PDA

View Full Version : Gottlieb on Duke . . .



Dawun
11-02-2009, 11:02 PM
ESPN recently published an article from Gottlieb titled "What many are thinking, but won't say publicly." In the article, Dougie list the proverbial "elephants in the room" for the upcoming college season. Doug provides his insights on Duke at No. 3. To paraphrase, he argues that Duke has not improved at all with our low post presence. He argues that our team is basically the same because of our inadequate low post presence and lack of speed on the perimeter. To read Gottlieb's analysis click here. (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4617419&name=ncbexperts) (must be a paid subscriber).

Ultimately, I think he's wrong. He's right in that we don't have a dominant low post presence. However, compared to last year, our low post presence is much improved. He does not give any credit to the athleticism and basketball skills of Mason and Miles. They have much to prove this year, but they are better players than any of our big men last year not named Kyle. He also does not factor in the importance of Kyle shifting to the 3. Recently, in a pick up basketball game, I was asked to guard players in the interior. As a guard, playing in the post is incredibly exhausting. The type of defense and energy exerted to guard the perimeter is vastly different from that used to guard the post. To guard the post, you need to remain grounded, move well, and use a lot of upper body strength. As a guard, it takes more energy out of you than guarding a perimeter player. Generally, guarding the perimeter requires a lot of running, and good footwork to avoid screens. For Kyle, shifting to the perimeter will be great for his offensive game. Imagine having to guard DeJuan Blair or Hansbrough, and then trying to score 15 to 20.

First, do we lack a low post presence? Second, if we don'r, does that make our team the same as last year. Finally, how significant is our "lack of speed" on the perimeter?

diveonthefloor
11-02-2009, 11:07 PM
Don't believe everything you read. Especially if the author is a credit card thief!

Dawun
11-02-2009, 11:11 PM
Don't believe everything you read. Especially if the author is a credit card thief!

hahah I don't believe it. I believe he's wrong for the most part.

ChicagoCrazy84
11-02-2009, 11:51 PM
The problem is that Miles and Mason (and Ryan) have not proven themselves YET. It's mainly because they are still relatively unknown so therefore, people like Gottleib have to make assumptions like this on the team. Gottleib is basketball savvy, I do like the guy, but don't tell me about how good or how disappointing Duke is going to be, because in all actuality, he doesn't know. His main job is to look at game film and highlights and talk about what areas teams need to improve and in what areas teams are doing well.

soccerstud2210
11-02-2009, 11:51 PM
ESPN recently published an article from Gottlieb titled "What many are thinking, but won't say publicly." In the article, Dougie list the proverbial "elephants in the room" for the upcoming college season. Doug provides his insights on Duke at No. 3. To paraphrase, he argues that Duke has not improved at all with our low post presence. He argues that our team is basically the same because of our inadequate low post presence and lack of speed on the perimeter. To read Gottlieb's analysis click here. (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4617419&name=ncbexperts) (must be a paid subscriber).

Ultimately, I think he's wrong. He's right in that we don't have a dominant low post presence. However, compared to last year, our low post presence is much improved. He does not give any credit to the athleticism and basketball skills of Mason and Miles. They have much to prove this year, but they are better players than any of our big men last year not named Kyle. He also does not factor in the importance of Kyle shifting to the 3. Recently, in a pick up basketball game, I was asked to guard players in the interior. As a guard, playing in the post is incredibly exhausting. The type of defense and energy exerted to guard the perimeter is vastly different from that used to guard the post. To guard the post, you need to remain grounded, move well, and use a lot of upper body strength. As a guard, it takes more energy out of you than guarding a perimeter player. Generally, guarding the perimeter requires a lot of running, and good footwork to avoid screens. For Kyle, shifting to the perimeter will be great for his offensive game. Imagine having to guard DeJuan Blair or Hansbrough, and then trying to score 15 to 20.

First, do we lack a low post presence? Second, if we don'r, does that make our team the same as last year. Finally, how significant is our "lack of speed" on the perimeter?

you can pretty much discredit anything gottlieb and seth davis have to say.

Greg_Newton
11-03-2009, 12:26 AM
The problem is that Miles and Mason (and Ryan) have not proven themselves YET. It's mainly because they are still relatively unknown so therefore, people like Gottleib have to make assumptions like this on the team. Gottleib is basketball savvy, I do like the guy, but don't tell me about how good or how disappointing Duke is going to be, because in all actuality, he doesn't know. His main job is to look at game film and highlights and talk about what areas teams need to improve and in what areas teams are doing well.

Agreed. Same with Nolan. I'm pretty content with knowing what I THINK I know about how good we'll be, for now, and letting people talk all they want. I can't really take issue with anyone like Gottlieb for not being sold yet, because we haven't proved anything on the court yet. However, I'll enjoy watching them eat their words if our guys are as good as I'm hoping!

BlueintheFace
11-03-2009, 12:32 AM
quite frankly, the frontcourt has to prove it before the perception changes. If I were a national voice on basketball, I might write the same thing. As a Duke fan, I don't believe it and hope like hell that it is wrong

ice-9
11-03-2009, 06:33 AM
The other thing though is that we were a #2 seed last year with 30 wins and an ACC championship. Even if we haven't improved from last year, that's still a very good starting point in a field of weaker competition this year.

roywhite
11-03-2009, 07:08 AM
The problem is that Miles and Mason (and Ryan) have not proven themselves YET. It's mainly because they are still relatively unknown so therefore, people like Gottleib have to make assumptions like this on the team. Gottleib is basketball savvy, I do like the guy, but don't tell me about how good or how disappointing Duke is going to be, because in all actuality, he doesn't know. His main job is to look at game film and highlights and talk about what areas teams need to improve and in what areas teams are doing well.

Exactly right, in my opinion.

Gottleib can be right or wrong, but is seldom in doubt. He's foolish to have drawn conclusions about "same old Duke" without seeing game action. This team may be better or worse than last year's team, but it certainly will be different.

whereinthehellami
11-03-2009, 08:35 AM
Don't believe everything you read. Especially if the author is a credit card thief!

You're not giving Gottlieb enough credit, he is also an insufferable idiot.

jipops
11-03-2009, 09:15 AM
Finally, how significant is our "lack of speed" on the perimeter?

I don't buy the "lack of speed" on the perimeter argument. Is Nolan slow? uh, no. Has he seen Andre play? This kid does not lack speed. Scheyer may not be lightning but has exhibited quite enough quickness to both generate offense and defend opposing guards quite well. The only question mark with speed on the perimeter is Kyle and I'd say that is barely a question mark. The help D may need to react quickly if he is guarding a smaller guy, but he's a matchup issue on the other side as well. Gottlieb may be surprised when he sees Lance guarding other opposing wings.

So if we lack speed on the perimeter, then I guess pretty much everyone does. We lack bodies on the perimeter, which is not quite related to speed.

UrinalCake
11-03-2009, 09:30 AM
It's natural for us as Duke fans to be defensive about someone writing this, but I don't think he's out of line. Last year around this time we were all convinced that Z and Thomas would made huge leaps, and that Miles and Czyz would be factors. There's a lot of unknowns, and freshmen big men don't typically make huge contributions. Of course, I hope he's wrong.

Newton_14
11-03-2009, 10:11 AM
I feel that Gottlieb and others who maintain that this Duke team is no different than the last 2 years, have the following opinion:

They must believe that once Duke gets to conference play the line up will be Nolan, Jon, Andre, Kyle, and Lance, and that we will play small ball and shoot lots and lots of 3's.

I personally do not believe that will happen. I think we will see a lot of action from our collection of Mason, Miles, Lance, Kelly, and Zoubs..

Battierfan01
11-03-2009, 11:30 AM
I think Gottlieb is as anti-Duke as anyone in the media.

SMO
11-03-2009, 11:35 AM
I think Gottlieb is as anti-Duke as anyone in the media.

I used to think he was just anti-Paulus but this clears it in my mind. I guess he also thinks UNC's perimeter will consist of just Larry Drew II since their back court is largely unproven.

sagegrouse
11-03-2009, 11:35 AM
As we have learned from politics, if there are enough idiots of a certain ideological persuasion, there will be plenty of politicians and talk-show hosts on the scene to offer themselves as leaders.

sagegrouse

CDu
11-03-2009, 12:34 PM
I feel that Gottlieb and others who maintain that this Duke team is no different than the last 2 years, have the following opinion:

They must believe that once Duke gets to conference play the line up will be Nolan, Jon, Andre, Kyle, and Lance, and that we will play small ball and shoot lots and lots of 3's.

I personally do not believe that will happen. I think we will see a lot of action from our collection of Mason, Miles, Lance, Kelly, and Zoubs..

I tend to agree, and I think people are overreacting to his comments. I think you've nailed it here.

Basically, if you don't buy into the Plumlees, then this team looks a lot like last year's team minus Paulus and Henderson. Gottlieb is apparently not yet buying the Plumlees. And to be honest, I think that's a fair opinion. It could very well wind up being completely wrong, but it's a fair opinion to have. The Plumlees have proven nothing to this point. And if for some reason they aren't ready, well then the team doesn't really look any better than last year's team (perhaps worse).

Now, I do believe that the Plumlees will add something new and different to this team, so I think Gottlieb will wind up being wrong. But he's paid to have an opinion and voice it, and he's simply voicing an opinion that has some basis to it.

roywhite
11-03-2009, 12:56 PM
I tend to agree, and I think people are overreacting to his comments. I think you've nailed it here.

Basically, if you don't buy into the Plumlees, then this team looks a lot like last year's team minus Paulus and Henderson. Gottlieb is apparently not yet buying the Plumlees. And to be honest, I think that's a fair opinion. It could very well wind up being completely wrong, but it's a fair opinion to have. The Plumlees have proven nothing to this point.... But he's paid to have an opinion and voice it, and he's simply voicing an opinion that has some basis to it.

Not to beat this to death, but I wonder what the basis of his opinion is? Has he seen Duke play in an exhibition or intra-squad game? Watched practice? Talked to people who have watched the Plumlees play?

Whether Duke is a different, improved team in 2009-10 that is likely to go further in the NCAA Tournament is an open question, and people of good will and different perspectives are certainly entitled to their opinion.

To my mind, Gottleib likely has little actual basis for his proclamation, and does not get the benefit of the doubt due to his past history.

CDu
11-03-2009, 01:33 PM
Not to beat this to death, but I wonder what the basis of his opinion is? Has he seen Duke play in an exhibition or intra-squad game? Watched practice? Talked to people who have watched the Plumlees play?

Whether Duke is a different, improved team in 2009-10 that is likely to go further in the NCAA Tournament is an open question, and people of good will and different perspectives are certainly entitled to their opinion.

To my mind, Gottleib likely has little actual basis for his proclamation, and does not get the benefit of the doubt due to his past history.

If I had to guess, I would guess Gottlieb is basing his opinion on the fact that Miles Plumlee was a complete non-factor last year and that big men (and Duke is certainly no exception) frequently aren't ready to contribute right away in college basketball.

Given that the Plumlees haven't faced real competition yet this year (the Pfeiffer game doesn't count as their big men were my size and summer league is generally devoid of real defense and gameplanning), I'd say it's fair to believe in either side of the opinion (hopeful or skeptical).

Billy Dat
11-03-2009, 02:02 PM
I like Gottlieb and think he's been very fair to Duke over the years and think he treats all teams the same. In the same article, he says UNC doesn't have the horses to repeat despite their lofty ranking, and takes shots at a bunch of other teams.

He's pretty much always been a "talent wins" prognosticator so he betting on Kansas, Kentucky and Texas.

Either way, let's just thank him for the bulletin board material. As many have said, let's be written off and surprise people....although a pre-season top 10 ranking isn't exactly being "written off".

Jim3k
11-03-2009, 03:02 PM
Gottlieb is still angry with Wojo (and therefore, Duke) from their March 16, 1998 NCAA matchup where they got into a pushing match (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1347&dat=19980316&id=jvkSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Jv0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6309,5243044). Gottleib always thought he was better than Wojo -- but Wojo got the national recognition.

In some ways they were a lot alike, bulldog guards. That's probably Gottlieb's problem. He thinks he still is one. It's now 11 years ago and he needs to move on.

Sir Stealth
11-03-2009, 04:03 PM
Gottlieb is still angry with Wojo (and therefore, Duke) from their March 16, 1998 NCAA matchup where they got into a pushing match (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1347&dat=19980316&id=jvkSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Jv0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6309,5243044). Gottleib always thought he was better than Wojo -- but Wojo got the national recognition.

In some ways they were a lot alike, bulldog guards. That's probably Gottlieb's problem. He thinks he still is one. It's now 11 years ago and he needs to move on.


I don't like Gottlieb at all, but this strikes me as just being rank speculation. After actually reading what he wrote, it sounds like a much more fair assessment to me than what some have made it out to be. I personally think that the Plumlees and others will improve Duke in the post this year enough to make a difference, but it's very reasonable to think that this might not actually happen given that, as others have said, nothing has actually been proven on the court yet.

As long as analysts and reporters don't throw out cheapshots about the personality of our team/school or misspell Duke (unfortunately this is a lot of them), I think it's ok for them to not have as rosy a picture as I do without speculating on some dark personal motivation.

UrinalCake
11-03-2009, 04:12 PM
"their new bigs are face up 4-men"

I agree with this. Zoubek is the only "true" center on our team. We have other guys who can play (and most importantly, defend) the 5, but I guarantee that should we lose early again, plenty of Duke's own fans will be bemoaning our lack of a center.

SMO
11-03-2009, 04:17 PM
"their new bigs are face up 4-men"

I agree with this. Zoubek is the only "true" center on our team. We have other guys who can play (and most importantly, defend) the 5, but I guarantee that should we lose early again, plenty of Duke's own fans will be bemoaning our lack of a center.

Or the lack of a point, or toughness, or a "go-to guy", or a "glue guy", or some athletic guys, or some guys that haven't played too many minutes. It's easy to predict what folks will bemoan. How many true centers did UNC have last year?

Sir Stealth
11-03-2009, 04:32 PM
The hyperlink on ESPN's front page now reads, "Gottlieb: another year, another Duke choke."

Choke? Wow. Very true on the point about Duke-hating being good business and drawing page views and ratings.

SMO
11-03-2009, 04:34 PM
The hyperlink on ESPN's front page now reads, "Gottlieb: another year, another Duke choke."

Choke? Wow. Very true on the point about Duke-hating being good business and drawing page views and ratings.

I noticed that as well. This is clearly a ploy to get people to pay up and read his garbage.

Jim3k
11-03-2009, 05:04 PM
The hyperlink on ESPN's front page now reads, "Gottlieb: another year, another Duke choke."

Choke? Wow. Very true on the point about Duke-hating being good business and drawing page views and ratings.

You catching on, now? Gottlieb's commentary on Duke has been less than objective for years. And you think I'm speculating?

I don't want to take the time to research it, but his dislike of Wojo and Duke is long-standing. There's no speculation about it.

budwom
11-03-2009, 05:05 PM
1) I can't stand Gottlieb. Who can?
2) He may well be correct about our big guys, we'll just have to resolve that on the court. No reason to get into that squabble again.
3) If the bigs aren't that good (his premise) then how would Duke's losing be "a choke." I just don't follow the logic.
4) I still can't stand Gottlieb.

Sir Stealth
11-03-2009, 05:37 PM
You catching on, now? Gottlieb's commentary on Duke has been less than objective for years. And you think I'm speculating?

I don't want to take the time to research it, but his dislike of Wojo and Duke is long-standing. There's no speculation about it.

Gottlieb did not write the hyperlink nor did use the word choke in his blurb about Duke. If there's something out there then you could be absolutely right, and maybe he does secretly hate Duke, but the hyperlink that some web page manager wrote at ESPN certainly doesn't prove it.

Jim3k
11-03-2009, 05:45 PM
Gottlieb did not write the hyperlink nor did use the word choke in his blurb about Duke. If there's something out there then you could be absolutely right, and maybe he does secretly hate Duke, but the hyperlink that some web page manager wrote at ESPN certainly doesn't prove it.

You're speculating that an editor changed the hyperlink. Maybe so, maybe not. How can you be sure? Gottlieb knows how to do it; it's not hard. ;)

(You're probably right that an ESPN editor did make the change. My point is that you shouldn't be so quick to accuse someone of speculating when there's actual history out there. Just because you are unaware of the history doesn't mean you should make an accusation that someone else's knowledge is guesswork.)

dw0827
11-03-2009, 05:52 PM
If I had to guess, I would guess Gottlieb is basing his opinion on the fact that Miles Plumlee was a complete non-factor last year and that big men (and Duke is certainly no exception) frequently aren't ready to contribute right away in college basketball.

Given that the Plumlees haven't faced real competition yet this year (the Pfeiffer game doesn't count as their big men were my size and summer league is generally devoid of real defense and gameplanning), I'd say it's fair to believe in either side of the opinion (hopeful or skeptical).

I was thinking exactly the same thing . . . but you wrote it and wrote it well.

Gottlieb may not like Duke. He may hate Wojo. Who knows and who cares. I read his piece and thought it was a realistic and fair perspective. It may prove to be wrong but that's the point. We have to prove it.

So far we've proven nothing. Zilch. Zero.

greybeard
11-03-2009, 06:07 PM
The perception that Doug pans Duke because it sells fits with the adage about the apple and the tree. Gottlieb's old man, Bobby, held the head job at Jacksonville for a year before his program blew up in scandal around players being paid, and he now gets paid for developing high school players and trying to hook them up with small schools out West.

It is also possible that Doug's perspectives flow from his own self perception as a guy who was stopped from reaching the top due only to his lack of first-class athleticism. He might project that perceived reality onto the players who he sees at Duke.

If even partially at play, either scenario would be most unfortunate. By and large, I think that Doug really, really gets the game and brings a fresh look to an otherwise homogenized group of talking heads that fill the airways.

Jim3k
11-03-2009, 06:23 PM
My observation about Gottlieb's past history was only to point out that when he writes about Duke, we should be aware that he has a bias of some sort that may or may not color what he writes. He could well be writing fairly and objectively, but he's one of the writers who needs special scrutiny.

As for the point about whether our new bigs -- M1 and Kelly -- will work out, it is entirely accurate to observe that they haven't proven themselves yet. It is also fair to observe that Zoubek hasn't turned into a star, that Thomas, though athletic, hasn't been an impact player or that M1's first year was unremarkable. So from that standpoint, I join those who say that the proof will be in the pudding.

None of that changes the way one should view a Gottlieb story about Duke. Just be careful with it.

CDu
11-03-2009, 07:18 PM
My observation about Gottlieb's past history was only to point out that when he writes about Duke, we should be aware that he has a bias of some sort that may or may not color what he writes. He could well be writing fairly and objectively, but he's one of the writers who needs special scrutiny.

As for the point about whether our new bigs -- M1 and Kelly -- will work out, it is entirely accurate to observe that they haven't proven themselves yet. It is also fair to observe that Zoubek hasn't turned into a star, that Thomas, though athletic, hasn't been an impact player or that M1's first year was unremarkable. So from that standpoint, I join those who say that the proof will be in the pudding.

None of that changes the way one should view a Gottlieb story about Duke. Just be careful with it.

Or else what? The world will explode? :) Why do I need to be careful with how I read/view a story? It's just a sports column - why can't I just read it objectively, and not worry about figuring out whether or not the writer has a bias and how it might be affecting his statements? And what does it matter if he does? Even if Gottlieb is biased against Duke (possible, but I haven't seen - or don't remember - consistent evidence of it personally), how has that hurt our team?

I think you're reading too much into it here. For what it's worth, the link on ESPN.com, at least where I am, still says "Gottlieb: UNC doesn't have enough to repeat." So does that mean he's just picking and choosing different hyperlink titles at random times? I suspect that's not the case. Now, I don't work in the media, but I'm guessing that the contributors just write the main stuff, the editors write the titles, and the web designers title the links. Nothing in the content suggests Gottlieb is bashing Duke here. I think the hyperlink title is a case of the web designer having a little fun.

SMO
11-03-2009, 07:36 PM
I was thinking exactly the same thing . . . but you wrote it and wrote it well.

Gottlieb may not like Duke. He may hate Wojo. Who knows and who cares. I read his piece and thought it was a realistic and fair perspective. It may prove to be wrong but that's the point. We have to prove it.

So far we've proven nothing. Zilch. Zero.

Following the logic, Gottlieb could criticize any team similarly because they have done nothing. Zilch. Zero. The season hasn't started yet, so I guess anyone could be a choker!

Duvall
11-03-2009, 07:46 PM
Based on tonight's effort, Gottlieb appears to be right.

Jim3k
11-03-2009, 07:48 PM
Or else what? The world will explode? :) Why do I need to be careful with how I read/view a story? It's just a sports column - why can't I just read it objectively, and not worry about figuring out whether or not the writer has a bias and how it might be affecting his statements? And what does it matter if he does? Even if Gottlieb is biased against Duke (possible, but I haven't seen - or don't remember - consistent evidence of it personally), how has that hurt our team?

I think you're reading too much into it here. For what it's worth, the link on ESPN.com, at least where I am, still says "Gottlieb: UNC doesn't have enough to repeat." So does that mean he's just picking and choosing different hyperlink titles at random times? I suspect that's not the case. Now, I don't work in the media, but I'm guessing that the contributors just write the main stuff, the editors write the titles, and the web designers title the links. Nothing in the content suggests Gottlieb is bashing Duke here. I think the hyperlink title is a case of the web designer having a little fun.

Jeez. Relax. ;)

Devil's Advocate
11-03-2009, 07:57 PM
Gottlieb is still angry with Wojo (and therefore, Duke) from their March 16, 1998 NCAA matchup where they got into a pushing match (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1347&dat=19980316&id=jvkSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Jv0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6309,5243044). Gottleib always thought he was better than Wojo -- but Wojo got the national recognition.

In some ways they were a lot alike, bulldog guards. That's probably Gottlieb's problem. He thinks he still is one. It's now 11 years ago and he needs to move on.

When it comes to Duke, Gottleib can't be trusted. Like most people, he is a victim of his inherent biases, and as objective as he would like to think he is, he has somewhat of an axe to grind with Duke. He has stated on a nationally syndicated radio show that he 'just don't like the Duke program. I just don't like Duke.' I'm paraphrasing (barely), but in this case consider the source. He may be fair in many respect, but having made his Duke opinion clear, I don't think he is objective.

Wander
11-03-2009, 08:05 PM
Finally, how significant is our "lack of speed" on the perimeter?

I think it's very significant and the biggest weakness of the team. Last year we had Nolan, Elliott, and Henderson as high level on-ball defenders. This year if Nolan is ever in foul trouble against an opponent with an athletic point guard, I don't think we're going to be in good shape at all. Luckily, the backcourts in the ACC this year look well below their average, but I'd be concerned in March.

Kedsy
11-03-2009, 09:44 PM
I think it's very significant and the biggest weakness of the team. Last year we had Nolan, Elliott, and Henderson as high level on-ball defenders. This year if Nolan is ever in foul trouble against an opponent with an athletic point guard, I don't think we're going to be in good shape at all. Luckily, the backcourts in the ACC this year look well below their average, but I'd be concerned in March.

G never guarded the other team's PG. Last year we had Nolan and Elliott (who only played significant minutes in the last 10 games) and this year we have Nolan and Andre (who hopefully will be up to speed earlier than the last 10 games). Lance can guard small, quick players just as well as G could.

Of course, we also had Dave McClure last year...

jipops
11-03-2009, 09:48 PM
I think it's very significant and the biggest weakness of the team. Last year we had Nolan, Elliott, and Henderson as high level on-ball defenders. This year if Nolan is ever in foul trouble against an opponent with an athletic point guard, I don't think we're going to be in good shape at all. Luckily, the backcourts in the ACC this year look well below their average, but I'd be concerned in March.

I disagree with this. I don't see a perimeter speed issue on this team. Of our 3 perimeter players who would you actually consider slow? There is a perimeter personnel issue, not a speed issue. Also, don't forget that we do have Lance at our disposal who has quite enough foot speed to defend the perimeter.

Wander
11-03-2009, 10:17 PM
G never guarded the other team's PG.

I know I gave an example of point guard, but really I'm talking about on ball defense of opposing perimeter players in general. G was quite good at this.


Of our 3 perimeter players who would you actually consider slow?

I wouldn't call any of them slow - in general. But if we're talking about making it to that third weekend of the tournament, then yes, I consider our perimeter on-ball defense below average compared to the average Final Four team. Take last year as an example - all four Final Four teams had more of the perimeter speed/athleticism/ability I'm talking about. If you keep looking back at all the Final Four teams of the this decade, I'm sure Duke would fall well into the lower half of those in this category.

As for Lance, I'm skeptical that he'll be able to effectively guard smaller/quicker players with the ball on the perimeter. I could be wrong.

I'm also not saying that we can't have a successful season, even a Final Four. But that doesn't mean this isn't a weakness.

dukemsu
11-03-2009, 10:29 PM
will do anything to get his name out there. He says things that he knows will get attention.

He does have some valid points about what Duke has to prove, and that's true to a point.

Doug does have a ton of biases, notably toward the Big Ten (he ain't alone there). But he was a huge fan of last year's Devil squad, calling them "scary good" on more than one occasion in March. He knocks Duke from time to time, but usually his knocks are backed with at least one substantive point.

dukemsu

Vincetaylor
11-03-2009, 11:01 PM
I know I gave an example of point guard, but really I'm talking about on ball defense of opposing perimeter players in general. G was quite good at this.



I wouldn't call any of them slow - in general. But if we're talking about making it to that third weekend of the tournament, then yes, I consider our perimeter on-ball defense below average compared to the average Final Four team. Take last year as an example - all four Final Four teams had more of the perimeter speed/athleticism/ability I'm talking about. If you keep looking back at all the Final Four teams of the this decade, I'm sure Duke would fall well into the lower half of those in this category.

As for Lance, I'm skeptical that he'll be able to effectively guard smaller/quicker players with the ball on the perimeter. I could be wrong.

I'm also not saying that we can't have a successful season, even a Final Four. But that doesn't mean this isn't a weakness.

Wander- I agree with your points and I actually agree with a lot of Gottlieb's points. Guard play is the most important thing in college basketball. Villanova embarrassed our guards last year. It's almost become a tradition for opposing point guards to abuse us in the tournament. This team has less ball handlers and perimeter defenders than last year's team. I honestly see no reason to believe that we will be better than we were last year. I hope I am proven wrong.

Kedsy
11-03-2009, 11:11 PM
I know I gave an example of point guard, but really I'm talking about on ball defense of opposing perimeter players in general. G was quite good at this.

Well, I'm not sure. G was (is) very athletic, but my recollection is he didn't guard so many perimeter players. As a rule, he seemed to guard the other team's 3, which sometimes was a small, quick, perimeter player (like Nova, although I'm not sure how effective G was defensively in that game), but many times was a mid-sized player. If I recall correctly, against Wake Forest G guarded Aminu while Lance spent some time on Ish Smith.

I'm not suggesting it'll be all felicity and good times when we play teams with three quick perimeter players, but I honestly don't think it will be any worse than last year, especially if our interior players are more effective at helping/blocking shots if our perimeter guys get beat off the dribble.

jipops
11-03-2009, 11:14 PM
I wouldn't call any of them slow - in general. But if we're talking about making it to that third weekend of the tournament, then yes, I consider our perimeter on-ball defense below average compared to the average Final Four team. Take last year as an example - all four Final Four teams had more of the perimeter speed/athleticism/ability I'm talking about. If you keep looking back at all the Final Four teams of the this decade, I'm sure Duke would fall well into the lower half of those in this category.

As for Lance, I'm skeptical that he'll be able to effectively guard smaller/quicker players with the ball on the perimeter. I could be wrong.

I'm also not saying that we can't have a successful season, even a Final Four. But that doesn't mean this isn't a weakness.

With Scheyer and Smith I actually think we have two of the top defending guards in the country - as a unit. They're experienced (Sr and Jr), they anticipate extremely well, move their feet well, very quick hands, and oh yeah - they're experienced. Sure we haven't had a true pg in awhile, that has been brought to light repeatedly, but when was the last time we have had this combination of experience and defensive ability in the backcourt? We sure didn't last year (Paulus & EWill? no.)We also have a pre-season All-Am playing primarily on the wing who has shown to be a capable defender as well.

I get your point though. We don't have an abundance of speed demons like the team that ended our season last year. But like I have posted before, our backcourt issue is number of bodies, not the guys we can put on the floor.

My biggest concern with this team is actually experience in the frontcourt, something which Gottlieb apparently brought attention to. With Kyle and possibly even Lance spending time on the perimeter, the only experienced guy we have in the paint is Zoubek. Having guys learn to react and rotate in the post can take time, and we may see some real growing pains in this regard.

Wander
11-03-2009, 11:45 PM
especially if our interior players are more effective at helping/blocking shots if our perimeter guys get beat off the dribble.

Yeah, that's my hope also. Worked for Florida pretty well.


With Scheyer and Smith I actually think we have two of the top defending guards in the country - as a unit.

I like Scheyer a lot as a defender off the ball. On, not as much. Smith I have faith in as a defender; it's if he's out of the game with fouls that I'm concerned about. When you say it's a matter of depth, I think our two points are not mutually exclusive, and we're in fact saying a lot of the same thing.

jipops
11-03-2009, 11:54 PM
I like Scheyer a lot as a defender off the ball. On, not as much. Smith I have faith in as a defender; it's if he's out of the game with fouls that I'm concerned about. When you say it's a matter of depth, I think our two points are not mutually exclusive, and we're in fact saying a lot of the same thing.

Perhaps, but I believe the original point concerned perimeter speed - something I just don't feel we actually lack very much of. As for depth, yeah if Nolan goes out with 5 fouls, then we have a serious defensive issue. No debating that. I'm really not trying to be disagreeable but I actually like Scheyer as an on the ball defender.

Thank god basketball has started. I love these discussions.

Billy Dat
01-08-2010, 03:26 PM
I saw that a new thread was started about Gottlieb but thought it made sense to find this one and add to it.

There has been a lot of talk on this board about Doug Gottlieb trashing Duke, but I've always felt he just called it like he saw it, warts and all. It's worth mentioning that he has been really complimentary lately with our very solid play.

As the prior thread mentioned, Gottlieb recently appeared on K's "Basketball and Beyond" XM radio show. I think the K/Gottlieb "alarmingly unathletic" back and forth was really misinterpreted from the perspective of K lashing out. K has a really sarcastic wit and I think everyone thought he spent too much time going after Gottlieb when he was really just having some fun. Hopefully, Gottlieb's appearance on K's show will prove that, and show that he was serious when he said he respected Gottlieb's "stature" - another comment which people took as negative when I don't think K meant it that way.

Anyway, as the prior thread noted, Gottlieb was really complimentary of Duke in writing, and on the ESPNU podcast he did with Andy Glockner. Glockner also had a lot of nice things to say about Duke, whom he called "under-rated" It's well worth listening to.

It's the 1/5 episode of the ESPNU College Basketball podcast, available for free on ESPN or via iTunes, the Duke talk starts at the 12 minute mark.

The article he wrote is content you need to pay for but here's a link in case you are a paid subscriber
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/columns/story?columnist=gottlieb_doug&id=4804438

Bottom line, I like Gottlieb and think he needs to be recognized when he says nice things about Duke. Naturally, I also applaud K's media savvy with courting a frequent critic of the program. I need to get my hands on that Basketball & Beyond episode.

mr. synellinden
01-08-2010, 04:13 PM
I saw that a new thread was started about Gottlieb but thought it made sense to find this one and add to it.

There has been a lot of talk on this board about Doug Gottlieb trashing Duke, but I've always felt he just called it like he saw it, warts and all. It's worth mentioning that he has been really complimentary lately with our very solid play.

As the prior thread mentioned, Gottlieb recently appeared on K's "Basketball and Beyond" XM radio show. I think the K/Gottlieb "alarmingly unathletic" back and forth was really misinterpreted from the perspective of K lashing out. K has a really sarcastic wit and I think everyone thought he spent too much time going after Gottlieb when he was really just having some fun. Hopefully, Gottlieb's appearance on K's show will prove that, and show that he was serious when he said he respected Gottlieb's "stature" - another comment which people took as negative when I don't think K meant it that way.

Anyway, as the prior thread noted, Gottlieb was really complimentary of Duke in writing, and on the ESPNU podcast he did with Andy Glockner. Glockner also had a lot of nice things to say about Duke, whom he called "under-rated" It's well worth listening to.

It's the 1/5 episode of the ESPNU College Basketball podcast, available for free on ESPN or via iTunes, the Duke talk starts at the 12 minute mark.

The article he wrote is content you need to pay for but here's a link in case you are a paid subscriber
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/columns/story?columnist=gottlieb_doug&id=4804438

Bottom line, I like Gottlieb and think he needs to be recognized when he says nice things about Duke. Naturally, I also applaud K's media savvy with courting a frequent critic of the program. I need to get my hands on that Basketball & Beyond episode.

It is worth noting that prior to the Iowa St. game he did a segment on Kyle Singler and called him the most well rounded offensive player in all of college basketball. He praised him effusively and showed examples of his array of skills.