 combo in the country, with Aldrich a likely high lottery pick next year and Collins a likely 1st rounder. I guess where you go in the draft isn't everything, but I just thought that was the general consensus for those not wearing Duke Blue glasses...

oldnavy
10-16-2009, 07:18 AM
Toss it up! I agree with SilkyJ, that combo in Kansas is about as good as it gets, BUT Singler and Schyer are not far behind.

Heres a question, What is the impact of the Plumlees playing together? Does it help Miles improve more and help Mason get out of the gate quicker than would otherwise be expected? Mentally it has to be a boost and emotionally they have to feel more comfortable wouldn't you think??

I hope that it will help them both have better seasons than either would have without the other on the team.

Bob Green
10-16-2009, 08:01 AM
Another outstanding post from Jumbo. My expectations are always met with these much anticipated phase reports.

A significant factor for Duke this season, IMO, is the amount of experience Coach Krzyzewski will be able to place on the court. Singler, Scheyer, Thomas, Smith, and Zoubek are all upper classmen with a combined 243 starts. This number is actually low as Scheyer only started one game as a sophomore when Coach K placed him in the sixth man role.

Experience is King in college hoops and Duke has a tremendous amount of experience to go along with the new faces on the team.

I honestly believe this year's team has a high ceiling!

UrinalCake
10-16-2009, 08:01 AM
A couple other questions that come to mind:

Will Zoubek's game continue to develop? A lot of people seem to have given up on him. He's really the only true center on the team. Our offense does not require us to have a center in the game at all times, but he can really provide another dimension if he can contribute.

Who will be the high-energy, glue guy? All great teams have one. Dave McClure filled that role for us last year... will it be Thomas? Dawkins?

RelativeWays
10-16-2009, 08:05 AM
I can't believe we're in the phase phase already. Next week will be the first basketball snrub chat of the season (unless you do one for the blue & white game). Its exciting, can't wait to go to CIS this evening.

Bob Green
10-16-2009, 08:06 AM
Who will be the high-energy, glue guy?

Lance Thomas is the heir apparent in my book for the glue guy award. His energy is awesome.

NSDukeFan
10-16-2009, 09:13 AM
Thanks Jumbo, a great phase report as usual. It is very nice to be getting to the point where we can actually see this year's team play after months of speculation and discussion about what high school kids are thinking. I share the excitement and optimism of many of the posters and look forward to seeing the improvement of the players after a healthy summer.

I was surprised to see Lance and Brian not included as starters at this point, but certainly not shocked. It is great that K feels Miles and Mason are ready to be starters and I hope to see great contributions from Lance and Z as well.

roywhite
10-16-2009, 10:02 AM
I can't believe we're in the phase phase already. Next week will be the first basketball snrub chat of the season (unless you do one for the blue & white game). Its exciting, can't wait to go to CIS this evening.

Yeah, great time of the year with FB in full swing and Blue Devil hoops getting underway.

Hope you and others will update us on CTC, Blue-White, public practice, etc. Thanks.

BlueintheFace
10-16-2009, 10:08 AM
Lance Thomas is the heir apparent in my book for the glue guy award. His energy is awesome.

See- Last year's Clemson loss. That solidified it for me. Thomas will bring the fire this year.

Jumbo
10-16-2009, 10:24 AM
Are we really comparing Ryan Kelly to Taylor King now? are we really that low?

Kelly is a 5 star, as opposed to King's 4 star, and Kelly was ranked by Scout at least higher than Plumlee.

Now does that mean Kelly will be better than Plumlee? Of course not. But Taylor King was an oversized small forward/shooting guard who was too slow to defend and could do nothing but shoot.
If we really now believe Kelly is that slow and nonathletic, i'll be shocked. I mean that's really really a low expectation...King was a poor player for Duke. Seriously.

I don't expect Kelly to start. But i expect him to play some decent minutes, lets say 8 minutes a game at minimum. And I expect him to be IN the game during key situations and me not to be crying because of it. I'd rather he be in the game than Lance Thomas at any point (Previous posters know my stance on Lance)

I mean, seriously King didn't need to grow into his body, he needed to SHRINK OUT OF IT. That comparison is so low as to be ridiculous. If at the end of the season we're still going with that comparison...then MP2 better be damn good. Because we could use the help of the other 5 star power forward we've recruited.

I don't mean to imply that his game is identical to King's -- obviously there are differences. And King was the better shooter of the two. What I am saying is that, like Jim, I think he's about #9 in the rotation right now. He can be good in time, but has a lot to work on. There are other guys who fill more needed roles at this time. And this should also be yet another lesson in the inexact science of recruiting rankings.

dw0827
10-16-2009, 10:37 AM
The last several months have been fairly boring without Jumbo's acerbic wit and wisdom on display on a regular basis. The level of discourse has been, well, . . .

But leave it to Jumbo to come back with a vengeance with his first Phase post of the season. Now we're talkin' hoops for real. Great stuff and thanks, Jumbo, for bringing the board back to the high level of discussion that DBR is known for. With one post.

Now if I can just post something inane or sarcastically uncivil and get berated and humbled by Jumbo . . . then I'll know . . . the season has started!

_Gary
10-16-2009, 10:37 AM
Another solid post, Jumbo. I agree with just about every one of your points, and I think Coach K's presser from yesterday confirms much of what you've written. For instance he specifically made mention of the Plumlees playing together, of Singler playing on the wing more, and of Lance being a lock-down defender for all 5 positions. And there is no underplaying your first point: injuries. It has been a bugaboo for us in recent years and it has to be considered a major factor at all times.

The only issue I slightly disagree with you on is Scheyer at the point. I do have confidence in him making good reads and smart decisions in the half court. As a perimiter distributor I'm fine with him at the point. My concern has always been (and unless something superhuman happened to Jon this summer) a lack of athleticism, which can hurt us a couple of ways. Offensively, I do prefer a point that can break down the defense with the dribble. Clearly we all agree that's not something Jon is going to be able to do. That's not to say he can't run the point doing other things, but I have to admit I'm more comfortable with a guy that can do those things (Bobby, William Avery, Jason, Chris, etc). In my mind that is a bit of a weakness if Jon is truly going to be "the" point-guard on the team. But I kinda think he will be sharing those duties with Nolan, so the concern isn't as great in my mind. Similar to breaking down a defense in the half-court, I also wonder about Jon's ability to break presses and or lead on the fast break. I know he's capable of both, but again it's just a bit nicer when you have a quick guard that can really change directions with the dribble. Jon will use his brain (his biggest asset) and get the job done when needed. I have no doubt about that.

I think there's a small amount of concern if we are pressed by quick, athletic teams. I know the conventional response will be that we will just throw the ball over the top of the press with all our height, as well as having intellegent ball-handlers (and we definitely will have that this year). But I'd still like to have one more guy like a Gerald Henderson (just as a recent example) who I'd feel comfortable with helping to bring the ball upcourt if we are pressed hard. Maybe that won't be an issue at all. But I'd expect a few teams to test us on that point early in the season.

Again, great opening post and I do agree with most everything you wrote. Having Andre this year is, in my opinion, a life-saver. Had things not worked out where he was able to be here this year, I'd have been much more concerned with a lack of guard depth. Hopefully he gives us some real breathing room on that front.

Gary

loran16
10-16-2009, 10:50 AM
I don't mean to imply that his game is identical to King's -- obviously there are differences. And King was the better shooter of the two. What I am saying is that, like Jim, I think he's about #9 in the rotation right now. He can be good in time, but has a lot to work on. There are other guys who fill more needed roles at this time. And this should also be yet another lesson in the inexact science of recruiting rankings.

(--content redacted by moderators --)

Anyhow, my point is that Kelly is at worst a CLOSE #9, who i would hope Coach K gets minutes (like i said, 8-9 minutes a game) . Whereas Taylor King was a guy who during ACC play I hoped would never come into the game unless we were down 3 with few seconds remaining.

And I'm aware recruiting rankings are not perfect, (see JJ Redick, 4 star and Josh Mcroberts and Greg Paulus, elite players) but I feel like we're dismissing these scouts....based on what exactly? some reports out of camp? We haven't even seen these guys with out own eyes for gods sakes! And yet you're demoting Kelly's relevance to Taylor King already. Yikes.

jv001
10-16-2009, 10:53 AM
Duke Basketball is here..Jumbo thanks for the first of your phase updates and I agree with you as usual. Here are some of my comments:
1. Duke health...First time in a long time that our players were able to work on their games and not rehab. Just hope this holds true for the year. It's up to almighty God. We can't afford for Jon, Kyle or Nolan to miss much time.
2. Is Mason as good as we think. I would say yes. From all reports Mason has caught everyone's eye. It seems he and Miles bring out the best in each other and I expect it to continue through out the year.
3. Ryan Kelly better prepared to contribute than we think. Too early to tell. This one will play out in practice. I will say that Ryan is supposed to have good skill sets and smarts. I think he will be better than Taylor King.
4. Miles Plumlee..see #2
5. This years defense..some zone to keep the guards out of foul trouble, but mostly man.
6. Nolan ready to attack with confidence..I think Nolan will have an excellent year if he stays healthy. Not having the responsibility of running the team will help, but just being healthy will be more important.
7. Lance Thomas understands his role. I believe he will be a Dave McClure type player this year. We need his perimeter defense.
8. Andre Dawkins will contribute but maybe not as quick as some would like. Dre will play like a freshman at times but will make some big plays for us. His defense will dictate minutes played.
9. Surprises.. Well since Coach K has said that we will play motion offense thats not a surprise. Someone said last year we got caught standing around in our drive and kick offense. That was oh so true. I like the idea of more passing, less dribbling and high low games. This team is well equipped for that. The only surprise I see is for the Duke haters who think we will not be good this year. As for me, I think this team could be special. But what do I know? Go Duke!

crimsonandblue
10-16-2009, 10:57 AM
Another solid post, Jumbo. I agree with just about every one of your points, and I think Coach K's presser from yesterday confirms much of what you've written. For instance he specifically made mention of the Plumlees playing together, of Singler playing on the wing more, and of Lance being a lock-down defender for all 5 positions. And there is no underplaying your first point: injuries. It has been a bugaboo for us in recent years and it has to be considered a major factor at all times.

The only issue I slightly disagree with you on is Scheyer at the point. I do have confidence in him making good reads and smart decisions in the half court. As a perimiter distributor I'm fine with him at the point. My concern has always been (and unless something superhuman happened to Jon this summer) a lack of athleticism, which can hurt us a couple of ways. Offensively, I do prefer a point that can break down the defense with the dribble. Clearly we all agree that's not something Jon is going to be able to do. That's not to say he can't run the point doing other things, but I have to admit I'm more comfortable with a guy that can do those things (Bobby, William Avery, Jason, Chris, etc). In my mind that is a bit of a weakness if Jon is truly going to be "the" point-guard on the team. But I kinda think he will be sharing those duties with Nolan, so the concern isn't as great in my mind. Similar to breaking down a defense in the half-court, I also wonder about Jon's ability to break presses and or lead on the fast break. I know he's capable of both, but again it's just a bit nicer when you have a quick guard that can really change directions with the dribble. Jon will use his brain (his biggest asset) and get the job done when needed. I have no doubt about that.

I think there's a small amount of concern if we are pressed by quick, athletic teams. I know the conventional response will be that we will just throw the ball over the top of the press with all our height, as well as having intellegent ball-handlers (and we definitely will have that this year). But I'd still like to have one more guy like a Gerald Henderson (just as a recent example) who I'd feel comfortable with helping to bring the ball upcourt if we are pressed hard. Maybe that won't be an issue at all. But I'd expect a few teams to test us on that point early in the season.

Again, great opening post and I do agree with most everything you wrote. Having Andre this year is, in my opinion, a life-saver. Had things not worked out where he was able to be here this year, I'd have been much more concerned with a lack of guard depth. Hopefully he gives us some real breathing room on that front.

Gary


Scheyer may not blow by people off the dribble, but he's certainly athletic enough, in combination with his high BBIQ, to get by people and create. A head and/or shoulder fake, get a little lift from the defender and get past. He also uses those moves to draw contact.

As for having a Henderson around to help on the press, I think you'd be better off with Singler handling than Henderson. Henderson had a lot of talents, but I didn't think of ball-handling as being one of his tops...

dw0827
10-16-2009, 11:05 AM
I think I'd like to disagree with a few points made by Gary.

Subjectively, I though Scheyer played really well when he became the dedicated point late in the season. And I thought the team did, too.

There are a lot of ways for a point to break down a defense . . . and one of them is with the dribble, as Gary mentions. While I may agree that Jon won't speed past defenders with the dribble on a regular basis, I do think he will penetrate effectively and, with his height, be able to see over the defense and shoot over the defense and generally make smart plays. Very few people can get by a dedicated defender with the dribble. There aren't too many Lawsons around.

Sharing point with Nolan. Well, actually, that does worry me because I haven't seen much in Nolan that tells me that he is a capable point. In my view, he's a shooting guard. Period. Nolan may be speedier than Jon but he doesn't have point skills like Jon has. Or the mentality. So, I personally don't need to see Nolan at the point a lot. Obviously, with our lack of depth, he'll play the point some . . . but that's not where I think he will excel and that's not the most effective look for the team.

Actually, last year Henderson scared me a bit when he had the ball. Jon had 102 assists last year and 57 turnovers . . . almost 2:1. And I haven't looked at the last ten games or so, but I bet his ratio was even better during that period. Henderson? 91:80. About 1:1. He had 80 turnovers and didn't really even handle the ball much. Nolan last year? 58:55. Again, almost 1:1.

Break the press? Gary answered his own concern. Go over it. Jeez, with the size and mobility of this team, what else would you do? Jon doesn't need to go baseline to foul line with the dribble juking an faking defenders along the way. Presses can easily be beaten without one guy going coast to coast with the dribble. In fact, I was taught that doing that was the LEAST effective way of beating the press . . . and the slowest.

Nope. I'm perfectly happy with Jon at the point. In fact, I look forward to it and believe that he . . . and the team . . . will excel BECAUSE Jon is the point.

PS . . . Did I read that right? You actually said, out loud, that you are concerned with Jon's lack of athleticism? In response to a Jumbo post. With Jumbo in the house? You are indeed a brave man.

_Gary
10-16-2009, 11:06 AM
Scheyer may not blow by people off the dribble, but he's certainly athletic enough, in combination with his high BBIQ, to get by people and create. A head and/or shoulder fake, get a little lift from the defender and get past. He also uses those moves to draw contact.

As for having a Henderson around to help on the press, I think you'd be better off with Singler handling than Henderson. Henderson had a lot of talents, but I didn't think of ball-handling as being one of his tops...

I know Jon can do the one dribble, head fake move and get people out of position. That's certainly a plus. But that's a far cry from literally breaking down opposing guards off the dribble and getting both into the lane and getting enough elevation to either put the ball in the hole yourself or have enough hang time to wait and dish the ball off to a big once someone slides over. Jon simply does not have that type of athleticism. Nevertheless, I'm fine with Jon doing many things a point guard needs to do and I'm in no way panicking at the thought of him playing the 1. Just making an honest observation, and it's only my opinion.

Kyle will be fine in presses, but he doesn't bring the same skill set as Gerald in terms of dribbling in traffic. What I stated about other teams pressing us was not meant to be a negative, and I really wasn't trying to focus in on Gerald. He just popped into my head as a guy that had the basic skill set off last year's team that I think would be helpful if we are pressed. In truth I'd rather have a guy like Bobby, Will Avery or Jason Williams doing that stuff. But dare to dream, right. :D

_Gary
10-16-2009, 11:14 AM
Break the press? Gary answered his own concern. Go over it...

PS . . . Did I read that right? You actually said, out loud, that you are concerned with Jon's lack of athleticism? In response to a Jumbo post. With Jumbo in the house? You are indeed a brave man.


OK, I don't think my post required a "Go over it, Jeez" response as if what I said was that off the wall. Feel free to disagree with me, but please don't overstate my position. I didn't say I was panicking or overly concerned. I brought up one point. That's all. No need to go ballistic on me, my friend. :)

As for daring to disagree with Jumbo in "his house", let's just say I've been around a while and it just wouldn't be the same if I didn't have something to disagree with Jumbo about. LOL

I can tell we are getting close to the beginning of the season. I'm a couple of minutes in and already I'm getting slammed. :p


Gary

Kedsy
10-16-2009, 11:25 AM
I know Jon can do the one dribble, head fake move and get people out of position. That's certainly a plus. But that's a far cry from literally breaking down opposing guards off the dribble and getting both into the lane and getting enough elevation to either put the ball in the hole yourself or have enough hang time to wait and dish the ball off to a big once someone slides over. Jon simply does not have that type of athleticism. Nevertheless, I'm fine with Jon doing many things a point guard needs to do and I'm in no way panicking at the thought of him playing the 1. Just making an honest observation, and it's only my opinion.


I think we've been overexposed to recent UNC teams. Of course who wouldn't want to have the quickest, nastiest PG running your team? But Duke has had plenty of good teams that didn't have that sort of PG and has still managed to be successful (e.g., Final Four teams in 1986, 1988, 1989, 1994, 2004; ACC champions in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009). Also, with the motion offense K intends to play, a break-em-down PG becomes less critical.


Sharing point with Nolan. Well, actually, that does worry me because I haven't seen much in Nolan that tells me that he is a capable point.

I think Nolan is going to surprise you. He could very well be the break-em-down, triple threat guard that Gary is pining for.

_Gary
10-16-2009, 11:31 AM
I think we've been overexposed to recent UNC teams. Of course who wouldn't want to have the quickest, nastiest PG running your team? But Duke has had plenty of good teams that didn't have that sort of PG and has still managed to be successful (e.g., Final Four teams in 1986, 1988, 1989, 1994, 2004; ACC champions in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009). Also, with the motion offense K intends to play, a break-em-down PG becomes less critical.

I'm probably just not expressing myself well. I think guys like Johnny Dawkins, Grant Hill and Chris Duhon were the type of players I'm thinking about. They didn't have to be Hurley, Avery or Williams quick. Just guys that can break down the defense with dribble drives. All those guys could certainly do that. Which brings me to your second paragraph, Kedsy.



I think Nolan is going to surprise you. He could very well be the break-em-down, triple threat guard that Gary is pining for.

Absolutely! Some may thinking I'm getting my hopes up, but I truly believe Nolan is going to be that guy for us this year, and I'm stoked about it!!!

Saratoga2
10-16-2009, 11:47 AM
I think Singler still qualifies as a front-court player, just more of what traditional nomenclature calls a 3 rather than a 4.

And there will be times when he'll be on the court with Scheyer, Smith, and Dawkins, especially end-of-game, with-the-ball situations, when foul shooting and ball handling take primacy.

I also see Kelly in the game in those situations. Kid can shoot. Don't interpret anything I'm saying as negative towards Kelly. But the things he does well, Singler does better, and Duke needs Thomas' D at the other forward more than they need Kelly's O. As a general rule. But there will be times this year when Duke absolutely will need Ryan Kelly to come off the bench and perform at a high level.


I wonder how this team will stack up in the foul shooting dept? My guess about the ones to get serious playing time.

Scheyer Excellent
Smith Excellent
Zoubek Good
Thomas Inconsistent. He showed some improvement at times last year
Singler Good
Kelly Expect to be good
Plumley I Fair
Plumley II Unknown
Dawkins Expect to be good

I would think this team will have a better average than last year.

dw0827
10-16-2009, 11:57 AM
Ok, I think I understand what you are saying. And I'm not slamming you. I just disagree with you.

One point . . . we don't have Lawson or Hurley or Hill or Duhon or Dawkins or Williams on this year's team. Sure, it would be great if we did. But we don't.

We have Jon and Nolan.

Kedsy says that Nolan may surprise me. Based on what? Wishful thinking? He's going to be that break-em-down, triple threat guard? Again, based on what? Did Nolan eat a lot of Wheaties this summer? Did he practice practice practice point guard skills all summer? Have you seen or heard from reliable sources that he has really developed his point guard skills over the summer?

Nolan becoming the point you pine for doesn't automatically happen just because you want it to happen. There wasn't anything in Nolan's performance last year that suggests to me that he will become the break-em-down triple threat guard you want him to be. And that's all I can go on and that's what my opinion is based upon. Past performance.

And Gary, you misinterpreted my "Jeez" expression. I said "Go over it [the defense]. Jeez, with the size and mobility of this team, what else would you do?" The way I meant for that to be taken was like "Go over it [the defense]. Holy mackerel, with the size and mobility . . . ." Jeez modifies and expands the sentence in which it was included, not the "Go over it" sentence. And you do realize I said "Go over it." and not "Get over it."

Bottom line. Jon is plenty athletic, Jon has basketball IQ that is stratospheric, and if it isn't Jon, it's Nolan. Between the two, I go with Jon. Personal opinion.

Saratoga2
10-16-2009, 12:01 PM
[text redacted by moderator]
Anyhow, my point is that Kelly is at worst a CLOSE #9, who i would hope Coach K gets minutes (like i said, 8-9 minutes a game) . Whereas Taylor King was a guy who during ACC play I hoped would never come into the game unless we were down 3 with few seconds remaining.

And I'm aware recruiting rankings are not perfect, (see JJ Redick, 4 star and Josh Mcroberts and Greg Paulus, elite players) but I feel like we're dismissing these scouts....based on what exactly? some reports out of camp? We haven't even seen these guys with out own eyes for gods sakes! And yet you're demoting Kelly's relevance to Taylor King already. Yikes.


Last year we had Zoubek and Thomas who were very foul prone and Plumley I was also in that category as well. Singler picked up quite a few as he played with abandon and was asked to guard bigger aggressive players inside.

Scheyer was good at avoiding foul issues at guard but Smith picked up quite a few when he played the aggressive, overplay style. Dawkins is likely to have problems with trying to impress to earn playing time and being overly aggressive.

My guess is Plumley II will be better inside since he is athletic and has the size to intimidate to some degree. Kelly is a little on the slow side to guard outside, yet he is unlikely to handle the larger guys inside. He will have to find a way to play without racking up a lot of fouls. He may well do better than people here expect. He may wind up playing the 3 and unless his man is very quick, he should be okay.

_Gary
10-16-2009, 12:04 PM
And Gary, you misinterpreted my "Jeez" expression. I said "Go over it [the defense]. Jeez, with the size and mobility of this team, what else would you do?" The way I meant for that to be taken was like "Go over it [the defense]. Holy mackerel, with the size and mobility . . . ." Jeez modifies and expands the sentence in which it was included, not the "Go over it" sentence. And you do realize I said "Go over it." and not "Get over it."

I did read you correctly. Had you said "Get over it" I probably would have been a bit stronger instead of using a smiley. But I still thought you were taking my small concern and responding to it like a big concern, i.e. setting up a strawman. But no biggie. We'll agree to disagree on the specifics of how Jon and Nolan (two great Duke guards) will play the point this year. I'm sure we can agree on one thing: we both want and expect Duke to be pretty darned good this year! :)

Gary

jimsumner
10-16-2009, 12:14 PM
FWIW, Ryan Kelly was the consensus #14 player last year. Taylor King was the consensus #24 player in what was regarded as one of the best prep classes of all time.

dw0827
10-16-2009, 12:17 PM
I thought the primary intent of your initial post was to express your concerns with Jon as the point.

"The only issue I slightly disagree with you on is Scheyer at the point."

And the rest of the post seemed to expand on that statement.

And I disagreed with that statement and some of the bullet points you use to support your perspective. No strawman here.

But you are right, no big deal.

In fact, with such little depth in the backcourt, let's hope that both of us are right: Jon is the smart intelligent athletic (lol) point guard I think he is and Nolan is the break-em-down triple threat guard you hope he has become. With our depth, they'll both have the chance . . .

. . . although it won't surprise me to see Jon play 35 minutes a game this year. Surely over 30.

And Andre? We haven't even mentioned him. I read that he's a really good shooter but I've never really read anyone say that he projects to be much help as a point. Any thoughts on what we can and should expect from Andre this year?

jimsumner
10-16-2009, 12:43 PM
Dawkins does not currently project as a point. I suspect we'd see Jordan Davidson as the third PG before Dawkins. Maybe even Singler. Duke wants Dawkins to hit the open jumper and play solid D. Anything else right now is gravy.

Scheyer may well average 35 mpg. Fortunately, he is superbly conditioned and intelligent enough not to commit stupid fouls. So, I think he can play those 35 mpg without a significant drop-off in effectiveness.

FWIW, K commented yesterday that his best teams have players who play lots of minutes. Dawkins, Hurley, Battier, Duhon, Duke has had some great players who just didn't come off the floor.

roywhite
10-16-2009, 12:59 PM
Scheyer may well average 35 mpg. Fortunately, he is superbly conditioned and intelligent enough not to commit stupid fouls. So, I think he can play those 35 mpg without a significant drop-off in effectiveness.

FWIW, K commented yesterday that his best teams have players who play lots of minutes. Dawkins, Hurley, Battier, Duhon, Duke has had some great players who just didn't come off the floor.

Going way back, I've seen Duke teams play an entire game without substitution. The ACC semifinal vs South Carolina (with Roche, Ribock, Owens, Cremins, etc.) in 1969 was one such game.

The risk IMO is not so much very high minutes for certain players; the real risk of a thin rotation is team vulnerability when an injury or illness occurs.

Knock on wood.

dball
10-16-2009, 01:04 PM
Eastern Carolina and Wisconsin iirc? Anyhow, the problem with King was that he literally only could shoot, and that he couldn't be on the floor against any opponent who you required some decent defense against. Also he was horribly streaky and prone to bad shot selection.

Sooo yeah, let's hope Kelly is more ready to play. I expect him to be at LEAST servicable on defense, as well as a more balanced player on the offensive side.

The Comparison sets a low standard for him to live up to.

Wasn't Taylor also a decent rebounder during his limited stints? I would expect a bit more from Kelly, but lateral quickness could make him a defensive liability. Be fun to find out.

ice-9
10-16-2009, 01:04 PM
I find the discussion about Nolan and Scheyer interesting.

In the Coach K press conference interview on Watzone's site, Coach K mentions how they only have one player this year who can create on his own, and that player is Nolan. And even then, Nolan's ability to break down defenders and create isn't consistent enough to structure an offense around it.

I just found that comment interesting in light of the discussion above. Scheyer may be our PG, but he won't play like Jason Williams.

Also, to the poster who listed Henderson's 1:1 TO-assist ratio . . . Henderson was asked to create and attack; is it surprising that he turned the ball over more?

slower
10-16-2009, 01:10 PM
Plumley

I know this is nit-picky, but please tighten up your spelling. I am constantly amazed by self-professed Duke fans who can't correctly spell the players' names.

You're already typing the first of the last two E's in Plumlee - just leave your finger there instead of moving over to the Y key.

Jumbo
10-16-2009, 01:37 PM
Scheyer may not blow by people off the dribble, but he's certainly athletic enough, in combination with his high BBIQ, to get by people and create. A head and/or shoulder fake, get a little lift from the defender and get past. He also uses those moves to draw contact.

As for having a Henderson around to help on the press, I think you'd be better off with Singler handling than Henderson. Henderson had a lot of talents, but I didn't think of ball-handling as being one of his tops...

Correct on both fronts. There's a reason Scheyer gets to the FT line so often -- he can get into the lane. He won't get into the lane and dunk, but he can draw fouls or distribute. And with Mason Plumlee, he has a guy who can catch and finish.

And you're totally right about Henderson's ball-handling.

miramar
10-16-2009, 02:48 PM
FWIW, Ryan Kelly was the consensus #14 player last year. Taylor King was the consensus #24 player in what was regarded as one of the best prep classes of all time.

Kelly was sick over the summer and lost some weight. King...not so much.

jimsumner
10-16-2009, 02:50 PM
Yes, I know that Kelly was sick over the summer.

The relevance of that sickness to the respective recruiting rankings of King and Kelly eludes me, however.

CDu
10-16-2009, 03:49 PM
Yes, I know that Kelly was sick over the summer.

The relevance of that sickness to the respective recruiting rankings of King and Kelly eludes me, however.

Sounded to me like it was further supporting your argument. Kelly not only was a similarly-rated recruit in a weaker recruiting class, but he also lost time over the summer to illness whereas King did not. Only further illustrating that expecting bigger things immediately from Kelly than from King might be expecting to much.

I didn't read it as a means of combating your point, Jim. Of course, I could be wrong about that.

jimsumner
10-16-2009, 04:11 PM
I was trying to point out that the idea that King came to Duke with a significantly lesser reputation than Kelly simply isn't accurate. King was considered a big catch at the time.

For the record, I think that Kelly is a better fit for Duke. It's no secret that King didn't exactly wow folks with his work ethic or committment to staying in shape. Kelly, by all accounts, has a great work ethic. Maybe, King does now. We'll see soon enough how he used his year off.

The summer illness cost Kelly about ten pounds and a couple of weeks. Kelly told me that he resumed his weight-training regimen at the same level as before his illness. I have heard nothing to suggest that the illness was a significant setback.

Edouble
10-16-2009, 11:14 PM
Kedsy says that Nolan may surprise me. Based on what? Wishful thinking? He's going to be that break-em-down, triple threat guard? Again, based on what? Did Nolan eat a lot of Wheaties this summer? Did he practice practice practice point guard skills all summer? Have you seen or heard from reliable sources that he has really developed his point guard skills over the summer?

Nolan becoming the point you pine for doesn't automatically happen just because you want it to happen. There wasn't anything in Nolan's performance last year that suggests to me that he will become the break-em-down triple threat guard you want him to be. And that's all I can go on and that's what my opinion is based upon. Past performance.

I have to agree with dw0827.

Kedsy is usually pretty on point with his comments, but I just don't see Nolan turning into this type of player. It's pretty rare to see a huge leap like that from sophomore to junior year, when this kind of leap hasn't really been hinted at. It happened for Henderson last year, but the signs, IMHO, were much stronger that it was going to happen. The vertical, the pedigree, and the flashes of brilliance all pointed to the year that he ended up having. Aside from the pedigree, I don't see those same kind of indicators with Nolan. He's a good defensive stopper, but if Elliott Williams were still on campus, I doubt anyone would be saying this kind of thing about Nolan. Now Nolan is the closest thing to a wing/slasher heir apparent, but he really doesn't seem that close to me based on his history of play.

oldnavy
10-17-2009, 11:56 AM
I think the concussion last year hurt (no pun intended) Nolan's progression. He seemed to be hitting his stride when he went down, and although he did well when he returned, it seemed that he never got back to the level he was at. I do expect him to be much improved this year and he could very well have a Henderson like impact on this team. If so, watch out!

Kedsy
10-17-2009, 12:41 PM
I have to agree with dw0827.

Kedsy is usually pretty on point with his comments, but I just don't see Nolan turning into this type of player. It's pretty rare to see a huge leap like that from sophomore to junior year, when this kind of leap hasn't really been hinted at. It happened for Henderson last year, but the signs, IMHO, were much stronger that it was going to happen. The vertical, the pedigree, and the flashes of brilliance all pointed to the year that he ended up having. Aside from the pedigree, I don't see those same kind of indicators with Nolan. He's a good defensive stopper, but if Elliott Williams were still on campus, I doubt anyone would be saying this kind of thing about Nolan. Now Nolan is the closest thing to a wing/slasher heir apparent, but he really doesn't seem that close to me based on his history of play.

Well, I freely admit I could be wrong, but after reading the comments from Blue/White, I'm sticking with it: Nolan will be much improved. He won't be G, but he should be our main slasher.

_Gary
10-17-2009, 12:45 PM
Well, I freely admit I could be wrong, but after reading the comments from Blue/White, I'm sticking with it: Nolan will be much improved. He won't be G, but he should be our main slasher.

I concur 100%. I think several people here are selling Nolan way short.

Newton_14
10-17-2009, 01:10 PM
I concur 100%. I think several people here are selling Nolan way short.

Count me in as a believer in Nolan as well. He looked really good last night. He looked very comfortable out there showing no signs of tentativeness or hesitancy at all. And he scored in a variety of ways from 3's to drives and pull ups from mid range.

Just a scrimmage so that has to be factored in, but I am confident Nolan is going to step his game up and have a really good year.

MChambers
10-17-2009, 01:16 PM
I think the concussion last year hurt (no pun intended) Nolan's progression. He seemed to be hitting his stride when he went down, and although he did well when he returned, it seemed that he never got back to the level he was at. I do expect him to be much improved this year and he could very well have a Henderson like impact on this team. If so, watch out!

Didn't he lose his starting job before the concussion?

Saratoga2
10-17-2009, 01:58 PM
I know this is nit-picky, but please tighten up your spelling. I am constantly amazed by self-professed Duke fans who can't correctly spell the players' names.

You're already typing the first of the last two E's in Plumlee - just leave your finger there instead of moving over to the Y key.


Yes, I failed to check the spelling. The smart remarks however, smacks of a lack of civility on your part. Something this site is always attempting to minimize.

_Gary
10-17-2009, 02:01 PM
Didn't he lose his starting job before the concussion?

To who, Greg? I don't remember the sequence between those two last year as far as rotation. But I thought Nolan was playing pretty well when he got that concussion.

RelativeWays
10-17-2009, 02:03 PM
Didn't he lose his starting job before the concussion?


He hurt his knee against either Duquesne or Montana, I can't remember which one, and thats where his struggles running the point began last year.

_Gary
10-17-2009, 02:13 PM
He hurt his knee against either Duquesne or Montana, I can't remember which one, and thats where his struggles running the point began last year.

Ok, that makes sense. My memory was that he was playing well and got injured. Looking at the Maryland/Duke boxscore (the game where Nolan received the concussion) he only played 4 minutes, so he wasn't starting at that point. But he did start 21 games last year so it's not like he was playing poorly for most of the season.

dw0827
10-17-2009, 03:30 PM
Well, I freely admit I could be wrong, but after reading the comments from Blue/White, I'm sticking with it: Nolan will be much improved. He won't be G, but he should be our main slasher.

Please understand, I also expect really good things from Nolan this year. I think the concussion did hurt his progression last year. The discussion we were having earlier had to do with Nolan as a point guard. I am skeptical of that.

But as a shooting guard, I am not the least bit skeptical. In fact, he could really excel this year as a 2. I didn't see the game last night (I'm in Kansas of all places) and I guess he did really well. Didn't he get 7 assists with no turnovers? Who knows, I could be wrong. Its happened before. Why, I remember back in 2002 when . . . oh never mind.

My hope and expectation is: Jon as point for most of the time, Nolan as 2 for most of the game, and Nolan is point when Jon is resting.

BD80
10-17-2009, 04:20 PM
Please understand, I also expect really good things from Nolan this year. I think the concussion did hurt his progression last year. The discussion we were having earlier had to do with Nolan as a point guard. I am skeptical of that.

But as a shooting guard, I am not the least bit skeptical. In fact, he could really excel this year as a 2. ...

My hope and expectation is: Jon as point for most of the time, Nolan as 2 for most of the game, and Nolan is point when Jon is resting.

Nolan can penetrate and dish, but does not necessarily yet have the ballhandling skills or court vision to run the offense. Jon is not going to break a defender's ankles, but he will protect the ball, get the ball to teammates in a position for them to score, and can create enough space for himself to run the offense. Jon will catch defenders often enough to drive the lane for a score or dish.

When Jon isn't in, I bet Kyle will handle the "point" on offense. I don't think that Jon and Kyle will be on the bench together unless things are going very well or very badly.

Nolan will have G's role this year, but he won't be the first option in most games. There will be games when he scores 20 as we exploit match-ups. There is a lot of room for Nolan to grow this year, it will be fun to watch.

dw0827
10-17-2009, 04:46 PM
When Jon isn't in, I bet Kyle will handle the "point" on offense.

I hadn't even thought of that.

I understand that Kyle has worked really hard this summer to hone his perimeter skills, but point? To contemplate that for even a moment speaks volumes about his skill level. He's become my favorite player in a long time. What I like most about him is his attitude. Hard nosed. Tough.

"Kyle, could you spell Jon and go play point for awhile?"

"Sure, no problem. Let me finish eating these nails first."

Kedsy
10-17-2009, 05:54 PM
Please understand, I also expect really good things from Nolan this year. I think the concussion did hurt his progression last year. The discussion we were having earlier had to do with Nolan as a point guard. I am skeptical of that.

But as a shooting guard, I am not the least bit skeptical. In fact, he could really excel this year as a 2. I didn't see the game last night (I'm in Kansas of all places) and I guess he did really well. Didn't he get 7 assists with no turnovers? Who knows, I could be wrong. Its happened before. Why, I remember back in 2002 when . . . oh never mind.

My hope and expectation is: Jon as point for most of the time, Nolan as 2 for most of the game, and Nolan is point when Jon is resting.

I agree with your expectation for the most part. What I originally said is that Nolan might be the break-em-down triple threat that many posters are pining for. That doesn't mean he has to play the point, does it? A lot of the time when Jason Williams was slashing through the opposition, Chris Duhon was the PG, right? (And I'm not saying Nolan will be Jason Williams, just that you can break people's ankles and get in position to score or dish without being the officially designated PG.)

ACCBBallFan
10-17-2009, 09:49 PM
Miles Plumlee - Besides the two points made already that he bulked up and will be more comfortable playing aside his sibling, he also was over committed academically last year and has changed his major to history.

Andre needs to concentrate more on FT’s to garner that stall ball time.

People who press duke will be doing so at their own peril. The lineup with both Plumlees has 5 ball handlers on the floor just waiting to exploit a press.

Coach K says Duke will break down defenders not one on one, but by moving off the ball and relying on their teammate with the ball to make the read.

Besides rightly defending the fallacious Scheyer is not athletic enough conventional wisdom, Jumbo last year did a good job pointing out with metrics that Zoubek is one of Duke's best +/- performers. People who judge on style points rather than effectiveness need to take note of that.

I think all 9 guys get minimum 10-15 MPG, with Zoubek's time being concentrated on certain style of centers. Miles gives him someone of that ilk to practice against.

Even though his team lost, Zoubek played a better first half vs. Miles than second half paired with him. Mason is the type of center like Sims and Monroe that gives Zoubek trouble. So Z will have opportunity in practice both to play against the type he fares best with and the type does not.

Though somewhat surprised that captain Lance is not starting, I understand he is a 6th starter like Jon was his sophomore year. Hopefully he will be smart like Jon was and watch who is exploiting Duke on offense knowing coach K will sub him in to stop that guy, whether that be Vasquez or Booker T.

I do think that lineup with the three S's and two siblings is Duke's best both for this year to avoid the weakness Nova exposed on 3 vs. 5, and the future where they will hold that distinction as long as they both choose to stay at Duke. Like Mason and Nolan, I do take the older brother in a game of one on one as Duke’s 4th best guy with Mason being the 5th.

I think Duke’s bench is ideally suited to make the starters better. Jon and Nolan practice vs. Seth and Andre the type of guard that traditionally give Duke trouble. Miles practices vs. Zoubek and Mason vs. Lance and Ryan.

IMO, Duke’s biggest weakness is no one to push Kyle in practice to defend better. They can compensate for this by having Scheyer sometimes guard Kelly while Kyle guards Seth or Andre. Lance is great to provide challenge for Kyle to continue to improve on Offense, when not doing the same for Mason.

Olek and Peters can help simulate the type of defender Kyle will sometimes be matched up with, but sure would be nice to have Elliott even if only in practice.

Some ACC SFs are pretty big like Singleton, Henson, Milton Jennings, Aminu. perhaps Dequan Jones if he finally lives up to his potential, JT Thompson, etc. Kelly is too slow to simulate that but perhaps Mason could while Lance and Kelly pair off in practice. This would also improve Mason as a defender while challenging Kyle.

So as much as Duke talks about being big, lots of teams following the FSU model from last year.

This last point translates to games too, but for the 5 MPG that Kyle rests can go with the 3 guards and two Plumlees. Alternatively, if he is ready for speed of college game, Kelly can sub in at SF.

In general ACC lost almost all its long ball shooters except Scheyer and Delaney, and possibly Graves. So not a bad year to have tall rather than quick SF's. Curry showed that this type of offensive threat can cause this year’s Duke defense some problems.

Edouble
10-17-2009, 09:58 PM
Nolan will have G's role this year, but he won't be the first option in most games. There will be games when he scores 20 as we exploit match-ups. There is a lot of room for Nolan to grow this year, it will be fun to watch.

If he's not the first option, then what exactly do you mean by Nolan will have G's role? I guess you mean he will drive to the hoop more. A lot of players drive to the hoop, but Nolan doesn't have the hops of G or the strength of Jdub.

You're saying that Nolan will score 20 because he is a match-up problem, or because Singler is a match-up problem that will draw double teams and Nolan will be the benefactor of this? Where the former is concerned, I don't see a good 6'2" guard as a match-up problem. As far as the latter goes, I don't think that Nolan will be more than the fourth offensive option behind Singler, Jon, and whichever of the Plumlees emerges as the go to guy down low, so I don't see him as a big time beneficiary of another teammate's match-up problem.

I am not trying to be down on Nolan, I just don't see him as one of our main offensive threats this year. I didn't see the B&W game though.

jimsumner
10-17-2009, 10:50 PM
Based on what I've seen and what I've heard I very much expect Nolan Smith to be a primary offensive option this season.

He's playing with a confidence, a verve, an edge that he just hasn't had before. He's grown up.

jipops
10-17-2009, 10:55 PM
I am not trying to be down on Nolan, I just don't see him as one of our main offensive threats this year. I didn't see the B&W game though.

Well you're certainly in for a nice surprise then.

ACCBBallFan
10-17-2009, 10:58 PM
Based on what I've seen and what I've heard I very much expect Nolan Smith to be a primary offensive option this season.

He's playing with a confidence, a verve, an edge that he just hasn't had before. He's grown up.
I agree, not sure whether Nolan or Kyle or Jon is 1 or 2 or 3 but those three are the top 3 options, with the Plumlee brothers each providing offensive rebounding for put backs and a good option for an occasional alley oop to keep the defenses honest, in addition to being threats to beat their counterpart big man down the floor for a quick bucket.

DukeBlood
10-17-2009, 11:04 PM
Based on what I've seen and what I've heard I very much expect Nolan Smith to be a primary offensive option this season.

He's playing with a confidence, a verve, an edge that he just hasn't had before. He's grown up.

Where do you see Andrew fitting in? Roughly 20 MPG? Just curious your thoughts on his role.

jimsumner
10-17-2009, 11:19 PM
Andre?

Yes, I think 20 mpg will be in the neighborhood. He can shoot, he's explosive, I'll think he'll get some rebounds from the wing, some points in transition.

His handle needs to improve. But he had a nice three-point play last night off the dribble, so it's coming.

Like most freshmen, he's got a learning curve on defense.

He needs to be a bit more assertive (also not unusual for freshmen) but his intangibles reportedly are very good.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
10-18-2009, 12:04 AM
Please understand, I also expect really good things from Nolan this year. I think the concussion did hurt his progression last year. The discussion we were having earlier had to do with Nolan as a point guard. I am skeptical of that.

But as a shooting guard, I am not the least bit skeptical. In fact, he could really excel this year as a 2. I didn't see the game last night (I'm in Kansas of all places) and I guess he did really well. Didn't he get 7 assists with no turnovers? Who knows, I could be wrong. Its happened before. Why, I remember back in 2002 when . . . oh never mind.

My hope and expectation is: Jon as point for most of the time, Nolan as 2 for most of the game, and Nolan is point when Jon is resting.

These are very close to my expectations for Nolan. Watching him crumble under his inability to play the point last season was really tough. He just isn't that player (and BTW JWill averaged 6.5 assists as a frosh, in 2 seasons Nolan has averaged 1.5 so let's leave those comparisons aside). He can be a very good off guard and it sounds like that's what he showed at the BW game. IMO Nolan can help this team the most by focusing on what he can do well, not by trying to be something he is not.

As others have mentioned, with the right personnel you can run a motion offense with no true PG. If our versatile players can mesh well then Nolan's ability to get into the teeth of the D can make him a vital piece of our team, whether or not he runs the O in a traditional sense. Good outlet passes off D rebounds and forcing double teams/help off of our shooters are much more likely to be keys to putting up points, IMO.

DukeBlood
10-18-2009, 01:34 AM
Andre?

Yes, I think 20 mpg will be in the neighborhood. He can shoot, he's explosive, I'll think he'll get some rebounds from the wing, some points in transition.

His handle needs to improve. But he had a nice three-point play last night off the dribble, so it's coming.

Like most freshmen, he's got a learning curve on defense.

He needs to be a bit more assertive (also not unusual for freshmen) but his intangibles reportedly are very good.

Whoops. Yeah, Andre. I was in a hurry.

From most of the reports I have read I guessed that would be around his MPG. It's too bad he wasn't able to join the team in late spring. Alot of poster's believe his ceiling is incredibly high.

mo.st.dukie
10-18-2009, 02:58 AM
IMO Nolan can help this team the most by focusing on what he can do well, not by trying to be something he is not.



Which I think is the exact reason the staff decided to make Jon the primary PG with Nolan playing mostly off the point. Judging by the comments made in Coach K's press conference it seems like the staff realized that Nolan couldn't conentrate on the the things he does well while focusing so much on running the team as a PG. Nolan is a very talented player and has shown flashes of brilliance in the past two year he just could never put it all together on a consistent basis. He's got all the necessary tools to be very effective both offensively and defensively: long arms, athleticism, good handles, a good outside shot, creativity when driving into the lane. I wouldn't be surprised to see him lead the team in scoring on more than just a few occasions throughout the year.

oldnavy
10-18-2009, 07:26 AM
I hadn't even thought of that.

I understand that Kyle has worked really hard this summer to hone his perimeter skills, but point? To contemplate that for even a moment speaks volumes about his skill level. He's become my favorite player in a long time. What I like most about him is his attitude. Hard nosed. Tough.

"Kyle, could you spell Jon and go play point for awhile?"

"Sure, no problem. Let me finish eating these nails first."

He is one of my favorites as well. I love his attitude, like how he always gets right back up after taking a "punch" or cheap shot. How he gets back to business without a lot of drama or emotion, yet at the same time projecting a toughness that seems to say "is that all you got? Let's play ball!" I know this is corny, but he reminds me of how John Wayne was in the Quite Man.

slower
10-18-2009, 08:17 AM
He is one of my favorites as well. I love his attitude, like how he always gets right back up after taking a "punch" or cheap shot. How he gets back to business without a lot of drama or emotion, yet at the same time projecting a toughness that seems to say "is that all you got? Let's play ball!" I know this is corny, but he reminds me of how John Wayne was in the Quite Man.

There's nothing I'd love more to see next year than Duke being led into battle by Captains Kyle Singler and Nolan Smith, two of my favorites of all-time.

slower
10-18-2009, 08:33 AM
Yes, I failed to check the spelling. The smart remarks however, smacks of a lack of civility on your part. Something this site is always attempting to minimize.

I wasn't intending to be uncivil. This is a high-level board, generally filled with well-informed fans and quality discussions. I just happen to feel, in general, that it's a sign of respect to the players to spell their names correctly, as well as to lend oneself credibility when posting.

Again, I meant nothing personal. Sorry to offend.

MChambers
10-18-2009, 10:43 AM
As to 5), the shape of the defense, Coach K was quoted in some article as saying that Duke had played an extended pressure defense (definitely true, as Duke typically picks up their opponents further outside the 3 point line than almost any other team) and will now play a "compact pressure" defense. It will be interesting to see how well this works.

NM Duke Fan
10-18-2009, 12:18 PM
HMM? Perhaps a "compact pressure defense" entails blocking shots with such force and frequency that the basketball becomes compressed? With the size inside now in place, hope to see a lot of this!

whereinthehellami
10-19-2009, 09:06 AM
Quickness is going to be an issue for alot of players on this team. Zoubek, Scheyer (at the pt), Singler (at the perimeter), Kelly, and Olek all have issues with quickness. Especially with lateral quickness, man to man defense. There are 2 things you can't teach, height and quickness. Duke has one. The question is how will they use it. To me that determines whether this team can actually contend for the National title or not.

flyingdutchdevil
10-19-2009, 09:45 AM
Quickness is going to be an issue for alot of players on this team. Zoubek, Scheyer (at the pt), Singler (at the perimeter), Kelly, and Olek all have issues with quickness. Especially with lateral quickness, man to man defense. There are 2 things you can't teach, height and quickness. Duke has one. The question is how will they use it. To me that determines whether this team can actually contend for the National title or not.

Not sure I can agree with that. I think that Scheyer and Singler and decently quick, but they aren't fast (there is a huge difference). Zoubs and Kelly, from what I've heard, lack quickness (and, as a result, can't defend laterally as well). That said, Scheyer and Singler should be fine on D (and historically have been). The fast break may suffer a little, as that involves speed, which the players you listed above lack somewhat.

jimsumner
10-19-2009, 09:56 AM
"Zoubek, Scheyer (at the pt), Singler (at the perimeter), Kelly, and Olek all have issues with quickness"

I understand your concern. But I think it's overstated.

Three of the five players you mention are the likely 8th, 9th, and 10th players on the team. Czyz actually is pretty quick but hasn't yet figured how to use that quickness.

Scheyer and Singler are pretty good athletes. It's quite possible to have Scheyer playing the point on offense, while Nolan guards opposing points on defense.

And Singler is going to spend about a dozen years as an NBA wing. He can guard ACC wings.

slower
10-19-2009, 10:05 AM
Quickness is going to be an issue for alot of players on this team. Zoubek, Scheyer (at the pt), Singler (at the perimeter), Kelly, and Olek all have issues with quickness. Especially with lateral quickness, man to man defense. There are 2 things you can't teach, height and quickness. Duke has one. The question is how will they use it. To me that determines whether this team can actually contend for the National title or not.

Hasn't there been quite a bit of discussion about the fact that Jon is actually a pretty good defender? He IS extremely smart. I don't think that can be taught either. So, there are THREE things you can't teach! :D

Your point, obviously, is valid. But I do think that a smart player can often compensate for physical liabilities. We shall see.

budwom
10-19-2009, 10:25 AM
I don't see how we can be viewed as national title contenders this year. Quite a few good players, but quickness WILL be a problem, no matter how big we are. We weren't the quickest team last year, and we've lost our two quickest guys, Henderson and E. Williams. Our on the ball pressure, and overplaying wings, have traditionally fed our offense via turnovers. I just don't see that happening this year.

I'm kind of amused to see some of the people who in the past told us not to worry about our lack of size (because quickness and positioning trumps size) now touting how important our size is this year. Yes, size is definitely a plus, but a lack of quickness is difficult to overcome, and this team has a lack of quickness.

I see it as a good building block year, and if we get the two recruits we hope to get, we should have everything we need next year for a solid run at the title.

chrisheery
10-19-2009, 10:37 AM
I don't see how we can be viewed as national title contenders this year. Quite a few good players, but quickness WILL be a problem, no matter how big we are. We weren't the quickest team last year, and we've lost our two quickest guys, Henderson and E. Williams. Our on the ball pressure, and overplaying wings, have traditionally fed our offense via turnovers. I just don't see that happening this year.

I'm kind of amused to see some of the people who in the past told us not to worry about our lack of size (because quickness and positioning trumps size) now touting how important our size is this year. Yes, size is definitely a plus, but a lack of quickness is difficult to overcome, and this team has a lack of quickness.

I see it as a good building block year, and if we get the two recruits we hope to get, we should have everything we need next year for a solid run at the title.


I think you are right about the building block year, but I don't understand why people say this team is not even in contention to win a championship this year. Really, you think a team with this much talent can't win 6 games in a row if it has the right matchups and is playing well? Really? To take that further, are there 20 teams, or even 15, in the country who you would bet on to win 6 games in a row over this Duke team? As far as I can tell, there are only 2-3 teams this year who have a significant overall talent advantage over the rest of the country. There are probably 10 teams that fall directly behind and could all be in ranked 4-14. I think we are in that group.

Why then, can we not be seen as national title contenders?

(I agree we are not favorites by any means to make that clear)

jimsumner
10-19-2009, 10:48 AM
Perhaps I'm being excessively Panglossian but I just don't see a presumptive top seven of Kyle Singler, Jon Scheyer, Nolan Smith, Lance Thomas, Miles Plumlee, Mason Plumlee, and Andre Dawkins as being that challenged, athletically or otherwise.

chrisheery
10-19-2009, 10:54 AM
Perhaps I'm being excessively Panglossian but I just don't see a presumptive top seven of Kyle Singler, Jon Scheyer, Nolan Smith, Lance Thomas, Miles Plumlee, Mason Plumlee, and Andre Dawkins as being that challenged, athletically or otherwise.

Yes, I forgot to addresss that aspect in my post, but I completely agree.

There is a huge difference between being slightly less athletic at a particular position and being overall not atheltic. I would venture to say that our two big men are about as athletic as you can get in college basketball. Greg Monroe certainly is not as athletic, for instance, as either of them, and he is predicted to be a top 6 pick in next years draft. I think we all need to remember that this is not an NBA team. Sometimes you sacrafice athleticism for good basketball skills and knowledge. I think we have a good blend of both. Would it be nice to have a few more guys that a lightening quick and can jump out of the gym? Yeah. But, almost all of of these guys would be a star at a smaller D-1 school, and I think we need to keep that in mind when talking about their athleticism.

JDev
10-19-2009, 11:15 AM
While one must always be careful with expectations regarding freshmen, being a little optimistic about Mason is not unwarranted. Several people that know a lot more about basketball than most of us, including Jon Scheyer, Coach K, Coach Collins, and Jason Williams, have all said that Mason will be a pro. He won't have pro game immediately, but people are excited because the game is there and developing. He will, at the very least, be a guy other teams have to respect under the hoop. That will be big for the team as a whole, because this Duke team will take a lot of threes. Defenses will try to guard Duke's perimeter very tightly because Duke will not be seen as a team with a lot of drivers, but they will always have multiple capable shooters on the floor. This should spread defenses and definitely give the bigs some room to maneuver. Mason is athletic with a face-up game, so that should work in his favor. His skill set, like his passing and basketball IQ, seems to fit in really well with this team and how they are going to play.

Jumbo
10-19-2009, 12:02 PM
I don't see how we can be viewed as national title contenders this year. Quite a few good players, but quickness WILL be a problem, no matter how big we are. We weren't the quickest team last year, and we've lost our two quickest guys, Henderson and E. Williams. Our on the ball pressure, and overplaying wings, have traditionally fed our offense via turnovers. I just don't see that happening this year.

I'm kind of amused to see some of the people who in the past told us not to worry about our lack of size (because quickness and positioning trumps size) now touting how important our size is this year. Yes, size is definitely a plus, but a lack of quickness is difficult to overcome, and this team has a lack of quickness.

I see it as a good building block year, and if we get the two recruits we hope to get, we should have everything we need next year for a solid run at the title.

A few of things:
1) I'd say lateral quickness was far from Henderson's greatest gift. He was explosive, strong, fast an incredible leaper. But, by comparison, he did not move laterally exceptionally well. There's a reason why Scheyer often guarded the best perimeter player instead of G.
2) Elliot Williams' quickness will be missed on D; no question. But he hadn't show how that quickness could translate to offense yet,
3) Neither Singler nor Scheyer will struggle with "quickness" against wings on the defensive end. Especially not Scheyer. And if Kyle is having trouble defending a third guard (since so many teams play 3 guards), Lance Thomas has proven he can guard smaller, quicker players effectively. If you don't believe me, go watch the tape of last year's home win against Wake and the job he did on Ish Smith. And they don't come much smaller/quicker than Smith.
4) We also have a much quicker interior pair with the Plumlees brother than when, say, Zoubek was in the middle. Combine that with the fact that we'll be pressuring the ball less and our defensive rotations should be tighter and more effective (because of the Plumlees' length). That means no single player should ever be left on an island. In the past, the M.O. against Duke has always been to spread the floor and attack off the dribble -- even when we had "quick" teams -- because that is the best way to use our ball pressure against us.

Quickness might be a bit of an issue, but we seem to be employing strategies that should minimize that problem. The original poster singled out three guys who will barely play, or won't play at all -- I expect Zoubek to get minutes as the backup center, I think Kelly will hardly play against good teams and Czyz doesn't figure to be a part of the rotation at all.

If you're already looking ahead to next year and a par of unsigned recruits, you're making a mistake. Because this team isn't perfect, but has enough to win big this year. And while we might bring in some big-time talent next year, we'll lose some big-time talent too. Live in the moment, because this moment in time should be good to Duke.

airowe
10-19-2009, 12:16 PM
The no man on an island point is especially relevant this yeat. Duke's relentless on the ball pressure will lead to guys getting blown by, but it's at it's best when there is a shot-blocker or at least "shot-alterer as someone put it" in the middle to catch those penetrators. Scheyer said in his player interview that he is excited about this year because he won't have to worry about the defense behind him. With the Plumlee Bros clogging up the middle, our guards and wings will bw able to challeneg the passing lanes and play tight man-to-man defense effectively and hopefully be able to kick out for fast breaks without worrying about guys getting to the rim.

Our defense in the paint will minimize a lot of our issues defending quicker perimeter guys and lead to a lot of fast break points.

flyingdutchdevil
10-19-2009, 12:17 PM
Great post, Jumbo. Interesting insight, and agree with you all the way.

This team is getting me more excited by the day, and while it has issues, what team doesn't at this point in time?

I like virtually every aspect of our team this year, and while we don't know whether our frontcourt issues will be solved until we start playing games (I assume they are with the MPs and a ton of big guys), I think this could be the best frontcourt since Shelden / McRoberts (McRoberts complimented Shelden very well).

On a side note, I wasn't at the Countdown to Craziness, but the Duke admin did an amazing job with it. Why haven't we done something like this before (I went to Midnight Madness in 2003, but it was nothing, and I mean NOTHING, like this)? Anyway, reading about the event and watching videos has gotten me pumped!!!

Second side note - Bubby Hurley has really aged....

theAlaskanBear
10-19-2009, 12:18 PM
In this debate about defense, I think Lance Thomas is the central figure.

I think K is well aware of this teams potential defensive liabilities, which is why Lance Thomas will be the sixth man playing starter minutes, and K said will guard players 2-5 through the lineup, if necessary. If he can effectively guard smaller wing and guard players without getting into foul trouble, it will help solidify the defense a lot.

Indoor66
10-19-2009, 12:53 PM
Second side note - Bubby Hurley has really aged....

Haven't we all since 1993?

budwom
10-19-2009, 12:54 PM
Perhaps I'm being excessively Panglossian but I just don't see a presumptive top seven of Kyle Singler, Jon Scheyer, Nolan Smith, Lance Thomas, Miles Plumlee, Mason Plumlee, and Andre Dawkins as being that challenged, athletically or otherwise.

I'm fine with the first three. But Lance has yet to show he has ANY offensive game whatsoever, and is a middling rebounder at best; Miles couldn't even get off the bench during the second half of last season, and Mason and Andre have yet to play a single game. And backcourt depth is non-existent.

Like I said, some very good pieces here, and hopefully you guys are right (we'll soon see) but I just don't see this as even close to championship caliber material.

whereinthehellami
10-19-2009, 01:27 PM
I think the quickness issue is only an issue against a handull of teams. But those teams will give Duke alot of trouble, as they have the last few years. And those are the teams you see at the end of the year.

Duke's shotblockers are young and will probably have difficulty adjusting to the speed of the better teams, leading to alot of foul trouble. So relying on the shotblockers to clean up on penetration into the lane isn't going to solve the quickness issue. It will help for sure but its not THE answer.

Also I'm not sold on Thomas as being a great defender or even a legitimate lockdown defender. Lance is athletic, long, and has alot of energy but he attracts fouls way too quickly. Maybe this is his year to put it all together but it sounds like a Plumlee will get first crack at starting.

Its starting to sound like more small ball to me as the year progresses. Barring injuries as Duke gets into ACC play, I think we will see; Smith, Scheyer, Dawkins, Singler, and Thomas (or Plumlee II).

Indoor66
10-19-2009, 01:30 PM
I think the quickness issue is only an issue against a handull of teams. But those teams will give Duke alot of trouble, as they have the last few years. And those are the teams you see at the end of the year.

Duke's shotblockers are young and will probably have difficulty adjusting to the speed of the better teams, leading to alot of foul trouble. So relying on the shotblockers to clean up on penetration into the lane isn't going to solve the quickness issue. It will help for sure but its not THE answer.

Also I'm not sold on Thomas as being a great defender or even a legitimate lockdown defender. Lance is athletic, long, and has alot of energy but he attracts fouls way too quickly. Maybe this is his year to put it all together but it sounds like a Plumlee will get first crack at starting.

Its starting to sound like more small ball to me as the year progresses. Barring injuries as Duke gets into ACC play, I think we will see; Smith, Scheyer, Dawkins, Singler, and Thomas (or Plumlee II).

You talked yourself into that one, didn't you. I think the concerns about our speed and quickness are overblown. We will be fine. Let's think about the concerns of other teams with delaing with our assets. The game is played at two ends.

BlueintheFace
10-19-2009, 01:31 PM
Haven't we all since 1993?

Shane Battier is now referred to as an NBA veteran. That feels weird.... man, it has been a while

COYS
10-19-2009, 01:41 PM
I think the quickness issue is only an issue against a handull of teams. But those teams will give Duke alot of trouble, as they have the last few years. And those are the teams you see at the end of the year.

Duke's shotblockers are young and will probably have difficulty adjusting to the speed of the better teams, leading to alot of foul trouble. So relying on the shotblockers to clean up on penetration into the lane isn't going to solve the quickness issue. It will help for sure but its not THE answer.

Also I'm not sold on Thomas as being a great defender or even a legitimate lockdown defender. Lance is athletic, long, and has alot of energy but he attracts fouls way too quickly. Maybe this is his year to put it all together but it sounds like a Plumlee will get first crack at starting.

Its starting to sound like more small ball to me as the year progresses. Barring injuries as Duke gets into ACC play, I think we will see; Smith, Scheyer, Dawkins, Singler, and Thomas (or Plumlee II).

I think the other important thing to remember about our prospects for this coming season is the size vs. quickness issue. If we're packing in our man to man a little bit more and we've got two 6'10 guys with big reaches standing in the lane, 6'8'' and 6'5'' guys guarding the wings, and a quick and talented 6'2'' guard locking down the opposing point, even quick teams will have a hard time really breaking us down unless that team is also extremely hot from three point range and are forcing our guys to guard them close on the perimeter. I'm actually more optimistic about our team defensively this year than I was last year. The plumlees and thomas give us three big, versatile defenders who will help make our defensive rotations more effective at stopping easy layups than in the past. It's true that Miles and Mason will have to be disciplined enough to avoid foul trouble, but quickness, whether laterally or vertically, is not likely to be an issue for them. Thomas, too has never had a problem with his quickness. Although he has been a relatively unimpressive rebounder his whole career, he will finally no longer be asked to do much in this category, either. Also, for the first time in a while, we have the depth at the forward positions to absorb some foul trouble. If the projected starting lineup holds and the plumlees both start, Zoubek and Thomas are solid options off the bench with Dawkins able to come in at times to let Singler slide back to the four on occasion. This, of course, leaves Kelly as an emergency option off the bench who may very well make up for some of his defensive limitations with his offensive skills.

budwom
10-19-2009, 02:28 PM
Good points, but I just don't see who provides the defensive pressure to create the turnovers we so often rely on to fuel our offense. Yes, I think we'll defend the post better, and put together a solid defensive unit.
But I just don't see where we'll have the horses to pressure the ball and the wings the way we historically have.

Which leads me to expect we'll have to see a better halfcourt offense than we've had recently, and I just don't think we have the talent and experience (yet) to make that happen. Scheyer and Singler are proven scorers, Smith might be ready for a step up, but beyond that we have a lot of question marks, too many to expect a bona fide national title run.

jimsumner
10-19-2009, 02:50 PM
Thomas could be a very good defensive player. Smith should be an asset and Scheyer has that knack of getting in the way of other team's passing lanes.

My gut feeling is that Duke will run more this year off of defensive rebounds than usually is the case. Hopefully, that counteracts any loss of turnover-generated fastbreaks.

chrisheery
10-19-2009, 03:20 PM
Which recent team has has that defensive pressure of which you speak? Duke's turnovers often come from overplay off the ball. It is rare that one of our guys strips the PG out top and takes it the other way for a score. Much more common last year was Kyle (slow?), Scheyer (slow?), or Gerald (less often than the others in my memory, may be wrong) flashing into the passing lane and taking that pass in stride the other way. Pressure on the ball helps with that, but I would argue that we can create better ball pressure this year than last because it allows Nolan to play closer without having to worry about who will be behind him to help.

BD80
10-19-2009, 03:21 PM
Good points, but I just don't see who provides the defensive pressure to create the turnovers we so often rely on to fuel our offense. Yes, I think we'll defend the post better, and put together a solid defensive unit.
But I just don't see where we'll have the horses to pressure the ball and the wings the way we historically have. ...

Nolan will be the only one to pressure the ball, our turnovers will result from overplaying the passing lanes. The Plumlees are far better able to provide help defense than Zoubek (which is where he picked up many fouls) to cover back door cuts. The Plumlees will also provide a shot blocking presence Lance did not.

Better post defense will also allow us to extend our defense and apply tighter pressure on the wings, as opposed to sagging into the paint to double the post.

I also happen to think we will see more zone traps to take advantage of our length, speed and depth. Lance will be a monster with this, and I suspect that Coach K will spring the traps when Lance subs in to change the pace of the game. It sounds like Andre may fit into this scheme as well.

Coach K coaches TEAM defense, and we will always have very good defense. Kyle and Jon are uncommonly smart players that see the court very well and can anticipate passes or dribbles.

Much of our offense will still come from turnovers.

JDev
10-19-2009, 03:23 PM
Thomas could be a very good defensive player. Smith should be an asset and Scheyer has that knack of getting in the way of other team's passing lanes.

My gut feeling is that Duke will run more this year off of defensive rebounds than usually is the case. Hopefully, that counteracts any loss of turnover-generated fastbreaks.

I think that is something that will be very important as the year progresses. If Duke doesn't extend its man-to-man as much as normal, which would seem to make sense with this personel, then there will be far less steals and run-outs. But, with this group, packing the man in a little bit more should make them a tough bunch defensively. Duke's current potential starters go 6'2,
6'5, 6'8, 6'10, 6'10. That's big. They should own the paint, and other teams should have to win shooting jump shots. If the other team is forced to shoot a lot of jumpers, that will lead to long rebounds, and this should be as good a rebounding team as K has had. As Jim says, they can use those boards to ignite the fast break. All five of those guys can run the floor, and there some finishers in that bunch for sure. "Rebound and run" should be a mantra of this team.

budwom
10-19-2009, 03:28 PM
I appreciate your thoughtful response, but you really, really lose me when you speak of Lance becoming a monster. I think that pretty much sums up the excessive optimism I see in this thread. I see Lance as a good defensive player, but a mediocre rebounder and not much of a scoring threat at all.
As for the speed and depth you see, I just remain unconvinced (though clearly we have much more frontcourt depth..but backcourt?).

airowe
10-19-2009, 03:35 PM
I think that is something that will be very important as the year progresses. If Duke doesn't extend its man-to-man as much as normal, which would seem to make sense with this personel, then there will be far less steals and run-outs. But, with this group, packing the man in a little bit more should make them a tough bunch defensively. Duke's current potential starters go 6'2,
6'5, 6'8, 6'10, 6'10. That's big. They should own the paint, and other teams should have to win shooting jump shots. If the other team is forced to shoot a lot of jumpers, that will lead to long rebounds, and this should be as good a rebounding team as K has had. As Jim says, they can use those boards to ignite the fast break. All five of those guys can run the floor, and there some finishers in that bunch for sure. "Rebound and run" should be a mantra of this team.

As long as it's not called "secondary break" I'll be happy :cool:

I think this is going to be big for our team as well. Our guards will not have to worry about getting rebounds as much this year and should be able to shoot down the court off of missed baskets and get some easy points.

I'm thinking something along the two #1 Top plays in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7fPuYZCG2M&feature=related

MChambers
10-19-2009, 03:40 PM
If the other team is forced to shoot a lot of jumpers, that will lead to long rebounds, and this should be as good a rebounding team as K has had.

With long rebounds, it's usually the player's speed and reaction that determines if he gets the ball, not his height.

BD80
10-19-2009, 03:41 PM
I appreciate your thoughtful response, but you really, really lose me when you speak of Lance becoming a monster. I think that pretty much sums up the excessive optimism I see in this thread. I see Lance as a good defensive player, but a mediocre rebounder and not much of a scoring threat at all.
As for the speed and depth you see, I just remain unconvinced (though clearly we have much more frontcourt depth..but backcourt?).

A monster in zone traps, not a monster overall.

Lance has hustle, quickness, instincts, length, and intelligence to create traps and to anticpate passes out of traps.

The Plumlees greatly upgrade our speed as to the front court, which is the key to zone traps. We have group of players on the bench that could be used as a "blue" team - Lance, Andre, Kelly, Olek. That is the depth of which I speak. Zoubek could then come in with starters to resume the bread 'n butter man-to-man.

budwom
10-19-2009, 04:02 PM
A monster in zone traps, not a monster overall.

Lance has hustle, quickness, instincts, length, and intelligence to create traps and to anticpate passes out of traps.

The Plumlees greatly upgrade our speed as to the front court, which is the key to zone traps. We have group of players on the bench that could be used as a "blue" team - Lance, Andre, Kelly, Olek. That is the depth of which I speak. Zoubek could then come in with starters to resume the bread 'n butter man-to-man.

I think the Plumlees definitely improve our frontcourt speed at the center position (I know, K doesn't have positions, but still...)but this year at the two forward spots we'll have another Plumlee and Singler, while last year we had Singler and Henderson, sometimes Singler and Lance. So I'm not seeing an overall upgrade at all in front court speed, though I agree about depth.
Hey, we'll just have to wait and see...

Jeffrey
10-19-2009, 05:21 PM
What I do know, though, are these things. (And if you know me, I'm hardly one for hyperbole and I readily identify weaknesses with the team).

This is a tight, hard-working group with a lot of upside -- maybe more upside than any team we've had in a while. And because of that upside, if everything works out just right, it can compete for a championship -- the biggest one.

Sounds great, but I disagree. IMO, we do not have a Final Four level team. Your review reminds me a lot of what I was hearing this time last year..... Nolan is playing lights out and Plumlee is so good he is going to start and shock people with his play. Add a Plumlee to the mix, and all three have to play well for your prediction to hold true.

How much money would you like to wager, Jumbo? I'd love a chance to lose it, but do not believe we have a team that will get to the Final Four.

juise
10-19-2009, 06:34 PM
How much money would you like to wager, Jumbo? I'd love a chance to lose it, but do not believe we have a team that will get to the Final Four.

To me, a person who says "if everything works out just right, [Duke] can compete for a championship" is not laying money on the table. This appears to merely be a statement of perceived potential, not of probability. I seriously doubt that Jumbo would lay money down on this. As we all know, it's not often that "everything works out just right."

Troublemaker
10-19-2009, 07:31 PM
Looking at the roster and projected starting lineup, I think Duke has the potential to be outstanding defensively and in transition but relatively weak in the halfcourt offense. Two other concerns will be foul trouble and depth (and, as always, potential injuries are a concern).


Defensively, the Plumlees will be a godsend. If Duke hadn't been lucky enough to establish a relationship with the Plumlee family, it's very possible that we would be trotting out Singler at the 4 and Thomas at the 5 again. Sure, we could've recruited other bigs in place of the Plumlees, but, given the recent downturn in recruiting prowess, these hypothetical replacements probably wouldn't have been nearly as good as the brothers nor capable of forcing a lineup and strategical change. In that regard, the Plumlees have already been program changing. This new strategy of going big, rebounding, and compacting the defense? That doesn't happen if two smart, long, athletic big men don't decide that they want to spend their college years at Duke.

Let's get something straight, though. Even if Duke were to employ our classic "deny the pass and get the turnover" ball-pressure defense, two athletic shotblockers patrolling the backline would've fit snugly into that scheme (as they would into any scheme). And I wouldn't be surprised at all if Duke got back to that classic look eventually.

But, clearly, the preseason talk has centered around a scheme of "deny the shot and get the rebound (and run)" defense. I don't see why we couldn't be outstanding at that style. Nolan guarding the point, Jon and Kyle on the wings, and two mobile shotblockers -- yeah, that will work. The supposed quickness issue on the perimeter is overstated (if not outright erroneous). Take Kyle for instance; he'll sometimes be guarding guys quicker than him. But when you're 6'8", you can play a step off your man (compacting the defense) and still bother his shot with your length. That's the whole point. We're going to use our length in both on-ball and help defense to force low shooting percentages, grab rebounds and get out and run. I think it can work and work very well. As in, I expect Duke to have a top 5 defense nationally (and at least top 10). This should be the primary strength of the team.

Another strength will be the transition game, both offensively and defensively. I've been skeptical in recent seasons of our ability to play a fastbreak style because I didn't see the pieces in place to do so. We didn't have true bigs that could run, catch fluidly and dunk. Now we do in the Plumlees. While we may have had good wings recently, did we ever have two like this year's version of Nolan and Kyle that should be equally adept at spotting up to shoot 3's and slashing to the basket in transition? You want your wings capable of both on the fastbreak; it gives the point guard more options and spreads/scrambles the defense more. Finally, we have a point guard in Scheyer that can make use of the weapons above in transition because he has great court vision and the height to see over the defense. Paulus had vision but not the speed or the height. Nolan arguably had the speed but not the vision/feel/confidence for the point guard position. He'll be improved this year, though, and he needs to be because there will be times when he'll be in a better position than Jon to receive the outlet pass and push.

But back to Jon for a sec. Due to his vision and height, I have confidence that he canpush the ball in transition and hit teammates streaking to the basket. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZq1-FriP0s) (you should know even before you click).

I'm predicting that the halfcourt offense will be a relative struggle without the presence of either a great scoring big man or a great penetrator, but I love the idea of going back to a pure motion offense. One of the reasons I haven't lamented missing out on a "banger" in the post is because I don't mind having mobile, versatile bigs like the Plumlees that have high basketball IQ, can play motion offense and eventually be proverbial "triple threats" with the ball. The problem is, for this season, I don't think their shooting touch will be refined enough yet. The inability to shoot will result in the inability to drive and reduce them to being "single threats" with the ball (passing) and doing most of their work off-the-ball (screening, streaking in for lobs and offensive rebounds). That's fine if true.

The vast majority of the scoring will come from the perimeter players. We'll shoot lots of threes, of course. And it'll be a developing situation to find a consistent way to get a high-percentage shot. When we absolutely need to score on a possession, what will we turn to? It may be something like posting up Singler on a defender that is smaller than him (which should be the case in 90% of our games). It may be setting a high screen for Smith to turn the corner. I DON'T want it to be screening for a three-point shooter to come free. It's just not high-percentage enough.

All of this is moot if it turns out that one or both of the Plumlees can shoot and be scoring threats, though. The motion offense will become dynamic if all five guys are threats to score with the ball. Regardless, we should be trying to score in transition to stay out of halfcourt anyway.

Young big men tend to pick up lots of fouls. How fast can the Plumlees learn to avoid them? Hopefully by March. Compacting the defense will help out a lot in that regard (not to mention, it will lead to more rebounds that will lead to more fast breaks that play into the strength of the Plumlees. There's definitely synergy in the master plan tying everything together).

How deep a bench we have is still up in the air. The focus on motion offense and running might not be conducive to Zoubek's game. Kelly and Czyz might not be ready (physically or otherwise) to contribute. I could easily see a 7-man rotation in competitive games or even a 6-man rotation given Lance's positional versatility and if Dawkins deals with typical freshman struggles.


Well, those are my 2 cents. This team could develop into something completely different -- you just never know -- but as of mid-October, those are the strengths and weaknesses that I'm predicting.

Thanks to Jumbo for an outstanding "Phase" post once again. A great way to kick off another season on the DBR boards.

Jumbo
10-19-2009, 07:47 PM
Good points, but I just don't see who provides the defensive pressure to create the turnovers we so often rely on to fuel our offense. Yes, I think we'll defend the post better, and put together a solid defensive unit.
But I just don't see where we'll have the horses to pressure the ball and the wings the way we historically have.
Well, the easy answer is that I don't think we will pressure the ball as usual. I think we'll adjust. And I don't think we've been a team that has looked to run as much as we used to in a while. But I think you're selling some of our "horses" short defensively.
*Nolan is a good on-ball defender; his problem is foul trouble. That's a concern of mine entering this year and I hope he will mature into a more careful defender.
*Jon has been an excellent defender for three years -- I'm not sure what I have to do to convince people of that. Post his stats against Ellington again? Link to video clips of how he excels in wing denial and does a good job of using angles to keep his man in front of him? What's it gonna take, seriously?
*Kyle is going to have to guard wings much more often than in the past. Is his lateral quickness great against 6'4" guys with tight handles? Probably not. But against his guys his size? Sure. Don't forget that he's picked up smaller guys with success in the past, and has played in a system where we've successfully switched all screens. So it's not as if perimeter D is foreign to him. And also, how many teams have three perimeter players who are all super-quick with the ball in their hands who also play at the same time? I mean, that essentially is what it's going to take to be able to spread and exploit a more compact Duke defense. Villanova again comes the closest, but our help D should be much better than last year. I think people worry too much about one-on-one matchups and not team D.
*Lance is finally a role that suits him. Is he a great player? No. Can he fill the particular niche Duke needs this year? Sure! Look, the kid has been playing out of position for three years. His best contributions have come in limited stints as a perimeter defender, including the Ish Smith example I provided earlier. If things go right, he doesn't have to be a scorer, nor a great rebounder (a skill I suspect should be somewhat better consider he won't be battling the other team's biggest player anymore). He needs to be a slightly better version of Dave McClure, and he can handle that.
*Andre's D remains a question mark, but we certainly have as many reasons to hope he performs well as reasons to assume he wont.


Which leads me to expect we'll have to see a better halfcourt offense than we've had recently, and I just don't think we have the talent and experience (yet) to make that happen.
I'm glad you brought this up, because it's an area I forgot to mention in my original post. I do think the halfcourt offense can be better this year, for a few reasons that might not be readily apparent.
1) The overall movement -- with an without the ball -- should be better. Over the last two years, DeMarcus Nelson and Gerald Henderson were terrific. But they shared similar weaknesses, in that they were "ball-stoppers." Neither moved the ball quickly; they'd catch a pass, size up their man, go one-on-one. And neither went left particularly well. So while they bailed us out a ton of times, it was tough to adjust to defenses geared to stop them (like Nova).
This year's team doesn't have anyone like that. Scheyer and Singler, our top two scorers, are equally adept passers who make more of their basketball actions "within the flow," if you will. The Nolan Smith I expect to see is the one who made his presence felt in the ACC Tournament last year. That was "Attack Nolan" -- he'd catch the ball on the wing, make a quick move within the flow, and either get to the rim like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQjpSkDfrTs) (scroll to the 2-minute mark), pull up or kick. He can go left or right, too. And Mason Plumlee (I really don't like lumping the two of them together -- the Plumlee brothers are different players and I actually have much higher expectations for Mason) really is an excellent player with face-up skills and good passing ability. There's a reason why his teammates keep talking about how much they enjoy playing with him.

2) We can invert our offense. I really, really meant to emphasize this at the start of the thread. But Singler's mis-match works both ways. Suddenly he can drag smaller guards into the post, where we can isolate him. We tried that a bit with G last year, and he did that with some success, but in Singler, you're talking about a 6'8" kid with legit post-up skills. And you know who else we can run stuff for in the post? Scheyer. Duke used to do this with Thomas Hill all the time, and we've seen Scheyer drag his man to the block on occasion in the past. If Duke is moving the ball and cutting/screening without it, that becomes and option.

3) In Mason Plumlee (and hopefully Miles), our guards have someone they can trust to finish. Scheyer, Smith and Singler all have proven they can get into the lane consistently. Now, that doesn't mean they can finish every time. And in the past, they've been hurt by the fact that Zoubek and Thomas haven't been the best at catching and finishing. That's not the case with Mason Plumlee -- and hopefully with Miles, too. These guys can catch a little flip pass or a lob, go up and dunk. That makes a big, big difference.

In short, we might not be as dynamic in some ways offensively as in the past, but we have a greater variety of ways to score than in recent years. And that's what wins games in March -- when we weren't knocking down jumpers the past couple of years, we had nowhere else to turn. This year, at the very least, Duke has a larger number of alternatives on the basket-scoring menu.


Scheyer and Singler are proven scorers, Smith might be ready for a step up, but beyond that we have a lot of question marks, too many to expect a bona fide national title run.

Do we have question marks? Sure -- but basically every team in the country does, too. Yes, we'll need a couple of players to improve, but we're not asking for things that seem unreasonable. We need Smith to score (which he's shown he can do) and Thomas to guard perimeter players (ditto). We need Mason Plumlee to be an impact freshman, but basically every top team in the country is counting on at least one freshman to be a major contributor. We need Andre Dawkins to be a solid reserve -- but is that too much to hope for? We need Miles Plumlee to improve. But unlike the hype surrounding, say Olek Czyz last year -- the props for the Plumlee brothers and Smith aren't coming from fans at summer league games. It's coming from the guys who have been playing with them all summer and fall. And the coaches seem to agree with what the players have been saying. So that's a good sign.

throatybeard
10-19-2009, 08:34 PM
Scheyer may well average 35 mpg. Fortunately, he is superbly conditioned and intelligent enough not to commit stupid fouls. So, I think he can play those 35 mpg without a significant drop-off in effectiveness.

FWIW, K commented yesterday that his best teams have players who play lots of minutes. Dawkins, Hurley, Battier, Duhon, Duke has had some great players who just didn't come off the floor.

Cue the unbelievably annoying tsunami of posts whining about how Scheyer is going to be exhausted by February.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
10-19-2009, 08:52 PM
Cue the unbelievably annoying tsunami of posts whining about how Scheyer is going to be exhausted by February.

It has been my experience that the preemptive anti-whining whining appears in about equal proportion to the whining itself. ;)

SilkyJ
10-19-2009, 09:27 PM
It has been my experience that the preemptive anti-whining whining appears in about equal proportion to the whining itself. ;)

Now you're just speculating.

Edouble
10-19-2009, 09:43 PM
It has been my experience that the preemptive anti-whining whining appears in about equal proportion to the whining itself. ;)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

I can see both sides to this whole debate. Jumbo is cautiously optimistic, while Budwom is cautious because it's October and he's heard it all before and hasn't seen a game yet.

Jumbo... I don't see how Lance could be better than McClure was for us last year. Dave always seemed to come out of traffic with a key rebound, and Lance is not a great rebounder. I know Lance can D up against quick players, but I felt like Dave could do that and hit the boards. I know Lance is 2" taller, but he's never been one to use his height much anyway. I will be pleasantly suprised if Lance does David McClure this year better than David McClure.

I've thought a lot about Singler posting guys up, but I don't see it happening unless Mason or Miles can knock down an 8-10' shot. Can they do that? If we want to isolate the lane for Kyle, or at least give him some room to work, we have to keep the other teams defense honest, or else they'll just stay in the lane. Also Coach K has been so ademant about Kyle playing exclusively on the perimeter that it doesn't seem likely to happen. When Thomas Hill was at Duke he had an excellent shooter playing down low, so Laettner's man had to leave the lane to follow him out. If Mason/Miles leave the paint to give Kyle room to operate, the Plumlee's defenders can just stay down low and clog up the lane, right?

Jumbo
10-19-2009, 09:48 PM
Sounds great, but I disagree. IMO, we do not have a Final Four level team. Your review reminds me a lot of what I was hearing this time last year..... Nolan is playing lights out and Plumlee is so good he is going to start and shock people with his play. Add a Plumlee to the mix, and all three have to play well for your prediction to hold true.

How much money would you like to wager, Jumbo? I'd love a chance to lose it, but do not believe we have a team that will get to the Final Four.

Wow, that's a bit much, don't you think? First of all, I don't think there is such a clear-cut thing as a "Final Final leve team." That "level" varies by year, and all sorts of teams are capable of getting hot and winning four straight games, especially if there are upsets within the bracket that break in their favor. The odds are against anyone making the Final Four, but there are few teams -- if any -- this season that have appreciably more talent than Duke. And talent alone doesn't win titles -- chemistry plays a major role.

To me, this feels nothing like last year, except for the fact that I thought last year's team would be really good, too. And it was really good. ACC-title good. Thirty-win good. Duke ran into a buzzsaw against Villanova and didn't have much margin for error. But you also can't convince me that if Duke were to play Nova again, we wouldn't have a chance to win. Strange things happen in one-and-done settings.

And the comments about personnel are totally different. For one thing, the buzz this year is coming mostly from the players, and now the coaches too. The players are raving about Mason Plumlee as a frosh. Last year's Duke team didn't have a freshman of his caliber, and the buzz about Olek Czyz was solely fan-generated -- there was not a peep from a player or a coach that even hinted at a spot in the rotation for him. And, quite frankly, much of the preseason hype about Elliot Williams was of the same nature. That's why he wasn't playing much early in the season.

The comments about Nolan Smith last year were hopeful about his ability to run the point, and mostly focused on the biggest difference he brought in place of Greg Paulus -- defense. And he provided that. Now Nolan is an upperclassman. We've seen that he's not a point guard, but we've also seen ample evidence that he can be an effective scorer playing off the ball. His teammates and coaches are 100% confident in him, and you rarely hear K pump up a player as he has Nolan unless it's deserved.

Is it that hard to believe that Miles Plumlee, who grew into his body late, has matured enough from his freshman year to his sophomore year to be come a live, athletic body underneath who can rebound, block shots and finish in traffic? Is it really hard to believe that Mason Plumlee -- a highly touted recruit -- can run the floor well, pass, handle and finish inside? Is it really hard to believe that Nolan Smith, finally getting big minutes, can flourish as a scoring guard? Is it really hard to believe that Andre Dawkins can give us a solid 20 minutes off the bench knocking down open threes, scoring in transition and using his athleticism to defend on the wing?

Obviously, we have to hope things break right. But that's true for every team. And look, if none of those things turn out to be true, Duke will be in trouble. But just as everyone around the program knew Jon Scheyer would step in right away and make a major contribution; just as everyone knew Kyle Singler would be a stud from Day 1, that's the kind of buzz I'm hearing about Mason Plumlee.

There will be wins and there will be losses; there will be moments of brilliance and bouts of frustration. But why not be hopeful now? Why not envision fairly realistic scenarios breaking the right way? And why not be willing to acknowledge that if things DO break the right way, Duke can have a very, very good team. Because that's the thing -- I understand being skeptical about the "if" part. But I don't understand being unable to conceive of just how good this team can/would/will be if "if" turns into "when."

Jumbo
10-19-2009, 10:00 PM
Jumbo... I don't see how Lance could be better than McClure was for us last year. Dave always seemed to come out of traffic with a key rebound, and Lance is not a great rebounder. I know Lance can D up against quick players, but I felt like Dave could do that and hit the boards. I know Lance is 2" taller, but he's never been one to use his height much anyway. I will be pleasantly suprised if Lance does David McClure this year better than David McClure.

Dave was a good rebounder for his size. But, as you said, Thomas is bigger. And I know he has not been a good rebounder to this point; believe me, I've harped on that in the past. But I think you have to be willing to give him at least some benefit of the doubt, based on the fact that he's been playing out of position for so long. If he's suddenly boxing out similarly sized -- or even smaller -- players, I think his rebound rate should increase. And I loved Dave, but Lance has at least shown the ability to knock down the occasional 12-footer before. He finishes better. And while Dave did a nice job of guarding up, I think Lance might be better at guarding smaller players. I feel fairly safe in saying that Lance Thomas is, and will be, a better basketball player than Dave McClure.



I've thought a lot about Singler posting guys up, but I don't see it happening unless Mason or Miles can knock down an 8-10' shot. Can they do that? If we want to isolate the lane for Kyle, or at least give him some room to work, we have to keep the other teams defense honest, or else they'll just stay in the lane. Also Coach K has been so ademant about Kyle playing exclusively on the perimeter that it doesn't seem likely to happen. When Thomas Hill was at Duke he had an excellent shooter playing down low, so Laettner's man had to leave the lane to follow him out. If Mason/Miles leave the paint to give Kyle room to operate, the Plumlee's defenders can just stay down low and clog up the lane, right?

Well, I know the team plans to run plenty of sets for Kyle on the block (just because he's playing the 3 doesn't mean Duke won't look to exploit an obvious advantage). As I said, Duke did this with G last year, and Kyle is a better post scorer and will have much more of a height advantage over his man.
That said, you're right about the issues of spreading the floor and collapsing on Singler in the post. Last year, if G had it on the block, Duke generally had 3 shooters around him (Jon, Kyle and the other guard -- although Elliot couldn't really shoot). This year, if it's two Plumlees, I don't know. Mason, I think, will be able to knock down jumpers. I don't see Miles doing that.
BUT ... even if the D simply collapses on Kyle, that's a good thing. Because it means someone is open. And even if Mason can't hit the open jumper, he can take a quick pass and attack the hoop off the dribble. He can dive and hope Singler can find him with an interior pass. He can catch, draw a man, and kick to someone else. There are options. And it's not as if the Plumlees are going to play 40 minutes a game together. I could see Mason working his way up to 30 a night. I would be shocked if Miles got more than 25 minutes a night -- 20 is more like it. Lance will get plenty of PT at the 4, and he might be able to knock down mid-range jumpers.
I could see teams zoning Duke to exploit a lack of shooting at the 4 and the 5. But that's where I'd expect the overall passing, IQ, chemistry and length of the team to kick in -- good hi-lo action, good movement off the ball, good recognition and ball movement should leave us looking for layups against a zone, not threes.

Wander
10-20-2009, 12:46 AM
The odds are against anyone making the Final Four, but there are few teams -- if any -- this season that have appreciably more talent than Duke.

Come on. Kansas and Kentucky are appreciably more talented than Duke.

Only those two and Michigan State and Villanova need to be considered better than us right now, though. Everyone else has questions greater than or equal to ours (UNC's guards, GT's coaching, etc), so that means we have legitimate Final Four hopes. It doesn't hurt that we have the best non-Kansas/Kentucky player in the country.

whereinthehellami
10-20-2009, 08:31 AM
Dave was a good rebounder for his size. But, as you said, Thomas is bigger. And I know he has not been a good rebounder to this point; believe me, I've harped on that in the past. But I think you have to be willing to give him at least some benefit of the doubt, based on the fact that he's been playing out of position for so long. If he's suddenly boxing out similarly sized -- or even smaller -- players, I think his rebound rate should increase. And I loved Dave, but Lance has at least shown the ability to knock down the occasional 12-footer before. He finishes better. And while Dave did a nice job of guarding up, I think Lance might be better at guarding smaller players. I feel fairly safe in saying that Lance Thomas is, and will be, a better basketball player than Dave McClure.

Dave had a sixth sense related to where the basketball was going. The kid was always around the ball. Dave had a very high basketball IQ. Lance has yet to show me that level of basketball IQ. Dave maximized his basketball talents and if not for some nasty knee injuries would have been a starter. Lance has yet to maximize his basketball potential and he is running out of time. I think Lance can be a contributor but I wouldn't count on a metamorphasis into an impact player at this point.

budwom
10-20-2009, 08:44 AM
Well, there certainly have been a number of excellent points made on both sides. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'll be down this weekend personally perusing the young lads as they take on Pfeiffer. I'm expecting an enjoyable season, but remain skeptical about all the Horvathian exploits I'm hearing about in the pre-season. I agree that if everything breaks our way, we COULD conceivably be title contenders, but really, how often does that happen?

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to Thursday night.

budwom
10-20-2009, 09:10 AM
One last thing I forgot to mention, appropos to some of what's been mentioned above by Jumbo and others.

Rick Majerus made a really, really good point on TV last year. (Yeah, I know, he's easy to make fun of, what with Marty's calves and all that, but hey, don't we at least owe him a debt of gratitude for beating the Heels in the Final Four the year Gut was coach, and the Heels seemed likely to win it all, IIRC?): EVERY player has to have at least ONE spot on the floor where he KNOWS he can consistently hit a shot.

When I think back to last year in general, and the Villanova game in particular (Coach K clearly stated it looked like we were playing five on three) teams were able to ignore Thomas, Zoubek and McClure just about completely. They were giving those guys completely uncontested looks from about twelve feet on out, and they just couldn't take advantage. I mean really, everyone should be able to make a decent percentage of uncontested shots from the foul line on in, and if we're to be an improved halfcourt team (which I think we really have to be to succeed) Thomas and the Plumlees will have to show this ability. And maybe they will, but like so many other things, it hasn't been demonstrated yet.

One more thing. In the Villanova post game press conference, Bob Ryan asked K something to the effect "When are you going to get a good big man?" And K responded "and a point guard." Hey, K's the guy who brought it up, so this is another reason why I remain skeptical about this year's team...is Nolan Smith ready to step up? His fine performance in the scrimmage notwithstanding, it looks like that's still another question mark which needs to be answered.

_Gary
10-20-2009, 09:35 AM
One more thing. In the Villanova post game press conference, Bob Ryan asked K something to the effect "When are you going to get a good big man?" And K responded "and a point guard." Hey, K's the guy who brought it up, so this is another reason why I remain skeptical about this year's team...is Nolan Smith ready to step up? His fine performance in the scrimmage notwithstanding, it looks like that's still another question mark which needs to be answered.

Here's the real bottom line: we do not have a top notch, pure point guard - plain and simple. We have a couple of guys that we are going to be relying on to carry out the duties of what we all call "the point guard". Fortunately, with the motion offense you can get away without always having a pure, incredible 1 like Bobby or Jason. As long as people with the ball are making smart decisions you are in good shape at least a decent percentage of the time. This is why having Jon at the point will work at least some of the time. The only big issues are when you've got the clock running down and you need someone to create. It's those moments when it's nice to have a strong, athletic, point who can dribble through a bit of traffic and either create his own shot or dish to someone else if their man moves over to block his shot. I'd be lying if I said I think Jon is 100% suited for that situation. In those instances I believe I'd still rather have Nolan simply because I think he's a bit more athletic and can get into the lane a tad better. But Jon is the smartest guy and he's proven he'll make good decisions in those situations. So it's a trade off at times.

When things are running smoothly and we have 3 or 4 other guys (besides the point) who can move, shoot and/or pass to an open teammate Scheyer is going to be fine at the point. But if we don't have a bunch of options and we need our point to create himself then I'm not as confident as some others here are. And no, I don't believe Nolan is a pure point guard. He's clearly not. Frankly I think he and Jon are both better suited to play the 2 in our system. I like both of them on the wings receiving the pass for either an open three or with the ability to take a dribble step if their man comes flying out and either hitting the midrange shot or disrupting the defense enough to find an open man underneath. If a defender comes running out on either of them Jon will be better with the one step and then shoot/pass and Nolan will be better with the slash and then shoot/pass. It's a difference in their natural abilities and what they can do best. But truth be told neither is a true elite point guard.

We'll make do with what we have this year and if the other players off the ball (guys like Singler, the Plumlees, Lance and the rest) are threats to score then it will make the PG duties much more managable. When it comes to the discussions about which guy is better for us at the point (Jon or Nolan) I believe it's a situational matter. It will depend on what's happening on any given play. There will be situations when it's better to have Jon running the point, and there will be situations when it will be better to have Nolan running it. If distribution from within the motion offense is all we need then Jon is the best option because he'll have fewer turnovers and make smart reads. If dribble penetration/creation off the dribble is what we need then I like Nolan a bit better because of his athelticism.

Just my two cents.


Gary

dw0827
10-20-2009, 10:16 AM
When I played ball just after the Ice Age, there was no such thing as a point guard and a shooting guard . . . a 1 and a 2.

Just guards. Two of them. And we were both expected to shoot and score and we were both expected to be able to run the offense. That's the way we trained, practiced, and played.

In this age of specialization, that's all gone.

To me, what Gary is saying is a throwback to the old days when you had two guards who were somewhat interchangeable and were BOTH responsible for scoring and guiding the offense. And depending on the specific situation, Jon's skill set is most needed . . . while in other situations, Nolan's skill set is most needed.

This arrangement is by necessity, I suppose, since we don't have the pure point like Hurley or Williams.

So what.

It we don't get to the final 4, it won't be because Jon is the primary point for this team. It will be other factors. I really believe that we can be an elite team with Jon running the point and Nolan off the ball.

Kedsy
10-20-2009, 10:30 AM
Dave maximized his basketball talents and if not for some nasty knee injuries would have been a starter.

Lance has started 62 of his 100 games at Duke, so why is Dave McClure so much better because he "would have been" a starter? Lance may not be the player we hoped for when he signed his letter of intent, but I think you may be selling him a little short.

FireOgilvie
10-20-2009, 12:27 PM
Lance has started 62 of his 100 games at Duke, so why is Dave McClure so much better because he "would have been" a starter? Lance may not be the player we hoped for when he signed his letter of intent, but I think you may be selling him a little short.

Lance may have started, but he only averaged 2 minutes/game more than McClure last year. McClure and Lance rebounded at roughly the same rate (McClure was slightly better), but McClure had more blocks, steals, assists, and fewer turnovers than Lance. Lance scored more points. I think McClure was definitely better on defense, but obviously Lance was better on offense. Neither one of them was particularly good on offense, though.

Kedsy
10-20-2009, 01:17 PM
Lance may have started, but he only averaged 2 minutes/game more than McClure last year. McClure and Lance rebounded at roughly the same rate (McClure was slightly better), but McClure had more blocks, steals, assists, and fewer turnovers than Lance. Lance scored more points. I think McClure was definitely better on defense, but obviously Lance was better on offense. Neither one of them was particularly good on offense, though.

The original comment (not made by me) was that we need Lance to be a slightly better McClure. The subsequent post pooh-poohed that idea and I was responding to that.

Your post supports the view that last year Dave was a little better than Lance. Why is it crazy to think the combination of Lance working hard over the summer and finally playing against players smaller than him (or perhaps his size, but not much larger than him like he's been forced to do for the past three years) can put him in a position where he can perform slightly better than Dave did last year?

whereinthehellami
10-20-2009, 01:27 PM
Lance has started 62 of his 100 games at Duke, so why is Dave McClure so much better because he "would have been" a starter? Lance may not be the player we hoped for when he signed his letter of intent, but I think you may be selling him a little short.

See FireOgilvie's post which IMO ties into Dave's basketball IQ. I'm not trying to harsh on Lance, I was just a huge fan of McClure and was responding more to Jumbo's post. Also i think a fair number of people are pumping up the expectations for Lance a little too much this year.

Jumbo
10-20-2009, 01:37 PM
See FireOgilvie's post which IMO ties into Dave's basketball IQ. I'm not trying to harsh on Lance, I was just a huge fan of McClure and was responding more to Jumbo's post. Also i think a fair number of people are pumping up the expectations for Lance a little too much this year.

Man, if saying Lance Thomas could be a slightly better version of Dave McClure is "pumping up the expectations," then the expectations must be really, really low.

Jumbo
10-20-2009, 01:48 PM
Well, there certainly have been a number of excellent points made on both sides. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'll be down this weekend personally perusing the young lads as they take on Pfeiffer. I'm expecting an enjoyable season, but remain skeptical about all the Horvathian exploits I'm hearing about in the pre-season. I agree that if everything breaks our way, we COULD conceivably be title contenders, but really, how often does that happen?

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to Thursday night.

Here's what I don't understand. To me, "Horvathian," in DBR parlance, has come to mean the following: "A phenomon whereby fans observe summer pickup games and attribute massive expectations to a player who has done nothing to demonstrate the skills described, and in fact entered college without anything resembling that pedigree." Also see Czyz, Olek.

That doesn't fit with what's going on here. As I said before ...
-Mason Plumlee is highly touted freshman. The buzz is coming from players and coaches; not fans. The things he supposedly is doing well are exactly what was expected of his upside when he was being recruited.

-Nolan Smith is a third-year guard who is being asked to play the role that was always fit him best -- an attack-oriented combo guard. He has demonstrated scoring prowess in big college games before. He's finally an upperclassmen. Most Duke guards with similar pedigrees have made the leap we're expecting from Nolan Smith. Look at where Daniel Ewing was early in his career -- it's certainly not "Horvathian" to think Smith could be that good or a bit better.

-The only guy who remotely fits the "Horvath" mold is Miles Plumlee, in that he really didn't accomplish much as a freshman and now will start. But, that's the key -- he's starting. Horvath or Casey Sanders or whomever else fell into this category never really saw an increased role. Granted, Horvath and Sanders started some games as seniors, but by then the summer hype had faded. And, like his brother, the Miles Plumlee hype is coming from coaches and players. For something to be Horvathian, almost by definition, it can't be backed up by action. Placing Miles Plumlee in the starting lineup is action that affirms much of the belief in his progress.

-It's also worth noting that hardly anyone is expecting anything significant --or beyond what they've already shown -- from Zoubek and Thomas. The forecasts for both players are conservative. I've already said I don't expect Ryan Kelly to be a regular part of the rotation in close games. So I just don't see the areas of optimism regarding this team's development as connecting at all to the more outlandish predictions in the past involving guys like Domzalski, Horvath, Czyz, Pocius, etc.

budwom
10-20-2009, 02:57 PM
I agree 100%, which goes back to my original point that I just don't see us as national title contenders.


Here's the real bottom line: we do not have a top notch, pure point guard - plain and simple. We have a couple of guys that we are going to be relying on to carry out the duties of what we all call "the point guard". Fortunately, with the motion offense you can get away without always having a pure, incredible 1 like Bobby or Jason. As long as people with the ball are making smart decisions you are in good shape at least a decent percentage of the time. This is why having Jon at the point will work at least some of the time. The only big issues are when you've got the clock running down and you need someone to create. It's those moments when it's nice to have a strong, athletic, point who can dribble through a bit of traffic and either create his own shot or dish to someone else if their man moves over to block his shot. I'd be lying if I said I think Jon is 100% suited for that situation. In those instances I believe I'd still rather have Nolan simply because I think he's a bit more athletic and can get into the lane a tad better. But Jon is the smartest guy and he's proven he'll make good decisions in those situations. So it's a trade off at times.

When things are running smoothly and we have 3 or 4 other guys (besides the point) who can move, shoot and/or pass to an open teammate Scheyer is going to be fine at the point. But if we don't have a bunch of options and we need our point to create himself then I'm not as confident as some others here are. And no, I don't believe Nolan is a pure point guard. He's clearly not. Frankly I think he and Jon are both better suited to play the 2 in our system. I like both of them on the wings receiving the pass for either an open three or with the ability to take a dribble step if their man comes flying out and either hitting the midrange shot or disrupting the defense enough to find an open man underneath. If a defender comes running out on either of them Jon will be better with the one step and then shoot/pass and Nolan will be better with the slash and then shoot/pass. It's a difference in their natural abilities and what they can do best. But truth be told neither is a true elite point guard.

We'll make do with what we have this year and if the other players off the ball (guys like Singler, the Plumlees, Lance and the rest) are threats to score then it will make the PG duties much more managable. When it comes to the discussions about which guy is better for us at the point (Jon or Nolan) I believe it's a situational matter. It will depend on what's happening on any given play. There will be situations when it's better to have Jon running the point, and there will be situations when it will be better to have Nolan running it. If distribution from within the motion offense is all we need then Jon is the best option because he'll have fewer turnovers and make smart reads. If dribble penetration/creation off the dribble is what we need then I like Nolan a bit better because of his athelticism.

Just my two cents.


Gary

budwom
10-20-2009, 03:28 PM
Here's what I don't understand. To me, "Horvathian," in DBR parlance, has come to mean the following: "A phenomon whereby fans observe summer pickup games and attribute massive expectations to a player who has done nothing to demonstrate the skills described, and in fact entered college without anything resembling that pedigree." Also see Czyz, Olek.

That doesn't fit with what's going on here. As I said before ...
-Mason Plumlee is highly touted freshman. The buzz is coming from players and coaches; not fans. The things he supposedly is doing well are exactly what was expected of his upside when he was being recruited.

-Nolan Smith is a third-year guard who is being asked to play the role that was always fit him best -- an attack-oriented combo guard. He has demonstrated scoring prowess in big college games before. He's finally an upperclassmen. Most Duke guards with similar pedigrees have made the leap we're expecting from Nolan Smith. Look at where Daniel Ewing was early in his career -- it's certainly not "Horvathian" to think Smith could be that good or a bit better.

-The only guy who remotely fits the "Horvath" mold is Miles Plumlee, in that he really didn't accomplish much as a freshman and now will start. But, that's the key -- he's starting. Horvath or Casey Sanders or whomever else fell into this category never really saw an increased role. Granted, Horvath and Sanders started some games as seniors, but by then the summer hype had faded. And, like his brother, the Miles Plumlee hype is coming from coaches and players. For something to be Horvathian, almost by definition, it can't be backed up by action. Placing Miles Plumlee in the starting lineup is action that affirms much of the belief in his progress.

-It's also worth noting that hardly anyone is expecting anything significant --or beyond what they've already shown -- from Zoubek and Thomas. The forecasts for both players are conservative. I've already said I don't expect Ryan Kelly to be a regular part of the rotation in close games. So I just don't see the areas of optimism regarding this team's development as connecting at all to the more outlandish predictions in the past involving guys like Domzalski, Horvath, Czyz, Pocius, etc.

Ah, well that's YOUR definition, Jumbo, not mine...and since I think I coined the term, I'll stick with what it represents to me. To me, Horvathian means performance hyped to a degree which I (and not necessarily anyone else) find to be unreasonable, no matter who the player is.

Absolutely, Miles, Mason and Smith have considerable potential, and Mason was a very elite recruit. But Mason is a freshman in a major basketball conference, Miles saw very limited action last year, and Smith was very good at times, and quite mediocre at other times.

So when I read about preseason action in which Plumlees leap over Zoubek like antelope on the plains of Kenya, and Smith going Chris Paul on everyone in a scrimmage (scoring wise, not nut punching wise, of course) I believe I am witnessing a Horvathian phenomenon.

These guys may all prove to be great, and I hope they do it this year. But right now it's too much hype, too soon, to warrant talk of a legitimate title run. Like I say, that's my interpretation, and I don't expect I'll convince anyone who thinks otherwise, which is completely fine. We'll all have to wait and see. You've made good points about how you see this team evolving, and I hope you're right, but I remain highly skeptical.

airowe
10-20-2009, 03:44 PM
Ah, well that's YOUR definition, Jumbo, not mine...and since I think I coined the term, I'll stick with what it represents to me. To me, Horvathian means performance hyped to a degree which I (and not necessarily anyone else) find to be unreasonable, no matter who the player is.

Absolutely, Miles, Mason and Smith have considerable potential, and Mason was a very elite recruit. But Mason is a freshman in a major basketball conference, Miles saw very limited action last year, and Smith was very good at times, and quite mediocre at other times.

So when I read about preseason action in which Plumlees leap over Zoubek like antelope on the plains of Kenya, and Smith going Chris Paul on everyone in a scrimmage (scoring wise, not nut punching wise, of course) I believe I am witnessing a Horvathian phenomenon.

These guys may all prove to be great, and I hope they do it this year. But right now it's too much hype, too soon, to warrant talk of a legitimate title run. Like I say, that's my interpretation, and I don't expect I'll convince anyone who thinks otherwise, which is completely fine. We'll all have to wait and see. You've made good points about how you see this team evolving, and I hope you're right, but I remain highly skeptical.

But budwom, you're comparing fan hype with staff and player hype. This is Jumbo's intrinsic point. It's one thing for us to hype the guys who haven't stepped foot in a regular season game or shown that they are playing better and a whole other thing for the guys who see them in practice to do so.

budwom
10-20-2009, 03:59 PM
I understand your point, airowe, but I'm reverting back to the my original point (some time ago)of whether or not this team is a legit title contending team. I feel that the Horvathian exploits are directly leading to the conclusion by some fans that we are a contending team.

By the way, I don't claim to know ANYTHING about what the coaches think or expect. I'm only referring to fan expecations.

budwom
10-20-2009, 04:01 PM
Appendix, d) I saw Nick Horvath in summer pick-up, and he’s hitting threes blinfolded in a dark gym with 45-degree slanted rims, he’s put on 50 pounds of muscle, he schooled Boozer/SWilliams, and Angelina Jolie was seen waiting for him after practice, idling in a cherry-colored convertible.

That's him!!! He's a monster
Had any good pastrami lately, throaty?

Duvall
10-20-2009, 04:12 PM
These guys may all prove to be great, and I hope they do it this year. But right now it's too much hype, too soon, to warrant talk of a legitimate title run.

I agree. Of course, if they are able to repeat that success against the Pfeiffer Pfighting Pfalcons, then all bets will be off.

NSDukeFan
10-20-2009, 04:15 PM
I understand your point, airowe, but I'm reverting back to the my original point (some time ago)of whether or not this team is a legit title contending team. I feel that the Horvathian exploits are directly leading to the conclusion by some fans that we are a contending team.

By the way, I don't claim to know ANYTHING about what the coaches think or expect. I'm only referring to fan expecations.

No team is a legit title contending team yet (since no games have been played), but Duke has as much talent and experience as all but four or five teams. The team may not be favored to win it all or make the final four, but they would definitely have to be considered contenders, as much as anyone can before the season has started.

budwom
10-20-2009, 04:15 PM
Pfor sure!

Jumbo
10-20-2009, 05:45 PM
Ah, well that's YOUR definition, Jumbo, not mine...and since I think I coined the term, I'll stick with what it represents to me. To me, Horvathian means performance hyped to a degree which I (and not necessarily anyone else) find to be unreasonable, no matter who the player is.

Absolutely, Miles, Mason and Smith have considerable potential, and Mason was a very elite recruit. But Mason is a freshman in a major basketball conference, Miles saw very limited action last year, and Smith was very good at times, and quite mediocre at other times.

So when I read about preseason action in which Plumlees leap over Zoubek like antelope on the plains of Kenya, and Smith going Chris Paul on everyone in a scrimmage (scoring wise, not nut punching wise, of course) I believe I am witnessing a Horvathian phenomenon.

These guys may all prove to be great, and I hope they do it this year. But right now it's too much hype, too soon, to warrant talk of a legitimate title run. Like I say, that's my interpretation, and I don't expect I'll convince anyone who thinks otherwise, which is completely fine. We'll all have to wait and see. You've made good points about how you see this team evolving, and I hope you're right, but I remain highly skeptical.

Forgot to mention how nice it is to have you back around here, Buddy. I'm enjoying this discussion far more than any I've had in the board in quite a while. Someone else mentioned the distinction that I'm trying to base my analysis on what coaches and players are saying -- and, where applicable, my own observations. Simultaneously, I try to pay no attention to fan hype. But I think if you look at your concerns about some of the guys, you could make the same arguments for just about every team in the country. Mason Plumlee is a hyped frosh. So is John Wall, or John Henson or Xavier Henry. Every freshman needs to prove hs worth.

I also think there are a couple of other phenomena at work here, which are completely understandable.
1) Most of the offseason was hit after hit -- G leaves, Marty leaves, recruits don't come, Elliot transfers -- so it just felt like we were "worse" than we could be. It takes some wind out of our sails and leaves us lamenting what might have been. That's a natural reaction.

2) This team is different. It's different both from what we're used to seeing in recent years, and it's different from how we envision a typical top Duke team. What's funny is that if you threw, say, blue and yellow shirts with UCLA on the front, it might worry you. Or Michigan State jerseys. Or Kansas. Whatever. But this is a different Duke team, and "different" usual evokes concern, if not outright fear.

3) Fans are a little battered right now. The discussion of whether that is warranted is for another time, and relates more to expectations/appreciation of success than actual results. But, the facts are these: Duke hasn't won a title since 2001; it hasn't made the Final Four or even advanced past the Sweet 16 since 2004; it hasn't defeated Carolina at home in four years; it's watched UNC win two national titles in the last five seasons. So, while we all have different expectations of success, it's fair to say our collective ego has taken a hit. Whereas we used to assume that things would find a way to work out in the end -- because, basically, they always did -- the mentality now is almost one that expects the other shoe to drop. It's tough to envision success with disappointment only an arm's length away.

Anyway, as I've said, there's a lot of work to be done, but a lot of exciting pieces in place. And I do feel confident that, if those pieces come together, this Duke team will be good regardless of the competition, and when examining the competition, it compares favorably with anyone out there.

BD80
10-20-2009, 06:14 PM
Main Entry: hor·va·thi·an
Pronunciation: \hor-va'-thī-'ən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin, from Kiwi horwyāthyān
Date: 14th century
1 a often capitalized : a large monster defeated Yahweh in various scriptural accounts of practice scrimmages b : a large sea animal found in Tasman Sea
2 something large or formidable

Indoor66
10-20-2009, 06:15 PM
Jumbo, I agree with your post and position stated. That said, I think that a more apropos view of the Marty situation is that he spent four years and graduated. I do not take that as "he left."

I think that graduation and not leaving better characterizes the situation.

Edouble
10-21-2009, 02:34 AM
Main Entry: hor·va·thi·an
Pronunciation: \hor-va'-thī-'ən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin, from Kiwi horwyāthyān
Date: 14th century
1 a often capitalized : a large monster defeated Yahweh in various scriptural accounts of practice scrimmages b : a large sea animal found in Tasman Sea
2 something large or formidable

Um, this is really funny. You put a lot of work into this. Thank you.

budwom
10-21-2009, 08:51 AM
Forgot to mention how nice it is to have you back around here, Buddy. I'm enjoying this discussion far more than any I've had in the board in quite a while. Someone else mentioned the distinction that I'm trying to base my analysis on what coaches and players are saying -- and, where applicable, my own observations. Simultaneously, I try to pay no attention to fan hype. But I think if you look at your concerns about some of the guys, you could make the same arguments for just about every team in the country. Mason Plumlee is a hyped frosh. So is John Wall, or John Henson or Xavier Henry. Every freshman needs to prove hs worth.

I also think there are a couple of other phenomena at work here, which are completely understandable.
1) Most of the offseason was hit after hit -- G leaves, Marty leaves, recruits don't come, Elliot transfers -- so it just felt like we were "worse" than we could be. It takes some wind out of our sails and leaves us lamenting what might have been. That's a natural reaction.

2) This team is different. It's different both from what we're used to seeing in recent years, and it's different from how we envision a typical top Duke team. What's funny is that if you threw, say, blue and yellow shirts with UCLA on the front, it might worry you. Or Michigan State jerseys. Or Kansas. Whatever. But this is a different Duke team, and "different" usual evokes concern, if not outright fear.

3) Fans are a little battered right now. The discussion of whether that is warranted is for another time, and relates more to expectations/appreciation of success than actual results. But, the facts are these: Duke hasn't won a title since 2001; it hasn't made the Final Four or even advanced past the Sweet 16 since 2004; it hasn't defeated Carolina at home in four years; it's watched UNC win two national titles in the last five seasons. So, while we all have different expectations of success, it's fair to say our collective ego has taken a hit. Whereas we used to assume that things would find a way to work out in the end -- because, basically, they always did -- the mentality now is almost one that expects the other shoe to drop. It's tough to envision success with disappointment only an arm's length away.

Anyway, as I've said, there's a lot of work to be done, but a lot of exciting pieces in place. And I do feel confident that, if those pieces come together, this Duke team will be good regardless of the competition, and when examining the competition, it compares favorably with anyone out there.

I very much agree, Jumbo. Good exchange. I especially agree with point #3...I'm also very positive about this year because, as I said, I think we get some key building blocks in place. But I acknowledge many people's optimism about how far this team can go, and definitely hope they're right. In any event I'm feeling very good about this year, and I'm looking forward to seeing what the team looks like on Saturday. I'd also like to see a defeat of the despised Turtles on the gridiron...hope I'm not asking too much.

Jeffrey
10-21-2009, 11:16 AM
To me, this feels nothing like last year, except for the fact that I thought last year's team would be really good, too.

Disagree. Who was/is expected to start this time last year and now? IIRC, Kyle, Jon, Nolan, and Miles are on both list. IMO, 80% represents a lot of commonality.

We lost G (one of our two best) and he's being replaced by a highly regarded freshman. We lost two quality reserves (Greg & Elliot) and they're being replaced by?


And the comments about personnel are totally different. For one thing, the buzz this year is coming mostly from the players, and now the coaches too. The players are raving about Mason Plumlee as a frosh.

What were the players saying about Nolan & Miles this time last year? Who did K identify as his starters before last year's season began?


But why not be hopeful now?

I am hopeful.... very hopeful! I hoped I would lose my proposed wager. I'm also realistic.... I thought I would win the wager.

As we've discussed before, if this team had one of the best PG's in the country, then I think it would be a probable national champion. If Bobby or Jason were on this team, then I'd bet serious money we'd make the Final Four.

airowe
10-21-2009, 12:40 PM
Disagree. Who was/is expected to start this time last year and now? IIRC, Kyle, Jon, Nolan, and Miles are on both list. IMO, 80% represents a lot of commonality.

We lost G (one of our two best) and he's being replaced by a highly regarded freshman. We lost two quality reserves (Greg & Elliot) and they're being replaced by?



What were the players saying about Nolan & Miles this time last year? Who did K identify as his starters before last year's season began?



I am hopeful.... very hopeful! I hoped I would lose my proposed wager. I'm also realistic.... I thought I would win the wager.

As we've discussed before, if this team had one of the best PG's in the country, then I think it would be a probable national champion. If Bobby or Jason were on this team, then I'd bet serious money we'd make the Final Four.

Jeffrey,

The Kyle, Nolan, Jon, and Miles of last year are simply not the same as the Kyle, Nolan, Jon, and Miles of this year.

Kyle will finally be playing at his natural wing forward position instead of having to bang down low both on offense and defense. This will allow him to be more effective on offense and not tire down as much on the defensive end.

Nolan was being counted on to be the facilitator for the offense after not being asked to do thus before. He, again, was playing out of position.

Jon now has nore than a half season and an entire offseason to become comfortable running this motion offense.

Miles is by all accounts a completely different player.

I think this season will be a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

Not to mention, with the mass exodus of talented guards to the league after last season, our most glaring weakness will not be as prominent as it otherwise would be. I see no reason for regression, and every reason for progression. If we improve from a 30 win season, ACC Tournament Chamos, and a trip to the Sweet 16 I think everyone here's expectations will have been met and then some.

budwom
10-21-2009, 12:50 PM
Jeffrey,

The Kyle, Nolan, Jon, and Miles of last year are simply not the same as the Kyle, Nolan, Jon, and Miles of this year.

Kyle will finally be playing at his natural wing forward position instead of having to bang down low both on offense and defense. This will allow him to be more effective on offense and not tire down as much on the defensive end.

Nolan was being counted on to be the facilitator for the offense after not being asked to do thus before. He, again, was playing out of position.

Jon now has nore than a half season and an entire offseason to become comfortable running this motion offense.

Miles is by all accounts a completely different player.

I think this season will be a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

Not to mention, with the mass exodus of talented guards to the league after last season, our most glaring weakness will not be as prominent as it otherwise would be. I see no reason for regression, and every reason for progression. If we improve from a 30 win season, ACC Tournament Chamos, and a trip to the Sweet 16 I think everyone here's expectations will have been met and then some.

I promised myself I wouldn't jump back into this, and I really agree with a lot of what you say, airowe, but your statement "Miles is by all accounts a completely different player" pretty much sums up our differing views.
Will Miles really be a completely different player this year, based on offseason scrimmaging? I sure hope you're right, but I think you can probably understand if some of us don't take this as factual (yet).

airowe
10-21-2009, 01:30 PM
I promised myself I wouldn't jump back into this, and I really agree with a lot of what you say, airowe, but your statement "Miles is by all accounts a completely different player" pretty much sums up our differing views.
Will Miles really be a completely different player this year, based on offseason scrimmaging? I sure hope you're right, but I think you can probably understand if some of us don't take this as factual (yet).

Absolutely budwom, I understand you reserving judgement. That's why they play the games as they say. I've been very bullish on Mason this offseason but if Miles is as good as the staff and players have said then this team is in for great success.

Thanks for the Phase 0 story Jumbo, and thanks for creating discussion budwom and Jeffrey. Can't wait for Saturday!

Jumbo
10-21-2009, 09:24 PM
Disagree. Who was/is expected to start this time last year and now? IIRC, Kyle, Jon, Nolan, and Miles are on both list. IMO, 80% represents a lot of commonality.

Someone else already beat me to it, with the point about how guys will be playing different, more appropriate positions. Plus, players generally get better over time. So I'd take each of those returning players over last year's version. Otherwise, every other team counting on improvement from major returning players should also be similarly discounted.
Plus, you completely ignore the fundamental change in style. Yes, we lost G. But he's being replaced by a 6'10" guy. We'll be playing a different brand of basketball.


We lost G (one of our two best) and he's being replaced by a highly regarded freshman. We lost two quality reserves (Greg & Elliot) and they're being replaced by?

Again, you can't look at this as a player-for-player thing. How about this -- either Lance Thomas or Brian Zoubek started virtually every game last season. They won't start this year. I'd also quibble with the characterization of Greg as a "quality reserve" by the end of the year, when he was barely playing.




What were the players saying about Nolan & Miles this time last year? Who did K identify as his starters before last year's season began?
The buzz at this time last year was that Nolan was pressuring the heck out of the ball on D, and that would make a big difference compared to the way teams had repeatedly broken Paulus down off the dribble the previous season. On that front, he did not disappoint. Nolan, meanwhile, was adjusting to playing the point. This year, everyone sounds much, much more impressed by his play now that he isn't worried about running the offense.
Last year there was hopeful buzz about Miles, as in "this guy is more athletic and understands the game better than we realize -- he could develop into someone who can really help; maybe immediately." This year, it's more like "This guys has really grown into his body and improved considerably from a year ago. He has improved some weak areas and while he might not be a back-to-the-basket scorer, he is definitely an inside presence and is clearly ahead of a pair of seniors -- Thomas and Zoubek -- in the pecking order."




I am hopeful.... very hopeful! I hoped I would lose my proposed wager. I'm also realistic.... I thought I would win the wager.

As we've discussed before, if this team had one of the best PG's in the country, then I think it would be a probable national champion. If Bobby or Jason were on this team, then I'd bet serious money we'd make the Final Four.

Point guard is the least of this team's worries. And any team would benefit from Bobby Hurley or Jason Williams. Sheesh.

Welcome2DaSlopes
10-21-2009, 09:51 PM
I think if unc didn't win the title this year most duke fans would be happy with the results of our season. But I have to admit i want more out of the team if our rivals are winning chips.

Newton_14
10-21-2009, 10:00 PM
I promised myself I wouldn't jump back into this, and I really agree with a lot of what you say, airowe, but your statement "Miles is by all accounts a completely different player" pretty much sums up our differing views.
Will Miles really be a completely different player this year, based on offseason scrimmaging? I sure hope you're right, but I think you can probably understand if some of us don't take this as factual (yet).

To answer your question honestly, Miles will be a better player this year for multiple reasons.
Because among other things,

-He first recognized what his weaknesses are (see article in the Miles thread),
-He worked his butt off in the off season, got a lot stronger,
-Grew into his body better,
-Likely matured,
-Will be a year older having one season under his belt so he knows better what to expect,
-Raised his sick vertical leap for a big even beyond what it was,
-Was joined by his brother which will make him more comfortable while also having Mason to push him to work even harder,
-Changed his major to have a more manageable course load
-And yes, in both the summer league and summer pick up games, he showed his Duke teammates quite a bit of improvement, so much so, that guys like Scheyer now have a ton of confidence in him
-and well that about sums it up.

Will all that guarantee he will be "much improved"? NO.

But I would tend to think it will make him a improved player which in turn will give this team a big shot in the arm...

Spam Filter
10-21-2009, 10:22 PM
I think if unc didn't win the title this year most duke fans would be happy with the results of our season. But I have to admit i want more out of the team if our rivals are winning chips.

Really? You don't think getting ran out of the gym by Villanova was disappointing regardless of what UNC did? Cause I do.

And I completely agree with Budwom.

This team has the potential to be a SW-16 team, and repeat what we did last year. That's about the ceiling, unless they get some really lucky matchup breaks in March.

We still don't have a real point guard, and we still don't have a credible low post threat. So we aren't going to get many easy baskets. We will get some more on offensive putbacks than we did last year, that's it. Nobody on this team can create easy shots for himself or his teammate on a consistent basis.

The offense is going come mostly from jump shots. Against teams with good perimeter defense we will have long offensive droughts. Just like we have the last few years.

Johnboy
10-21-2009, 10:35 PM
Really? You don't think getting ran out of the gym by Villanova was disappointing regardless of what UNC did? Cause I do.


One game. Sheesh. 30 wins, ACC Champions. Good season. I'm happy with the season.

Of course I was disappointed with the last game, but that's pretty much the case every year we don't win it all (or at least play up to our seed in the NCAA tournament).

If the last game determines whether or not you're happy with a season, I feel sorry for you. I've lived through 10-17, 11-16 and 13-18 as a Duke fan. Compared to that, last year was fun and yeah, overall, I was happy with our team. Hated losing to the baby blues and thought we'd beat 'Nova, but overall, not disappointed with our season last year. This year looks like it will be really fun. I hope we do well in the NCAA's, but that won't determine whether I enjoy watching our team play. </soapbox> Sorry for the sermon.

Spam Filter
10-21-2009, 11:52 PM
It's not the fact we lost the Nova, I never expected a championship so I knew the season was going to end in a loss one way or another, it's the being ran out of the gym part, that makes it disappointing.

And yes, the memory of it taints my entire perception of last season, and I suspect this is true for most Duke fans, sorry if that makes me "not a real Duke fan" enough for you.

And in the context of discussing whether this year's team is a potential Title contender, the memory of what happened in that game certainly affects my evaluation of a team consisting mostly of the same players.

airowe
10-22-2009, 12:03 AM
It's not the fact we lost the Nova, I never expected a championship so I knew the season was going to end in a loss one way or another, it's the being ran out of the gym part, that makes it disappointing.

And yes, the memory of it taints my entire perception of last season, and I suspect this is true for most Duke fans, sorry if that makes me "not a real Duke fan" enough for you.

And in the context of discussing whether this year's team is a potential Title contender, the memory of what happened in that game certainly affects my evaluation of a team consisting mostly of the same players.


Really? You don't think getting ran out of the gym by Villanova was disappointing regardless of what UNC did? Cause I do.

And I completely agree with Budwom.

This team has the potential to be a SW-16 team, and repeat what we did last year. That's about the ceiling, unless they get some really lucky matchup breaks in March.

We still don't have a real point guard, and we still don't have a credible low post threat. So we aren't going to get many easy baskets. We will get some more on offensive putbacks than we did last year, that's it. Nobody on this team can create easy shots for himself or his teammate on a consistent basis.

The offense is going come mostly from jump shots. Against teams with good perimeter defense we will have long offensive droughts. Just like we have the last few years.

I'm sorry if this is out of line, but I'm not doubting what kind of Duke fan you are, rather if you are a Duke fan. You don't sound like any Duke fan I know. Could just be me though and forgive me if I'm just reading too much into your posts...

roywhite
10-22-2009, 12:14 AM
It's not the fact we lost the Nova, I never expected a championship so I knew the season was going to end in a loss one way or another, it's the being ran out of the gym part, that makes it disappointing.
And yes, the memory of it taints my entire perception of last season, and I suspect this is true for most Duke fans, sorry if that makes me "not a real Duke fan" enough for you.

And in the context of discussing whether this year's team is a potential Title contender, the memory of what happened in that game certainly affects my evaluation of a team consisting mostly of the same players.

Why focus so much on the last game of last season? It happened 7 months ago, and we're about to start a new season.

Every season is a new journey. This team will be different than last year's team in many ways; who knows what they'll ultimately accomplish, but it will be interesting and fun to watch.

Kedsy
10-22-2009, 12:23 AM
Why focus so much on the last game of last season? It happened 7 months ago, and we're about to start a new season.

Every season is a new journey. This team will be different than last year's team in many ways; who knows what they'll ultimately accomplish, but it will be interesting and fun to watch.

I completely agree. It's somewhat amusing to hear people talk about a Sweet 16 "ceiling." As in most years, Duke is going to be good enough to beat pretty much any team in the country in a single game, if we play our best game (and maybe for a couple teams if they don't play their best game). So if we make the Final 16 (or the Final 8 or the Final 4, etc.), we have a chance to win and move on. Maybe not above 50% chance, but a chance. Which means the Sweet 16 can't possibly be our "ceiling," by definition.

The NCAAT is a crap shoot. There's no reason to play or predict NCAAT results now, is there? Can't we just sit back and enjoy the journey?

BlueintheFace
10-22-2009, 12:35 AM
Why focus so much on the last game of last season?

mostly because it was the most important game of the season. Usually, the most important game of the season is a loss, but this one left a very sour taste in everybody's mouth and didn't live up to the team's quality. When Duke bows out of the tournament, they usually do it the right way. That was not the right way.

I believe that is the reason for the obsession with that one game.

Kedsy
10-22-2009, 12:57 AM
mostly because it was the most important game of the season. Usually, the most important game of the season is a loss, but this one left a very sour taste in everybody's mouth and didn't live up to the team's quality. When Duke bows out of the tournament, they usually do it the right way. That was not the right way.

I believe that is the reason for the obsession with that one game.

Actually, I think a great many posters on this board have negatively obsessed over the last game in at least the past three seasons (my guess is eight seasons, but I can only attest to three).

NSDukeFan
10-22-2009, 10:24 AM
I completely agree. It's somewhat amusing to hear people talk about a Sweet 16 "ceiling." As in most years, Duke is going to be good enough to beat pretty much any team in the country in a single game, if we play our best game (and maybe for a couple teams if they don't play their best game). So if we make the Final 16 (or the Final 8 or the Final 4, etc.), we have a chance to win and move on. Maybe not above 50% chance, but a chance. Which means the Sweet 16 can't possibly be our "ceiling," by definition.

The NCAAT is a crap shoot. There's no reason to play or predict NCAAT results now, is there? Can't we just sit back and enjoy the journey?

I imagine George Mason's "ceiling" was below Sweet 16 the year they made their final four run. I also imagine Villanova and NC State had ceilings much lower than final four the years they won.

I hope we have as good a year as we did last year, but I hope we don't have one of our worst games in the NCAA tournament and hope we have a better final game. Either way, that won't completely determine how successful the whole 30+ games were.

Jeffrey
10-22-2009, 10:56 AM
Point guard is the least of this team's worries.

Strongly disagree (and I'm surprised I'm the only one stating such). Kyle at his natural position creates "the least of this team's worries". I'll go one further, Kyle on the court creates "the least of this team's worries".

We do not have a PG who can consistently penetrate and shoot/dish. Unlike last year, we do not have other players (G, last year) who can create their own shots. Motion offense is obviously the solution but, IMO, it is not "the least of this team's worries".

I'd wager that K will win another national title and it will not be this year. I think K is likely to win his next one with Irving (which is consistent with my PG beliefs).

COYS
10-22-2009, 11:15 AM
Strongly disagree (and I'm surprised I'm the only one stating such). Kyle at his natural position creates "the least of this team's worries". I'll go one further, Kyle on the court creates "the least of this team's worries".

We do not have a PG who can consistently penetrate and shoot/dish. Unlike last year, we do not have other players (G, last year) who can create their own shots. Motion offense is obviously the solution but, IMO, it is not "the least of this team's worries".

I'd wager that K will win another national title and it will not be this year. I think K is likely to win his next one with Irving (which is consistent with my PG beliefs).

I think Scheyer being on the court with the ball in his hands as the nominal point guard or as the off guard is equally the least of the team's worries. According to Pomeroy's stats, Scheyer was one of the most effective and efficient offensive player in the nation last year . . . despite the fact that he shot 39% from the field! (http://kenpom.com/team.php?y=2009&team=Duke) (http://kenpom.com/leaders.php?c=ORtg). Also, as Jumbo mentioned earlier, Scheyer was probably a little underused this past season (and his two seasons before that) because G and DeMarc, despite their obvious strengths and importance to the team, were not the fastest or best at ball movement. Scheyer scored well below Singler and Henderson on percentage of possessions used. This year, I expect to see this number reversed. I will be willing to bet that Scheyer's percentage of possessions used will be similar to if not higher than Singler's. In addition, his shooting will almost certainly be better. With improved shooting, an increased role in handling the ball, more minutes on the court, more options in the post, and the natural improvement Jon will make as he goes into his fourth year, I think you will be surprised to see that Jon could very well be one of the top 10 most effective offensive players in the country, regardless of whether or not he's earning style points by spinning through the lane and throwing down reverse jams.

Duvall
10-22-2009, 11:19 AM
Kyle at his natural position creates "the least of this team's worries".

Kyle won't be playing his natural college position this year.

ice-9
10-22-2009, 11:20 AM
Strongly disagree (and I'm surprised I'm the only one stating such). Kyle at his natural position creates "the least of this team's worries". I'll go one further, Kyle on the court creates "the least of this team's worries".

We do not have a PG who can consistently penetrate and shoot/dish. Unlike last year, we do not have other players (G, last year) who can create their own shots. Motion offense is obviously the solution but, IMO, it is not "the least of this team's worries".

I'd wager that K will win another national title and it will not be this year. I think K is likely to win his next one with Irving (which is consistent with my PG beliefs).

Irving, Smith, Barnes, Mason, Miles = SICK!

OK back to the regularly scheduled program...Phase 0.

Jeffrey
10-22-2009, 11:22 AM
Irving, Smith, Barnes, Mason, Miles = SICK!


+ K = National Championship! :D

Jeffrey
10-22-2009, 11:29 AM
Kyle won't be playing his natural college position this year.

Why do you believe that?

Jeffrey
10-22-2009, 11:35 AM
I think Scheyer being on the court with the ball in his hands as the nominal point guard or as the off guard is equally the least of the team's worries. According to Pomeroy's stats, Scheyer was one of the most effective and efficient offensive player in the nation last year . . . despite the fact that he shot 39% from the field! (http://kenpom.com/team.php?y=2009&team=Duke) (http://kenpom.com/leaders.php?c=ORtg). Also, as Jumbo mentioned earlier, Scheyer was probably a little underused this past season (and his two seasons before that) because G and DeMarc, despite their obvious strengths and importance to the team, were not the fastest or best at ball movement. Scheyer scored well below Singler and Henderson on percentage of possessions used. This year, I expect to see this number reversed. I will be willing to bet that Scheyer's percentage of possessions used will be similar to if not higher than Singler's. In addition, his shooting will almost certainly be better. With improved shooting, an increased role in handling the ball, more minutes on the court, more options in the post, and the natural improvement Jon will make as he goes into his fourth year, I think you will be surprised to see that Jon could very well be one of the top 10 most effective offensive players in the country, regardless of whether or not he's earning style points by spinning through the lane and throwing down reverse jams.

What about the other half of the game? Jon will not usually be our defensive PG. Nolan has a history of foul trouble and, if that repeats, Kyle & Lance may be our defensive PG at times, which, IMO, is less than ideal and not "the least of this team's worries".

Duvall
10-22-2009, 11:36 AM
Why do you believe that?

Because he'll spend much of the year guarding shooting guards in three-guard lineups.

Wander
10-22-2009, 11:37 AM
I think Scheyer being on the court with the ball in his hands as the nominal point guard or as the off guard is equally the least of the team's worries.

This is getting a little nitpicky, but Jeffrey is right - Singler is clearly the best college player on our team, and "the least of our worries."

Jeffrey
10-22-2009, 11:42 AM
Because he'll spend much of the year guarding shooting guards in three-guard lineups.

Do you sincerely believe that will be a problem for Kyle? And, how do you think those guards will handle Kyle on the other end of the court?

BD80
10-22-2009, 12:05 PM
Irving, Smith, Barnes, Mason, Miles = SICK!

OK back to the regularly scheduled program...Phase 0.

How about:

Irving, Smith, Barnes, Singler, and a Plumlee?

With Curry, Dawkins, Kelly, Hairston, and another Plumlee fighting for PT?

And Thorton and Czyz in the mix?

Can you imagine a Blue team of Curry, Dawkins, Kelly, Hairston, and Plumlee? That's a top 20 team that could win some conference championships.

Today is a good day.

COYS
10-22-2009, 12:07 PM
This is getting a little nitpicky, but Jeffrey is right - Singler is clearly the best college player on our team, and "the least of our worries."

Well, I never argued that Scheyer is more talented than Singler. I just wanted to use statistics to support my opinion that having the ball in Scheyer's hands as either a 1 or a 2 will prove to be very, very good for our team and should be among the least of our worries.

If you are concerned that Smith won't be able to give us much attacking the basket off the dribble on a consistent basis or that our Frosh will struggle to contribute, that's certainly legit. But Scheyer does a great job facilitating the offense and has a very real chance based on his career statistics to be one of the best offensive players in the country with a slight improvement in his shooting percentage and an increased role in the offense . . . both of which are almost certain to happen.

Duvall
10-22-2009, 12:08 PM
Do you sincerely believe that will be a problem for Kyle?

Yes.


And, how do you think those guards will handle Kyle on the other end of the court?

If he's in foul trouble, they won't have to.

COYS
10-22-2009, 12:19 PM
What about the other half of the game? Jon will not usually be our defensive PG. Nolan has a history of foul trouble and, if that repeats, Kyle & Lance may be our defensive PG at times, which, IMO, is less than ideal and not "the least of this team's worries".

Jon is a very talented wing defender, so as long as Nolan is in the game and not in foul trouble, Jon's defense will never be an issue . . . in fact, it will be an asset. When Nolan gets into foul trouble, I'm not so sure why you think Thomas is such a bad option to guard the opponents pg. As Jumbo and many others have already mentioned, putting Thomas on Ish Smith (who by all accounts will probably be the fastest and quickest pg in the ACC next year) was an important turning point in the game. With a tall front line of the plumlees who are better prepared to rotate to cut off driving lanes and contest shots than our forwards of the past couple years, even if the point guard gets into the lane, there's a much better chance we will be able to disrupt his shot or pass attempts. We won't need to double down in the post and leave shooters open on the wings. We'll be able to rebound missed shots a lot better. We'll have the height to make shots in the lane that much harder for the opposing team. I'm more bullish on this team defensively than I was last year or the year before that, especially given the lack of Lawson and Teague like guards in the ACC this year.

Jeffrey
10-22-2009, 12:41 PM
When Nolan gets into foul trouble, I'm not so sure why you think Thomas is such a bad option to guard the opponents pg.

I never stated that "Thomas is such a bad option to guard the opponents pg". I consider it "less than ideal" and stated that I disagree with Jumbo's opinion, that our "Point guard is the least of this team's worries."

Again, IMO, Kyle is "the least of this team's worries".

Jeffrey
10-22-2009, 12:49 PM
Yes.

If he's in foul trouble, they won't have to.

Disagree. IMO, Kyle can guard the vast majority of 3's and will seldom get into foul trouble doing such. OTOH, many 3's will not be able to guard Kyle. IMO, he is going to be a major match-up problem for many teams! I think my opinion will be proven when Kyle becomes a 1st team All-American this season.

Geez, I'm making a lot of predictions today. :D

NSDukeFan
10-22-2009, 01:33 PM
Disagree. IMO, Kyle can guard the vast majority of 3's and will seldom get into foul trouble doing such. OTOH, many 3's will not be able to guard Kyle. IMO, he is going to be a major match-up problem for many teams! I think my opinion will be proven when Kyle becomes a 1st team All-American this season.

Geez, I'm making a lot of predictions today. :D

I also have no worries about Kyle guarding the vast majority of 3's and would be much worried if I was an opposing 3 trying to match up with him. I hope and would not be at all surprised if this prediction comes true.

Indoor66
10-22-2009, 01:57 PM
Geez, I'm making a lot of predictions today. :D

That comes from all that fast driving you are doing.... :p

ice-9
10-22-2009, 03:21 PM
On the subject of Kyle and Kyle's defense at the 3 position...I think it depends on what style of defense we're playing. If we're playing traditional in-your-face Duke defense, Kyle *may* have problems containing a wing player who's really more a 2 (e.g. Villanova?).

However, I agree with Jeffrey that Kyle is a stud and will absolutely destroy the competition this year. He's most definitely poised for an All-American season!

Moreover, if Kyle plays a sagging type defense and uses his 6'8 length to obscure the shooting vision of the opposing 6'3 guard...we should be alright. :)

Jeffrey
10-22-2009, 03:37 PM
That comes from all that fast driving you are doing.... :p

:D True, it definitely comes with the territory.

jv001
10-22-2009, 04:55 PM
I don't think Kyle(#3) or Jon(PG) will be a problem for Duke, but I think they will be a problem for the opposition. It seems to me that we're nickpicking when we say one of these two players are "the least of the team's worries". I worry more about a team having 3 guards that can penetrate and cause problems. But a zone defense could help ease our worries in that regard and a front line of Mason & Miles Plumlee could also swat away some shots. Go Duke!

Jumbo
10-22-2009, 07:40 PM
Strongly disagree (and I'm surprised I'm the only one stating such). Kyle at his natural position creates "the least of this team's worries". I'll go one further, Kyle on the court creates "the least of this team's worries".

We do not have a PG who can consistently penetrate and shoot/dish. Unlike last year, we do not have other players (G, last year) who can create their own shots. Motion offense is obviously the solution but, IMO, it is not "the least of this team's worries".

I'd wager that K will win another national title and it will not be this year. I think K is likely to win his next one with Irving (which is consistent with my PG beliefs).

All I can say is that I will enjoy watching your opinion change as you get to watch Jon Scheyer play the position for a full year.

MChambers
10-22-2009, 08:39 PM
All I can say is that I will enjoy watching your opinion change as you get to watch Jon Scheyer play the position for a full year.

I think Jon will do a good, not great job, at the offensive end of the floor. Among other things, he'll value the ball, and that is very important. He'll also hit open jumpers and make good decisions. I worry about him creating off the dribble, but you can't expect to have Bobby Hurley every year.

On the defensive end, although I agree with you that Jon is a very solid defensive player, I don't think pressuring the ball is his strength. We've only got one guard who can be expected to put strong pressure on the ball (Nolan), and he's been prone to foul trouble. To me, that is a team weakness, especially for a team that likes to pressure the ball.

Newton_14
10-22-2009, 08:57 PM
Nolan committed 70 fouls in 34 games last year and fouled out once. I think folks are remembering a couple of bad games during the stretch where he was not up to par with his game with regards to foul trouble. Specifically the Wake game at home.

When he came back from the concussion and slowly started playing like the player we all know he is, he played solid defense while avoiding foul trouble.

By comparison, Kyle committed 99 fouls in 37 games(2 DQ's) and Lance had 95 in 37 games(2 DQ's)...

Being even more mature as a Junior I do not worry all that much about Nolan staying out of foul trouble...

elvis14
10-22-2009, 11:49 PM
All I can say is that I will enjoy watching your opinion change as you get to watch Jon Scheyer play the position for a full year.

I'm with Jumbo on this one. I think Jon will do a great job on both ends of the floor....he did pretty darn well last year and I expect him to have improved this year. He's going to be on the FT line constantly too!

Hey we can't have Kyrie Irving here every year :D

ACCBBallFan
10-23-2009, 08:54 AM
I promised myself I wouldn't jump back into this, and I really agree with a lot of what you say, airowe, but your statement "Miles is by all accounts a completely different player" pretty much sums up our differing views.
Will Miles really be a completely different player this year, based on offseason scrimmaging? I sure hope you're right, but I think you can probably understand if some of us don't take this as factual (yet).Several things:

1. Miles is not a freshman adjusting to college life, but now a sophomore.

2. Miles is no longer having to struggle with the academic pressures of Pratt Engineering and is majoring in History instead.

3. Miles has bulked up by 20 or so pounds.

4. Miles has had a year in the duke system and will not be so much deer in the headlights.

5. Miles is more confident with Mason at his side.

6. Miles performed well in Pro-Am (;listed this last since Olek Czyz syndrome from two years ago)

ACCBBallFan
10-23-2009, 09:27 AM
People so concerned with Duke PG are looking at it one dimensionally.

With the Pomeroy offensive stats for Jon and the on the ball defense by Nolan, Duke has a very decent virtual PG with its counterpart of Nolan of Offense and Jon on Defense being a very good SG.

Whether PG or Kyle is Duke;s least worry does not change fact that neither are anywhere near the biggest worry bubble.

I's say this team's biggest issue is that it does nto have the personnel to simulate its opponent. The B-team is also very big with Kelly-;Lance-Zoubek and has two combos and no PG other than Jordan Davidson.

Nolan and Jon and Kyle having to defend Seth and Dre will help them improve their individual defense but hard to simulate the team defense against a team with no cohesiveness, and so much bigger than the typical opponent.

Miles and Mason having to bang with Zoubek helps them as does having to guard Kelly outside or deal with Lance experience and defensive nemesis skills.

Olek and Casey Peters could play a practice role in ht defensive pressure of Kyle, but having to practice vs. Elliott at WF would help Kyle more.

With respect to games, the bigger worry bubbles are how well each ofthe Plumlees perform.

Mason is a 5 * as welas highly touted by K, Nolan, Jon and Kyle. SO probably not an issue even though he was not much of a factor in CTC Blue-White game.

See prior post for reasons to expect more out of Miles.

Team Defense will be susceptible to long ball threats as Seth showed in CTC game but who are those on Duke's schedule?

If you look at the two recent publications on top 50 shooters, only ones in ACC mentioned were Delaney and Scheyer at 34-35 mark in first one and second one mistakenly mentioned Ginyard near end.

So a down year for ACC SGs and SFs from long range which bodes well for guys like Singler and Henson being able to be viable WF's on defense though the latter may be questionable on Offensive WF side of ball as he is dunk everything type of player.

Thread has done a good job of avoiding UNC discussion so don't dwell on this point in this thread where it can be addressed in other threads.

Kyle's ability to be a dominant WF on Offense for Duke is not in question. If you go back to his HS rankings in senior year, he was listed as a SF, not a PF.

Jeffrey
10-23-2009, 09:54 AM
DBR really needs spell check. :D

Jeffrey
10-23-2009, 10:00 AM
All I can say is that I will enjoy watching your opinion change as you get to watch Jon Scheyer play the position for a full year.

When it's time to pick All-Americans, Kyle will get more (well deserved) recognition. I'd also be willing to wager on this, right here and now.

ice-9
10-23-2009, 10:09 AM
Is it necessary to debate which player is more important to the team? Both Scheyer and Kyle are going to be important...Scheyer for his leadership and ball handling, Kyle for his scoring prowess.

Jumbo
10-23-2009, 10:09 AM
When it's time to pick All-Americans, Kyle will get more (well deserved) recognition. I'd also be willing to wager on this, right here and now.

He's already getting far more attention now, and that's unlikely to change -- regardless of either of them slightly outperforming the other. My question is why does it matter? I wasn't trying to say that Kyle was anything other than a top-notch player. My point was to stop worrying about point guard, specifically your whole "top-3 theory" and recognize that Scheyer is actually well suited to play the position.

flyingdutchdevil
10-23-2009, 10:20 AM
It's hard to argue that Scheyer wasn't a good PG for us last year. He was effective, smart, and held on to the ball. So what if he didn't get into the paint effectively - he was the best choice considering our options. Not only did Duke play better, but Scheyer's point average drastically increased. A huge part of this was due to the opposing PGs guarding him and Scheyer could easily shot over them (I am simplify it a little, but that was basically the just of it). When SGs were guarding Scheyer, he had a much more difficult time (remember that huge slump in the middle of the season?).

IMO, one huge concern with Scheyer at the point this year is who will guard him. Will it be the SGs or the PGs or the opposing team? There isn't an Elliott Williams anymore, and it made sense for the opposing SG to guard Elliott rather than Scheyer, considering that Elliott fit the description of a 2 better than a 1. Nolan is smaller and a PG can ideally guard him. Thus, will opposing SGs be guarding Scheyer? If so, will Scheyer not be as effective as we thought he will?

Any thoughts?

NSDukeFan
10-23-2009, 10:26 AM
It's hard to argue that Scheyer wasn't a good PG for us last year. He was effective, smart, and held on to the ball. So what if he didn't get into the paint effectively - he was the best choice considering our options. Not only did Duke play better, but Scheyer's point average drastically increased. A huge part of this was due to the opposing PGs guarding him and Scheyer could easily shot over them (I am simplify it a little, but that was basically the just of it). When SGs were guarding Scheyer, he had a much more difficult time (remember that huge slump in the middle of the season?).

IMO, one huge concern with Scheyer at the point this year is who will guard him. Will it be the SGs or the PGs or the opposing team? There isn't an Elliott Williams anymore, and it made sense for the opposing SG to guard Elliott rather than Scheyer, considering that Elliott fit the description of a 2 better than a 1. Nolan is smaller and a PG can ideally guard him. Thus, will opposing SGs be guarding Scheyer? If so, will Scheyer not be as effective as we thought he will?

Any thoughts?

Jon has been guarded by SGs for 2 and 2/3 years and has excelled and gotten better each year. I don't think this is going to be a problem all of a sudden this year.

Wander
10-23-2009, 10:28 AM
He's already getting far more attention now, and that's unlikely to change -- regardless of either of them slightly outperforming the other. My question is why does it matter?

It matters because we should recognize what our strengths are and who our best players are, and while you recognize that Singler will get more national recognition, you seem to have trouble admitting that he actually deserves to get more and is the clear best player on the team. Singler and Scheyer are both quite awesome, but not equally so. Though I don't worry about Scheyer as a PG too much.

Jumbo
10-23-2009, 10:29 AM
Jon has been guarded by SGs for 2 and 2/3 years and has excelled and gotten better each year. I don't think this is going to be a problem all of a sudden this year.

Exactly. The slump wasn't a result of suddenly being guarded by SGs -- just like any other slump, he went cold, and couldn't hit anything, which often included wide-open shots. He should have an easier time beating bigger SGs off the bounce, btw. We're talking about a guy who has been pretty adept at getting into the lane to score or get to the FT line over the last three years, and that was without the ball primarily in his hands.

Jumbo
10-23-2009, 10:33 AM
It matters because we should recognize what our strengths are and who our best players are, and while you recognize that Singler will get more national recognition, you seem to have trouble admitting that he actually deserves to get more and is the clear best player on the team. Singler and Scheyer are both quite awesome, but not equally so. Though I don't worry about Scheyer as a PG too much.

See, I still don't think that matters. I think Singler is the better player, though maybe not by the margin some people think. I'm glad we have a 1 and 1A.

Kedsy
10-23-2009, 11:15 AM
See, I still don't think that matters. I think Singler is the better player, though maybe not by the margin some people think. I'm glad we have a 1 and 1A.

I'm with Jumbo here. What would be different if people thought Scheyer was the better player vs. people thinking Singler is the better player? If the answer is nothing (which I assume it is), then it doesn't matter.

Jeffrey
10-23-2009, 11:17 AM
See, I still don't think that matters.

Ever spent any time in a leadership position? Correctly identifying (and ranking) strengths and weaknesses is more important than you are stating.

Kedsy
10-23-2009, 11:18 AM
Ever spent any time in a leadership role? Correctly identifying (and ranking) strengths and weaknesses is much more important than you are stating.

I can see how identification would be important, but unless you are choosing between two people for one task why would ranking matter?

Jeffrey
10-23-2009, 11:25 AM
I can see how identification would be important, but unless you are choosing between two people for one task why would ranking matter?

My greatest strength is my least concern and needs the least amount of my limited attention.

ACCBBallFan
10-23-2009, 11:35 AM
Then in your limited time scenario, since there are no other options, coach K lets Jon Scheyer be Jon Scheyer , Nolan Smith be Nolan Smith, and Kyle Singler be Kyle Singler at the 1-2-3 perimeter slots..

With that limited time, coach K worries about the other two positions where he does have a lot of tall partial options, each with their own set of strengths and weaknesses.

He also worries about how to make Andre Dawkins a viable sub for the three he is not worryiing about.

Kedsy
10-23-2009, 11:39 AM
My greatest strength is my least concern and needs the least amount of my limited attention.

OK, but I was a CEO of a (small) company once, too. There's a threshold and anybody above it is trusted to be left to his (or her) own devices. It's not just the top top guy. I would argue both Kyle and Jon are above that threshold and thus which is "better" is irrelevant (unless I was choosing one person for one task, with no other complicating factors, in which case I would want the absolute best, but I don't think that applies here).

jv001
10-23-2009, 11:54 AM
The "Team" is what matters most. If Jon plays the PG postion and get's everyone involved to the point that Kyle..20ppg..Mason...14ppg..Miles..8ppg
Nolan..18ppg..Andre..7ppg..LT..5ppg.. and Jon..12ppg. Then has Jon done his job at getting our offense to 84ppg. Hey and I left out Kelly.I would take that in a heart beat. Everyone expects Jon to avg around 15-18ppg, but if he dishes the ball and sets up our offense with very few turn-overs then he has been successful. We shouldn't worry anyway, because worrying never helps. Just my thoughts on this subject. Now what was this thread about? Go Duke!

dw0827
10-23-2009, 12:29 PM
My greatest strength is my least concern and needs the least amount of my limited attention.

Seems like a reasonable discussion about the relative merits of Jon as point guard has devolved into an irrelevant "mine is bigger than yours" debate about leadership skills and what it takes to be the coolest baddest CEO going.

Yikes.

All because Jumbo used a colloquial expression "least of my worries." Then we had to discuss whether Jon is the least of our worries or Kyle is the least of our worries. The truth is that my mother's meatloaf is the least of our worries.

It seems like the sides are chosen. On one side, we can't win the big one because we don't have a true point guard in the mold of Hurley or Lawson or Williams. On the other side, we can be an elite team with Jon as point . . . because he's better than some of you are giving him credit for.

Aside from nit-picking, isn't that about it?

And one side isn't going to convince the other side with debate, diatribe, or discussion.

So, for now, let's just agree to disagree . . . and reassess our point guard situation as we move through the season (in Jumbo's Phase reports, perhaps).

For me, Jon's the bomb and we can be an elite team with him as point.

COYS
10-23-2009, 12:57 PM
The "Team" is what matters most. If Jon plays the PG postion and get's everyone involved to the point that Kyle..20ppg..Mason...14ppg..Miles..8ppg
Nolan..18ppg..Andre..7ppg..LT..5ppg.. and Jon..12ppg. Then has Jon done his job at getting our offense to 84ppg. Hey and I left out Kelly.I would take that in a heart beat. Everyone expects Jon to avg around 15-18ppg, but if he dishes the ball and sets up our offense with very few turn-overs then he has been successful. We shouldn't worry anyway, because worrying never helps. Just my thoughts on this subject. Now what was this thread about? Go Duke!

There is NO WAY Jon only scores 12 ppg, even if he gets others involved in the offense. This is the guy who thrived as our PG in the ACC tourney averaging 21 points per game. This is the guy who along with Henderson broke Wake Forest's back in Cameron by dropping 30. This is a guy who had a terrible shooting slump last season, had only a 20% usage rate on offense, and still averaged 15ppg (or 14.9 to be precise). I think we'll see Jon's scoring numbers go up a bit simply because he'll shoot better than 39% and he'll probably have more shots per game. He gets to the line enough that he doesn't have to hit too many FG to get 12 for a game. I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers you predicted for Nolan and Jon to flip with Jon averaging closer to 18 and Nolan in the 12-15 range. I could be wrong, but if I am, I would hope it would be because Nolan's averaging more and is closer to being equal with Jon and Kyle.

Wander
10-23-2009, 01:57 PM
See, I still don't think that matters. I think Singler is the better player, though maybe not by the margin some people think. I'm glad we have a 1 and 1A.

Fair enough. I am coming from a pro-Singler perspective rather than an anti-Scheyer. I think Singler has actually managed to be slightly underrated as a whole and is going to seriously challenge for NPOY this year.

It is a bit nitpicky. I'm ready for the season...

Indoor66
10-23-2009, 02:05 PM
Fair enough. I am coming from a pro-Singler perspective rather than an anti-Scheyer. I think Singler has actually managed to be slightly underrated as a whole and is going to seriously challenge for NPOY this year.

It is a bit nitpicky. I'm ready for the season...

Kind of an angels and pins type situation. :rolleyes:

Wander
10-23-2009, 02:12 PM
Kind of an angels and pins type situation. :rolleyes:

Yeah yeah I know. What can I say, SEC refs have made me fed up with college football, I'm ready to move on... (aside from crushing Maryland tomorrow, of course)

sagegrouse
10-23-2009, 02:17 PM
Fair enough. I am coming from a pro-Singler perspective rather than an anti-Scheyer. I think Singler has actually managed to be slightly underrated as a whole and is going to seriously challenge for NPOY this year.

It is a bit nitpicky. I'm ready for the season...

Your statement is somewhat of a non sequitur, in that National POY honors tend to go to well-known players who are highly valued PRIOR TO the season. NPOY has been almost a popularity contest. Therefore, it is unlikely to go to someone who has been "underrated."

Not an ideal system, but then Duke has had many, many NPOYs in the past 20 years: Ferry, Laettner, Brand, Battier, JWill, and JJ. The odd thing is that Grant Hill, who was extremely well-known because of his championships and his lineage, lost out to the Big Dog, who was not nearly as a good a player.

sagegrouse

jv001
10-23-2009, 04:39 PM
There is NO WAY Jon only scores 12 ppg, even if he gets others involved in the offense. This is the guy who thrived as our PG in the ACC tourney averaging 21 points per game. This is the guy who along with Henderson broke Wake Forest's back in Cameron by dropping 30. This is a guy who had a terrible shooting slump last season, had only a 20% usage rate on offense, and still averaged 15ppg (or 14.9 to be precise). I think we'll see Jon's scoring numbers go up a bit simply because he'll shoot better than 39% and he'll probably have more shots per game. He gets to the line enough that he doesn't have to hit too many FG to get 12 for a game. I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers you predicted for Nolan and Jon to flip with Jon averaging closer to 18 and Nolan in the 12-15 range. I could be wrong, but if I am, I would hope it would be because Nolan's averaging more and is closer to being equal with Jon and Kyle.

I am pretty sure that Jon will avg closer to 20ppg than 10 ppg. What I was getting at is if he only avgs 12ppg, and the he makes the others better would you say he was under achieving? Or would you worry about his performance? Jeffrey has made a big point in saying that he worries more about Jon than Kyle. Well I say if Jon makes us better and scores less, then he has been successful. I think we will need for Jon to avg 18+ppg for us to be very good because I don't think the others I mentioned will avg enough to get us to 84ppg. But you never know. We will know pretty soon how things are going to go. So let's Go Duke!

Jumbo
10-23-2009, 10:17 PM
Ever spent any time in a leadership position? Correctly identifying (and ranking) strengths and weaknesses is more important than you are stating.

I've spent plenty of time in leadership positions, thanks. I'm not leading the Duke Blue Devils, so that's pretty irrelevant.
Plus, it's pretty clear that I don't evaluate basketball talent in a way that's remotely similar to your method. For instance, I don't concoct theories about how Duke can't win without a "top-three point guard."

Jumbo
10-23-2009, 10:18 PM
Then in your limited time scenario, since there are no other options, coach K lets Jon Scheyer be Jon Scheyer , Nolan Smith be Nolan Smith, and Kyle Singler be Kyle Singler at the 1-2-3 perimeter slots..

With that limited time, coach K worries about the other two positions where he does have a lot of tall partial options, each with their own set of strengths and weaknesses.

He also worries about how to make Andre Dawkins a viable sub for the three he is not worryiing about.

Bingo.

jimsumner
10-23-2009, 10:27 PM
"The odd thing is that Grant Hill, who was extremely well-known because of his championships and his lineage, lost out to the Big Dog, who was not nearly as a good a player."

In retrospect, sure. But remember that these votes were taken before the Elite Eight matchup, at a time when Robinson was leading the nation at over 30 ppg and Purdue was ranked higher than Duke. Not an unreasonable choice at the time.

Singler? Well, he's never been first-team All-ACC. Then again, neither has anyone else still playing college hoops. I think Singler begins the season as the favorite for ACC POY. If he lives up to that expectation and Duke lives up to its team expectations, then I'm pretty sure Singler will be in the conversation for national POY.

I think Scheyer will be in the conversation for first-team All-ACC, which ain't too shabby. I think the Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-guard rotation will be quite effective. If Singler displays a comfort level playing at the 2, so much the better.

ArtVandelay
10-24-2009, 02:31 PM
It's interesting to me that some people think a strength of this team as compared to last year's is having more go-to scorers. My feeling was actually that this would be one of the team's glaring weaknesses. We lost the guy that was most able to create offense himself when necessary (and it's not really even close). Assuming a lineup of Jon, Nolan, Kyle, Mason/Miles, and Lance, at least two and maybe three of those guys won't be able to create their own offense. Granted, one of the Plumlees could develop into a post scoring threat or we could see a lot of improvement out of Nolan that will change the equation, but until I see any of them prove it in serious ACC games, I assume Singler and Scheyer will be the only guys you would trust with the ball in their hands late in a close, half-court game. Given the make-up of our team, I imagine a lot of our games will be exactly that sort of game this year, and I worry about how they will perform as a "close game" team this year.

I should add that I do think our team will be solid, but I don't see their ceiling as being as high as a lot of people on the board do. I'm thinking it'll be another solid Sweet 16 caliber team. Reasonable people can disagree about that, though.

Kedsy
10-24-2009, 03:40 PM
It's interesting to me that some people think a strength of this team as compared to last year's is having more go-to scorers. My feeling was actually that this would be one of the team's glaring weaknesses. We lost the guy that was most able to create offense himself when necessary (and it's not really even close). Assuming a lineup of Jon, Nolan, Kyle, Mason/Miles, and Lance, at least two and maybe three of those guys won't be able to create their own offense. Granted, one of the Plumlees could develop into a post scoring threat or we could see a lot of improvement out of Nolan that will change the equation, but until I see any of them prove it in serious ACC games, I assume Singler and Scheyer will be the only guys you would trust with the ball in their hands late in a close, half-court game. Given the make-up of our team, I imagine a lot of our games will be exactly that sort of game this year, and I worry about how they will perform as a "close game" team this year.

A lot of people have expressed similar views to yours, but I have a problem with the whole "create his own offense" concept, which to me is an NBA concept.

Did JJ create his own offense? For three years he mostly ran off screens, collected a pass, and shot, although his senior year he did more -- some shot-fake-and-drive and some step-back-and-shoot. Even then, in a close game he'd be double-teamed and he'd have to use a screen if he wanted to score.

Everyone talks about G creating his own offense, but in close games when he was double-teamed or the defense collapsed into the driving lanes he had problems. Personally, I think there were times when G actually stagnated the offense, because everyone else tended to stand around and watch him "create." So when he was stifled by a double-team or whatever, we had nothing else going on.

A great drive-and-dish PG can create offense -- mostly for others but also for himself (and as has been pointed out ad nauseam we don't necessarily have that this year -- yay for Kyrie next year).

But if you don't have that sort of PG, and you run a motion offense, all you need in order to score are people who are moving and can put the ball in the hoop if they're open when they receive the ball. It seems to me we should have at least 4 people on the floor at all times who'll be able to do that, which is why I am among those who think we have more offensive options this year.

It's nice if a game comes down to the last shot if you have a guy to whom you can give the ball and say "put it in the hoop." My personal opinion is that Kyle will be able to do that this year as well as G did it last year. But even if you disagree, the cool thing about this year is we should be able to give the ball to Nolan or Jon or Kyle and say "get it in the hoop" and we'll have a good chance. Especially if our "last shot" lineup is Jon, Nolan, Andre, Kyle, and Mason. All of them can hit an open man with a pass and all of them can convert if they're open. Who are you going to leave open if you double team the guy with the ball?

I don't want to speak for anybody but myself, but I think that's why people believe this will be a strength for us this year.

Spam Filter
10-24-2009, 05:20 PM
Basically I see the weakness of this team is that they can only be effective with one type of offense.

A good offense have different ways to score so that when the opposition is effective at stopping one type of attack, it has other options.

Right now I see us as really only having one type of attack, be it Singler, or Scheyer, it doesn't matter, it's mostly jump shooting with an occasional move into the lane, but not with any kind of consistency. The only part where I think we're better than last year is the cheap offensive putbacks, we should do better with that this year.

With the one dimensional offense, we will be very vulnerable to bad matchups. Any team with quick guards who can shut down the drive basically reduces us to shooting jump shots with a hand in the face for the whole game.

To me the biggest question with this team is whether either the Plumlees can develop some low post moves and give us another option to shooting jumpers.

KI will change that next year, if he is the elite PG who can break down the defender off the dribble kind of guard that people say he is.

sagegrouse
10-24-2009, 06:01 PM
Basically I see the weakness of this team is that they can only be effective with one type of offense.

A good offense have different ways to score so that when the opposition is effective at stopping one type of attack, it has other options.

Right now I see us as really only having one type of attack, be it Singler, or Scheyer, it doesn't matter, it's mostly jump shooting with an occasional move into the lane, but not with any kind of consistency. The only part where I think we're better than last year is the cheap offensive putbacks, we should do better with that this year.

With the one dimensional offense, we will be very vulnerable to bad matchups. Any team with quick guards who can shut down the drive basically reduces us to shooting jump shots with a hand in the face for the whole game.

To me the biggest question with this team is whether either the Plumlees can develop some low post moves and give us another option to shooting jumpers.

KI will change that next year, if he is the elite PG who can break down the defender off the dribble kind of guard that people say he is.

I can't say I agree with much of what you have written, although I wil leave it to the basketball techies to repond in detail. It seems to me that Singler and Scheyer had no difficulty putting up points last year, and if Singler is guarded by a much smaller player, he has the skills to take him to the hoop.

Although I think Scheyer can break down defenses for easy scores or dishes, I agree that it would be absolutely great if Nolan had a big offensive year as a penetrating guard.

What I look forward to is having some big men who can score inside, something that Duke has not had since McRoberts left and, even then, it wasn't his real strength. Most of the hopes this year rest with the Plumlees. But I, like drill instructors and Catholic priests, have an unreasonable faith in the perfectability of mankind and have not given up on getting offense from Zoubs and LT.

sagegrouse

COYS
10-24-2009, 06:06 PM
Basically I see the weakness of this team is that they can only be effective with one type of offense.

A good offense have different ways to score so that when the opposition is effective at stopping one type of attack, it has other options.

Right now I see us as really only having one type of attack, be it Singler, or Scheyer, it doesn't matter, it's mostly jump shooting with an occasional move into the lane, but not with any kind of consistency. The only part where I think we're better than last year is the cheap offensive putbacks, we should do better with that this year.

With the one dimensional offense, we will be very vulnerable to bad matchups. Any team with quick guards who can shut down the drive basically reduces us to shooting jump shots with a hand in the face for the whole game.

To me the biggest question with this team is whether either the Plumlees can develop some low post moves and give us another option to shooting jumpers.

KI will change that next year, if he is the elite PG who can break down the defender off the dribble kind of guard that people say he is.

To me, this criticism of the offense sounds more accurate for the past two seasons than the current one. Villanova and WVU both managed to make us a jump shooting team on two nights when we could hit anything. We didn't have any inside out offense to speak of and even though G was our strongest at getting to the rim, he didn't really break people down off the dribble. If the opposing team managed to take away his strong drives to his right, he was left shooting fade-aways, which was sometimes fine, but he happened to be ice cold this year against Nova.

This year we add Mason who is an adept passer in his own right and even though he may not be knocking defenders over with his drop step, he's got the athleticism to make plays under the basket. Our ball movement should be faster and much improved, which will lead to more open looks. Also, garbage buckets from our big men are far more significant than this posts makes them sound. You're talking about 2-5 more easy buckets per night. That's huge. And oh yeah, we'll be able to rebound without sending our guards into the lane which will make it easier to run the break off of missed shots. I did feel like our teams the past two years struggled to get easy shots when we played a team that valued the basketball and didn't give away easy layups off of turnovers. However, NO TEAM on earth can make every shot in a game. There's always a chance to run after a defensive rebound. We'll have that option this year for the first time in a while. We might not be stealing the ball at mid court as much as in the past, but with our length and athleticism in the lane on defense I fully expect to get a significant number of steals. Mason, Miles, Kyle, Lance and even Zoubs will get a lot of chances to grab rushed or lazy passes close to the basket with their long arms. We can break off of these as well.

And, as the year goes on, Mason, Miles, and possibly even Zoubek will hopefully improve their 1 on 1 ability in the post and be able to get some baskets that way.

Newton_14
10-24-2009, 11:30 PM
This team has more that jump shots for an offense. It is not like the last 2 years and the offense they run will not be the same. The big guys are going to provide more offense than some people think they will. The Plumlee's will provide more offense than what we have gotten down low the last 2 years and Zoubs might as well.

The big 3 will carry the offensive load and will get good support from Andre, the Bigs. Kelly knows how to put the ball in the hole as well. Plus, we have 4 what I would call "strong" 3 point shooters in Andre, Kyle, Jon, and Nolan. Kelly is certainly not bad from out there. So it may be we have 5 really good shooters.

Those shooters will force defenders to respect them, which in turn will create space down low where we have Mason and Miles who are very athletic and can finish.

Just my two cents...

Kedsy
10-24-2009, 11:54 PM
Basically I see the weakness of this team is that they can only be effective with one type of offense.

A good offense have different ways to score so that when the opposition is effective at stopping one type of attack, it has other options.

Right now I see us as really only having one type of attack, be it Singler, or Scheyer, it doesn't matter, it's mostly jump shooting with an occasional move into the lane, but not with any kind of consistency. The only part where I think we're better than last year is the cheap offensive putbacks, we should do better with that this year.

With the one dimensional offense, we will be very vulnerable to bad matchups. Any team with quick guards who can shut down the drive basically reduces us to shooting jump shots with a hand in the face for the whole game.

To me the biggest question with this team is whether either the Plumlees can develop some low post moves and give us another option to shooting jumpers.

KI will change that next year, if he is the elite PG who can break down the defender off the dribble kind of guard that people say he is.

You're making the mistake of thinking we will use the same offensive system we used last year.

For the past few years we have been using a pro set on offense, with a lot of one-on-one drives and long jump shots. This was in large part because of our personnel -- Demarcus and G thrived best offensively in that sort of system. This year K has already said we'll be going back to a motion offense, which doesn't rely on one-on-one drive and kicks, and should mean your concern will be alleviated.

We will shoot our share of outside shots, but in general they should be open shots. We should also get our share of open mid-range shots and hopefully open backdoor layups. And that's just in the half-court set. I expect we'll also get a lot of rebounds and be able to run off those rebounds, giving us easy baskets we haven't seen many of in recent years.

Obviously nobody can see the future, but I'm pretty confident offense is not going to be our problem. The jury's still out on defense, but I'm feeling cautiously optimistic about that as well. I think it's going to be a fun year.

mapei
10-25-2009, 09:38 AM
The only point I would add - and a previous poster alluded to it indirectly - is that it is going to be hard for Lance to be a lock-down defender on the other team's best player unless he has gotten much better at avoiding fouls. That's been a major limitation for him in the past.

On the whole, I see a lot to look forward to on this team.

NSDukeFan
10-25-2009, 02:24 PM
The only point I would add - and a previous poster alluded to it indirectly - is that it is going to be hard for Lance to be a lock-down defender on the other team's best player unless he has gotten much better at avoiding fouls. That's been a major limitation for him in the past.

On the whole, I see a lot to look forward to on this team.

Lance may not have to be a lockdown defender for major minutes however. My expectation is that as a non-starter, he will likely not be averaging more than 25 minutes per game and maybe less than that. I am only worried about foul trouble from our big 3.

Kedsy
10-25-2009, 11:44 PM
Lance may not have to be a lockdown defender for major minutes however. My expectation is that as a non-starter, he will likely not be averaging more than 25 minutes per game and maybe less than that. I am only worried about foul trouble from our big 3.

You don't think 25 mpg is major minutes? Or you don't think he'll have to be our most important defender during some significant portion of the 25 minutes?

The way I see it, the more minutes during which Lance is a (successful) lockdown defender, the better off we'll be.

loran16
10-26-2009, 12:07 AM
The only point I would add - and a previous poster alluded to it indirectly - is that it is going to be hard for Lance to be a lock-down defender on the other team's best player unless he has gotten much better at avoiding fouls. That's been a major limitation for him in the past.

On the whole, I see a lot to look forward to on this team.

Even when he's stayed foul-free, has Lance EVER been a lock-down defender? He's undersized for those he guards and is often beat due to the physical difference in between him and his opponents.

I mean, I'm very negative on Lance. But he's NEVER been anything like a lockdown defender, and hoping he will be is silly. He should be 4th on the big man depth chart (behind Zoo and the Plumlees) imo because he can't board effectively (balls get knocked out of his hands too easily) and isn't a great scorer.....and he's certainly not a great DEFENDER!

Sigh, I don't get why people have such high hopes for Lance at this point.

Kedsy
10-26-2009, 12:19 AM
Even when he's stayed foul-free, has Lance EVER been a lock-down defender? He's undersized for those he guards and is often beat due to the physical difference in between him and his opponents.


Well, that's just it, he won't be undersized compared to the players he's guarding this year. As many have noted, he did a good job last year on the few occasions he was asked to guard smaller, quick players (like Ish Smith). That's what the team needs this year.

I don't think we've seen enough to know whether he can do it, but I certainly don't think we've seen enough to say that he can't. K seems to think he'll do well in that role, so perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt unless he proves otherwise (because I don't think you can look at his past work guarding opposing centers and say with any degree of certainty whether he can guard opposing wings).

loran16
10-26-2009, 12:36 AM
Well, that's just it, he won't be undersized compared to the players he's guarding this year. As many have noted, he did a good job last year on the few occasions he was asked to guard smaller, quick players (like Ish Smith). That's what the team needs this year.

I don't think we've seen enough to know whether he can do it, but I certainly don't think we've seen enough to say that he can't. K seems to think he'll do well in that role, so perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt unless he proves otherwise (because I don't think you can look at his past work guarding opposing centers and say with any degree of certainty whether he can guard opposing wings).

:-/ I'll believe that he'll be guarding Small Forwards when i see it. I suspect he'll be guarding other teams' 4s just as usual when one of the other big men is out.

oldnavy
10-26-2009, 08:08 AM
K says that we will be a better running team this year than people think. He mentioned that the ball will be moved down the court via the pass vice the dribble. I assume that he is counting on our bigs to clear the boards and get the outlet passes to the wings quickly which makes sense if we do not have to fill the lane with guards for rebounds. I do not remember many fast breaks from last year. Five or six fb's a game could be an additional 10-15 points per game.

I also think that Mason will provide more of an offensive punch than is expected. If Nolan continues to play well, then we have 3 maybe 4 serious scoring threats on the floor (Single, Scheyer, Smith, P2). Plus the other players (P1, Dawkins, Kelly) all are potentially better scores than McClure was when he substituted in. AND, don't discount the 2nd chances a good rebounding team gets as well...

NSDukeFan
10-26-2009, 08:15 AM
You don't think 25 mpg is major minutes? Or you don't think he'll have to be our most important defender during some significant portion of the 25 minutes?

The way I see it, the more minutes during which Lance is a (successful) lockdown defender, the better off we'll be.

I agree that 25 mpg is major minutes, (though I think he may play fewer than that) but I think we have enough depth that foul trouble should not be a major issue for Lance since he won't be depended on to play 30+ minutes. I agree we will be better off if Lance can be a successful lockdown defender this year.

jv001
10-26-2009, 09:47 AM
Lance is a solid defender but certainly not a lock down defender. Defense does not end until you have the rebound and LT is not a good rebounder. He loses too many balls when contact is made. He fills the lanes and switches well but these two things do not make him a lock down defender. The only player that has the physical tools to be a lock down defender is Nolan Smith. Go Duke!

SupaDave
10-26-2009, 10:33 AM
Lance is a solid defender but certainly not a lock down defender. Defense does not end until you have the rebound and LT is not a good rebounder. He loses too many balls when contact is made. He fills the lanes and switches well but these two things do not make him a lock down defender. The only player that has the physical tools to be a lock down defender is Nolan Smith. Go Duke!

Lance Thomas...
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12638&highlight=lance+thomas

arnie
10-26-2009, 11:13 AM
Lance has been disappointing since all the recruiting talk was about his "voracious" rebounding skills. I think the hype was over the top in this case. However, I recall Antonio Lang progressing from an offensive liability to a confident offensive player between his junior and senior years. Here's hoping that Lance can make similar improvements and become a weapon.

Regarding his defense, I think it will always be disruptive for the other team - time will tell if he can lockdown anyone.

Kedsy
10-26-2009, 12:04 PM
Lance is a solid defender but certainly not a lock down defender. Defense does not end until you have the rebound and LT is not a good rebounder. He loses too many balls when contact is made. He fills the lanes and switches well but these two things do not make him a lock down defender. The only player that has the physical tools to be a lock down defender is Nolan Smith. Go Duke!

Billy King was national defensive player of the year while pulling down only 3.3 rebounds per game. I'm not saying Lance is anywhere close to Billy King, but to suggest you can't be a lockdown defender unless you get a lot of rebounds makes no sense.

Jumbo
10-27-2009, 01:38 AM
Even when he's stayed foul-free, has Lance EVER been a lock-down defender? He's undersized for those he guards and is often beat due to the physical difference in between him and his opponents.

I mean, I'm very negative on Lance. But he's NEVER been anything like a lockdown defender, and hoping he will be is silly. He should be 4th on the big man depth chart (behind Zoo and the Plumlees) imo because he can't board effectively (balls get knocked out of his hands too easily) and isn't a great scorer.....and he's certainly not a great DEFENDER!

Sigh, I don't get why people have such high hopes for Lance at this point.

I think everyone is quite clear how you feel about Lance Thomas. Enough already. I'm sure you know the expression I'm thinking of -- it begins with "if you don't have anything nice to say ..."

And, btw, Lance has been guarding guys much bigger than he is for three years. If you'd really been paying attention, you'd have noticed that he has done quite well guarding perimeter-oriented players. That's what we'll ask him to do this season. If you think asking him to assume a role where he plays solid perimeter defense is "such high hopes," I think you really, really need to reevaluate where you're coming from. Or just stop posting on Lance-related subjects.

Jumbo
11-12-2009, 11:33 PM
So, obviously it's tough to learn much from practices we can't see, conjecture, public comments and a couple of exhibition games. Still, it's worth a shot.

1) Can Duke stay healthy?
Apparently no. Ugh.

2) Is Mason Plumlee as good as I think he will be?
Well, uh, with two wrists he looked pretty good ...
In all seriousness, I liked what I saw out of Mason in the exhibitions and I still like what I've heard even more. I have no idea how badly the injury will set him back, but I still believe he has the potential to be every bit as good as I expected.

3) Is Ryan Kelly better prepared to contribute than I anticipate?
It's funny, there really hasn't been much buzz on Kelly as more and more people have realized that he and Mase are just in two different leagues right now. That said, he showed some decent signs in the first exhibition game. I still don't expect a lot out of him, and I'm still really worried about his defensive ability and willingness to mix it up underneath, but I think he could give us something offensively, and certainly will have the chance to contribute while Mason is out.

4) Is the Miles Plumlee buzz more warranted than last year?
Yes, I really think so. He seems much more confident, stronger, and more comfortable in his own skin -- as if he finally realizes that he is big, strong, can jump over people and has control over those abilities.

5) What will the shape of our defense look like?
It's still too soon to tell, but we're safe saying that we won't see Duke's typical ball pressure on a consistent basis. I still don't expect to see a ton of pure zone, especially once Nolan is back, but we've clearly adjusted our man-to-man approach.

6) Are we about to see Lance Thomas embrace a very different role?
Well, he has definitely taken on the different role I discussed, that of a perimeter defender who can hopefully morph into a true defensive stopper. And I think, given his enthusiasm and K's ability to motivate, he'll come out on a nightly basis wanting the challenge of guarding the other team's best player, regardless of position. How well he executes that assignment, of course, remains to be seen.

7) Is Nolan Smith ready to attack, attack, attack?
Definitely. Few things have been more apparent since we got our first look at this team than the fact that Nolan Smith seems free, unburdened and fully confident. He doesn't have to run the offense. He just needs to play basketball and do the things that come naturally to him well -- attack the basket, knock down jumpers, pressure the ball. I'm expecting big things from Nolan.

8) Will the offense feature more motion and screening?
I think so. The other thing is that it looks like we're going to be running more high/low stuff, which requires bigs making solid entry passes. Watch that in the early games to see who can handle that task and who can't. Also, I still expect us to invert the offense at times, posting Kyle and even Jon.

9) How quickly can Andre Dawkins get up to speed?
It seems like it might take a little while, which isn't surprising. If Duke has everyone healthy, he just needs to knock down jumpers and defend. But his D, right now, still seems to need work. He'll play a lot, though, so let's hope that experience accelerates his growth, rather than retarding it.

10) Are there any surprises in store?
Well, a two-game suspension and a broken wrist were not the surprises I was talking about. It's too early to tell if Czyz is going to contribute or Thomas is going to start knocking down 15-footers or Zoubek will become a reliable post-up threat. But we'll find out soon.

Coming up shortly -- Phase I.

BlueintheFace
11-13-2009, 12:32 AM
7) Is Nolan Smith ready to attack, attack, attack?
Definitely. Few things have been more apparent since we got our first look at this team than the fact that Nolan Smith seems free, unburdened and fully confident. He doesn't have to run the offense. He just needs to play basketball and do the things that come naturally to him well -- attack the basket, knock down jumpers, pressure the ball. I'm expecting big things from Nolan.


If there is one thing to take from the blue-white game and two exhibition games, I think this is it.

In his limited minutes against Findlay it became REALLY apparent how different and better the team is with him on the floor. It almost seems like his confidence and swagger flows into everyone else on the floor...

Jumbo
04-10-2010, 11:20 PM
This is a tight, hard-working group with a lot of upside -- maybe more upside than any team we've had in a while. And because of that upside, if everything works out just right, it can compete for a championship -- the biggest one. Hopefully Phase 0 goes according to plan and starts Duke off along that path.

This was how I concluded the first "Phase" post of the season back in October. I've become an increasingly superstitious fan this year, and I'm not sure if I ever used the phrase "national championship" on the board. At the very least, I tried to avoid it. But, as I clearly was hinting at above, I believed this team could win a national title all along.

I didn't have much interest in fighting the doubters along the way -- I've grown tired of that over the years. And I'm not going to say there weren't moments where the road looked awfully tough. But I always truly believed that this team had a legit chance to win it all, and I've rarely been happier to have been right. This team had talent and character, and just listening to the guys before the season -- in addition to what I'd seen -- convinced me that great things were possible.

And look, there's a difference between "possible" and "probable." Too many people confuse those terms, especially the kind of people who like to lable squads as a "Sweet 16 team" or some such, as if that's how the tournament works, instead of a series of one-and-done gams with upsets, weird outcomes and randomness. I knew this team could beat anyone on the right night, and I knew this team was tougher than just about anyone out there. So the next time some season comes along where you're ready to write off a team because of some preconceived notion of what a champion is "supposed" to look like, because of what you believe dominance to be, because you believe you need a low-post scorer or a certain type of point guard or a certain amount of depth, or anything else, think back to this team. Think back to how few of us felt like I did before the season started, and how many more people were ready to give up as soon as things got tough -- at Georgia Tech or NC State or Georgetown.

Thanks, Duke, for making me look just a little bit prescient. And thanks even more for an awesome ride that makes looking back at threads like this even more fun.

greybeard
04-10-2010, 11:55 PM
This was how I concluded the first "Phase" post of the season back in October. I've become an increasingly superstitious fan this year, and I'm not sure if I ever used the phrase "national championship" on the board. At the very least, I tried to avoid it. But, as I clearly was hinting at above, I believed this team could win a national title all along.

I didn't have much interest in fighting the doubters along the way -- I've grown tired of that over the years. And I'm not going to say there weren't moments where the road looked awfully tough. But I always truly believed that this team had a legit chance to win it all, and I've rarely been happier to have been right. This team had talent and character, and just listening to the guys before the season -- in addition to what I'd seen -- convinced me that great things were possible.

And look, there's a difference between "possible" and "probable." Too many people confuse those terms, especially the kind of people who like to lable squads as a "Sweet 16 team" or some such, as if that's how the tournament works, instead of a series of one-and-done gams with upsets, weird outcomes and randomness. I knew this team could beat anyone on the right night, and I knew this team was tougher than just about anyone out there. So the next time some season comes along where you're ready to write off a team because of some preconceived notion of what a champion is "supposed" to look like, because of what you believe dominance to be, because you believe you need a low-post scorer or a certain type of point guard or a certain amount of depth, or anything else, think back to this team. Think back to how few of us felt like I did before the season started, and how many more people were ready to give up as soon as things got tough -- at Georgia Tech or NC State or Georgetown.

Thanks, Duke, for making me look just a little bit prescient. And thanks even more for an awesome ride that makes looking back at threads like this even more fun.

Well done, Jumbo! As an outlander the ride was of a different nature for me, but I nevertheless enjoyed the heck out of it. Having had the good fortune to wander into this pub and the good sense to stay, I had the time of my life following this team along with the rest of you. Thanks for the insights, structure, and quest for the excellent. Contributed very much to making my being a fan of the game and this Duke team a whole other thing. Grey

Jumbo
04-11-2010, 12:38 AM
Well done, Jumbo! As an outlander the ride was of a different nature for me, but I nevertheless enjoyed the heck out of it. Having had the good fortune to wander into this pub and the good sense to stay, I had the time of my life following this team along with the rest of you. Thanks for the insights, structure, and quest for the excellent. Contributed very much to making my being a fan of the game and this Duke team a whole other thing. Grey

Thanks, man! But you are hardly an "outlander" around here -- you're part of the crew.

COYS
04-11-2010, 12:51 AM
This was how I concluded the first "Phase" post of the season back in October. I've become an increasingly superstitious fan this year, and I'm not sure if I ever used the phrase "national championship" on the board. At the very least, I tried to avoid it. But, as I clearly was hinting at above, I believed this team could win a national title all along.

I didn't have much interest in fighting the doubters along the way -- I've grown tired of that over the years. And I'm not going to say there weren't moments where the road looked awfully tough. But I always truly believed that this team had a legit chance to win it all, and I've rarely been happier to have been right. This team had talent and character, and just listening to the guys before the season -- in addition to what I'd seen -- convinced me that great things were possible.

And look, there's a difference between "possible" and "probable." Too many people confuse those terms, especially the kind of people who like to lable squads as a "Sweet 16 team" or some such, as if that's how the tournament works, instead of a series of one-and-done gams with upsets, weird outcomes and randomness. I knew this team could beat anyone on the right night, and I knew this team was tougher than just about anyone out there. So the next time some season comes along where you're ready to write off a team because of some preconceived notion of what a champion is "supposed" to look like, because of what you believe dominance to be, because you believe you need a low-post scorer or a certain type of point guard or a certain amount of depth, or anything else, think back to this team. Think back to how few of us felt like I did before the season started, and how many more people were ready to give up as soon as things got tough -- at Georgia Tech or NC State or Georgetown.

Thanks, Duke, for making me look just a little bit prescient. And thanks even more for an awesome ride that makes looking back at threads like this even more fun.

Thank you, Jumbo, for your excellent insights! Watching this team evolve this year was supremely satisfying especially since a lot of the maturation can be traced back through the 07-08 season. It's been a joy watching the seniors plus Kyle and Nolan mature from that season two years ago. The maturation of Thomas and Zoubek from limited players in 2008 into the heart and soul of Duke's defense and the source of its toughness during the championship season has been so exciting and rewarding. Scheyer has gone from solid and savvy guard to having one of the best seasons a Duke point guard has ever had. Nolan overcame so many setbacks during his first two seasons to become a star. And you've chronicled it all so well and with such great insight. I am an avid Duke fan but your contributions to this board enhance my enjoyment of the team. Thank you very much for everything you do.

ice-9
04-11-2010, 08:37 AM
I knew this team could beat anyone on the right night, and I knew this team was tougher than just about anyone out there. So the next time some season comes along where you're ready to write off a team because of some preconceived notion of what a champion is "supposed" to look like, because of what you believe dominance to be, because you believe you need a low-post scorer or a certain type of point guard or a certain amount of depth, or anything else, think back to this team. Think back to how few of us felt like I did before the season started, and how many more people were ready to give up as soon as things got tough -- at Georgia Tech or NC State or Georgetown.

Thanks, Duke, for making me look just a little bit prescient. And thanks even more for an awesome ride that makes looking back at threads like this even more fun.


Spot on Jumbo, and mark me as one of the guilty parties who didn't think this Duke team could win the national championship. It's actually pretty amazing when you think about what kind of odds this team overcame.
- No traditional point guard
- Dangerously thin on the perimeter with Elliot transferring
- Inconsistent Nolan Smith the previous year
- Kyle moving to a new position
- Unproven bigs
- A demoralizing loss to Villanova in the Sweet 16

Even though I have always been a fan of Zoubek and Lance, Mason was everyone's great hope for this team. We all prayed that Mason would be the factor that elevates this team from good to great. Jumbo, you must admit even you thought much of the team's upside would come from Mason!

Because from an eye test point of view, it looked like we had a team who shot a low percentage, couldn't penetrate on command, had bigs who couldn't score, and a defense susceptible to an athletic four-out one-in offense. It just didn't look like an elite team.

Honestly, I didn't become a believer in a national championship until KenPom started to rank us in the top five. I'm a numbers guy, and it was obvious from a numbers point of view Duke was doing something right. The offensive rebounding and the low turnovers offset the low percentage shooting; we used motion and screening instead of 0-60 speed to achieve penetration; our bigs became better with put backs and kick outs; and our defense improved over the season, especially when our two post seniors were in the game together.

What a ride.

The arc this team went through is truly what made this season special.

The upside wasn't in the freshmen at all, like most of us predicted, it was in the maturation and togetherness of our veterans.

Old school indeed.

Jumbo
04-11-2010, 12:29 PM
Thank you, Jumbo, for your excellent insights! Watching this team evolve this year was supremely satisfying especially since a lot of the maturation can be traced back through the 07-08 season. It's been a joy watching the seniors plus Kyle and Nolan mature from that season two years ago. The maturation of Thomas and Zoubek from limited players in 2008 into the heart and soul of Duke's defense and the source of its toughness during the championship season has been so exciting and rewarding. Scheyer has gone from solid and savvy guard to having one of the best seasons a Duke point guard has ever had. Nolan overcame so many setbacks during his first two seasons to become a star. And you've chronicled it all so well and with such great insight. I am an avid Duke fan but your contributions to this board enhance my enjoyment of the team. Thank you very much for everything you do.

I really appreciate that -- thanks!

ArtVandelay
04-11-2010, 12:53 PM
This post just goes to show you how unpredictable college hoops can be. To think that we thought that Mason was going to be the key player to Duke's season and that our crunch time lineup would include both Mason and Dawkins (a feeling that was shared by many, not just Jumbo). Who possibly saw Zoubek's emergence coming?

Also found Jumbo's comment that Singler and Scheyer would be one of the best duos in the country interesting. We've been hearing so much about the Big Three all year that it's easy to forget that Nolan's ascent to star player wasn't a sure thing even though some felt a breakout coming.

Nice retrospective here, Jumbo. Thanks.

MChambers
04-11-2010, 02:13 PM
Thank you, Jumbo, for your excellent insights! Watching this team evolve this year was supremely satisfying especially since a lot of the maturation can be traced back through the 07-08 season. It's been a joy watching the seniors plus Kyle and Nolan mature from that season two years ago. The maturation of Thomas and Zoubek from limited players in 2008 into the heart and soul of Duke's defense and the source of its toughness during the championship season has been so exciting and rewarding. Scheyer has gone from solid and savvy guard to having one of the best seasons a Duke point guard has ever had. Nolan overcame so many setbacks during his first two seasons to become a star. And you've chronicled it all so well and with such great insight. I am an avid Duke fan but your contributions to this board enhance my enjoyment of the team. Thank you very much for everything you do.

I really look forward to your analyses at each Phase. Looking forward to Phase 0 for the 2010-2011 season (hey, only 187 days to Craziness, according to DukeBluePlanet.com)!

uh_no
10-09-2010, 11:48 PM
1) Can Duke stay healthy?
pretty much all year


2) Is Mason Plumlee as good as I think he will be?
probably not as good as you think he would have been.....but there's still this year


3) Is Ryan Kelly better prepared to contribute than I anticipate?
nope.....too bad because this year he's gonna rock it


4) Is the Miles Plumlee buzz more warranted than last year?
not really....he was better but still not up to hype


5) What will the shape of our defense look like?
switch on everything.....get all the rebounds


6) Are we about to see Lance Thomas embrace a very different role?
yes


7) Is Nolan Smith ready to attack, attack, attack?
yes


8) Will the offense feature more motion and screening?
yes


9) How quickly can Andre Dawkins get up to speed?
unfortunately he had a setback, but hopefully 5 star top of his class andre will be raring to go this year


10) Are there any surprises in store?
I would say I was pleasantly suprised by the outcome of last season....

DevilHorns
10-10-2010, 12:09 AM
What a tease!

After a half-second of joy I realized quickly that there was no way a new Phase 0 thread could have grew to pages and pages of posts that quickly.

A few thoughts on 'Can Duke stay healthy?'

I think Duke stayed healthy to the perfect degree if thats possible. Injuries will happen. The question is if other players are willing to step up when injuries happen. Mason going down early may have had a bigger influence on Z and Miles earlier in the year... perhaps kept them higher up in the rotation longer than in a parallel universe where a healthy Mason was allowed to grow and usurp a more significant role that a top 3 center in his class is capable of doing. Who knows how Mason would have developed with a full freshman season. In that scenario would Zoubs have had his needed resurgence?

I think the biggest dodged bullet regarding injuries was Lance in the Carolina game. Was very worried about that given the play but everything of course turned out fine.

gam7
10-10-2010, 01:19 AM
I think the biggest dodged bullet regarding injuries was Lance in the Carolina game. Was very worried about that given the play but everything of course turned out fine.

Singler's wrist injury against wake was a pretty big dodged bullet too.

DukieTiger
10-10-2010, 10:51 AM
Singler's wrist injury against wake was a pretty big dodged bullet too.

Not to mention the near-injury to his wrist vs Purdue in the tournament.