PDA

View Full Version : Phase I -- 2009-10



Jumbo
11-13-2009, 02:02 AM
The anticipation! The excitement! The endless speculation! Today is finally the day! Oh, and Duke's basketball season begins tonight as well.

Yes, for those of you've been wrapped up in, uh, another thread, there's actually an impressive collection of players already enrolled at Duke. They're promising big things this season. I'm inclined to believe them. And the first step of that journey is Phase I, which I'll define as a fairly brief, two-week window in which Duke will attempt to win the NIT Season Tip-Off (and face some real potential challenges along the way), in addition to tonight's opener against UNC Greensboro. So what will I be looking for in this opening stretch? Here are a few ideas ...

1) Can Duke stay healthy?
"What," you ask? "Didn't Mason Plumlee already break his wrist?"
"Yes. Yes he did," I respond. "Doesn't change a thing. I said this would be my first concern every step of the way, and Mason's injury only reinforces the issue."
Bottom line is that this team can't afford to have injuries pile up. Mason's injury stinks for so many reasons, but the guys should be able to fight through it if it doesn't linger too long. But if another key guy goes down? Yikes.

2) So, speaking of Mason, when will he be back?
Wish I knew. Like the rest of you, I'm hoping the "no surgery" thing means it won't be too long. If 4-to-6 weeks is true, that's not awful. And Dukies have a history of coming back a little sooner than expected. So let's just keep our fingers crossed on this one.

3) So without Mason, what does Duke do?
Good question. It certainly stunts his growth. It certainly puts a lot of pressure on Andre Dawkins to develop quickly, and it essentially forces either Ryan Kelly or Olek Czyz -- if not both -- to become part of the rotation.
But deciding who plays -- and how much time they get -- is the easy part. The difficult task is going back to the drawing board in terms of the way Duke plans to play. Coach K has designed a system to maximize his player's strengths this year, and Mason Plumlee was a big part of the equation. He's a big, talented, athletic player with a wide aray of skills. I was especially looking forward to seeing him on the defensive end, where I think he can cover up a lot of mistakes. Ryan Kelly can roam like that. Neither can Oleky Czyz. Or Brian Zoubek. Or even Lance Thomas.
Nor, for that matter, will Duke have a better high-post passer. So that messes with the high-low game it looks like we'll employ.
I see a couple of options to compensate for his loss. If he's only gone a short while, you basically keep things the same and Miles and Zoubs can play enough together so as not to place to heavy a burden on Lance Thomas, who already has a critical role on this team. But if he's going to be gone for a long time, then pushing Andre Dawkins to grow into a bigger role earlier than expected might be necessary -- if Duke can finish games with a lineup of Scheyer/Smith/Dawkins/Singler/5-man, that changes the equation a bit and lets Duke play a style that's a bit more familiar. The other option is to live with Kelly's defensive struggles in an attempt to open up the floor more. Duke can still function well on offense, but it will be hard to replace what was expected from Mason on D.

4) Will Nolan Smith's absence in the first two games matter?
Obviously, any team can lose on any given day. And without Smith and Plumlee, Duke is shorthanded. That said, Duke has two great veteran weapons in Singler and Scheyer, and enough experience and talent around them to get by UNCG and Coastal Carolina. And I don't think Duke will have any trouble integrating Smith back into the system.

5) Can Ryan Kelly (and maybe Olek Czyz) surprise with an unexpected opportunity for playing time?
I still feel as if Kelly will sort of resemble Taylor King, in that he'll be impressive against weak teams but really struggle against good opponents. I hope I'm wrong. And with Czyz, I'll have to see it before I believe this is possible.

6) How much will Duke look to run?
This is another area where Mason Plumlee would have helped. But we all are hoping that Duke uses its newfound size advantage to rebound better and then turn those rebounds into quick outlets and easy baskets. Without Smith and Plumlee, that might not be the smartest approach, but if we make it to MSG, we'll need some easy buckets, and it will be interesting to see how much this is emphasized.

7) How will Scheyer's shot look?
As you all know, I'm not worried about Jon Scheyer running the point. As I've said hundreds of times, he is at his best with the ball in his hands, and so is Duke. But I do worry if all the pressure on him -- to create, to play close to 40 minutes, to maintain his high level of D, to lead -- will place a strain on his jumper. Last year I thought he had some mechanical flaws -- the limited video I saw during the exhibition season showed that he might have fixed them. But we all remember the prolonged slump he went through in the middle of last season. Duke needs him to consistently knock down jumpers this year -- let's see if he's up to the task.

8) Will Thomas and Zoubek show us something we haven't seen yet?
Last chance for these guys. In Phase 0, I talked about Thomas becoming a perimeter defender/defensive stopper. He'll get a test right away if Duke makes it to MSG. And just as I was feeling that Zoubek was going to be little more than a 10-15 minute-a-night backup, Mason Plumlee's injury has given him a bigger role. He actually looked good in the exhibition season, but we've been down that road before. Still, if Duke can suddenly dump the ball to him on the block for a few buckets, well, that would change things dramatically.

9) Does something have to give for Kyle Singler?
Like Scheyer, Singler basically will have to do it all. Granted, if he can go the distance three straight days in the ACC Tourney (as he did in March), he can pretty much do anything. But still, he'll have to handle the ball, score inside and out, guard perimeter players, play virtually the entire game -- that's a heavy burden. Pay attention to whether anything suffers, whether its his defense, energy, maybe some foul trouble. This guy has answered every challenge in his career so far. Now, especially without Mason Plumlee playing alongside him, he has even more responsibility.

10) What kind of an edge will the guys bring to the court?
I wouldn't say the team has talked a big game, but they've expressed some real confidence, if not swagger. They certainly think they can win a national title. But now they've taken a couple of hits -- Nolan's suspension, Mason's injury. Will those developments sap some of that attitude? My hunch is that as long as Scheyer and Singler are around, it won't. Still, if this group winds up in a tight spot, and young players like Miles Plumlee, Ryan Kelly and Andre Dawkins are forced to step up, it will be interesting to see not only how those kids respond, but how much their veteran teammates trust them.

That's all for now. The season's here! Get excited!

OZZIE4DUKE
11-13-2009, 03:30 AM
Great job, Jumbo. I think you've sized things up pretty well - as usual!

Two things - in the Scheyer interview linked on the front page, Jon says he's worked hard on his shot, so hopefully no slump(s) this season. And we'll be even more shorthanded tonight at guard, as Jordan Davidson is gone for his grandmother's funeral.

NSDukeFan
11-13-2009, 09:15 AM
The anticipation! The excitement! The endless speculation! Today is finally the day! Oh, and Duke's basketball season begins tonight as well.

Yes, for those of you've been wrapped up in, uh, another thread, there's actually an impressive collection of players already enrolled at Duke. They're promising big things this season. I'm inclined to believe them. And the first step of that journey is Phase I, which I'll define as a fairly brief, two-week window in which Duke will attempt to win the NIT Season Tip-Off (and face some real potential challenges along the way), in addition to tonight's opener against UNC Greensboro. So what will I be looking for in this opening stretch? Here are a few ideas ...

...

5) Can Ryan Kelly (and maybe Olek Czyz) surprise with an unexpected opportunity for playing time?
I still feel as if Kelly will sort of resemble Taylor King, in that he'll be impressive against weak teams but really struggle against good opponents. I hope I'm wrong. And with Czyz, I'll have to see it before I believe this is possible.

...

8) Will Thomas and Zoubek show us something we haven't seen yet?
Last chance for these guys. In Phase 0, I talked about Thomas becoming a perimeter defender/defensive stopper. He'll get a test right away if Duke makes it to MSG. And just as I was feeling that Zoubek was going to be little more than a 10-15 minute-a-night backup, Mason Plumlee's injury has given him a bigger role. He actually looked good in the exhibition season, but we've been down that road before. Still, if Duke can suddenly dump the ball to him on the block for a few buckets, well, that would change things dramatically.
...

That's all for now. The season's here! Get excited!

Thank you for discussion about our present team. This is much more interesting to me than the other thread you mentioned, though I am of course excited to hear what happens this afternoon. I always look forward to your reports and this one did not disappoint.

I certainly can't disagree with much you have posted. One question I have had that may be answered a bit this Phase is who is more ready to contribute between Andre and Ryan? I figure Andre has more opportunity because of his position, but Ryan may get as much of an opportunity until Mason is back. I am very curious now to see if Olek can also contribute valuable minutes.

The other thing I am most excited about is your 8th point re: Zoubek and Thomas having a last chance to show something new. I always hope for great seasons for the seniors and hope they have a great ending to their Duke careers.

And yes, I am very excited for the season to start!

gw67
11-13-2009, 09:23 AM
Jumbo,

I’m late to the game this year and haven’t kept track of the goings on with the Devils but I can always count on you to bring me up to date by providing a nice early season summary for the team. On paper, it appears that the team has morphed into an inside team after several years of being a perimeter-oriented team although that remains to be seen. Looking forward to seeing the freshmen play although it appears that one of them may be out till the ACC season starts. Perhaps this will give an opportunity to the older Plumlee brother who appeared to have some potential during his short playing time last year.

gw67

JDev
11-13-2009, 09:29 AM
Hopefully, these early tests of this Duke team's resilience will pay off in the long run. They will have to play their first two games without two of their (arguably) four best players. They will also have to play the Preseason NIT and go to Madison, WI, among other games, without one of those guys. Overcoming obstacles and achieving breeds confidence, and hopefully that can be the case here. The coaching staff talked a lot in the preseason about Miles's offseason improvement, and the level he should be able to contribute at this year. This is a golden opportunity to show how much he has grown as a player. It will also give Dawkins more minutes and thusly more opportunity. The experience will undoubtably help his development. This team is obviously better with Mason on it, so maybe they can grow, develop, and succeed while he recovers from his injury, and be that much stronger when a player of his caliber is inserted back into the lineup.

jv001
11-13-2009, 09:55 AM
Thanks for your comments. I look forward to them during the season.
1. Duke health..a quick hit in Mason's wrist injury. If it had to happen it's better now than later in the year. We sure can't take many this year and be as successful as we think we can be.
2. Mason back as soon as 3 weeks and as late as 12 weeks. I look for some where in between.
3. Without Mason what does Duke do? I think we go big with: Jon, Kyle, Lance, Zoubs & Miles. But I feel Kelly, Andre & Olek will get extended mins.
4. Nolan out 2 games will affect us some, but should not mean we come out with a loss. We will miss him.
5. Will Kelly & Olek surprise. Ryan has skills and the BB IQ to excel, but he lacks strength at this time. Against lower competion he should play well. Olek I just don't know about. This could be an opportunity for him to get some mins with Mason out. I hope he does well.
6. I say that Duke will run. With our big lineup, we should rebound well enough to get some easy baskets.
7. Jon's shot. At the end of last season, Jon had regained his shot and I look for that to continue. He's a scorer more than a shooter anyway. He can put the ball in the basket.
8. I think Zoubs and Lance play well this year. Don't really have anything to base it on other than some senior players of the past.
9. Kyle will play hard no matter what. He hates to lose and brings an attitude that I like. I don't think any part of his game will suffer by being "the man".
10. I look for the guys to be just as confident on the court as they have been on the offseason. But if they suffer another blow like Mason's injury
or lose an early game I don't know. Let's hope that neither happen.
One other thing and it's big our coaching. We have the very best in Coach K and he's a master at makiing changes when adversity comes. Can't wait for the tipoff tonight. Go Duke!

MChambers
11-13-2009, 10:36 AM
One thing that particularly worries me without Nolan and Mason is how we're going to score. In October, I would have said that Nolan and Mason would be two of our top four scorers, after Kyle and Jon, of course. Looking at the rest of the team, I don't see a lot of scoring, except maybe for Ryan and Andre. Of course, this is a chance for Brian, Lance, Miles, and maybe Olek to show that their offensive skills have improved.

micah75
11-13-2009, 12:33 PM
Now that Lance will no longer have to guard the opposing bigs (based upon what I've been reading), I'm feeling kind of hopeful that he may be able to contribute in a style that is perhaps more naturally suited for him... perhaps in the mold of a glue guy such as McClure, and who knows... possibly even Antonio Lang... getting some rebounds, making hustle plays, good solid D, etc. If he has added a nice medium range 10-12 foot jumper to his game and improved his FT shooting, then that would be huge.

As far as putting points up on the board, I'm hoping this will be a good, if not great, fast break team. But as Jumbo mentioned, that may not happen until Nolan and Mason return. Also, If the bigs can grab some offensive rebounds and putbacks, that will take a lot of pressure off of Kyle and Jon to bear the brunt of the offense.

Bob Green
11-13-2009, 05:27 PM
The two items I'll be tracking during Phase 1 are ball handling and inside scoring. Scheyer and Smith need to take care of the basketball, beat the press, and distribute. Their combined assists to turnover ratio will be a telling statistic. I expect Singler playing on the wing to handle the ball a lot as well. Even with Mason Plumlee temporarily sidelined with a broken wrist, the frontcourt players must score the basketball. We've heard all off season how this is a different Duke team, a bigger Duke team, so I desire to see the team play big by getting the high-low game rev'd up and scoring. S Cubed on the perimeter will be our leading scorers, but it is imperative that the frontcourt players prove they are legitimate scoring options. Miles Plumlee, Zoubek, Thomas, and Kelly must score the basketball.

duke09hms
11-13-2009, 06:39 PM
I agree that frontcourt scoring will be crucial. We cannot afford to be playing 5 on 3 this year, nor should that ever be the case.

Miles seems to be our only hope for that physical in-your-face post player, unless Zoubs shows us something radically different this year, especially after his first full healthy offseason

Bob Green
11-13-2009, 10:42 PM
Ballhandling: Jon Scheyer was perfect dealing out four assists with zero turnovers. Singler had two assists and two turnovers. Overall, Duke dished out 16 assists while turning the ball over 13 times. That isn't bad taking into consideration Nolan Smith did not play. Five of the turnovers were committed by Lance Thomas.

Inside scoring: Seeing as we towered over UNC-G, I'll temper my optimism from tonight's results. However, Zoubek with 14 points and 7 rebounds, Thomas with 12 points and 7 rebounds, Miles Plumlee with 10 points and 9 rebounds, and Czyz with 6 points and 6 rebounds isn't shabby. I was impressed with Czyz's performance and it looks like he can be a contributor as a sophomore. He had a couple of nice steals in the game which is always a good way to catch Coach K's eye and earn playing time.

There are real challenges ahead in the NIT Season Tip-Off games, which will give us a more solid indication of where the team's strengths are and how we're going to approach the game this season. Basketball season has started and I'm pumped up as usual.

Here is the Boxscore: http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=204833205

superdave
11-16-2009, 11:01 PM
Inside scoring was a little off tonight. I saw our big guys get some rebounds and stick backs, but very few classic post ups. That's got to improve. Hopefully Nolan's return will help open things up via penetration and the big guys can get some easy buckets.

Miles can dunk in traffic. I'm not sure we have had guys who can dunk in traffic a whole lot lately. I'd like to see him get more touches on the offensive end!

Edouble
11-16-2009, 11:53 PM
Miles can dunk in traffic. I'm not sure we have had guys who can dunk in traffic a whole lot lately. I'd like to see him get more touches on the offensive end!

I noticed this too. I see Mason as being the more skilled of the two big men, but if Miles can turn into sort of an athletic, scary garbage guy like a Hakeem Warrick or Christ Porter type, that would be great for the team.

SoCalDukeFan
11-16-2009, 11:56 PM
1. Will we be able to handle quick guards?

2. How good will Kyle be playing outside?

3. Who will step out and score besides Jon and Kyle?

I think that the answer to 2 is very very very good. 1 and 3 are real quesiton marks for me.
SoCal

superdave
11-17-2009, 09:16 AM
1. Will we be able to handle quick guards?

2. How good will Kyle be playing outside?

3. Who will step out and score besides Jon and Kyle?

I think that the answer to 2 is very very very good. 1 and 3 are real quesiton marks for me.
SoCal

Nolan can handle quick guards. And hopefully Lance can out there too. But with our size inside, guards may not find a whole lot if they get past their initial defender. Although we could be vulnerable to solid 3-pt shooting teams with drive and kicks.

As for Singler playing outside, we need him to drive the ball a lot to help create for others. We know he can knock down the 3 (as long as he doesnt fall in love with it too much) and we saw against Coastal that he score off a screen-curl/pick-pop. But he needs to get buckets for his teammates to make this team reach another level.

From what I hear, Nolan is the the 3rd scoring option, if not the 2nd. But I also think MP1, MP3 and Andre can average 10 points a game each, and we'll need them to. We should be able to average 85 ppg with this talent which is a little more than the past few years. Getting easy buckets on fast breaks and dunks inside are what I'll be looking for.

Jumbo
11-29-2009, 08:45 PM
It's hard to believe that it's been just 16 days since I started this thread and we had no idea what the team would look like. Clearly, we got to enjoy two terrific weeks of basketball since then, and had some of our initial questions answered. So let's take a look back at some of those initial issues before moving on to Phase II.

1) Can Duke stay healthy?
We already knew about Mason Plumlee's injury when I wrote that and, thankfully, no one else went down. There were cuts and bruises and tweaks, but everyone is playing and Mason is on his way back. Knock on wood.

2) So, speaking of Mason, when will he be back?
Sounds like it could be as early as Wednesday against Wisconsin. If not, I'l be shocked if he's not ready for Gardner-Webb, which would allow him to get his feet wet before meeting Gonzaga at MSG.

3) So without Mason, what does Duke do?
I followed this up by briefly discussing who would play in his absence, but spent most of the time dwelling on Duke's style of play, and how plans would change without a key cog.
On the personnel front, we got to see some of Czyz, and if nothing else, we know that he can contribute in a pinch. He might not be ready to face elite teams yet -- or at least not as ready as the deep frontcourt in front of him -- but he's far more comfortable than last year and, should Duke face another injury or foul trouble, he can help. And we got a longer look at Ryan Kelly that we otherwise would have. I was actually more impressed than I expected, at least against the weaker teams -- remember, I did not think he'd be part of the rotation against top opponents -- particularly with his ball skills. He definitely needs to get stronger, his D is lacking and he's clearly not quick. But, eventually, he'll be a really nice fit playing the high post at 6'10". He'll settle into a spot behind both Plumlees, Zoubek and Thomas in the rotation, though, which probably only means spot duty against good teams, save for foul/injury problems.

As far as Duke's style goes, I was much more impressed by Duke's D without Mason than I expected. Clearly, though, Duke missed him a great deal on offense, and never fully adjusted without him. The hi-lo game wasn't utilized much against ASU or UConn, nor did Duke run as much pure motion. The team adjusted, and played a bit more conventionally. And one of my other suggestions -- pushing Dawkins to play more early and go small with 3 guards and Kyle at the 4 -- was effective. So Duke should be even more versatile down the line.

4) Will Nolan Smith's absence in the first two games matter?
Well, it mattered, but really only in a good way. It gave some other guys a chance to get some playing time and showed players how to overcome adversity -- albeit against inferior competition. And Nolan came back energized, which carried right over to the team.

5) Can Ryan Kelly (and maybe Olek Czyz) surprise with an unexpected opportunity for playing time?
As I said, Kelly mildly surprised me with his poise against the weaker teams and his passing ability. But neither did anything so special to warrant changing the blueprint for the season.

6) How much will Duke look to run?
A good amount. Obviously, Duke had an easy time getting into transition against the weaker teams. Fast break baskets were hard to find against ASU. But the beginning of the UConn game had a great pace to it, and one of the things that impressed me most about Jon Scheyer was his ability to control tempo. It's clear that he wants to run, that's he's most comfortable in the open floor. But when the situation warrants, he'll slow it down, and he shifts into a lower gear so easily that it makes everyone else's transition easier. But this team has a much better ability to run than some people anticipated, and it will only get better with Mason back.

7) How will Scheyer's shot look?
Here's more of what I wrote on this topic: "As you all know, I'm not worried about Jon Scheyer running the point. As I've said hundreds of times, he is at his best with the ball in his hands, and so is Duke. But I do worry if all the pressure on him -- to create, to play close to 40 minutes, to maintain his high level of D, to lead -- will place a strain on his jumper. Last year I thought he had some mechanical flaws -- the limited video I saw during the exhibition season showed that he might have fixed them. But we all remember the prolonged slump he went through in the middle of last season. Duke needs him to consistently knock down jumpers this year -- let's see if he's up to the task."

I certainly feel like Scheyer validated my thoughts about his running the point. And I'm not as concerned about his jumper as I was. His form isn't quite as pretty as JJ's was or Andre's is, he's still not automatic when he's open, but he's been knocking down big jumpers. And it sure seems like an abnormal number of his threes have been halfway down before popping back out. If he can get to the point where a wide-open three is almost automatic, his game will elevate to yet another level, as will Duke's.

8) Will Thomas and Zoubek show us something we haven't seen yet?
Yes! Granted, they showed us some thing's we'd seen before (bringing the ball down low and getting stripped, traveling, etc.) but both guys are obviously coming off huge games against UConn. That was the most "athletic" (there's that word again) I've seen Lance look -- maybe ever. He was active on the boards, challenging/blocking shots, etc. As I expected, he is embracing a defensive stopper role, and will have even more of an opportunity to stick to that job if Mason comes back strong and he's able to come off the bench to shut down whomever starts out hot. And I really enjoyed seeing him take those 15-footers; keep shooting!

And Brian's never going to be a great player, but he's doing a better job of holding his position, which is resulting in much better rebounding. And on offense, he's actually a good passer out of the post -- but only when he gets regular touches. When he's not in the flow, he uses his rare opportunities to force post moves. But against UConn, for instance, he got the ball a lot and really passed it well. Glad to see both guys add a couple of new-ish wrinkles to their games.

9) Does something have to give for Kyle Singler?
Again, here's the full text of what I wrote: "Like Scheyer, Singler basically will have to do it all. Granted, if he can go the distance three straight days in the ACC Tourney (as he did in March), he can pretty much do anything. But still, he'll have to handle the ball, score inside and out, guard perimeter players, play virtually the entire game -- that's a heavy burden. Pay attention to whether anything suffers, whether its his defense, energy, maybe some foul trouble. This guy has answered every challenge in his career so far. Now, especially without Mason Plumlee playing alongside him, he has even more responsibility."

A pessimist would point to his performance in MSG -- particularly against MSG -- and suggest that all of the added responsibility is affecting his scoring. I'm not sure I buy that. He has always logged heavy minutes, he wasn't chasing down a top scorer playing perimeter D, and the ball-handling responsibilities weren't so heavy. I think he was just off. So, no, I'm not ready to declare that something has to give for Singler, although I think his life is another one that will get easier with the return of Mason Plumlee.

10) What kind of an edge will the guys bring to the court?
No question was answered more positively than this one. The team played with a huge edge, chip, confidence level -- whatever you want to call it. They were physical, poised, experienced and tight -- the chemistry level was palpable. This might, above all else, the thing to be most excited about after the first phase of the season.

Great job, Duke! NIT Tip-Off champs and a 6-0 record. Hopefully the team can build from this start, and with that in mind, I'll be back with Phase II in the next day or two.

Hermy-own
11-29-2009, 08:57 PM
Thanks, Jumbo. I enjoy reading the analysis. Just wanted you to know your efforts are appreciated.

Jumbo
11-29-2009, 09:02 PM
Thanks, Jumbo. I enjoy reading the analysis. Just wanted you to know your efforts are appreciated.

Thank you!

BlueintheFace
11-29-2009, 09:10 PM
I just want to reiterate ONE thing in the wake of the UConn game.

Duke just beat a team with TWO very quick and talented guards who like to run as well as athletic big men .... and they did so on an off shooting night. This has been Worst Case Scenario in March for the last few years.

Ask yourself this question. What kind of team IS built to beat Duke this year when the team brings heart and effort to the game? ... and how many of them are out there?

Feeling a little excited?

Me too.

Ultrarunner
11-29-2009, 09:26 PM
I10) What kind of an edge will the guys bring to the court?
No question was answered more positively than this one. The team played with a huge edge, chip, confidence level -- whatever you want to call it. They were physical, poised, experienced and tight -- the chemistry level was palpable. This might, above all else, the thing to be most excited about after the first phase of the season.

I think this is the biggest change that I see in the team and you were alluding to it prior to the season starting. The big jump in Lance and Brian aren't the physical tools but what's happening in their heads.

It's hard to imagine Duke as the underdog but that's the role they're playing. For the seniors, it's put up or shut up time and they seem to have collectively decided to leave in all on the court.

I don't know how the season will finish (somebody on another thread said something to the effect of "when they lose in the Sweet 16, Elite 8 or FF...". I'm not willing to concede the loss yet and, more importantly, neither is this Duke team. It's going to be a pleasure watching them and especially the seniors.

Wander
11-29-2009, 09:33 PM
Ask yourself this question. What kind of team IS built to beat Duke this year when the team brings heart and effort to the game? ... and how many of them are out there?

As I mentioned somewhere else Duke's two biggest weaknesses so far this season are a thin backcourt and a poor ability to draw fouls. The first one won't get better throughout the season, the second one we can work on.

How many teams can take advantage of this? Probably not too many. Hopefully we dodge Villanova this time around... UNC, Syracuse, Tennessee, West Virginia and Purdue are some examples of highly ranked teams that don't scare me too much though.

feldspar
11-29-2009, 09:46 PM
9) Does something have to give for Kyle Singler?
Like Scheyer, Singler basically will have to do it all. Granted, if he can go the distance three straight days in the ACC Tourney (as he did in March), he can pretty much do anything. But still, he'll have to handle the ball, score inside and out, guard perimeter players, play virtually the entire game -- that's a heavy burden. Pay attention to whether anything suffers, whether its his defense, energy, maybe some foul trouble. This guy has answered every challenge in his career so far. Now, especially without Mason Plumlee playing alongside him, he has even more responsibility.

I'm pleased to see that this hasn't been true. Lance, Miles, Nolan and Andre have all stepped up to collectively fill voids in Singler's game over the last few games.

Greg_Newton
11-29-2009, 10:23 PM
I think this is the biggest change that I see in the team and you were alluding to it prior to the season starting. The big jump in Lance and Brian aren't the physical tools but what's happening in their heads.

I really like the idea of us having a bullying, bruising frontcourt that can just attack and rotate bodies in and out as needed without much dropoff. I hadn't really thought of it that way until the UConn game, but just having someone like Zoubek (7'1 260+) come in and throw his weight around for a few minutes without having to worry one bit about fouling out is a huge luxury to have.

I think this will pay huge dividends against teams with one or two hotshot frontcourt players but not much depth. Even ignoring Kelly, we have 4 ACC frontcourt starters that are either big, athletic, or both... we can simply out-effort and out-physical opponents and wear them down. We've been so focused on finding the next Elton, the next banger, the next post scorer, whatever, that we sometimes overlook this type of strength - we could very much have the more effective overall frontcourt against a team like GT or FSU, even if we don't look as pretty or have the big-time individual talents.

It's an exciting prospect that we haven't dealt with in a while.

Sir Stealth
11-29-2009, 11:07 PM
I love this team's versatility. After UCONN, nobody can say "Duke can't win if the outside shots aren't falling." Duke can win in many, many different ways. "Poise" seems to be a word that is coming up a lot, and that's often what wins tough college basketball games. I also love to see the team hitting it's free throws. I hope that Mason is fully healed when he comes back cause I'm excited to see what the guy can bring.

NSDukeFan
11-30-2009, 08:22 AM
I love this team's versatility. After UCONN, nobody can say "Duke can't win if the outside shots aren't falling." Duke can win in many, many different ways. "Poise" seems to be a word that is coming up a lot, and that's often what wins tough college basketball games. I also love to see the team hitting it's free throws. I hope that Mason is fully healed when he comes back cause I'm excited to see what the guy can bring.

I agree with you that one of my favorite things about the UConn game was that we beat an athletic team when we weren't shooting well. We are going to have several games where our shots aren't falling for stretches or a good portion of games. When these occur against good teams, we need to find another way to win. Rebounding, defense, easy hoops can all be keys in that type of game. I hope we play with that same kind of edge Jumbo alluded to.
The other thing I was most pleased with were the great contributions by Lance and Zoubs during this phase. I am looking forward to the discussion about our next phase.

NYDukie
11-30-2009, 08:39 AM
I agree with most of the points by Jumbo and of many of the posters. My one curiousity is going to be the development or continued development of the bench. I think the next few weeks may be telling when we play Wisconsin and Gonzaga and others. Mason's return will provide for more depth but will Dawkins and Kelly's time be shortened along with compromising their further development for the sake of beating the Badgers, Zags or others in December? In addition, who really knows what Mason's impact will truly be until he is on the court? I think he will be fine but their is a lot of hype to live up to amongst many posters. It may take some time to get back into it for himand find his niche or maybe not but we should be patient there.

Overall, I think this a very important question because such bench development not only affects the said players above but also the fatigue and injury factor for guys like Smith, Scheyer and Singler. This has been the one area for a while which I don't agree with how Coach K manages. I think he places too much value or equal value on games in December rather than thinking about the big picture. A loss now, if it was to occur, in order to develop the players needed to contribute and support the core players later in the year is not the worse thing. I know it sounds blasphemous to some but I think this has been an area of weakness much of the past number of years and here is the perfect opportunity to build this team up because it is apparant this team is better than originally anticipated but that certain parts also need further development to continue to the teams ultimate goal.

This is just my thoughts and I would like to hear some of yours regarding this also in conjuction with comments related to Jumbo's "phase" analysis.

NSDukeFan
11-30-2009, 10:14 AM
I agree with most of the points by Jumbo and of many of the posters. My one curiousity is going to be the development or continued development of the bench. ...

Overall, I think this a very important question because such bench development not only affects the said players above but also the fatigue and injury factor for guys like Smith, Scheyer and Singler. This has been the one area for a while which I don't agree with how Coach K manages. I think he places too much value or equal value on games in December rather than thinking about the big picture. A loss now, if it was to occur, in order to develop the players needed to contribute and support the core players later in the year is not the worse thing. I know it sounds blasphemous to some but I think this has been an area of weakness much of the past number of years and here is the perfect opportunity to build this team up because it is apparant this team is better than originally anticipated but that certain parts also need further development to continue to the teams ultimate goal.

This is just my thoughts and I would like to hear some of yours regarding this also in conjuction with comments related to Jumbo's "phase" analysis.

I agree with you that bench development is very important and you make some great points. My impression is that it is just a matter of different philosophies between how you (and many other posters) would like to see this and the coaching staff's perspective. I think part of it is we, as fans, don't see practise and cannot see how players are developing there and would like to see it in games.

It sounds like (from K's earlier conversation with Jay Bilas and Jay's points during his broadcast) K agrees that having Jon, Kyle and Smith fresh at the end of the year is a priority. He seems to feel that playing them 40 minutes or close to it early in the season will help their fitness so they are ready to play the full game if needed at the end.

The other difference between K's philosophy and many fans appears to be in terms of the value of early games to develop the bench vs. the regular rotation. While fans feel it is imperative that bench players get minutes so they will be prepared later in the year, K seems to feel it is most important that his main rotation is as solid as possible and gets those repetitions in games together. It appears he feels bench players can improve in practice and don't necessarily have to show it in games before they are ready for game action. He also seems to have a philosophy that it is better to take lessons from winning than from losing and it is always better to play hard and win. He appears to always demand intensity and focus, even in early season games, so that when that is necessary at the end of the year, it is ingrained in the players. This is in contrast to some who feel that it is better to build up, take early season losses if necessary to get lots of players repetitions in games.

This is my impression of a couple of the major differences between K's philosophy and some other coaches and people on this board. Please correct me if I am wrong especially on my impressions of K's coaching philosophies.

jv001
11-30-2009, 10:17 AM
The last point Jumbo made is a good reason to be excited about this team. They seem to have a chip on their shoulder. I don't know if it comes from being told they are not athletic, next year's team is going to be terrific or from some media types saying it's the same old Duke(soft). I believe they really like each other and are more of a family. Jon and Lance are good leaders and should get praised for it. Let's beat Wisconsin. Go Duke!

NYDukie
11-30-2009, 10:29 AM
I agree with you that bench development is very important and you make some great points. My impression is that it is just a matter of different philosophies between how you (and many other posters) would like to see this and the coaching staff's perspective. I think part of it is we, as fans, don't see practise and cannot see how players are developing there and would like to see it in games.

It sounds like (from K's earlier conversation with Jay Bilas and Jay's points during his broadcast) K agrees that having Jon, Kyle and Smith fresh at the end of the year is a priority. He seems to feel that playing them 40 minutes or close to it early in the season will help their fitness so they are ready to play the full game if needed at the end.

The other difference between K's philosophy and many fans appears to be in terms of the value of early games to develop the bench vs. the regular rotation. While fans feel it is imperative that bench players get minutes so they will be prepared later in the year, K seems to feel it is most important that his main rotation is as solid as possible and gets those repetitions in games together. It appears he feels bench players can improve in practice and don't necessarily have to show it in games before they are ready for game action. He also seems to have a philosophy that it is better to take lessons from winning than from losing and it is always better to play hard and win. He appears to always demand intensity and focus, even in early season games, so that when that is necessary at the end of the year, it is ingrained in the players. This is in contrast to some who feel that it is better to build up, take early season losses if necessary to get lots of players repetitions in games.

This is my impression of a couple of the major differences between K's philosophy and some other coaches and people on this board. Please correct me if I am wrong especially on my impressions of K's coaching philosophies.

I agree with your assertations, specifically those for which Coach K probably values, hence why he is the hall of fame coach and we are just posters...LOL I 100% agree in that since we do not see practices, do not associate with the players and know their mental makeup we therefore do not know some of the intricacies that go into developing a team, bench and individuals. I just happen to see some questionable theories in Coach K's statements, both this year and in the past in that having the core players player excessive minutes builds up their stamina. I just have a hard time buying that. To me that is what the off season and practice is for whereas the actual game grind is different IMO. Maybe my eyes are deceiving me and what I have seen in the past may be incorrect, but what I have seen especially the past 5-7 years are teams that peak early and often in their respective seasons only to peter out and look tired at the end compared to other teams they face, either in a win or loss (ie. NCAAs). Again, as you pointed out, it is clearly a philosophical point of view by Coach K in developing a bench compared to other coaches and less importantly us posters but just something that I find compelling in this teams development. I know many point out that coaches adjust to the makeup of their rosters, etc. and I just think that this may be one area where Coach K could change. Again, I do not pretend to know all the details of the team's makeup, etc. but just go by what I see during the games on TV and what I read. This is why Coach K is a hall of famer and paid the big bucks!

jv001
11-30-2009, 10:35 AM
I agree with your assertations, specifically those for which Coach K probably values, hence why he is the hall of fame coach and we are just posters...LOL I 100% agree in that since we do not see practices, do not associate with the players and know their mental makeup we therefore do not know some of the intricacies that go into developing a team, bench and individuals. I just happen to see some questionable theories in Coach K's statements, both this year and in the past in that having the core players player excessive minutes builds up their stamina. I just have a hard time buying that. To me that is what the off season and practice is for whereas the actual game grind is different IMO. Maybe my eyes are deceiving me and what I have seen in the past may be incorrect, but what I have seen especially the past 5-7 years are teams that peak early and often in their respective seasons only to peter out and look tired at the end compared to other teams they face, either in a win or loss (ie. NCAAs). Again, as you pointed out, it is clearly a philosophical point of view by Coach K in developing a bench compared to other coaches and less importantly us posters but just something that I find compelling in this teams development. I know many point out that coaches adjust to the makeup of their rosters, etc. and I just think that this may be one area where Coach K could change. Again, I do not pretend to know all the details of the team's makeup, etc. but just go by what I see during the games on TV and what I read. This is why Coach K is a hall of famer and paid the big bucks!

And I could be dead wrong in this. I worry about opposing coaches in their recruiting telling a recruit that Coach K does not play his freshmen. It probably happens more than we think and 17 year old high school players think they are ready for the NBA now. Like I said I could be wrong. Go Duke!

airowe
11-30-2009, 10:44 AM
I agree with your assertations, specifically those for which Coach K probably values, hence why he is the hall of fame coach and we are just posters...LOL I 100% agree in that since we do not see practices, do not associate with the players and know their mental makeup we therefore do not know some of the intricacies that go into developing a team, bench and individuals. I just happen to see some questionable theories in Coach K's statements, both this year and in the past in that having the core players player excessive minutes builds up their stamina. I just have a hard time buying that. To me that is what the off season and practice is for whereas the actual game grind is different IMO. Maybe my eyes are deceiving me and what I have seen in the past may be incorrect, but what I have seen especially the past 5-7 years are teams that peak early and often in their respective seasons only to peter out and look tired at the end compared to
other teams they face, either in a win or loss (ie. NCAAs). Again, as you pointed out, it is clearly a philosophical point of view by Coach K in developing a bench compared to other coaches and less importantly us posters but just something that I find compelling in this teams development. I know many point out that coaches adjust to the makeup of their rosters, etc. and I just think that this may be one area where Coach K could change. Again, I do not pretend to know all the details of the team's makeup, etc. but just go by what I see during the games on TV and what I read. This is why Coach K is a hall of famer and paid the big bucks!

Remember too that as Jumbo and others have said, this team is implementing a new style of offense. Scheyer was only put at the point with 8 games remaining in the regular season last year and we lost Gerald and Elliott, not to mention Paulus and McClure. The shortened minutes for guys like Kelly and Olek may be due to Coach making sure the core guys have the new system down and can play it in their sleep. Possibly after this weekend and Wednesday's game, we'll see a deeper bench, and it won't be simply because we have one more body.

Although it hasn't been said, I think the coaching style you are comparing K's to is roy's, but remember how much continuity those guys have had over the last 4 years. We'll see how that deep bench plays out this year with guys learning to be comfortable in a new system.

jgehtland
11-30-2009, 11:12 AM
And I could be dead wrong in this. I worry about opposing coaches in their recruiting telling a recruit that Coach K does not play his freshmen. It probably happens more than we think and 17 year old high school players think they are ready for the NBA now. Like I said I could be wrong. Go Duke!

Don't worry about this. If the recruit is dumb enough to believe that, they are dumb enough to not get into college. :)

I mean, just look at history here: Dawkins, Smith, Singler, Scheyer, Paulus, McRoberts, Deng, Redick, Williams, Dunleavy, Williams, Boozer, Brand, Maggette, Battier, Burgess, Langdon. These are just the off-the-top-of-my-head freshmen who have started or played major minutes in the last decade. There are a ton more who got shorter, but useful, burn: Zoubek, Thomas, McClure, Ewing, Randolph, etc.

Every team has a few freshmen who don't get a lot of burn. Just because Roy insists that everybody including the waterboy gets 5 minutes a game, doesn't mean that K doesn't play his freshmen. It just means he doesn't play them all.

superdave
11-30-2009, 11:54 AM
I really like the idea of us having a bullying, bruising frontcourt that can just attack and rotate bodies in and out as needed without much dropoff. I hadn't really thought of it that way until the UConn game, but just having someone like Zoubek (7'1 260+) come in and throw his weight around for a few minutes without having to worry one bit about fouling out is a huge luxury to have.


Completely agree. Zoubek is certainly limited in some aspects of his game, but his ability to knock guys around in the lane could be a game-changer for us (see Pittman, Dexter) and his passing out of the post has been a real asset.

I look forward to seeing Zoubek play against GT, FSU and UNC this year. I'd like to see some bruises and blood!

Jumbo
11-30-2009, 12:37 PM
I agree with most of the points by Jumbo and of many of the posters. My one curiousity is going to be the development or continued development of the bench. I think the next few weeks may be telling when we play Wisconsin and Gonzaga and others. Mason's return will provide for more depth but will Dawkins and Kelly's time be shortened along with compromising their further development for the sake of beating the Badgers, Zags or others in December? In addition, who really knows what Mason's impact will truly be until he is on the court? I think he will be fine but their is a lot of hype to live up to amongst many posters. It may take some time to get back into it for himand find his niche or maybe not but we should be patient there.

Overall, I think this a very important question because such bench development not only affects the said players above but also the fatigue and injury factor for guys like Smith, Scheyer and Singler. This has been the one area for a while which I don't agree with how Coach K manages. I think he places too much value or equal value on games in December rather than thinking about the big picture. A loss now, if it was to occur, in order to develop the players needed to contribute and support the core players later in the year is not the worse thing. I know it sounds blasphemous to some but I think this has been an area of weakness much of the past number of years and here is the perfect opportunity to build this team up because it is apparant this team is better than originally anticipated but that certain parts also need further development to continue to the teams ultimate goal.

This is just my thoughts and I would like to hear some of yours regarding this also in conjuction with comments related to Jumbo's "phase" analysis.


I agree with your assertations, specifically those for which Coach K probably values, hence why he is the hall of fame coach and we are just posters...LOL I 100% agree in that since we do not see practices, do not associate with the players and know their mental makeup we therefore do not know some of the intricacies that go into developing a team, bench and individuals. I just happen to see some questionable theories in Coach K's statements, both this year and in the past in that having the core players player excessive minutes builds up their stamina. I just have a hard time buying that. To me that is what the off season and practice is for whereas the actual game grind is different IMO. Maybe my eyes are deceiving me and what I have seen in the past may be incorrect, but what I have seen especially the past 5-7 years are teams that peak early and often in their respective seasons only to peter out and look tired at the end compared to other teams they face, either in a win or loss (ie. NCAAs). Again, as you pointed out, it is clearly a philosophical point of view by Coach K in developing a bench compared to other coaches and less importantly us posters but just something that I find compelling in this teams development. I know many point out that coaches adjust to the makeup of their rosters, etc. and I just think that this may be one area where Coach K could change. Again, I do not pretend to know all the details of the team's makeup, etc. but just go by what I see during the games on TV and what I read. This is why Coach K is a hall of famer and paid the big bucks!

I don't want to get into a whole "depth" thing, especially since I have a Phase II missive that I keep putting off. But I don't think these concerns are legitimate at all.

For one, Duke currently has one recruited, scholarship player who you would say isn't part of the rotation -- Olek Czyz. And that's basically because there are already four players ahead of him in the post.

Secondly, Andre Dawkins is already getting a lot of minutes, and those minutes won't decrease with Mason Plumlee on board. He is our only pure perimeter reserve, and his shooting range is a key asset for this team. Duke is going to play at least eight guys regularly with Mason back, and Andre will be among them. And even if K were to shorten that to seven guys, a big guy would lose minutes before Andre. In fact, here's what K said about Andre (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22726&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=204841093)after the UConn game:
"The other kid I want to mention is Andre Dawkins Both of these games he didn't play like a freshman. He was very, very good, very good in both games. And that gives us a little bit more depth on the perimeter ... He got good time today. He's playing behind our three best players. So the fact he's going to be the first guy off the bench. He can play off those guys because he's as good a shooter as we have. And then if we ever did want to go small and put Kyle at the four, he could be ‑‑ we did have that lineup in for a little bit.
But then the fouls ‑‑ actually, we got a big bucket when we had Kyle at the four. And then we got in foul trouble and we had to get away from it. Andre has been really good for us."

Thirdly, Ryan Kelly might be the one guy who finds himself out of the rotation. But that's largely because he'd be the fifth-best guy fighting for playing time at two positions. There just aren't enough minutes to go around in the post to make that happen. And Ryan hasn't shown that he's ready to be a factor against top teams yet. So if he fades to the bench, and Duke is playing eight guys regularly, that's not much of an issue. Besides, the development he needs most will take place in the weight room, not the court.

And that leads to my final point -- the one I make every year when this argument comes up. Playing in games is not the only way to develop a player. In fact, sometimes it hurts a player if he's overmatched and begins to repeat mistakes and lose confidence. Bottom line is Duke will go at least eight deep with Mason back, which is more than enough off the bench. There plenty of things to be concerned about, but playing time for Olek Czyz and even Ryank Kelly shouldn't be among them.

oldnavy
11-30-2009, 01:34 PM
I notice a lot of concern on this thread and on others about playing too many minutes early in the season taking a toll later in the season.

I disagree with that premise. These kids are 18-20 year old studs that can run all day. Playing 40 minutes of basketball (with time outs and a half time) 35+ times over a 12 week season will not tire players of this caliber out. The wear and tear occurs during practice over the course of the season. I believe that K has even mentioned that he has to adjust the intensity of practices based on the depth of his bench. IF Jon and Nolan and Kyle all have to play 40 minutes each night, then so be it. I doubt that it will matter much come March, because K will give them the rest they need during practices. If I remember correctly Laettner and Hurley both played large minutes in both NC seasons and that worked out all right.

NYDukie
11-30-2009, 01:37 PM
I don't want to get into a whole "depth" thing, especially since I have a Phase II missive that I keep putting off. But I don't think these concerns are legitimate at all.

I have to respectively disagree on whether the development of "depth" is not a legitimate concern. I am by no means saying we have to be 10 guys deep but to compete on a championship level I do think it is important to have 8 guys to trust and another one or two in case of an emergency in order to offset fatigue setting in while relying on a core group of guys and if fouls to come into play. A few comments on what you did bring up.

Andre Dawkins is a pleasant surprise and I agree he probably will be a fixture in the rotation based on his skill set and what he brings to the table barring a total meltdown which I do not foresee. Whatever MPII brings to the table should not impact his playing time.

Then, lets say Ryan Kelly falls out of the rotation for whatever reason, then that leaves Dawkins, Zoubek and MPII as the "rotation" guys. I am fine with this ultimately being the trusted 8 but this group should be the core we go with come ACC and NCAA tourney time in my opinion. During the season I think developing Kelly and even Olek to a lesser degree is important for various reasons. One being that we know Zoubs has a tendency to get into quick foul trouble thus not allowing us to really know what type of minutes to expect game to game. The same can be said of Miles and even Lance which we saw in the UConn game. I know we have Mason coming back but we have to see what impact the wrist injury had and what role he develops into before we assume he will be one of top 3-4 guys on the team. This is why I think Kelly getting some time on a semi-regular basis is important so that the rotation has flexibility.

Finally, I do agree that there is a learning factor and value associated to practices but much with anything we do, real life or game experience cannot be compared. Yes, depending on the mental makeup of a player, that could be a factor. And I will leave it to Coach K and the staff to decide that but dismiss the value of a productive bench given the teams past shortcomings and fatigued play is a bit naive.

But all in all I do agree with your assessments other than the bench development....LOL You can say we agree to disagree there:)

Jumbo
11-30-2009, 01:49 PM
I have to respectively disagree on whether the development of "depth" is not a legitimate concern. I am by no means saying we have to be 10 guys deep but to compete on a championship level I do think it is important to have 8 guys to trust and another one or two in case of an emergency in order to offset fatigue setting in while relying on a core group of guys and if fouls to come into play. A few comments on what you did bring up.

Andre Dawkins is a pleasant surprise and I agree he probably will be a fixture in the rotation based on his skill set and what he brings to the table barring a total meltdown which I do not foresee. Whatever MPII brings to the table should not impact his playing time.

Then, lets say Ryan Kelly falls out of the rotation for whatever reason, then that leaves Dawkins, Zoubek and MPII as the "rotation" guys. I am fine with this ultimately being the trusted 8 but this group should be the core we go with come ACC and NCAA tourney time in my opinion. During the season I think developing Kelly and even Olek to a lesser degree is important for various reasons. One being that we know Zoubs has a tendency to get into quick foul trouble thus not allowing us to really know what type of minutes to expect game to game. The same can be said of Miles and even Lance which we saw in the UConn game. I know we have Mason coming back but we have to see what impact the wrist injury had and what role he develops into before we assume he will be one of top 3-4 guys on the team. This is why I think Kelly getting some time on a semi-regular basis is important so that the rotation has flexibility.

Finally, I do agree that there is a learning factor and value associated to practices but much with anything we do, real life or game experience cannot be compared. Yes, depending on the mental makeup of a player, that could be a factor. And I will leave it to Coach K and the staff to decide that but dismiss the value of a productive bench given the teams past shortcomings and fatigued play is a bit naive.

But all in all I do agree with your assessments other than the bench development....LOL You can say we agree to disagree there:)

If Zoubek and Lance and Miles ALL get in foul trouble, we still have Mason, unlike in the UConn game. And Kelly can play in that situation.

But I really don't understand what you mean by "develop." Does that purely mean giving them minutes in every game? If so, how many minutes are enough to "develop" a guy? And, where will those minutes come from? Duke will already be playing 4 bigs regularly -- Miles, Mason, Lance and Zoubs. Neither Czyz nor Kelly should be playing on the perimeter. So where are you going to find those minutes so they consistently see the court?

CDu
11-30-2009, 02:04 PM
If Zoubek and Lance and Miles ALL get in foul trouble, we still have Mason, unlike in the UConn game. And Kelly can play in that situation.

But I really don't understand what you mean by "develop." Does that purely mean giving them minutes in every game? If so, how many minutes are enough to "develop" a guy? And, where will those minutes come from? Duke will already be playing 4 bigs regularly -- Miles, Mason, Lance and Zoubs. Neither Czyz nor Kelly should be playing on the perimeter. So where are you going to find those minutes so they consistently see the court?

Agreed. If one of Czyz or Kelly was suited to play on the wing, maybe I'd be more inclined to suggest 5-10 mpg for "development." I say that only because we really only have one reserve wing player (with Thomas picking up time there as well in a pinch), and it's always nice to have two reserves there. I wouldn't be heartbroken if it didn't happen, but it'd be at least worth discussion. But given that both Czyz and Kelly are essentially "4s", that's a moot point.

I think it's good to have a four-man rotation in the two frontcourt spots. We have that once Plumlee returns, with Kelly (or Singler if the guards aren't in foul trouble) filling in spot minutes as needed. That's plenty of depth in the frontcourt. If we have to go deeper than that in a game, odds are good that we're in trouble in that game anyway. So given that, I just don't see the argument for getting more minutes for Kelly and Czyz once Plumlee returns.

NYDukie
11-30-2009, 02:15 PM
If Zoubek and Lance and Miles ALL get in foul trouble, we still have Mason, unlike in the UConn game. And Kelly can play in that situation.

But I really don't understand what you mean by "develop." Does that purely mean giving them minutes in every game? If so, how many minutes are enough to "develop" a guy? And, where will those minutes come from? Duke will already be playing 4 bigs regularly -- Miles, Mason, Lance and Zoubs. Neither Czyz nor Kelly should be playing on the perimeter. So where are you going to find those minutes so they consistently see the court?

Based on what we've seen of both Zoubs and Lance they do, especially Zoubs, have the tendency to get into foul trouble. Miles does commit the silly fouls occasionally too. Depending on how games are called, it can become a factor especially once the quality of opponents increase. Can Kelly play in such a situation? I believe he can but if he becomes an afterthought in the rotation, then I wouldn't expect him to just come in and be effective. Do I think Kelly should get minutes to be developed. Yes I do. He was a McD's All American and has the ability but like many, needs the PT. Should he get 15-20 minutes on a regular basis, no he shouldn't. But 8-10 minutes should be a target unless the game situation says otherwise, at least early on in the season. Whereas, later in the season a tightening of the bench may be warranted. In the end Jumbo, we just have different opinions on what a bench should be like and I respect that.

In all honesty, my primary worry is not the amount PT for Dawkins, MPI, MPII, Lance, Zoubs or Kelly. I'm more concerned with that of Singler, Scheyer and Nolan. If they play on a regular basis 35 minutes or more as some suggest, they will be runned down by year end. Does anyone remember what JJ looked like the end of those last two seasons when he was logging similar minutes? Maybe the better question is how to incorporate the other players time on floor (excluding Kelly for a moment for arguement sake) so that our 3 main players are reasonably fresh at year end? Would 30-32 minutes be a proper target? Food for thought?

And my apologies to somewhat going off on a tangent on this phase thread. I just thought this was or should be a important part of it and my thanks to Jumbo for offering up the thread for some insightful thoughts!

_Gary
11-30-2009, 02:18 PM
I absolutely agree that depth will NOT be an issue this year (barring injuries). We will definitely go 8 deep and Jumbo is right that the only person possibly looking at reduced time would be Kelly for the reasons stated. And we have fouls to give in abundance in the frontcourt - for the first time in many, many years! So there should be no real concern about depth this year. Only injuries, or possibly games where 2 or more of Jon, Nolan and Andre get in big foul trouble, can hurt us depth wise.

Oh, and add me to the list that loves what Andre is doing for us early on. This kid is way better than I initially thought he'd be. He's a huge asset, especially on the offensive end. And while I generally am not in favor of "small ball", I think a line-up of Jon, Nolan, Andre, Kyle and a big (probably Mason) will be something we see in the 2nd half of several games depending on match-ups and game situations. And I have no problem with that at all. :)


Gary

CDu
11-30-2009, 02:24 PM
Based on what we've seen of both Zoubs and Lance they do, especially Zoubs, have the tendency to get into foul trouble. Miles does commit the silly fouls occasionally too. Depending on how games are called, it can become a factor especially once the quality of opponents increase. Can Kelly play in such a situation? I believe he can but if he becomes an afterthought in the rotation, then I wouldn't expect him to just come in and be effective. Do I think Kelly should get minutes to be developed. Yes I do. He was a McD's All American and has the ability but like many, needs the PT. Should he get 15-20 minutes on a regular basis, no he shouldn't. But 8-10 minutes should be a target unless the game situation says otherwise, at least early on in the season. Whereas, later in the season a tightening of the bench may be warranted. In the end Jumbo, we just have different opinions on what a bench should be like and I respect that.

But when Mason Plumlee returns, we will have a guy getting 15-20 minutes per game in addition to Thomas/Miles/Zoubek. There just aren't enough minutes to go around to get 5 guys ~15+ minutes per game, unless they can play the wing. And none of those guys are suited to play the wing (they're all either 4s, 5s, or a hybrid of the two). Kelly will get spot minutes here and there, bu


In all honesty, my primary worry is not the amount PT for Dawkins, MPI, MPII, Lance, Zoubs or Kelly. I'm more concerned with that of Singler, Scheyer and Nolan. If they play on a regular basis 35 minutes or more as some suggest, they will be runned down by year end. Does anyone remember what JJ looked like the end of those last two seasons when he was logging similar minutes? Maybe the better question is how to incorporate the other players time on floor (excluding Kelly for a moment for arguement sake) so that our 3 main players are reasonably fresh at year end? Would 30-32 minutes be a proper target? Food for thought?

It would be great if we had another guard/wing player to fill in and allow the "big 3" a break. Not so much because they'll wear down, but because it would allow them to be more aggressive knowing that there's depth there. Unfortunately, we have only one guy on the bench that should be playing on the wing (Dawkins). Thomas can defend a bit out there, but his offensive game is not that of a wing. So because of that, we're going to continue to see heavy minutes for Scheyer, Smith, and Singler, because those guys are our only true ballhandlers.

We knew this going into the season (or at least we should have known it). Dawkins was more a shooter/scorer than a ballhandler. And while some of our bigs are gifted passers, none are really ballhandlers. So we're going to need 2-3 of Singler/Scheyer/Smith on the court as much as possible to facilitate the offense. They are going to play 35+ minutes in competitive games simply because we really don't have an alternative.

CDu
11-30-2009, 02:27 PM
I absolutely agree that depth will NOT be an issue this year (barring injuries). We will definitely go 8 deep and Jumbo is right that the only person possibly looking at reduced time would be Kelly for the reasons stated. And we have fouls to give in abundance in the frontcourt - for the first time in many, many years! So there should be no real concern about depth this year. Only injuries, or possibly games where 2 or more of Jon, Nolan and Andre get in big foul trouble, can hurt us depth wise.

Oh, and add me to the list that loves what Andre is doing for us early on. This kid is way better than I initially thought he'd be. He's a huge asset, especially on the offensive end. And while I generally am not in favor of "small ball", I think a line-up of Jon, Nolan, Andre, Kyle and a big (probably Mason) will be something we see in the 2nd half of several games depending on match-ups and game situations. And I have no problem with that at all. :)


Gary

The only place in which depth could be an issue is in the backcourt. #1 on Jumbo's Phase I list should probably be #1 on the list for the rest of the season. Any injuries (or foul trouble to multiple wings) to the backcourt will be a major concern all season.

But as far as frontcourt depth is concerned, I agree. We have absolutely no depth issues there. We'll have a very solid 4-man rotation there, with Kelly able to provide spot minutes or matchup minutes.

MChambers
11-30-2009, 02:41 PM
Agreed. If one of Czyz or Kelly was suited to play on the wing, maybe I'd be more inclined to suggest 5-10 mpg for "development." I say that only because we really only have one reserve wing player (with Thomas picking up time there as well in a pinch), and it's always nice to have two reserves there. I wouldn't be heartbroken if it didn't happen, but it'd be at least worth discussion. But given that both Czyz and Kelly are essentially "4s", that's a moot point.

I think it's good to have a four-man rotation in the two frontcourt spots. We have that once Plumlee returns, with Kelly (or Singler if the guards aren't in foul trouble) filling in spot minutes as needed. That's plenty of depth in the frontcourt. If we have to go deeper than that in a game, odds are good that we're in trouble in that game anyway. So given that, I just don't see the argument for getting more minutes for Kelly and Czyz once Plumlee returns.

I think I remember reading that Czyz is learning to play the "3" (if Duke had positions) and this partly explained his lack of playing time, at least last year. This year, we don't really have a natural backup for Kyle at the 3. Andre is a little out of position there, Lance doesn't really have perimeter skills on the offensive end, and Ryan doesn't really have defensive perimeter skills.

I'm not saying Czyz should be playing more. I'll leave that up to the coaches. I don't think we can say he's a 4, however.

CDu
11-30-2009, 02:45 PM
I think I remember reading that Czyz is learning to play the "3" (if Duke had positions) and this partly explained his lack of playing time, at least last year. This year, we don't really have a natural backup for Kyle at the 3. Andre is a little out of position there, Lance doesn't really have perimeter skills on the offensive end, and Ryan doesn't really have defensive perimeter skills.

I'm not saying Czyz should be playing more. I'll leave that up to the coaches. I don't think we can say he's a 4, however.

Well, he was a "5" in high school and is probably a short "4" in college. He's trying to learn to play the "3", but that doesn't mean he's suited to do it. In the limited time he has received, he's looked far more comfortable in the paint than on the perimeter.

Jumbo
11-30-2009, 03:38 PM
Do I think Kelly should get minutes to be developed. Yes I do. He was a McD's All American and has the ability but like many, needs the PT. Should he get 15-20 minutes on a regular basis, no he shouldn't. But 8-10 minutes should be a target unless the game situation says otherwise, at least early on in the season.

1) Why is 8-10 the target? Why is that appropriate for "development?" I just don't understand.

2) Let's say you give Kelly 10 minutes. That now leaves you with 70 minutes at the 4/5 for Miles, Mason, Lance and Zoubs. How do you hand out the rest of those minutes?

Also, I think you said something about the perimeter guys wearing out. I don't believe that will be an issue -- they are all in incredible shape and, as someone else mentioned, it's not the games that wear you out. Whether you play 30 or 35 or 38 minutes twice a week really doesn't matter. Remember, this isn't even similar to the types of minutes we play at the local gym where we end up gassed. These guys have long stoppages every 4 minutes for TV, additional timeouts, a 15-minute halftime, etc. The real worry is the grinding nature of K's practices. And if he says he's taking steps in practice to keep those guys fresh, I believe him. And it's not like we have other options -- Dawkins is our only perimeter reserve. And even if he plays half the game (20 minutes), that means we need each of the other guys to play a combined 100 minutes (33.3 each) to fill in the spots.
And they've shown they can handle it. Remember, Duke won the ACC Tournament with Singler playing 40 minutes every game over three straight days and Scheyer logging 114 minutes. If they had tired legs, you'd expect to see it in their long-range shooting. But Singler was 9-for-19 from 3-point range (47.4%) and Scheyer was 12-for-25 (48%).

jws
11-30-2009, 04:17 PM
1) Why is 8-10 the target? Why is that appropriate for "development?" I just don't understand.

2) Let's say you give Kelly 10 minutes. That now leaves you with 70 minutes at the 4/5 for Miles, Mason, Lance and Zoubs. How do you hand out the rest of those minutes?

Also, I think you said something about the perimeter guys wearing out. I don't believe that will be an issue -- they are all in incredible shape and, as someone else mentioned, it's not the games that wear you out. Whether you play 30 or 35 or 38 minutes twice a week really doesn't matter. Remember, this isn't even similar to the types of minutes we play at the local gym where we end up gassed. These guys have long stoppages every 4 minutes for TV, additional timeouts, a 15-minute halftime, etc. The real worry is the grinding nature of K's practices. And if he says he's taking steps in practice to keep those guys fresh, I believe him. And it's not like we have other options -- Dawkins is our only perimeter reserve. And even if he plays half the game (20 minutes), that means we need each of the other guys to play a combined 100 minutes (33.3 each) to fill in the spots.
And they've shown they can handle it. Remember, Duke won the ACC Tournament with Singler playing 40 minutes every game over three straight days and Scheyer logging 114 minutes. If they had tired legs, you'd expect to see it in their long-range shooting. But Singler was 9-for-19 from 3-point range (47.4%) and Scheyer was 12-for-25 (48%).

I disagree that games don't wear players out. Practice certainly enters into it as well, but players who play a lot of minutes, especially those who are the focus of the opposing team's defense, take a physical beating, are under a lot of stress for longer periods of time, and have to make incredible exertions time after time in order to excel consistently. This is going to take a toll on anyone over the course of a season, and when you get to tournament time at the end of the season, you're playing good team after good team, with little rest in between, and in the NCAA tourney, the second game each weekend is likely to be against a tougher opponent than the first one was.

This was clearly demonstrated to me in 2007, when Roy played Ty Lawson way too many minutes as the season wore on, and Ty completely ran out of gas at the end of the Georgetown game in the Regional Final, and while I didn't follow Duke as closely, I thought exactly the same thing happened to JJ Redick his senior year.

IMO, you have to get your best players enough rest, and do so on a regular basis, or you'll pay for it at the end of the season, when your star needs to reach back for that something extra in order to put you over the top, but it's simply not there.

Not saying it can't be done successfully, because it can and has been, but to have the best odds of going deep in March, you need your best players at peak performance, and I don't think that anyone who's averaged in the 35 mpg neighborhood, especially in a tough, physical conference like the ACC, is likely to be at peak performance, physically or mentally, in the latter stages of March.

tele
11-30-2009, 04:41 PM
Just wondering; how long until we get to phase II? So far, so good!

airowe
11-30-2009, 04:50 PM
I think JJ is really a bad analogy with regards to this team. You have to remember, he was the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th option on that year's team. He was obviously winded but he was also counted on heavily for our success that year. As we've already seen this year, having one or maybe even two of our "Big 3" unable to produce at an exceptional level is not going to make or break this team's chances, even against top tier competition.

The Gordog
11-30-2009, 05:01 PM
Does anyone remember what JJ looked like the end of those last two seasons when he was logging similar minutes?

I remember that JJ was mentally worn out by the pressure of persuing the school and conference scoring records. I think the pressure of having opposing fans scream curses at him was a drain as well.

davekay1971
11-30-2009, 05:01 PM
This was clearly demonstrated to me in 2007, when Roy played Ty Lawson way too many minutes as the season wore on, and Ty completely ran out of gas at the end of the Georgetown game in the Regional Final.

I'm not sure I can buy that Lawson's accumulated PT in the regular season had much to do with the end of the G'Town game. Lawson had several days between games between the season finale and the ACC tournament, then several days between games after the ACC tournament, then 2 games in 3 days, then several days between games before the 2nd round. Of course, the G-town game was a regional final, so the 3rd round game may have taken some gas out of Lawson's tank, but blaming regular season PT on it is a harder case to make.

Jumbo's point is well taken that practice intensity is probably a bigger factor. An extra few minutes per game for 2 games per week (on average) isn't going to matter nearly as much as the nature/intensity/duration of daily practices.

Duvall
11-30-2009, 05:03 PM
I'm not sure I can buy that Lawson's accumulated PT in the regular season had much to do with the end of the G'Town game. Lawson had several days between games between the season finale and the ACC tournament, then several days between games after the ACC tournament, then 2 games in 3 days, then several days between games before the 2nd round. Of course, the G-town game was a regional final, so the 3rd round game may have taken some gas out of Lawson's tank, but blaming regular season PT on it is a harder case to make.

Plus, Lawson was a freshman playing the longest season of his life to that point. I doubt playing him a few less minutes per game would have helped him in March.

Ultrarunner
11-30-2009, 05:05 PM
So if he fades to the bench, and Duke is playing eight guys regularly, that's not much of an issue. Besides, the development he needs most will take place in the weight room, not the court.

And that leads to my final point -- the one I make every year when this argument comes up. Playing in games is not the only way to develop a player. In fact, sometimes it hurts a player if he's overmatched and begins to repeat mistakes and lose confidence.

I just want to add a point to extend what Jumbo already said well. Both Jon and Kyle said that they were tired at the end of their respective freshman campaigns not just because of minutes but also due to the much higher intesity of the games.

Giving freshmen quality minutes to supplement their work in practice or, in Ryan's case, the weight room may make them more effective at the end of the season than forcefeeding them large numbers of minutes that breaks them down faster than they can build back up.

For Andre, he's getting a chance to build his role in multiple facets without the pressure of "carrying" the team unlike Singler his first year or Jon his (though it was much more pronounced with Kyle.) He is already the best shooter on the team but he's getting a chance to build up his skills on defense much of which seems to be recognition. He has the physical tools but isn't reacting fast enough yet. Time will improve that.

Ryan will have a chance to build his way into the rotation without the pressure of needing to contribute immediately as a major force - role he's not suited for yet though he has a very high ceiling. Once he adds strength and can hold his own defensively, he'll probably pick up a few more minutes with next year looking very promising. His passing may yet win a game this year against the right opponent.

Even Mason will likely see more limited minutes, not due to lack of ability but because the team has the luxury of not hurrying him into the line-up.

This is the first time in about 6 years that we haven't had to rely on a freshman for a critical role. Last year, Miles was the solution to the post and the year before Kyle gave us everything he had serving in the post. Jon had his turn and Greg ran the point as a freshman delivering to JJ and Shelden.

We have an experienced cadre of upper classmen to carry the team with the younger players filling roles and growing into the next generation of Duke stars. It's very encouraging which is why I dont understand the doom-and-gloom on the board so often.

The Gordog
11-30-2009, 05:06 PM
I disagree that games don't wear players out. Practice certainly enters into it as well, but players who play a lot of minutes, especially those who are the focus of the opposing team's defense, take a physical beating, are under a lot of stress for longer periods of time, and have to make incredible exertions time after time in order to excel consistently. This is going to take a toll on anyone over the course of a season, and when you get to tournament time at the end of the season, you're playing good team after good team, with little rest in between, and in the NCAA tourney, the second game each weekend is likely to be against a tougher opponent than the first one was.

This was clearly demonstrated to me in 2007, when Roy played Ty Lawson way too many minutes as the season wore on, and Ty completely ran out of gas at the end of the Georgetown game in the Regional Final, and while I didn't follow Duke as closely, I thought exactly the same thing happened to JJ Redick his senior year.

IMO, you have to get your best players enough rest, and do so on a regular basis, or you'll pay for it at the end of the season, when your star needs to reach back for that something extra in order to put you over the top, but it's simply not there.

Not saying it can't be done successfully, because it can and has been, but to have the best odds of going deep in March, you need your best players at peak performance, and I don't think that anyone who's averaged in the 35 mpg neighborhood, especially in a tough, physical conference like the ACC, is likely to be at peak performance, physically or mentally, in the latter stages of March.

Another bad analogy. Lawson was a freshman. I can see how an 18 year old in his first ACC season might get worn down, but not after a year of experience.

Jumbo
11-30-2009, 05:06 PM
Just wondering; how long until we get to phase II? So far, so good!

Phase II starts against Wisconsin. I'll try to write it tonight.

oldnavy
11-30-2009, 05:36 PM
Another bad analogy. Lawson was a freshman. I can see how an 18 year old in his first ACC season might get worn down, but not after a year of experience.

I still think that if anything the fatique is mental not physical. I have been in the gym with guys this age who will play for 3-4 hours a day and exert themselves much more in 3 hours of straight pickup games than 40 minutes of a regulation game.

I will buy into the emotional and mental fatique, but I have a hard time buying that these young men get worn down physically from playing 2-3 games a week. And seriously, how much impact do you think it would have sitting a player for 10 minutes twice a week anyway? That's 20 minutes of rest over 7 days... come on!

Practices are usually much more demanding than any one game, so if a team runs full 2 hour practices 5-6 times a week for 12-14 weeks without a break, that will have much more of a physical impact over the course of a season AND it will impact the emotional/burnout factor as well.

bass-piscator
11-30-2009, 06:01 PM
I have to agree. I can't imagine that K's practices are any walk in the park. I'd be the one at center court bent over gasping for air.

COYS
11-30-2009, 10:01 PM
Practices make all the difference in the world. There's certainly merit to the idea that a combination of a longer season and tough practices can wear down a player. However, as long as practices are handled well, playing 40 minutes twice a week should not be a problem, at all. In fact, I always found that my stamina for games in high school was never an issue late in the season because I was in superb shape for having played the whole season. I never played anywhere close to the level that the guys in Duke Blue played, obviously, and I'm sure my coach's practices were never anything close to what K does, but I never thought twice about how many minutes I played in a game by the end of the season because I always felt I was in great shape. I think mental fatigue is much more dangerous. Also, managing practices is key and we have to trust that the staff knows what its doing.

SilkyJ
11-30-2009, 11:04 PM
But when Mason Plumlee returns, we will have a guy getting 15-20 minutes per game in addition to Thomas/Miles/Zoubek. There just aren't enough minutes to go around to get 5 guys ~15+ minutes per game, unless they can play the wing. And none of those guys are suited to play the wing (they're all either 4s, 5s, or a hybrid of the two). Kelly will get spot minutes here and there, bu


Certainly the $64k question this year. I expect that Zoubs mins will go first, then Lance's. Lance, though, has the ability to play the wing, which you don't seem to think. He's more of a natural 4, but he could certainly play the 3 for a few mins a game where we have to move Singler to SG b/c of foul trouble or if Singler sits b/c of foul trouble, etc.

I am liking what we are seeing out of Miles, so I don't expect his mins to drop. In reality, and this may seem weird, but it may be Mason's minutes that really drop as Lance and Zoubs have asserted themselves so far this year (this would be Mason's expected minutes, so to speak. He was expected to be a starter getting 20+mpg, but now may not get more than 12-15). Zoubs and Lance have not been amazing, but both have been playing well. Being a frosh and missing his first few games, MP2 may not get that much run if he struggles a little to get into the flow while Seniors Lance and Zoubs know their roles and find a way to contribute. We'll see how it all sorts out by Feb/March, but I think Zoubs and Lance will keep seeing the floor for a little. I hope I'm wrong though b/c Duke is more likely to reach its full potential with MP2 playing well.



We knew this going into the season (or at least we should have known it). Dawkins was more a shooter/scorer than a ballhandler. And while some of our bigs are gifted passers, none are really ballhandlers. So we're going to need 2-3 of Singler/Scheyer/Smith on the court as much as possible to facilitate the offense. They are going to play 35+ minutes in competitive games simply because we really don't have an alternative.

MP2 is apparently a good ballhandler and passer. We'll see soon enough!

jws
12-01-2009, 02:46 AM
Another bad analogy. Lawson was a freshman. I can see how an 18 year old in his first ACC season might get worn down, but not after a year of experience.

Not sure I understand your logic.

If playing too many minutes can wear you down when you're 18, why can playing too many minutes no longer wear you down when you're 19?

flyingdutchdevil
12-01-2009, 06:51 AM
Not sure I understand your logic.

If playing too many minutes can wear you down when you're 18, why can playing too many minutes no longer wear you down when you're 19?

Good point. I agree that age allows for more conditioning and understanding of how to control your energy over a long period of time, but a human body is still a human body. People thought, including Coach K and D'Antoni, that Chris Duhon could run 24/7. They were wrong, as D'Antoni witnessed last year with Duhon completely running out of gas.

Conditioning can only take one so far and, as others said, in addition to minutes played, there are a variety of reasons that one could get tired (practice, opposing fans, all that travelling, etc). However, the more minutes that you are on the floor, the more minutes that you WILL have to take a beating. A few minutes against an ACC team has an enormous physical toll on the human body. While I am not the coach, I would love to see our Big 3 take on less minutes. Fortunately, those three play positions where they aren't beaten up for every second on the court (thanks Lance, Zoubs, and MP1!).

CDu
12-01-2009, 07:35 AM
Certainly the $64k question this year. I expect that Zoubs mins will go first, then Lance's. Lance, though, has the ability to play the wing, which you don't seem to think. He's more of a natural 4, but he could certainly play the 3 for a few mins a game where we have to move Singler to SG b/c of foul trouble or if Singler sits b/c of foul trouble, etc.

Thomas is capable of defending at the 3, but offensively he's not remotely suited for the position. I agree that he'll play spot minutes for Singler there. But the point of my post was to illustrate why we really can't get Kelly regular minutes in addition to the Plumlees, Zoubek, and Thomas. Those guys are going to play around 80 minutes per game. There isn't room at the 4 and 5 spots for an additional 10 minutes per game for Kelly (or Czyz) unless some of them could be regulars at the 3. And none of those guys are going to be regulars at the 3 for more than a handful of minutes (which I suspect will be offset by us going small occasionally with Singler at the 4).


I am liking what we are seeing out of Miles, so I don't expect his mins to drop. In reality, and this may seem weird, but it may be Mason's minutes that really drop as Lance and Zoubs have asserted themselves so far this year (this would be Mason's expected minutes, so to speak. He was expected to be a starter getting 20+mpg, but now may not get more than 12-15). Zoubs and Lance have not been amazing, but both have been playing well. Being a frosh and missing his first few games, MP2 may not get that much run if he struggles a little to get into the flow while Seniors Lance and Zoubs know their roles and find a way to contribute. We'll see how it all sorts out by Feb/March, but I think Zoubs and Lance will keep seeing the floor for a little. I hope I'm wrong though b/c Duke is more likely to reach its full potential with MP2 playing well.

Yes, this further illustrates my point that Kelly won't see substantial playing time. We'll have an interesting enough time mixing the frontcourt minutes amongst the other four big guys, let alone adding a fifth guy to the mix.


MP2 is apparently a good ballhandler and passer. We'll see soon enough!

My point was that none of our bigs are good enough ballhandlers such that we don't need at least two (and most times 3) of Singler/Scheyer/Smith on the court at all times. The only way we could get away with not playing those three for excessive minutes every game would be if one of our bigs could also be a secondary ballhandler on the wing, and that's just not the case. Mason Plumlee is a very good ballhandler for a big man, but not compared to guards. He is also a very good passer, but I was talking about providing a ballhandler on the wing. At the 4 or 5 spot, he should be a great addition to the offense. But that's a different point altogether. His ballhandling and passing are not such that we won't still need to see Singler/Scheyer/Smith for 30-35 minutes per night.

Saratoga2
12-01-2009, 08:32 AM
But when Mason Plumlee returns, we will have a guy getting 15-20 minutes per game in addition to Thomas/Miles/Zoubek. There just aren't enough minutes to go around to get 5 guys ~15+ minutes per game, unless they can play the wing. And none of those guys are suited to play the wing (they're all either 4s, 5s, or a hybrid of the two). Kelly will get spot minutes here and there, bu



It would be great if we had another guard/wing player to fill in and allow the "big 3" a break. Not so much because they'll wear down, but because it would allow them to be more aggressive knowing that there's depth there. Unfortunately, we have only one guy on the bench that should be playing on the wing (Dawkins). Thomas can defend a bit out there, but his offensive game is not that of a wing. So because of that, we're going to continue to see heavy minutes for Scheyer, Smith, and Singler, because those guys are our only true ballhandlers.

We knew this going into the season (or at least we should have known it). Dawkins was more a shooter/scorer than a ballhandler. And while some of our bigs are gifted passers, none are really ballhandlers. So we're going to need 2-3 of Singler/Scheyer/Smith on the court as much as possible to facilitate the offense. They are going to play 35+ minutes in competitive games simply because we really don't have an alternative.

I wonder how we knew, as you say, that Dawkins cannot handle the ball well enough to handle the combo guard function? Yes he is a freshman, but to date, I haven't seen any play which disqualifies him as a reasonably good ball handler. I am hopeful he can sub in as a 2 guard this year and also spend time at the 3 as a wing forward. Time and opportunity will tell his proficiencies.

CDu
12-01-2009, 09:01 AM
I wonder how we knew, as you say, that Dawkins cannot handle the ball well enough to handle the combo guard function? Yes he is a freshman, but to date, I haven't seen any play which disqualifies him as a reasonably good ball handler. I am hopeful he can sub in as a 2 guard this year and also spend time at the 3 as a wing forward. Time and opportunity will tell his proficiencies.

All the descriptions of Dawkins's game that I heard coming out were that he was a great shooter, a very good leaper, but not as strong as a ballhandler. In other words, he is a true wing rather than a combo guard. And while he's been fantastic so far and I'm very pleased with him, I've seen little to suggest that this scouting report is wrong. That does not preclude Dawkins from playing plenty at the 2/3 spots. Plenty of wings are more shooters/finishers than primary ballhandlers.

I think Dawkins will play plenty, and I think he will play very well (he certainly has to this point). But his presence on the floor doesn't mean that we should go with less than two of our "big 3" on the court with him. That was my point. I wasn't knocking Dawkins - just noting how the skillsets of the incoming players somewhat necessitate a lot of minutes from our "big 3". And my post was more a point about the skillsets of the bigs than about Dawkins. Dawkins can play 20 minutes per game on the wing, and that doesn't change the fact that our big 3 will need to each play 30-35 minutes per game (or more if we go "small" some, which I think isn't a bad idea). Our bigs are going to play the 4/5 spots unless foul trouble necessitates otherwise.

davekay1971
12-01-2009, 09:37 AM
I think Dawkins will play plenty, and I think he will play very well (he certainly has to this point). But his presence on the floor doesn't mean that we should go with less than two of our "big 3" on the court with him.

It's probably a moot point about Dawkins' potential as a combo (1/2) guard. This year, with Scheyer and Smith, the job of initiating the offense is well covered without putting that responsibility on Dawkins.

As for your point about needing 2 of our big 3 on the court, that's not necessarily true. You could easily envision a lineup with Scheyer or Smith at the 1, Dawkins at the 2, and either Kelly or Mason Plumlee playing a big 3. Obviously that wouldn't be our most potent offense, but we could easily see that kind of lineup for a few minutes here or there in certain situations (ie: Singler and Smith/Scheyer in foul trouble) and it could be a reasonably serviceable lineup in spots.

kmspeaks
12-01-2009, 11:00 AM
Not sure I understand your logic.

If playing too many minutes can wear you down when you're 18, why can playing too many minutes no longer wear you down when you're 19?

It's not really a matter of an 18 year old vs a 19 year old body. It's more about the adjustment coming from high school to college. In most cases the high school season is shorter and the games are shorter as well. I know in VA varsity games are 32 min as opposed to 40 in college. I can't speak to the rest of the country. Also if you're playing in the ACC chances are that your high school competition was inferior. You were most likely bigger/faster/stronger than most of the people you played against. So as a freshman you have a lot to adjust to. You are now playing a longer season, longer games, probably longer and more intense practices, and you are playing against better competition which forces you to work that much harder on the court.

As a sophomore you have an understanding of what a season is going to be like. Your body is now a little better prepared for the longer/more intense games as a result of having been through it before. You also have the added benefit of a Spring/Summer going through individual drills and strength/conditioning workouts with your school's coaching staff. You are more prepared both physically and mentally to handle x amount of minutes than you were as a freshman.

CDu
12-01-2009, 11:18 AM
As for your point about needing 2 of our big 3 on the court, that's not necessarily true. You could easily envision a lineup with Scheyer or Smith at the 1, Dawkins at the 2, and either Kelly or Mason Plumlee playing a big 3. Obviously that wouldn't be our most potent offense, but we could easily see that kind of lineup for a few minutes here or there in certain situations (ie: Singler and Smith/Scheyer in foul trouble) and it could be a reasonably serviceable lineup in spots.

I don't see Mason Plumlee or Kelly as useful options at the 3 on this team. As you say, they can (if absolutely necessary) fill in for a few minutes to deal with foul trouble. Could/will it happen on occasions? Sure. But it's not where they are suited to play at all.

Again, the point of my previous was in reference to finding regular minutes for a fifth big guy (specifically, Kelly) - not the possibility of it happening occasionally out of need. The only way that can happen (short of cutting deeply into the minutes of the other four big guys) is if one of the bigs is suited to play 10-15 minutes per game at the 3 regularly. The team could (in a pinch) put a big at the 3 for a few minutes, but it's not in the best interest of the team.

We're much better off having our "big 3" play 30-35 (or more) minutes and going with 3 wings rather than forcing one of our bigs to play out of position on the wing just to get minutes for Kelly. Kelly is suited to be a frontcourt player with a perimeter shot and good passing skills, not a wing player. And because he's behind the other four big guys right now, he's simply going to have trouble finding minutes aside from injury or foul trouble.

sagegrouse
12-01-2009, 11:28 AM
It's not really a matter of an 18 year old vs a 19 year old body. It's more about the adjustment coming from high school to college. In most cases the high school season is shorter and the games are shorter as well. I know in VA varsity games are 32 min as opposed to 40 in college. I can't speak to the rest of the country. Also if you're playing in the ACC chances are that your high school competition was inferior. You were most likely bigger/faster/stronger than most of the people you played against. So as a freshman you have a lot to adjust to. You are now playing a longer season, longer games, probably longer and more intense practices, and you are playing against better competition which forces you to work that much harder on the court.

As a sophomore you have an understanding of what a season is going to be like. Your body is now a little better prepared for the longer/more intense games as a result of having been through it before. You also have the added benefit of a Spring/Summer going through individual drills and strength/conditioning workouts with your school's coaching staff. You are more prepared both physically and mentally to handle x amount of minutes than you were as a freshman.

I think a big part of the adjustment is that college sports for a scholarship player is a J-O-B. Basketball starts preseason, even beginning during summer school, and by the end of February it becomes an ordeal for those going through it for the first time.

I would say it includes physical fatigue, mental fatigue (the pressure of games for those in the rotation), and schedule fatigue (balancing athletics and academics). High school was fun; college is exhilarating, but an entirely different experience. Also, I am thinking about a Kyle Singler, who is in the starting lineup, not a player who averages only ten minutes a game.

Now, would a 22 YO starting college as a freshman (think Mormon mission or military service) hit the wall to the same degree as an 18 or 19YO? He may be better able to handle the schedule fatigue, but the physical and mental may be as bad or worse.

Just my two cents. Change freely given --

sagegrouse