Trey Zeigler

[airowe]

This is a guy we might want to keep in mind:

http://scouthoops.scout.com/2/921314.html

[Huh?]

So I'm guessing we dialed his digits?

[Tim1515]

It does have Duke on his list...maybe we did call. Being a son of a coach is typically a good sign. I'm not sure at 6'5 he's a typical wing player...but who knows.

[mj2345]

has said he won't commit till the late signing period. Being mentioned with Michigan St and Oklahoma. half of these guys are sons of coaches. doesnt mean anything.

duke recruits smart players regardless of their fathers professions.

[AlaskanAssassin]

Did we come in late? Dukes not even listed on rivals. And his interest is low. Don't tell me we're in desperate mode.

[airowe]

Did we come in late? Dukes not even listed on rivals. And his interest is low. Don't tell me we're in desperate mode.

Come on Alaskan. Desperate? Not even close. Try covering all bases mode. And yes, we came in late.

[jimsumner]

The guy is an uncommitted, top 30-35 prospect at a position of need. Why would touching base with him be considered desperate?

I find it curious that Krzyzewski is criticized for not casting a wide net and not having back-up options until he does, when he's criticized for being desperate.

[AlaskanAssassin]

Come on Alaskan. Desperate? Not even close. Try covering all bases mode. And yes, we came in late.

hehe, good. Just don't want to see us down to that level.

[SBell]

Duke has contacted Trey. U-M, MSU, UCLA, CMU main competition. He's a very good all-around player, can play all three perimeter. Don't know that "half of these guys are coaches' sons." In fact, hardly any are the sons of Division I head coaches, and it does matter.

http://www.bankhoops.com

[El_Diablo]

Duke has contacted Trey. U-M, MSU, UCLA, CMU main competition. He's a very good all-around player, can play all three perimeter. Don't know that "half of these guys are coaches' sons." In fact, hardly any are the sons of Division I head coaches, and it does matter.

http://www.bankhoops.com

Excerpt on Zeigler, from link above:

Trey Zeigler 6-5 Sr Mount Pleasant
"Not much to say about Trey because he’s such a known commodity," a coach said. "He possesses a natural instinct and ability to play a high-level brand of basketball. Has a cool and calming influence on the court. Doesn’t get rattled and brings it whether or not he’s made five shots in a row or missed them. Ball handling and shot have improved. With his skill, handle and size he should be able to swing from 1-3 comfortably in college."

[ChicagoCrazy84]

The guy is an uncommitted, top 30-35 prospect at a position of need. Why would touching base with him be considered desperate?

I find it curious that Krzyzewski is criticized for not casting a wide net and not having back-up options until he does, when he's criticized for being desperate.


I was going to say the same thing. Calipari loses out on Kyrie so he jumps on Knight, Selby, etc, but it isn't thought of as desperate. This is great strategy in my mind. It's a position we need to fill so I think we'll get either of them.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

On reading up on the guy's recruitment, it's surprising that he didn't already commit and sign with UCLA. His dad is a friend of Ben Howland's and was an assistant under him for UCLA and Pitt. The Bruins are near the top of his list, but if he didn't commit, I would think we have a decent shot. I am sure he knows all that UCLA has to offer and Michigan as well. Can we get Shane Battier to talk to the kid? :D

[SBell]

Trey's situation is different. His dad being a head coach, there are various reasons he hasn't committed early, all involving his dad's job/job security. Other than the Capels, most kids I can think of end up playing for their dads, even when it is NBA talent at a mid-major (Bryce Drew at Valpo, Tony Bennett at Green Bay, Ricky Berry at San Jose State).

Trey's been to our camps for years and I've coached against him in AAU, never quite understood why Duke wasn't in on him years ago.

[dukemsu]

I've heard many of the same things posted above, that Trey's decision is possibly linked to his dad's future, and that's contributing to the delay.

FWIW, most people who are well informed about this stuff in Michigan have him as a tossup between UCLA and UM at this point. Izzo is holding a scholly in case he changes his mind, but MSU is a longshot. UCLA seems to be gaining steam according to some UM posters.

Duke's late pursuit reminds me a bit of when K inquired on LaVell Blanchard after Maggette split unexpectedly. You never know.

dukemsu

[CDu]

The guy is an uncommitted, top 30-35 prospect at a position of need. Why would touching base with him be considered desperate?

I find it curious that Krzyzewski is criticized for not casting a wide net and not having back-up options until he does, when he's criticized for being desperate.

Well, I wouldn't call this an example of casting a wide net or having a backup option. This sounds a lot more like throwing our hat in late in the game. When I think of casting a wider net, I think of recruiting multiple players somewhat simultaneously, more like the Roscoe Smith situation.

Don't get me wrong, though. I wouldn't call this situation getting desperate, either.

[Franzez]

Word is also circulating that Duke has been on the phone with Trey Zeigler (http://florida.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?Sport=2&pr_key=54919) since losing out on Barnes. Zeigler, the No. 26-ranked prospect in the Rivals150, is the son of Central Michigan coach Ernie Zeigler and is waiting until the spring to sign.
http://duke.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1018862

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROnaRyY7Btg

Looks pretty good, hopefully we can land this guy since he comes from a good pedigree with his father as a Head Coach.

I think we could use a guy like Zeigler who could play the 2 and 3, rather than just a 3 like Roscoe Smith. Of the guys we'll have next year in our backcourt, none of them could play some minutes at the 3 if needed.

[Kedsy]

http://duke.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1018862

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROnaRyY7Btg

Looks pretty good, hopefully we can land this guy since he comes from a good pedigree with his father as a Head Coach.

I think we could use a guy like Zeigler who could play the 2 and 3, rather than just a 3 like Roscoe Smith. Of the guys we'll have next year in our backcourt, none of them could play some minutes at the 3 if needed.


Didn't a thread start yesterday on this exact topic?

[NSDukeFan]

http://duke.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1018862

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROnaRyY7Btg

Looks pretty good, hopefully we can land this guy since he comes from a good pedigree with his father as a Head Coach.

I think we could use a guy like Zeigler who could play the 2 and 3, rather than just a 3 like Roscoe Smith. Of the guys we'll have next year in our backcourt, none of them could play some minutes at the 3 if needed.

If our roster does not change before next year, and Kyle leaves, I expect we would see a lot of Andre Dawkins at the 3.

[El_Diablo]

If our roster does not change before next year, and Kyle leaves, I expect we would see a lot of Andre Dawkins at the 3.

...to go along with Kelly and Czyz.

[Kedsy]

...to go along with Kelly and Czyz.

Depending on matchuups, you'll even see some Nolan at the 3, in an ultra-quick three guard lineup with Seth and Kyrie.

[jesus_hurley]

Depending on matchuups, you'll even see some Nolan at the 3, in an ultra-quick three guard lineup with Seth and Kyrie.

Why not just throw Irving, Smith, Curry AND Dawkins out there and play some DDMO.....
:D

[Duvall]

...to go along with Kelly and Czyz.

Kelly guarding small forwards and wing guards? I hope it never comes to that.

[El_Diablo]

Kelly guarding small forwards and wing guards? I hope it never comes to that.

It already has.

[CDu]

It already has.

Not really. Most of the time Kelly has seen so far has been at the 4. I suspect that will only increase next year when he's a little bigger and when Thomas and Zoubek leave. I'll be pretty surprised if Kelly is getting substantive time at the 3 next year with all of the wing players we'll have. I'd expect him to instead be part of a 3-man rotation with the Plumlees up front, with Hairston playing the 3/4.

[El_Diablo]

Not really. Most of the time Kelly has seen so far has been at the 4. I suspect that will only increase next year when he's a little bigger and when Thomas and Zoubek leave. I'll be pretty surprised if Kelly is getting substantive time at the 3 next year with all of the wing players we'll have. I'd expect him to instead be part of a 3-man rotation with the Plumlees up front, with Hairston playing the 3/4.

You're saying he hasn't guarded any wing players at all? Duke switches on screens, so even if he's "playing" the 4, Kelly will be matched up a lot against guards/wings on the switch. We're also playing a lot of zone, which requires everyone to close out and contain. He will be guarding smaller players a lot this year, and it's already started.

As to my original point, I said that Andre Dawkins would get time at the 3 next year...along with Kelly and Czyz. But I agree that Dawkins would get most of the time there, and Kelly will be more of an interior player. But he can be used at the 3 if we want to go big. He would create mismatches for the opponent. I didn't really think of Hairston...he may be more suited for defending a college 3, but I don't really know. Just saying that Andre would not be our only option if Singler leaves. :)

[airowe]

Dec. 12
Trey Zeigler, SG
Mt. Pleasant, MI
Mt. Pleasant H.S.

Scouts Grade: 96
ESPN100 Rank: 26
Position Rank: 5

Trey Zeigler gets 21 but Mt. Pleasant goes down

Uncommitted ESPNU 100 guard Trey Zeigler scored 21 points and added eight rebounds but Mt. Pleasant was no match for Saginaw Arthur Hill, falling 65-38 on Friday night.

[CDu]

You're saying he hasn't guarded any wing players at all? Duke switches on screens, so even if he's "playing" the 4, Kelly will be matched up a lot against guards/wings on the switch. We're also playing a lot of zone, which requires everyone to close out and contain. He will be guarding smaller players a lot this year, and it's already started.

There's a big difference between occasionally having to occasionally guard a wing player on a switch and being primarily responsible for guarding the wing player by playing as a wing. Kelly has played exclusively at the 4 spot to this point, not the wing. Zoubek and Miles Plumlee have been forced to guard a wing on rare occasions due to switches. That doesn't mean they play the wing.


As to my original point, I said that Andre Dawkins would get time at the 3 next year...along with Kelly and Czyz. But I agree that Dawkins would get most of the time there, and Kelly will be more of an interior player. But he can be used at the 3 if we want to go big. He would create mismatches for the opponent. I didn't really think of Hairston...he may be more suited for defending a college 3, but I don't really know. Just saying that Andre would not be our only option if Singler leaves. :)

Next year we'll have Irving, Curry, Dawkins, Thornton, Hairston (who is supposedly a PF/SF, not a PF/C), and likely Smith. That ignores the possibility that we'll add another wing player. We'll also have potentially 2-3 fewer guys available to play the frontcourt (if Singler goes as well). Given those facts and the fact that Kelly is not suited to play the wing in the first place, I don't think we'll see Kelly at the 3 at all next year.

[Kedsy]

Next year we'll have Irving, Curry, Dawkins, Thornton, Hairston (who is supposedly a PF/SF, not a PF/C), and likely Smith. That ignores the possibility that we'll add another wing player. We'll also have potentially 2-3 fewer guys available to play the frontcourt (if Singler goes as well). Given those facts and the fact that Kelly is not suited to play the wing in the first place, I don't think we'll see Kelly at the 3 at all next year.

Well, if Singler leaves and we don't get another wing recruit, and we're playing a team with a big "3" (like Wake's Aminu, although I don't think he will personally be around, or maybe like Harrison Barnes), then we'll either have to defend the other team's 6'8" wing with Dawkins (or one of the other smallish guards) or one of: Kelly, Hairston, Czyz. In that situation, depending on his defensive development, I could easily see Kelly playing the "3." He has as much chance to be defensively ready for that scenario as Hairston or Czyz, and probably a bit more of a chance.

I agree with you that in "normal" scenarios, where the opposing team's wing forward is not too large or strong for one of our guards (e.g., Dawkins, N Smith) to defend, then Kelly won't see much if any time there.

Also, if we do happen to get a Trey Zeigler or Roscoe Smith (or TaShawn Mabry), then I think that player will be in the wing rotation ahead of Kelly, who would then play almost exclusively in the big man rotation (along with MP1, MP2, Hairston, & Czyz, plus possibly the Zeigler/R Smith/Mabry recruit).

[BlueintheFace]

You're saying he hasn't guarded any wing players at all? Duke switches on screens, so even if he's "playing" the 4, Kelly will be matched up a lot against guards/wings on the switch. We're also playing a lot of zone, which requires everyone to close out and contain. He will be guarding smaller players a lot this year, and it's already started.

Actually, this argument is silly since Duke plays zone 95% of the time Kelly is in the game (presumably because of his defensive liabilities). I've actually only seen Duke play man to man for a few possessions with Kelly in the game early this season. Perhaps as he gets better that will change.

Point being... Kelly hasn't really "matched up" with anybody this season.

[El_Diablo]

Wow. I'll reiterate. In response to the claim that we'll have to use Andre at the '3' a lot next year if Kyle leaves...

Yes, that's likely what will happen. But we'll also have Olek, Kelly, and Josh available to fill some SF minutes (as matchup and player development dictate).

I think Kelly can play some at the '3' spot if we want to go big. Regarding his ability to guard people outside of the paint, it will depend on the matchup. Obviously, if we're playing someone with multiple bigs on the floor (like UNC), then Andre might be overmatched at the '3' at times and we might need a bigger player out there. But I don't see how anyone can say, "bah, Ryan won't be capable of guarding small forwards next year." He's capable of it; it's just a matter of doing it consistently. And he's certainly capable of playing the wing on offense.

And so what if Ryan plays in a zone a lot this year? Did Coach K say he's going to abandon it after this season? Isn't it possible that if Ryan has to play the '3' at times next year that we might be in a zone then too? :confused:

Bottom line...I didn't say he will be the primary option at the '3,' but he is an option. He may be the fourth option, depending on Josh's abilities and Olek's development, but he is an option. If you disagree with that, then I think we're at an impasse.

I personally think it's possible to have Irving, Dawkins, Kelly, Plumlee, Plumlee on the court at the same time if we had to do it. Others don't think so? Okay. I guess we can revisit in March 2011 and see how it turned out. But until then...I would still like to see Roscoe Smith or Trey Zeigler join the team. :) It would make this point a moot one.

[BlueintheFace]

Actually, this argument is silly since Duke plays zone 95% of the time Kelly is in the game (presumably because of his defensive liabilities). I've actually only seen Duke play man to man for a few possessions with Kelly in the game early this season. Perhaps as he gets better that will change.

Point being... Kelly hasn't really "matched up" with anybody this season.

clarification: I meant the argument over whether or not Kelly should guard wings. Not one specific argument or the other.

[Devilsfan]

How much weight do Freshmen typically lose getting in shape to play and compete in the faster college game in the ACC?

[Coastal Devil]

Also, if we do happen to get a Trey Zeigler or Roscoe Smith (or TaShawn Mabry), then I think that player will be in the wing rotation ahead of Kelly, who would then play almost exclusively in the big man rotation (along with MP1, MP2, Hairston, & Czyz, plus possibly the Zeigler/R Smith/Mabry recruit).

I agree, if Singler leaves I would imagine (depending on the teams we play and match ups) we will play a lot of 3 Guard line ups with Irving, Seth, (Smith & Dawkins) then MP1 & MP2. Hopefully though we will land Zeigler, R Smith or Mabry. I'd be happy with any one of them. We will need to fill the void left by Kyle meaning an athletic 6-5 - 6-7 wing player. Go Coach K and the coaches for pushing hard to make it happen.

Go Duke!

[Devilsfan]

Me too. We need a very athletic wing. If the staff has picked out three candidates that fill this need, I would be in favor of taking the first one that commits and not waiting on our number one choice like in the many past. I like the zeal of our current recruiting, now let's close the deal.

[Kedsy]

Me too. We need a very athletic wing.

See, here's the thing. It would be nice to have a 6'5" to 6'8" wing option but we certainly don't "need" one. How many teams out there will have wing forwards too big/tall/strong for Andre to guard and too quick for Ryan/Josh/Olek to guard? A few, but not many. So against those teams we'll have to find another option to guard that player, possibly some zone. Ideal? Perhaps not. Critical problem? I don't think so.

Assuming Kyle leaves (and no other non-seniors) and we get no additional recruits, we're going to have between 8 and 10 ACC-caliber players. We're going to have one or more excellent players at PG, and we're going to have good, playable size up front. We're going to have lots of scoring options, and should be solid defensively.

It's true our wing players will not be particularly tall (although not really shorter than last year's Villanova team), but if that's our only weakness the team is going to be Final Four-contender good.

Adding any of R Smith, Zeigler, Mabry should allow us to deal with our one potential matchup issue, but they'll also be freshmen, so you never know how quickly they'll get up to speed defensively. Even assuming they'll be adequate, would any of these three players get more than 15 mpg their freshman year at Duke? Personally, with the rest of our roster looking the way it does, I doubt it. Which is a major reason this final recruit should be described as much more of a luxury than a need.

I'll be happy if we get one of these three recruits, but if we miss on all three (which is a distinct possibility at this point) I won't be particularly upset.

[FireOgilvie]

See, here's the thing. It would be nice to have a 6'5" to 6'8" wing option but we certainly don't "need" one. How many teams out there will have wing forwards too big/tall/strong for Andre to guard and too quick for Ryan/Josh/Olek to guard? A few, but not many. So against those teams we'll have to find another option to guard that player, possibly some zone. Ideal? Perhaps not. Critical problem? I don't think so.

Assuming Kyle leaves (and no other non-seniors) and we get no additional recruits, we're going to have between 8 and 10 ACC-caliber players. We're going to have one or more excellent players at PG, and we're going to have good, playable size up front. We're going to have lots of scoring options, and should be solid defensively.

It's true our wing players will not be particularly tall (although not really shorter than last year's Villanova team), but if that's our only weakness the team is going to be Final Four-contender good.

Adding any of R Smith, Zeigler, Mabry should allow us to deal with our one potential matchup issue, but they'll also be freshmen, so you never know how quickly they'll get up to speed defensively. Even assuming they'll be adequate, would any of these three players get more than 15 mpg their freshman year at Duke? Personally, with the rest of our roster looking the way it does, I doubt it. Which is a major reason this final recruit should be described as much more of a luxury than a need.

I'll be happy if we get one of these three recruits, but if we miss on all three (which is a distinct possibility at this point) I won't be particularly upset.

There's a reason why Coach K has gone after 4 athletic wings for next season; we need one.

We need one if we want to have the best chance possible to win the ACC or make the Final Four. UNC is one of the teams that we won't be able to match up well against without an athletic wing. Andre can't guard Barnes. Roscoe or Trey or another athletic wing would give us the best shot.

[COYS]

There's a reason why Coach K has gone after 4 athletic wings for next season; we need one.

We need one if we want to have the best chance possible to win the ACC or make the Final Four. UNC is one of the teams that we won't be able to match up well against without an athletic wing. Andre can't guard Barnes. Roscoe or Trey or another athletic wing would give us the best shot.

Personally, i think we get too hung-up on worrying about one on one matchups like this. UNC won the title without an athletic wing in the 6-5 to 6-8 range. The reason was because they forced other teams to bend to their will in every game. They put the ball in Ty Lawson's hand and played as fast as possible. Ultimately, that worked out. Anyway, enough talk about last year's UNC team. Next year's Duke team, even without Singler or an incoming recruit, will be very quick and very deep. The Plumlees + Kelly and Hairston will handle the 4-5 spots, most likely with Olek and possibly a little of Hariston backing up Dawkins/Curry as the third guard. The team will have elite shooters in Dawkins and Curry, an elite point guard in Irving, veteran leadership and strong play from an even more improved Smith, and Thornton ready in case he is needed (that is, if he doesn't surprise and jump right into the rotation). We will be very good next year, regardless of what any of our current targets decide to do, and it's definitely premature to say that the team can't make the final four because we don't have a specific type of small forward.

[Indoor66]

it's definitely premature to say that the team can't make the final four because we don't have a specific type of small forward.

I agree with you, but I doubt that you can convince the gloom, doom and boom posters.

[CDu]

Personally, i think we get too hung-up on worrying about one on one matchups like this. UNC won the title without an athletic wing in the 6-5 to 6-8 range. The reason was because they forced other teams to bend to their will in every game. They put the ball in Ty Lawson's hand and played as fast as possible. Ultimately, that worked out. Anyway, enough talk about last year's UNC team. Next year's Duke team, even without Singler or an incoming recruit, will be very quick and very deep. The Plumlees + Kelly and Hairston will handle the 4-5 spots, most likely with Olek and possibly a little of Hariston backing up Dawkins/Curry as the third guard. The team will have elite shooters in Dawkins and Curry, an elite point guard in Irving, veteran leadership and strong play from an even more improved Smith, and Thornton ready in case he is needed (that is, if he doesn't surprise and jump right into the rotation). We will be very good next year, regardless of what any of our current targets decide to do, and it's definitely premature to say that the team can't make the final four because we don't have a specific type of small forward.

Actually, they did have an athletic wing in the 6'5"-6'8" range (Danny Green). But regardless - yes, it is possible to win a title without a tall, athletic wing player. But it's really nice to have one if you can get one. Not as nice as having a go-to low post option or an explosive playmaking PG, but nice nonetheless.

[FireOgilvie]

We will be very good next year, regardless of what any of our current targets decide to do, and it's definitely premature to say that the team can't make the final four because we don't have a specific type of small forward.


I agree with you, but I doubt that you can convince the gloom, doom and boom posters.

Just so we're clear, I said "We need one if we want to have the best chance possible to win the ACC or make the Final Four."

The fact is that Coach K has gone after not just 1, but 4 athletic wing players. He certainly thinks we need one.

The real "doom and gloom" posters are the ones that constantly and prematurely prepare for Duke not to land any of its targets so we won't be disappointed. Excuse me if I have high hopes for the program and am not content with the constant excuses for why the team doesn't make it to the Final Four (or Elite 8).

[Kedsy]

Just so we're clear, I said "We need one if we want to have the best chance possible to win the ACC or make the Final Four."

Well, the "best chance" would really be if we signed the top five prospects every year, wouldn't it? Obviously that's rarely if ever going to happen, but if you come off of that idea and get all the way down to having the four new guys we'll have next year (including Curry along with Irving, Thornton, and Hairston) vs. having those guys plus one of these bigger wings, the more accurate way to say it would be we'll have a slightly better chance with the wing but a pretty good chance either way. This does not suggest the word "need" to me.


The fact is that Coach K has gone after not just 1, but 4 athletic wing players. He certainly thinks we need one.

Or he might just think the team would be a little bit better if we get one of those players and if that's the case why not try? It doesn't say anything about what he thinks we "need."

For that matter, how hard have we gone after any of these guys (other than HB)? None of them have had an official visit. Has Roscoe even had an in-home visit? I'm almost certain Zeigler and Mabry haven't. Making a phone call to see if there's any interest (which is as far as I've heard we've "gone after" Mabry), or even sending an assistant coach to Michigan to watch Trey Zeigler play doesn't really show that we're going hard after them. It doesn't show any feeling of desperate need among the coaching staff.


Excuse me if I have high hopes for the program and am not content with the constant excuses for why the team doesn't make it to the Final Four (or Elite 8).

If a team makes the Final Four (or Elite Eight), it's a cause for celebration. If they don't get that far, it's not a matter of "excuses," because the word excuses suggests we should be there and should expect to be there and if we don't make it we badly screwed up. I know the word "entitlement" is overused around here but your statement's getting awfully close. Sometimes the other team just plays better. Sometimes our team has an off game. You call it excuses, but I say it's just the way things happen in a one-and-done tournament. We were incredibly lucky (as well as skillful) from 1986 to 1994, but a lot of people seem to take that for granted while ignoring the possibility that we may have been unlucky from 2005 to 2009.

I guess what I'm saying is there's a difference between hopes and expectations. I would expect any fan to have the former; once you get to the latter I think it's a murky area. And this should apply both to how many games we win in the NCAAT as well as how many top recruiting targets we can sign.

[COYS]

Actually, they did have an athletic wing in the 6'5"-6'8" range (Danny Green). But regardless - yes, it is possible to win a title without a tall, athletic wing player. But it's really nice to have one if you can get one. Not as nice as having a go-to low post option or an explosive playmaking PG, but nice nonetheless.

I guess Danny Green does check in at 6-5. I had thought he was 6-4. I wouldn't consider him elite in terms of his quickness or leaping ability, though he was solid in those areas. My post was definitely not meant to imply that it's not nice to have a tall wing with great physical tools. However, not having one definitely does not preclude us from reaching the final four.

[Greg_Newton]

I agree with you, but I doubt that you can convince the gloom, doom and boom posters.

Ugh... that's such a condescending way to squelch what is a very reasonable discussion.

And I mean, there are exceptions to every rule. Sure, we have a chance to reach the promised land without a true PG this year. Yes, we could be an elite team next year without a contributor between 6'4 and 6'9. However, elite teams that fit that description are certainly the exception, rather than the rule. I don't think it's a stretch to say we need a player in that range to be a truly complete team in a traditional sense next year.

(And just to nitpick, Danny Green is actually 6'6, 208 with a 6'10 wingspan, http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Danny-Green-504/)

[verga]

and i believe Danny Green was a McDonalds AA, its not like he was unknown, plus he's a marvelous dancer.

[gotham devil]

http://twitter.com/TreyZeigler32

Good practice coach k and coach James were in the building at team dinner playin some college football
about 9 hours ago from Echofon

[UrinalCake]

http://twitter.com/TreyZeigler32

Good practice coach k and coach James were in the building at team dinner playin some college football
about 9 hours ago from Echofon

This is why handheld devices need to have a comma on the main keyboard :)

[PhillyDuke]

Next season we will loaded with a bunch of guards 6' 5" or shorter. Save the scholarship so we can offer it to the top big men in the 2011 or 2012 classes.

[cbnaylor]

Does anybody have the latest on this recruit?

[Osiagledknarf]

Does anybody have the latest on this recruit?

According to Duke's Scout page there is still a mutual intrest with Duke but the intrest is low. I'm guessing because of our depth at SG, and he is also getting looking at the two Michigan schools where I guess will he will end up at one of them.

http://duke.scout.com/a.z?s=167&p=8&c=1&nid=3313056

[jimsumner]

Duke likes Zeigler a lot. But they recognize that it might be difficult to get him out of the Midwest. Hence the recent interest in Haynes.

[Osiagledknarf]

Duke likes Zeigler a lot. But they recognize that it might be difficult to get him out of the Midwest. Hence the recent interest in Haynes.

Haynes and Zeigler play two different positions. Zeigler is a shooting guard, who is one of the better in the 2010 class. Haynes is a PF who is a rebounder and defensive banger in the middle. They have nothing to do with one another.

Coach K would be going after someone like this even if he had Zeigler.

[jimsumner]

As I've stated in another thread, Duke is recruiting Haynes with the expectation that he will become a wing.

Zeigler is properly described as a 2/3, Haynes as a 3/4. I'm pretty sure we can see the overlap here.

Duke wants to bring in no more than two of Felix, Zeigler and Haynes. They have a lot to do with each other.

[Osiagledknarf]

As I've stated in another thread, Duke is recruiting Haynes with the expectation that he will become a wing.

Zeigler is properly described as a 2/3, Haynes as a 3/4. I'm pretty sure we can see the overlap here.

Duke wants to bring in no more than two of Felix, Zeigler and Haynes. They have a lot to do with each other.


You can't compare them. There to different players. Haynes can't shoot from the outside and doesn't have the quickness to cover other 3's. His shot is from about 5-10 feet, if that.He is being brougt in here to be a 4, not a 3.

Zeigler is a shooter who is more of a 2 or 3. Unlike at the 4 or the 5, we have plenty of depth with Singler, most likely Carrick Felix, and Andre Dawkins.

You are comparing two players that have nothing in common on how they play or what there purpose is on a team.

They are nothing alike.

[JaMarcus Russell]

Do you think they are going to try to bring in 2 for sure? It seems like people are reading way too much into Haynes already.

[MChambers]

It's nice to have someone who knows the facts weigh in on these things.

[jimsumner]

Duke has a limited number of scholarships available for players that they hope can play on the wing. Zeigler is one of these. Haynes is another. They don't have to be exact analogs in either size or skill sets to be in competition for those spots.

I understand that Zeigler does some things better than Haynes and Haynes does some things better than Zeigler. But Duke is recruiting both. They would bring different things to the same position.

Let me give you an example. Mike Chappell, Nate James and Chris Carrawell were members of the same class at Duke. They were three very different players. Yet at various times, they competed for PT at Duke. At other times, they complemented each other. But they all played a lot of small forward at Duke. This illustrates how a program can recruit complementary players in the same class for the same position.

Next year, Duke could play Singler at the 3, Felix at the 3, Dawkins at the 3. Different players, different abilities at the 3. Would you maintain that Singler, Felix and Dawkins have nothing to do with each other because they aren't the same player?

FWIW, I strongly suspect Duke will end up with neither Zeigler nor Haynes.

[dukemsu]

is that he's down to either MSU or UM. MSU's hopes of getting him seem to have increased this year given the mess in Ann Arbor and the increasing chances that Lucas declares for the draft, which would open up a spot and considerable backcourt playing time. Michigan had been considered the leader for quite awhile, but that seems to have been muddled.

It's a very fuzzy picture, but there doesn't appear to be buzz for him leaving the state.

dukemsu

[-bdbd]

Duke has a limited number of scholarships available for players that they hope can play on the wing. Zeigler is one of these. Haynes is another. They don't have to be exact analogs in either size or skill sets to be in competition for those spots.

I understand that Zeigler does some things better than Haynes and Haynes does some things better than Zeigler. But Duke is recruiting both. They would bring different things to the same position.

...Next year, Duke could play Singler at the 3, Felix at the 3, Dawkins at the 3. Different players, different abilities at the 3. Would you maintain that Singler, Felix and Dawkins have nothing to do with each other because they aren't the same player?

FWIW, I strongly suspect Duke will end up with neither Zeigler nor Haynes.

My understanding was that TZ was also looking closely at his dad's (head coach) small school in Michigan. Have read more than one recruitinbg site saying if he doesn't go to play for dad, that MSU is the most likely destination. In any event he's not expected to make an early decision. Hence, it behoves us to us work had at getting another '3' in the truck (i.e. can't wait on TZ's decision b/c it'll then be too late).

I agree with Jiumsumner that while Felix seems like a pretty good Duke lean, that I wouldn't really expect either of the other 6'4" - 6'6" guys to have high-probability to play for Duke next year. Anybody else thinking that Ndiaye getting an offer could hinge on Kyle's status, or leanings? Personally, I'd be very happy with those two guys from Idaho - Felix at the 3 and Ndiaye at the 5.

FWIW, while the discussion has centered on the differing OFFENSIVE traits of the three wing players, it has ignored the D end. These three guys are more similar on D than on O, and frankly, that is the greater part of their value brought to the table for Duke in 2010-2011. Think about this: If Kyle is gone, who on the projected roster is best suited to guard Harrison Barnes (and players like him -- 6'7" athletic wings who can shoot) next year? In that context, Felix, TZ and Haynes are VERY similar.


:o

[AlaskanAssassin]

Where does Zeigler fit best?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/basketball/mens/news/story?id=4988882

[Saratoga2]

Scheyer's defense was too much against this kid.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Scheyer's defense was too much against this kid.

HUH?

[sivartrenrag]

Scheyer's defense was too much against this kid.

Are you thinking of Zeglinski?

[Osiagledknarf]

Scheyer's defense was too much against this kid.

What are you smoking? Zeigler is someone for the class of 2010. Duke played Virginia today, a team in the ACC. Are you confusing this with someone else?

[Channing]

What are you smoking? Zeigler is someone for the class of 2010. Duke played Virginia today, a team in the ACC. Are you confusing this with someone else?

my guess is he confused ziegler with zeglinsky - not an unforgiveable sin. no need to come down so hard on the guy.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Hahahaha that's really fun, but hey it happens, give the guy a break. And yea Jon did shut Zeglinsky down, he had 0 points after a 21 point game the day before.

[BD80]

my guess is he confused ziegler with zeglinsky - not an unforgiveable sin. no need to come down so hard on the guy.


Hahahaha that's really fun, but hey it happens, give the guy a break. And yea Jon did shut Zeglinsky down, he had 0 points after a 21 point game the day before.

I wonder how the ofer performance in the ACC tournament will affect his recruiting rankings?

I wonder how it will affect his high school eligibility next year?

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Update? Are we still recruiting him?

[dukemsu]

Update? Are we still recruiting him?

Duke's still interested, but supposedly Trey is still between UM and MSU, with UM slightly in the lead.

dukemsu

[JohnGalt]

...just updated his formspring saying "Duke isn't on the list anymore."

[Osiagledknarf]

He just commited to Central Michigan..

http://www.mlive.com/sports/saginaw/index.ssf/2010/04/trey_zeigler_will_choose_centr.html

[NYC Duke Fan]

He just commited to Central Michigan..

http://www.mlive.com/sports/saginaw/index.ssf/2010/04/trey_zeigler_will_choose_centr.html

Makes perfect sense wanting to play for your father.

[Big Pappa]

Thought maybe we should revive this thread... Trey just tweeted this "@Tzig0: Official visit this weekend to duke excited"

[Greg_Newton]

Whoa. Huh?

Sophomores in college can take OVs? And he's transferring? And we've been in touch with him?

This is sure out of nowhere.

[superdave]

Thought maybe we should revive this thread... Trey just tweeted this "@Tzig0: Official visit this weekend to duke excited"

Good to see you here again, Big Pappa. That is certainly some interesting news. Thank you for sharing.

Good writeup here (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/ernie-zeigler-firing-central-michigan-could-set-off-165052229.html) from 6 days ago.


Zeigler was #29 in the RSCI for the Class of 2010.
6'5'' and 195.
Will turn 21 in April.
He averaged 16.3 points, 5 boards, 2 assists his freshman year.
He averaged 15.8 points, 6.7 boards and 2.5 assists this year in fewer minutes.



Yes, please.

[DukeGirl4ever]

Whoa. Huh?

Sophomores in college can take OVs? And he's transferring? And we've been in touch with him?

This is sure out of nowhere.

This article's from 6 days ago.
Being consumed with the tournament and my weekend bout with depression, I haven't been paying attention much, nor did I follow his recruitment.

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm....
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/ernie-zeigler-firing-central-michigan-could-set-off-165052229.html

Edit:
I see Dave and I were on it at the same time! :)

[Duvall]

Good to see you here again, Bib Pappa. That is certainly some interesting news. Thank you for sharing.

Good writeup here (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/ernie-zeigler-firing-central-michigan-could-set-off-165052229.html) from 6 days ago.


Zeigler was #29 in the RSCI for the Class of 2010.
6'5'' and 195.
Will turn 21 in April.
He averaged 16.3 points, 5 boards, 2 assists his freshman year.
He averaged 15.8 points, 6.7 boards and 2.5 assists this year in fewer minutes.



Yes, please.

Hmm. (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?p1=trey-zeigler&p2=kyle-singler&p3=nate-james&remove=kyle-singler)

[superdave]

Hmm. (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?p1=trey-zeigler&p2=kyle-singler&p3=nate-james&remove=kyle-singler)

MMMMM. (http://www.nba.com/draft2001/images/players/james_head.jpg) Hmmmmmm. (http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/86/868476.jpg)

[dukelifer]

Good to see you here again, Big Pappa. That is certainly some interesting news. Thank you for sharing.

Good writeup here (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/ernie-zeigler-firing-central-michigan-could-set-off-165052229.html) from 6 days ago.


Zeigler was #29 in the RSCI for the Class of 2010.
6'5'' and 195.
Will turn 21 in April.
He averaged 16.3 points, 5 boards, 2 assists his freshman year.
He averaged 15.8 points, 6.7 boards and 2.5 assists this year in fewer minutes.



Yes, please.

53% CAREER free throw shooter-. That is a concern.

[lotusland]

Good to see you here again, Big Pappa. That is certainly some interesting news. Thank you for sharing.

Good writeup here (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/ernie-zeigler-firing-central-michigan-could-set-off-165052229.html) from 6 days ago.


Zeigler was #29 in the RSCI for the Class of 2010.
6'5'' and 195.
Will turn 21 in April.
He averaged 16.3 points, 5 boards, 2 assists his freshman year.
He averaged 15.8 points, 6.7 boards and 2.5 assists this year in fewer minutes.



Yes, please.
He's going to start immediately and play 30mpg at 3 over Junior SB.
I see him as a lock down defender and POY candidate right away.

[mkline09]

53% CAREER free throw shooter-. That is a concern.

Perhaps he is coming to have Mason work with him on his FT shooting. I kid:D

But seriously interesting development for sure.

[roywhite]

Not to be a downer (he sounds good), but does this possibly complicate an already tight scholarship situation?

[Duvall]

Not to be a downer (he sounds good), but does this possibly complicate an already tight scholarship situation?

It would if Duke has a tight scholarship situation next year. We should know in the next few weeks whether that will be the case.

[superdave]

He's going to start immediately and play 30mpg at 3 over Junior SB.
I see him as a lock down defender and POY candidate right away.

By the time he could play, Dawkins and Curry will be gone. Austin will almost definitely be gone. If we get Bazz, he's probably only here for next year. Sulaimon and Gbinije would be the competition at the 2 and 3 for the 2013-2014 season. That's a nice three-man rotation at the 2-3.

Of course, he's not a wide-bodied, legitimate low-post scorer, so we'll still be in ashes and sackcloth here at the EK Boards.

[dukelifer]

Perhaps he is coming to have Mason work with him on his FT shooting. I kid:D

But seriously interesting development for sure.
Mason figured something out- he did pretty well down the stretch 8-9 Wake, 3-5 UNC, 4-5 Va Tech, 4-4 Fla State.

[superdave]

It would if Duke has a tight scholarship situation next year. We should know in the next few weeks whether that will be the case.

That is likely the first question out of his mouth. I'm guessing there's not too much trouble in making this work though.

[Greg_Newton]

I'm a little confused. How does wing project to be a "position of need" in 2013-2014, considering Murphy, Gbinije, Sulaimon and Jones should be on the roster (not to mention Sr. Thornton and Jr. Cook in the backcourt)?

[mkline09]

Mason figured something out- he did pretty well down the stretch 8-9 Wake, 3-5 UNC, 4-5 Va Tech, 4-4 Fla State.

Yes he did and that is why I made the joke. I was very pleased with how Mason's shooting came around. He could have been like Chris Burgess and just became a head case on the line but he worked super hard and that is definitely worthy of some positive recognition.

[dukemsu]

Trey hasn't exactly set the world on fire at CMU. Supposedly he'll decide between Duke, UCLA, MSU, and Detroit.

I don't see him going to UCLA due to the influx of wings they have coming. MSU is jammed on the perimeter the next two seasons.

Duke, if schollies are available, seems like a likely choice, but I still think he'll stay home and go to Detroit, with his dad possibly joining the staff as an assistant.

He's leaving CMU primarily because his dad, the coach, was fired.

dukemsu

[FerryFor50]

I'd love to see Zeigler here. I think he'd thrive in Duke's system...

[blazindw]

I remember him in high school and he was a great player. He's been pretty good at CMU, but definitely still has room for improvement. But, I too think he would be very good in our system.

[gofurman]

I remember him in high school and he was a great player. He's been pretty good at CMU, but definitely still has room for improvement. But, I too think he would be very good in our system.

Q1) this is teh kid at CMU right? The main board said Detroit?

Q2) like seth curry - he would have to wait a year (sit out) to play? is that right?

[FerryFor50]

Q1) this is teh kid at CMU right? The main board said Detroit?

Q2) like seth curry - he would have to wait a year (sit out) to play? is that right?

NCAA might make an exception since the coach was fired... but likely would have to sit out.

[coldriver10]

So how does this work if he sits out a year...would a scholarship be counted against us starting next year or would it only count for 2013-14 and beyond when he actually plays?

[gofurman]

again, this is the kid from CMU - correct? (the main board said Detriot but I have to think that was incorrect)

[blazindw]

Q1) this is teh kid at CMU right? The main board said Detroit?

Q2) like seth curry - he would have to wait a year (sit out) to play? is that right?


So how does this work if he sits out a year...would a scholarship be counted against us starting next year or would it only count for 2013-14 and beyond when he actually plays?

Yes, this is the kid from CMU. He did not play at UDM (University of Detroit Mercy), though it's been reported that coach Ray McCallum, Sr. is considering hiring Ziegler's dad as an assistant, which could influence his decision.

Pretty sure his scholarship would not count until he is eligible to play...and yes, he would have to sit out a year. There's no exceptions for leaving because the coach got fired.

[Greg_Newton]

again, this is the kid from CMU - correct? (the main board said Detriot but I have to think that was incorrect)

Yes, CMU. Ray McCallum Jr. was a McD's A-A from his class who also went to play for his respective father, at Detroit. May be the source of confusion.

[Duvall]

Pretty sure his scholarship would not count until he is eligible to play...and yes, he would have to sit out a year. There's no exceptions for leaving because the coach got fired.

No, he would count against the scholarship limit as a redshirt player.

[Newton_14]

No, he would count against the scholarship limit as a redshirt player.

That's my understanding of the rule as well. Scholarship counts for redshirts. MP3 and Murph were on scholarship this year, and Seth was on scholarship in 2010. All counted towards the limit of 13.

If Trey comes, and no one leaves, Duke is over and somebody would have to pay their own way.

[Duvall]

That's my understanding of the rule as well. Scholarship counts for redshirts. MP3 and Murph were on scholarship this year, and Seth was on scholarship in 2010. All counted towards the limit of 13.

If Trey comes, and no one leaves, Duke is over and somebody would have to pay their own way.

Wouldn't that just put Duke at 13?

Mason/Kelly/Dawkins/Curry
Thornton/Hairston
Rivers/Cook/Gbinije
Plumlee/Murphy/Sulaimon

That's 12, with one left for Muhammad, Jefferson, Parker or Zeigler. More if someone leaves.

[CDu]

Wouldn't that just put Duke at 13?

Mason/Kelly/Dawkins/Curry
Thornton/Hairston
Rivers/Cook/Gbinije
Plumlee/Murphy/Sulaimon

That's 12, with one left for Muhammad, Jefferson, Parker or Zeigler. More if someone leaves.

Correct. We have one available scholarship at the moment if nobody leaves.

[Newton_14]

Wouldn't that just put Duke at 13?

Mason/Kelly/Dawkins/Curry
Thornton/Hairston
Rivers/Cook/Gbinije
Plumlee/Murphy/Sulaimon

That's 12, with one left for Muhammad, Jefferson, Parker or Zeigler. More if someone leaves.

You are right. My bad, I miscounted.
Interesting. Would love to get the Ziegler kid. Still hoping for Jefferson too. (I see Muhammad and Parker as real long shots at this point)

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Wouldn't that just put Duke at 13?

Mason/Kelly/Dawkins/Curry
Thornton/Hairston
Rivers/Cook/Gbinije
Plumlee/Murphy/Sulaimon

That's 12, with one left for Muhammad, Jefferson, Parker or Zeigler. More if someone leaves.

Taking it one step further, if Zeigler commits to Duke, then it would be safe to assume 1 of the following:

1. Muhammad, Amile, and/or TP are not commiting to Duke.
2. At least 1 current player will transfer if 1 of the HS seniors does commit to Duke.
3. At least 1 current player will give up their scholly if 1 of the HS seniors commit.

[Duvall]

Taking it one step further, if Zeigler commits to Duke, then it would be safe to assume 1 of the following:

1. Muhammad, Amile, and/or TP are not commiting to Duke.
2. At least 1 current player will transfer if 1 of the HS seniors does commit to Duke.
3. At least 1 current player will give up their scholly if 1 of the HS seniors commit.

Well, Duke also has two projected first round draft picks. That seems as likely a scenario as any other.

[blazindw]

Well, Duke also has two projected first round draft picks. That seems as likely a scenario as any other.

Also, there's always the possibility that Zafirowski is awarded a scholarship for his senior year. It's not a given, but is a possibility.

[-jk]

Also, there's always the possibility that Zafirowski is awarded a scholarship for his senior year. It's not a given, but is a possibility.

Given his family, I suspect a scholarship is entirely necessary.

-jk

[-bdbd]

Wouldn't that just put Duke at 13?

Mason/Kelly/Dawkins/Curry
Thornton/Hairston
Rivers/Cook/Gbinije
Plumlee/Murphy/Sulaimon

That's 12, with one left for Muhammad, Jefferson, Parker or Zeigler. More if someone leaves.

...or if someone offers to give up their scholarship...

(and by "leaves" obviously we include both 'to the NBA' or 'to transfer').

:confused:

Interesting development. Nobody concerned more about this kid potentially overlapping positions/skills with Silent-G, Murphy, or RS?

[Duvall]

...or if someone offers to give up their scholarship...

(and by "leaves" obviously we include both 'to the NBA' or 'to transfer').

:confused:

Interesting development. Nobody concerned more about this kid potentially overlapping positions/skills with Silent-G, Murphy, or RS?

Not really. Can't those players cover three different positions?

[miramar]

.

:confused:

Interesting development. Nobody concerned more about this kid potentially overlapping positions/skills with Silent-G, Murphy, or RS?

He's 6-5 195 so he's really a shooting guard. Since Duke will probably go back to a two-guard lineup once Dawkins, Curry, and Rivers leave (who knows, maybe all three will leave together next year if Austin stays another season) then he would only overlap with Sulaimon. It would work.

[ForkFondler]

Seems like the team is a little stronger on small and big, with some gaps on the 15' middle. Maybe TZ could help.

[blazindw]

Given his family, I suspect a scholarship is entirely necessary.

-jk

Haha, that's a fair point. I just focused on the point that Coach K has rewarded some walk-ons in the past with a scholarship...didn't know if Todd was being considered for one as well, even with his family.

[ice-9]

I hope he commits.

Duke has had really good seasons when transfers were sitting out under Coach K:

- Roshown McLeod: 18-13 record in 1996, the year Coach K was back after the disastrous 13-18 season

- Dahntay Jones: 2001 national championship

- Seth Curry: 2010 national championship

- Trey Ziegler: ?

[loran16]

Someone mentioned that he was hardly efficient, quoting his #s from Pomeroy. That's actually a misleading bit - Efficiency really drops as one's usage and percentage of shots goes up, regardless of talent.

Ziegler takes 30.9% of his team's shots when on the floor and is used on 31.6% of possessions of his team this year, both in the top 50. For comparison, Austin took 25.5% of the shots and was used on 24.1% of possessions.

Even Seth Curry, while he took more shots, was used on less percentage of possessions in Liberty on his Freshmen year (and was far less efficient than he is now). So his efficiency is naturally down.

Ziegler's a real talent who'd be interesting...if we had a spot for him.

[ncexnyc]

We can ooh and aah over several of these prospects, but there's an old saying, "A bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush."

If Trey gets offered and accepts right away then that's that. The other kids have had there chance and couldn't reach a decision for whatever reason. It's their loss.

[dcdevil2009]

Do transfers count against the scholarship limit for the year in which they sit out? I think they do, but it's kind of unfair that the NCAA counts them as members of the team for that purpose, yet they aren't allowed to be recognized as part of the team for other purposes (Seth couldn't even get a championship ring). I'm curious because in the other recruiting threads people keep talking about needing a guy who can come in a contribute immediately, but getting Zeigler might make that impossible if it means he's our 13th scholly for next year.

[CDu]

He's 6-5 195 so he's really a shooting guard. Since Duke will probably go back to a two-guard lineup once Dawkins, Curry, and Rivers leave (who knows, maybe all three will leave together next year if Austin stays another season) then he would only overlap with Sulaimon. It would work.

Don't forget Matt Jones. We'll have 2 guys each at PG, SG, and SF in the 2013-2014 season even without Zeigler. Now, Zeigler (as essentially a senior development-wise) may be in a better position to contribute than a sophomore Sulaimon or a freshman Jones. But there is no question that we'd have a lot of overlap. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing if the overlap is with really good players. It could be that Murphy would see more time at PF, but that's still a crowded picture.

[-bdbd]

Do transfers count against the scholarship limit for the year in which they sit out? I think they do, but it's kind of unfair that the NCAA counts them as members of the team for that purpose, yet they aren't allowed to be recognized as part of the team for other purposes (Seth couldn't even get a championship ring). I'm curious because in the other recruiting threads people keep talking about needing a guy who can come in a contribute immediately, but getting Zeigler might make that impossible if it means he's our 13th scholly for next year.

Yes, transfers and redshirts sitting out DO count towards the total. Folks seem to be ignoring some of our true insiders' comments when they say things like, "If this kid X has been offered, as well as these others, then K and staff know what they're doing and have a plan..."

My money is still on the "Lee Melchioni path" - with one or more players from wealthier families offering to give back a scholarship if really needed by the team. Of course, we won't know for another 6 weeks, for sure, who is going or staying. :confused:

Hmmmm.

[CDu]

Yes, transfers and redshirts sitting out DO count towards the total. Folks seem to be ignoring some of our true insiders' comments when they say things like, "If this kid X has been offered, as well as these others, then K and staff know what they're doing and have a plan..."

My money is still on the "Lee Melchioni path" - with one or more players from wealthier families offering to give back a scholarship if really needed by the team. Of course, we won't know for another 6 weeks, for sure, who is going or staying. :confused:

Hmmmm.

That would be a very unselfish move, especially considering that doing so would likely result in a minutes crunch for somebody. We're already going to be "too deep" (in terms of getting everyone significant minutes) without any additional players. Foregoing a scholarship to make the minutes crunch even worse seems unlikely.

That said, I'd love it if it happened. The more good talent (especially tall, athletic wing players with proven D-1 scoring ability) the better.

[luvdahops]

That would be a very unselfish move, especially considering that doing so would likely result in a minutes crunch for somebody. We're already going to be "too deep" (in terms of getting everyone significant minutes) without any additional players. Foregoing a scholarship to make the minutes crunch even worse seems unlikely.

That said, I'd love it if it happened. The more good talent (especially tall, athletic wing players with proven D-1 scoring ability) the better.

Agree. Ziegler sounds like more of a true wing a la Nate James or Brian Davis (vs another SG), given that he has averaged ~6 rpg thus far in his career.

[mkline09]

Agree. Ziegler sounds like more of a true wing a la Nate James or Brian Davis (vs another SG), given that he has averaged ~6 rpg thus far in his career.

Duke could use a guy like Nate or Brian, but those of those guys were pretty phyically imposing guys. Not sure I see Zeigler being that type of guy though. But I wouldn't be against seeing him head to Duke.

[Jderf]

Agree. Ziegler sounds like more of a true wing a la Nate James or Brian Davis (vs another SG), given that he has averaged ~6 rpg thus far in his career.


Duke could use a guy like Nate or Brian, but those of those guys were pretty phyically imposing guys. Not sure I see Zeigler being that type of guy though. But I wouldn't be against seeing him head to Duke.

I'm not sure either if Ziegler is on the same level as Nate or Brian, but just having a rebound guard (at all) could have made a significant difference this year. Four or five extra rebounds per game could have gone a long, long way. Two years down the line, however, it is less clear whether that will be an area of need or not, especially with all the tall, athletic wings we might have. So who knows?

[CDu]

I'm not sure either if Ziegler is on the same level as Nate or Brian, but just having a rebound guard (at all) could have made a significant difference this year. Four or five extra rebounds per game could have gone a long, long way. Two years down the line, however, it is less clear whether that will be an area of need or not, especially with all the tall, athletic wings we might have. So who knows?

Yep. To expand upon this, we should have the following wing players in 2013-2014: Sulaimon (6'3" but very long and athletic), Jones (6'4"), Gbinije (6'6"), Murphy (6'8"). Conversely, we'll have the following players inside: Hairston (6'7"/6'8"), Marshall (6'11"). So it would seem like a big guy would be the need for that season. Now, we are in the mix for at least one bigger guy this year and certainly in the mix for guys next year, so maybe that's not a concern.

However, the point still stands that wing talent may not be the team's biggest need at that point. Now, if Zeigler is allowed to be eligible for next year and if Rivers doesn't return, the story changes. We could have absolutely used Zeigler this year, and could very well use him next year. It's just that his marginal impact in 2013-2014 may not be as high as some think.

[Kedsy]

Duke could use a guy like Nate or Brian, but those of those guys were pretty phyically imposing guys. Not sure I see Zeigler being that type of guy though. But I wouldn't be against seeing him head to Duke.

Nate James was physically imposing. I remember Brian Davis as being fairly skinny. He was listed at 6'7, 195 and Zeigler is listed at 6'5, 195, so Zeigler actually has a little more beef on him than Davis did.

[gumbomoop]

Nate James was physically imposing. I remember Brian Davis as being fairly skinny. He was listed at 6'7, 195 and Zeigler is listed at 6'5, 195, so Zeigler actually has a little more beef on him than Davis did.

Our memories, and possibly eyes, differ on Brian Davis, at least the Jr-Sr-years Davis, who was more muscular than skinny. Saw the recent ESPN special on the '91-'92 teams [themed around honoring Hurley], and Davis didn't look skinny. He had filled out some.

[luvdahops]

Nate James was physically imposing. I remember Brian Davis as being fairly skinny. He was listed at 6'7, 195 and Zeigler is listed at 6'5, 195, so Zeigler actually has a little more beef on him than Davis did.

Nate was listed at 6'6" 205 and actually slimmed down a fair bit from freshman to junior year as he made the transition high school PF to college wing. Still would not dispute that Nate was likely more physically imposing, though. The point I was trying to make is that Ziegler seems to be a similar type of player - perimeter skills plus an ability to mix it up inside. Davis was the same sort of player, T Hill also. The Villanova team that smoked us in '09 seemed to have an army of guys like this. I don't think you can ever have too many of 'em.

[DukieinSoCal]

Yep. To expand upon this, we should have the following wing players in 2013-2014: Sulaimon (6'3" but very long and athletic), Jones (6'4"), Gbinije (6'6"), Murphy (6'8"). Conversely, we'll have the following players inside: Hairston (6'7"/6'8"), Marshall (6'11"). So it would seem like a big guy would be the need for that season. Now, we are in the mix for at least one bigger guy this year and certainly in the mix for guys next year, so maybe that's not a concern.

However, the point still stands that wing talent may not be the team's biggest need at that point. Now, if Zeigler is allowed to be eligible for next year and if Rivers doesn't return, the story changes. We could have absolutely used Zeigler this year, and could very well use him next year. It's just that his marginal impact in 2013-2014 may not be as high as some think.

We keep talking about how we "need" a big man or a prototypical SF but the reality is we have who we have. In the past, we've had very successful teams without the classic 1-5 position players. One of coach K's greatest strengths is being able to adapt his team's style of play to suit its strengths and mask its weaknesses. If we end up with a bunch of athletic guards next year, I would hope that we could maximize the roster by playing faster, pressuring the ball more, and shooting the ball well from the perimeter. We've done it in the past with great success and I don't see why we can't do it again. It's actually fun watching teams like that play in the NCAA and creating all sorts of problems for bigger teams as the "underdog".

[azzefkram]

We keep talking about how we "need" a big man or a prototypical SF but the reality is we have who we have. In the past, we've had very successful teams without the classic 1-5 position players. One of coach K's greatest strengths is being able to adapt his team's style of play to suit its strengths and mask its weaknesses. If we end up with a bunch of athletic guards next year, I would hope that we could maximize the roster by playing faster, pressuring the ball more, and shooting the ball well from the perimeter. We've done it in the past with great success and I don't see why we can't do it again. It's actually fun watching teams like that play in the NCAA and creating all sorts of problems for bigger teams as the "underdog".

I agree that we have had very successful teams without the classic 1-5, but when we did many of the player were versatile. Looking at who we have right now, Kelly is the only player that I would consider versatile.

[CDu]

I agree that we have had very successful teams without the classic 1-5, but when we did many of the player were versatile. Looking at who we have right now, Kelly is the only player that I would consider versatile.

And I wouldn't consider Kelly to be all that versatile. He can create matchup problems, but he's not really versatile. Battier and Grant Hill were able to play any position on the court. Dunleavy, Jones, James, Carrawell, and Deng were versatile (could play the 2, 3, or 4 if necessary). Kelly can play the 4 or 5, but that's about it.

If anything, I think our most versatile players on the roster are Rivers (if he returns), Gbinije, and Murphy. They're the only ones with the size and athleticism to play 3 different positions if need be. The rest of the guys are more one-dimensional, both in terms of skill sets and versatility.

[Jderf]

And I wouldn't consider Kelly to be all that versatile. He can create matchup problems, but he's not really versatile. Battier and Grant Hill were able to play any position on the court. Dunleavy, Jones, James, Carrawell, and Deng were versatile (could play the 2, 3, or 4 if necessary). Kelly can play the 4 or 5, but that's about it.

If anything, I think our most versatile players on the roster are Rivers (if he returns), Gbinije, and Murphy. They're the only ones with the size and athleticism to play 3 different positions if need be. The rest of the guys are more one-dimensional, both in terms of skill sets and versatility.

I guess it depends on what you mean by versatility. Kelly is certainly versatile in that he can score in a variety of ways, but less so in that he cannot effectively slide into other positions on the court, except for maybe center. Really, that is a big difference between this year's team and past teams, a difference that probably hasn't been discussed as much as it warranted. We didn't have any mix-and-match players on the roster this year, players that could easily be slotted into several different positions. Pretty much every player this year was pretty much restricted to playing their one, natural position. It really makes me miss the Kyle Singler era (among many other eras), when most of the teams we played would have benched any of their starters if they could have Kyle play in their place. Point guard, small forward, center. Didn't matter most of the time.

[CDu]

I guess it depends on what you mean by versatility. Kelly is certainly versatile in that he can score in a variety of ways, but less so in that he cannot effectively slide into other positions on the court, except for maybe center. Really, that is a big difference between this year's team and past teams, a difference that probably hasn't been discussed as much as it warranted. We didn't have any mix-and-match players on the roster this year, players that could easily be slotted into several different positions. Pretty much every player this year was pretty much restricted to playing their one, natural position. It really makes me miss the Kyle Singler era (among many other eras), when most of the teams we played would have benched any of their starters if they could have Kyle play in their place. Point guard, small forward, center. Didn't matter most of the time.

Yeah, I've always considered versatility to be the ability to play and defend numerous positions, and that's what I was getting at. We didn't have roster versatility. It's what helps prevent a team from being subject to matchup problems. Lack of scoring versatility is something that you overcome by having a good offensive gameplan and effort (offensive rebounding, pushing tempo, forcing turnovers, etc).

[azzefkram]

And I wouldn't consider Kelly to be all that versatile. He can create matchup problems, but he's not really versatile. Battier and Grant Hill were able to play any position on the court. Dunleavy, Jones, James, Carrawell, and Deng were versatile (could play the 2, 3, or 4 if necessary). Kelly can play the 4 or 5, but that's about it.

If anything, I think our most versatile players on the roster are Rivers (if he returns), Gbinije, and Murphy. They're the only ones with the size and athleticism to play 3 different positions if need be. The rest of the guys are more one-dimensional, both in terms of skill sets and versatility.

I agree with you on Kelly and man how I miss watching those other players you mentioned play. I don't think Rivers is versatile at all at this point but he definitely has the potential. I haven't seen enough of Gbinije or Murphy to have an opinion, but I hope that's the case.

[Kedsy]

I don't think Rivers is versatile at all at this point but he definitely has the potential.

If the definition of "versatile" is the ability to play multiple positions, then Austin is quite versatile since he can play the 1, 2, or 3.

[NSDukeFan]

Yeah, I've always considered versatility to be the ability to play and defend numerous positions, and that's what I was getting at. We didn't have roster versatility. It's what helps prevent a team from being subject to matchup problems. Lack of scoring versatility is something that you overcome by having a good offensive gameplan and effort (offensive rebounding, pushing tempo, forcing turnovers, etc).

We had lots of versatility this year. We had a number of players who couldn't effectively guard several positions. ;)

[CDu]

I agree with you on Kelly and man how I miss watching those other players you mentioned play. I don't think Rivers is versatile at all at this point but he definitely has the potential. I haven't seen enough of Gbinije or Murphy to have an opinion, but I hope that's the case.

I think Rivers is absolutely versatile. He can defend 3 positions at the college level (the 1, 2, and 3 spots). Gbinije and Murphy supposedly have the athleticism to defend 3 positions as well (2, 3, and 4).


We had lots of versatility this year. We had a number of players who couldn't effectively guard several positions. ;)

Zing!!!

[COYS]

Yeah, I've always considered versatility to be the ability to play and defend numerous positions, and that's what I was getting at. We didn't have roster versatility. It's what helps prevent a team from being subject to matchup problems. Lack of scoring versatility is something that you overcome by having a good offensive gameplan and effort (offensive rebounding, pushing tempo, forcing turnovers, etc).

Count me as one who doesn't think versatility will be much less of a concern next year. Alex and Mike will have had a year to get used to Duke's defensive system and an offseason to improve their game. In addition, if Mason and Austin leave, there will be fewer players who are completely established in front of them. They'll be ready to go.

As for Zeigler, I'm not sure how the scholarship situation would work out or how the staff sees other players fitting in or not, but I know that if the staff decides to court Trey, they see a role for him. Rasheed, Quinn, Tyler, Matt Jones, Mike G, and Alex will all presumably be on the roster two years from now. However, if we don't land too many more big guys, we'd likely be using Alex and/or Amile (if he commits) at the 4 spot alongside Marshall. Perhaps the staff sees a scenario where Quinn, Tyler, and Rasheed are splitting time at the 1 and 2 spots with Matt Jones getting spot minutes as a frosh. If that's the case, it's easy to envision a scenario in which Mike, Trey, and Alex get significant minutes, especially if Alex plays the 4 a lot. They could even all play side by side in some situations such as late game when we need lots of ballhandlers and are subbing offense and defense or Zeigler could slide to the 2 next to Quinn/Tyler, Mike would play the 3, and Alex could play the 4.

[azzefkram]

I think Rivers is absolutely versatile. He can defend 3 positions at the college level (the 1, 2, and 3 spots).

Defensively I'd agree that he can guard to 1 and 2, but the 3 would be a struggle most nights. Offensively, I don't think he has the mindset to be a 1 which probably helps him at the 2.

[azzefkram]

We had lots of versatility this year. We had a number of players who couldn't effectively guard several positions. ;)


I have to admit... I laughed out loud when I read that.

[Greg_Newton]

Yep. To expand upon this, we should have the following wing players in 2013-2014: Sulaimon (6'3" but very long and athletic), Jones (6'4"), Gbinije (6'6"), Murphy (6'8"). Conversely, we'll have the following players inside: Hairston (6'7"/6'8"), Marshall (6'11"). So it would seem like a big guy would be the need for that season.

Agreed, and to further your point, Sulaimon actually measured at 6'4.5 with a 6'7 wingspan last summer, and Jones was quoted as saying "I'm up to 6'5 and 193 last time I checked" in February. So, barring transfers, we should have four top-30 wings between 6'4.5 and 6'8 in 2013-1014, and that's not even considering the possibility of Jabari Parker.

[LSanders]

Another name to toss on the prospective fire: Evan Smotrycz

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7719072/evan-smotrycz-carlton-brundidge-colton-christian-all-decide-leave-michigan-wolverines

Obviously, I have no idea what's going on, but at 6'9"/235 lbs., 44% 3-point avg, 78% FT, and 5rpg, is sounds like this kid can play ... Another 4 who can stretch a defense with his jump shooting.

[CDu]

Defensively I'd agree that he can guard to 1 and 2, but the 3 would be a struggle most nights. Offensively, I don't think he has the mindset to be a 1 which probably helps him at the 2.

Well, he guarded the 3 on most nights this year, and I'd say he was our best perimeter defender in that role.

[ncexnyc]

Another name to toss on the prospective fire: Evan Smotrycz

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7719072/evan-smotrycz-carlton-brundidge-colton-christian-all-decide-leave-michigan-wolverines

Obviously, I have no idea what's going on, but at 6'9"/235 lbs., 44% 3-point avg, 78% FT, and 5rpg, is sounds like this kid can play ... Another 4 who can stretch a defense with his jump shooting.


He had a nice tourney game against us last year. Played 14 mins, scored 13 pts on 5-7 shooting, 2 boards, but 5 fouls.

[dukelifer]

Another name to toss on the prospective fire: Evan Smotrycz

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7719072/evan-smotrycz-carlton-brundidge-colton-christian-all-decide-leave-michigan-wolverines

Obviously, I have no idea what's going on, but at 6'9"/235 lbs., 44% 3-point avg, 78% FT, and 5rpg, is sounds like this kid can play ... Another 4 who can stretch a defense with his jump shooting.

Did well against the mid-majors- struggled to score against Big 10 players.

[NSDukeFan]

Did well against the mid-majors- struggled to score against Big 10 players.

Sign him right away. The team needs someone who can play well against mid-majors. Then I wouldn't be this unenthusiastic about basketball this weekend. :p

[miramar]

Our memories, and possibly eyes, differ on Brian Davis, at least the Jr-Sr-years Davis, who was more muscular than skinny. Saw the recent ESPN special on the '91-'92 teams [themed around honoring Hurley], and Davis didn't look skinny. He had filled out some.

the ESPN special was a good reminder of how athletic Brian Davis really was. I didn't quite remember that 20 years later. It was quite a luxury and a privilege to have wing players like Davis, Grant Hill, and Thomas Hill on the same team. If you add Bobby Hurley, Marty Clark, and Billy McCaffrey (in 1991), Duke was absolutely loaded at the 1-3 positions.

[Dukehky]

Trey is in Durham right now.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

Another name to toss on the prospective fire: Evan Smotrycz

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7719072/evan-smotrycz-carlton-brundidge-colton-christian-all-decide-leave-michigan-wolverines

Obviously, I have no idea what's going on, but at 6'9"/235 lbs., 44% 3-point avg, 78% FT, and 5rpg, is sounds like this kid can play ... Another 4 who can stretch a defense with his jump shooting.


I think this may be a bit early to add his name into the picture. He hasn't even named schools he's considering and I don't think Duke ever looked at him while he was in high school...Man, that would be awful for Michigan to lose all these guys AND have Burke enter the draft.

[Newton_14]

Trey is in Durham right now.

Got a link?

[juise]

Got a link?

My first thought was to check Twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/tzig0):


Trey Zeigler ‏ @Tzig0
Just landed in Durham
4:13 PM - 22 Mar 12 via Twitter for iPhone

[Newton_14]

My first thought was to check Twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/tzig0):

Great! Thanks for the validation!

[BobcatsandDevils]

As a current student at Ohio (but a lifelong Duke fan) I'm absolutely stoked about this kid. At 6'5 and after watching him play for 2 years I absolutely think he would fit into our system. He's athletically up to par and does a great job of filling the stat sheet. Also, he's a guard that can create for himself by putting the ball on the floor, as well as having a solid stroke from downtown. Count me in on this one, although the word through the grapevine on campus is that Detroit will be a very strong player. MSU recruited him pretty hard out of Hs so I see the two of them as our main competition. That being said, I've got a good feeling about him coming to Durham. Call me the optimist

[Rich]

As a current student at Ohio (but a lifelong Duke fan) I'm absolutely stoked about this kid. At 6'5 and after watching him play for 2 years I absolutely think he would fit into our system. He's athletically up to par and does a great job of filling the stat sheet. Also, he's a guard that can create for himself by putting the ball on the floor, as well as having a solid stroke from downtown. Count me in on this one, although the word through the grapevine on campus is that Detroit will be a very strong player. MSU recruited him pretty hard out of Hs so I see the two of them as our main competition. That being said, I've got a good feeling about him coming to Durham. Call me the optimist

You will have Duke nation behind you tonight, that's for sure.

[luvdahops]

Agreed, and to further your point, Sulaimon actually measured at 6'4.5 with a 6'7 wingspan last summer, and Jones was quoted as saying "I'm up to 6'5 and 193 last time I checked" in February. So, barring transfers, we should have four top-30 wings between 6'4.5 and 6'8 in 2013-1014, and that's not even considering the possibility of Jabari Parker.

Appreciate this insight - very encouraging. While I agree with CDu that a big man is a more critical need to fill, I am still of the view that you can never have too many athletic mid-sized guys.

[CDu]

Appreciate this insight - very encouraging. While I agree with CDu that a big man is a more critical need to fill, I am still of the view that you can never have too many athletic mid-sized guys.

To be fair, I'd love to have both. I just think that our needs will likely be greater inside. But I absolutely agree that adding an additional big guard (especially one who has averaged 15+ ppg at the college level) would be a good thing too.

[DukeGirl4ever]

And more fun from the ESPN article on Rivers:

Duke had Central Michigan wing Trey Zeigler on campus for a recruiting visit Friday, according to sources. The hope is that Zeigler, wherever he signs, could play immediately next season with an NCAA waiver after his father, Ernie, was fired March 14 as the Chippewas' coach.

I thought this all along. If we all think back to the situation with Miles, he originally was going to play for Stanford but then the coach got fired (IIRC) and he was able to come to Duke and play immediately. Now, that happened when he was a high school senior, but why can't the same rule apply for kids in college? If the coach gets fired, it is my feeling their release should be granted and they should be allowed to play right away.

[Rich]

And more fun from the ESPN article on Rivers:

I thought this all along. If we all think back to the situation with Miles, he originally was going to play for Stanford but then the coach got fired (IIRC) and he was able to come to Duke and play immediately. Now, that happened when he was a high school senior, but why can't the same rule apply for kids in college? If the coach gets fired, it is my feeling their release should be granted and they should be allowed to play right away.

Since when did the NCAA do anything that was fair to college athletes?

[magjayran]

And more fun from the ESPN article on Rivers:


I thought this all along. If we all think back to the situation with Miles, he originally was going to play for Stanford but then the coach got fired (IIRC) and he was able to come to Duke and play immediately. Now, that happened when he was a high school senior, but why can't the same rule apply for kids in college? If the coach gets fired, it is my feeling their release should be granted and they should be allowed to play right away.

Because Miles wasn't transferring. The NCAA has never made a kid sit out that changed his mind before the season started.

[DukeGirl4ever]

Because Miles wasn't transferring.

Yes, yes, yes. I know this! :p
What I'm saying is it is my belief that the same thing should apply to kids who are already in college and a coach gets fired. Part of the reason you go to school is to play for a certain coach (but it is not the only reason), and therefore if they are fired, you should be allowed to explore your options and not be penalized by sitting out a year.

I don't know how others feel, but that is my take on it.

[freshmanjs]

Because Miles wasn't transferring. The NCAA has never made a kid sit out that changed his mind before the season started.

I think there are penalties for changing post LOI without release. something like 2 years of lost eligibility.

[Ichabod Drain]

Yes, yes, yes. I know this! :p
What I'm saying is it is my belief that the same thing should apply to kids who are already in college and a coach gets fired. Part of the reason you go to school is to play for a certain coach (but it is not the only reason), and therefore if they are fired, you should be allowed to explore your options and not be penalized by sitting out a year.

I don't know how others feel, but that is my take on it.

Jay Bilas has been telling the NCAA this for over 20 years now.

[DukeGirl4ever]

Jay Bilas has been telling the NCAA this for over 20 years now.

Then I guess I'm in good company! :D
(I will add that sometimes when he goes on his rants, I tune him out, even though I love Jay. I do recall hearing him say that once or twice, though.)

[Jderf]

It also might be important to note that this is not your typical coach-gets-fired-then-player-transfers situation. The coach was his father, so he may get special consideration with this being "family circumstances," or something like that. If Elliot could play immediately at Memphis to be closer to his mother, I don't see why Zeigler couldn't argue that this situation -- forcibly being coached by the same staff which fired his dad -- is unworkable or toxic in some way. Especially if his dad has to move away to take another position. I won't say this is definitely how it will work, but I could see something playing out along those lines, potentially.

[CDu]

And more fun from the ESPN article on Rivers:


I thought this all along. If we all think back to the situation with Miles, he originally was going to play for Stanford but then the coach got fired (IIRC) and he was able to come to Duke and play immediately. Now, that happened when he was a high school senior, but why can't the same rule apply for kids in college? If the coach gets fired, it is my feeling their release should be granted and they should be allowed to play right away.

Would be very interesting if we somehow added Zeigler and Parker (if we do lose Mason) to the mix next season. Not that I expect Parker to be an immediate impact player, but he would hopefully at least add 15-20 mpg and a change of pace from Kelly and Marshall and Murphy.

[dukedoc]

Any intel on Trey's visit? What will he be doing given that there aren't any basketball activities going on on campus? Certainly talking with the staff and other players, touring the facilities, and (gasp) checking out classes, perhaps?

[UrinalCake]

I thought there was some talk of instituting a rule where if a coach gets fired or leaves, players can transfer and be immediately eligible as long as it's not to the new school where the coach winds up going (to prevent cases like Calipari bringing all of his Memphis players with him. Oh wait, that happened anyways). The rule makes sense, I mean players commit to the coach as much or more than they commit to the school.

[pfrduke]

I thought there was some talk of instituting a rule where if a coach gets fired or leaves, players can transfer and be immediately eligible as long as it's not to the new school where the coach winds up going (to prevent cases like Calipari bringing all of his Memphis players with him. Oh wait, that happened anyways). The rule makes sense, I mean players commit to the coach as much or more than they commit to the school.

Jay Bilas talks about this every chance he gets, but I don't know that any such rule has actually been instituted.

[Olympic Fan]

Jay Bilas talks about this every chance he gets, but I don't know that any such rule has actually been instituted.

You are right -- there is no such rule. Now, when a school faces a posseason ban, players whose careers won't extend [past the ban are allowed to transfer without penalty. So a UNC football rising senior could transfer at will ... and a UConn basketball senior.

Beyond that, there is the graduation rule that has allowed so many guys to move without sitting, by finding a postgrad course at the new school that their old school doesn't offer. I have no idea how close Ziegler is to graduation.

Finally, there is the hardship plea. I'm not sure of the exact parameters -- only that the NCAA has been fairly generous about granting transfers, but there is no specific rule to grant a kid a transfer when his coach -- or father -- is fired.

[Ichabod Drain]

Any intel on Trey's visit? What will he be doing given that there aren't any basketball activities going on on campus? Certainly talking with the staff and other players, touring the facilities, and (gasp) checking out classes, perhaps?

He worked out with Tyler, Josh, Quinn, and a couple of the managers, that's all i got.

[Troublemaker]

This Zeigler recruitment is interesting. In terms of strengths and weaknesses as a player, he's basically the exact opposite of guys like Dawkins and Curry.

If Zeigler were merely an okay shooter, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow. But he's actually a poor shooter (but obviously a lengthy defender / slasher who could be a great help to any program). A slight philosophical tweak could be in the works for Duke. Moving the needle a bit back towards Duke's slasher era (1981 - 1994) and away a bit from the 3-pt era (1995-2012). Not that the former didn't have shooters and the latter didn't slashers, but there is a very clear delineation at 1995 if you look back at Duke's 3-pt shot attempts per season. Here's hoping.

[Furniture]

Here is a tweet from Tyler Thornton

Tyler Thornton ‏ @tythornton3 Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
RT @jhairston15: Coolin with @tythornton3 and @tzig0. Twit fam show him some love! Let's make him a Blue Devil!

@tzig0 is Trey......

[dukedoc]

This Zeigler recruitment is interesting. In terms of strengths and weaknesses as a player, he's basically the exact opposite of guys like Dawkins and Curry.

If Zeigler were merely an okay shooter, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow. But he's actually a poor shooter (but obviously a lengthy defender / slasher who could be a great help to any program). A slight philosophical tweak could be in the works for Duke. Moving the needle a bit back towards Duke's slasher era (1981 - 1994) and away a bit from the 3-pt era (1995-2012). Not that the former didn't have shooters and the latter didn't slashers, but there is a very clear delineation at 1995 if you look back at Duke's 3-pt shot attempts per season. Here's hoping.

Whatever the rationale, I like the idea of adding him to our current mix. In addition to within-individual versatility, it's nice to have overall team versatility in the ways in which we can attack on offense, so adding a slasher, to me, makes total sense given the overall complexion of our current roster and attack. I also like the fact that he apparently defends well.

[ncexnyc]

He worked out with Tyler, Josh, Quinn, and a couple of the managers, that's all i got.
I'm not shocked to hear the kid is hanging out with Tyler, Josh, and Quinn. Those three come across as blue collar, lunch bucket types who are in the gym busting the behinds every chance they can.

[Dukehky]

Dahntay Jones type... hopefully.

[Greg_Newton]

I'm really curious to hear what the staff would expect his role to be, or just how good they think he is. I remember being not that disappointed when he went elsewhere in HS, based on rankings, evals, highlights, etc... thought he looked like he'd be a decent high-major role player, but not super skilled or athletic and probably not a pro.

It can't hurt to have guys like that on the roster, as long as it doesn't squeeze out potentially more talented players, but I'm curious if that's still likely the case, or if the staff is looking at him as more of a Dahntay-type impact player. I wouldn't think so, because he doesn't seem to be a good shooter, and is not at Dahntay's level athletically, but it sounds like he'd do a lot of the dirty work that our wings didn't do this year. Maybe a Nate James type?

I don't know what to think, it's almost like he's been off the grid for the last couple of years...

[tele]

I'm really curious to hear what the staff would expect his role to be, or just how good they think he is. I remember being not that disappointed when he went elsewhere in HS, based on rankings, evals, highlights, etc... thought he looked like he'd be a decent high-major role player, but not super skilled or athletic and probably not a pro.

It can't hurt to have guys like that on the roster, as long as it doesn't squeeze out potentially more talented players, but I'm curious if that's still likely the case, or if the staff is looking at him as more of a Dahntay-type impact player. I wouldn't think so, because he doesn't seem to be a good shooter, and is not at Dahntay's level athletically, but it sounds like he'd do a lot of the dirty work that our wings didn't do this year. Maybe a Nate James type?

I don't know what to think, it's almost like he's been off the grid for the last couple of years...

His free throw shooting % isn't that hot either.

[Greg_Newton]

"Measured 6'5 (in shoes) 196 lbs, with a 6'9 wingspan at the 2011 Kevin Durant Skills Academy." That's great length, at least.

Also, seems like a "power wing" from the reports/highlights... sounds more and more like he's of the Nate James mold to me. Really needs to get that shot a little better, though.

[dukedoc]

I'm really curious to hear what the staff would expect his role to be, or just how good they think he is. I remember being not that disappointed when he went elsewhere in HS, based on rankings, evals, highlights, etc... thought he looked like he'd be a decent high-major role player, but not super skilled or athletic and probably not a pro.

It can't hurt to have guys like that on the roster, as long as it doesn't squeeze out potentially more talented players, but I'm curious if that's still likely the case, or if the staff is looking at him as more of a Dahntay-type impact player. I wouldn't think so, because he doesn't seem to be a good shooter, and is not at Dahntay's level athletically, but it sounds like he'd do a lot of the dirty work that our wings didn't do this year. Maybe a Nate James type?

I don't know what to think, it's almost like he's been off the grid for the last couple of years...


I agree - it's not clear what exactly the rationale is, and although he's not perfectly well rounded, he does seem to offer some qualities that are fairly distinct from the cohort of guys we have returning next year. It's not like the staff knew this was coming (unless there was some private intel they had access to) and have jumped on this pretty quickly, so I presume they're confident that this would be a good addition. I'm not sure how visits work for a transfer, but given that he was on campus this weekend, does that mean he's been officially offered a spot? Was it an OV?

[CDu]

"Measured 6'5 (in shoes) 196 lbs, with a 6'9 wingspan at the 2011 Kevin Durant Skills Academy." That's great length, at least.

Also, seems like a "power wing" from the reports/highlights... sounds more and more like he's of the Nate James mold to me. Really needs to get that shot a little better, though.

I'd say Nate James and Dahntay Jones are pretty good comps. He is a similar size and appears to play a similar style. And remember - neither James nor Jones were great 3pt shooters early in their careers either. James shot 28.8% as a sophomore and 31.4% as a senior. Jones shot 34.5% as a sophomore and 23.1% as a junior. Zeigler shot 32.9% as a freshman and 28.8% last year.

He definitely would fit a role that we haven't had and were just hoping Gbinije might fill in the long, physical wing player and blue-collar wing as opposed to the finesse jumpshooting wing. And he's a proven player who has shown he can score against major conference opponents (22 against Temple, 19 against Minnesota and Iowa State, 20 against Nebraska last year - all with reasonable FG %. The big question is his free throw shooting, which is atrocious.

[ArkieDukie]

I'd say Nate James and Dahntay Jones are pretty good comps. He is a similar size and appears to play a similar style. And remember - neither James nor Jones were great 3pt shooters early in their careers either. James shot 28.8% as a sophomore and 31.4% as a senior. Jones shot 34.5% as a sophomore and 23.1% as a junior. Zeigler shot 32.9% as a freshman and 28.8% last year.

He definitely would fit a role that we haven't had and were just hoping Gbinije might fill in the long, physical wing player and blue-collar wing as opposed to the finesse jumpshooting wing. And he's a proven player who has shown he can score against major conference opponents (22 against Temple, 19 against Minnesota and Iowa State, 20 against Nebraska last year - all with reasonable FG %. The big question is his free throw shooting, which is atrocious.

If he's in the Nate James/Dahntay Jones mold, does that mean he's being recruited to play, ahem, bad posterior? We could sure use help at that position.

[devildeac]

If he's in the Nate James/Dahntay Jones mold, does that mean he's being recruited to play, ahem, bad posterior? We could sure use help at that position.

IIRC, the board filters are designed to accept (Coach) Badass;).

[Bob Green]

And remember - neither James nor Jones were great 3pt shooters early in their careers either. James shot 28.8% as a sophomore and 31.4% as a senior. Jones shot 34.5% as a sophomore and 23.1% as a junior.

I disagree that Nate James wasn't a great 3pt shooter early. He won the McDonald's All America 3pt Contest. James arrived at Duke as a great 3pt shooter but then he suffered a debilitating hand injury at the start of his freshman season and struggled to recover.

[CDu]

I disagree that Nate James wasn't a great 3pt shooter early. He won the McDonald's All America 3pt Contest. James arrived at Duke as a great 3pt shooter but then he suffered a debilitating hand injury at the start of his freshman season and struggled to recover.

In terms of the roles they wound up filling, neither James nor Jones was a great shooter for us. That was my point.

[Newton_14]

In terms of the roles they wound up filling, neither James nor Jones was a great shooter for us. That was my point.

James was better at it than Jones though. Nate made a living on that corner 3 his Sr year. He was great at hitting the timely 3 (often from the corner) just when the team needed it. Agree he was never a great volume 3 point shooter though.

[duketaylor]

I posted something to this thread last night and it was gone within a couple of hours. Why is that? I simply replied to a poster's question to how the visit went and what we, as Duke fans, might expect in the near future.

[dukedoc]

I posted something to this thread last night and it was gone within a couple of hours. Why is that? I simply replied to a poster's question to how the visit went and what we, as Duke fans, might expect in the near future.

I think I had asked you for specifics. Perhaps the information you offered was (correctly or incorrectly) thought to be proprietary/premium and thus inappropriate for this free board. That's just a hypothesis.

[Faison1]

James was better at it than Jones though. Nate made a living on that corner 3 his Sr year. He was great at hitting the timely 3 (often from the corner) just when the team needed it. Agree he was never a great volume 3 point shooter though.

Nate was money from the corner. He was also money when it came to tipping in offensive rebounds.

If Zeigler can come in and provide some toughness in the rebounding department, I'm all for it.

Quick question: how tall is Nate James? Wasn't he in the 6'6-6'8 vicinity?

[CDu]

I posted something to this thread last night and it was gone within a couple of hours. Why is that? I simply replied to a poster's question to how the visit went and what we, as Duke fans, might expect in the near future.

I suspect because it was considered rumor-mongering and/or providing premium content. The first sentence was probably fine. The second sentence was probably why it got removed.

[wilko]

I posted something to this thread last night and it was gone within a couple of hours. Why is that? I simply replied to a poster's question to how the visit went and what we, as Duke fans, might expect in the near future.

Hate I missed it; if it was that good.....

[Dukehky]

Quick question: how tall is Nate James? Wasn't he in the 6'6-6'8 vicinity?


Nate was listed at 6'4 and from seeing him, that appears to be his actual height.

[Dukehky]

He also played Center in high school and that was a big part of the reason that he was so good at rebounding and finishing in there with the big guys. Really developed over the years into a very reliable 3-point shooter, especially from those corners.

[jimsumner]

Nate was listed at 6'4 and from seeing him, that appears to be his actual height.

Nate James is 6'6".

[yancem]

I believe that he also won the McDonalds 3 pt contest.

[azzefkram]

Nate James is 6'6".

Nate James is as tall as he tells you he is.

[Indoor66]

Nate James is as tall as he tells you he is.

Nate James is as tall as he wants to be.

[_Gary]

Nate James is as tall as he wants to be.

And this just in: Nate James can still play.

[mkline09]

Nate James is as tall as he wants to be.

Nate James told me how tall I was once. I haven't grown and inch since.

[azzefkram]

Nate James told me how tall I was once. I haven't grown and inch since.

Rumor has it that Nate James once told Chuck Norris how tall he is.

[Indoor66]

Rumor has it that Nate James once told Chuck Norris how tall he is.

That was undoubtedly a short conversation.

[mkline09]

That was undoubtedly a short conversation.

I've heard Nate James and Chuck Norris are some how related.

[G man]

I've heard Nate James and Chuck Norris are some how related.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy these jokes as much as the next guy, but every time I click to read new info I am a little disappointed. Just a little because some of these have been really good.

[dukedoc]

Jack Daly ‏ @_JackDaly

Also, Zeigler's visit to #Duke went well.

[gofurman]

Zeigler wouldn't be eligible until 2013-2014, is that right?

[CDu]

Zeigler wouldn't be eligible until 2013-2014, is that right?

As of now, that is correct. It's possible he will get a waiver because of family circumstances (his dad was just fired as the head coach of the team he was on). But that waiver has not yet been granted, and it's uncertain if it will be granted. If granted, he'd be eligible next year.

[Newton_14]

As of now, that is correct. It's possible he will get a waiver because of family circumstances (his dad was just fired as the head coach of the team he was on). But that waiver has not yet been granted, and it's uncertain if it will be granted. If granted, he'd be eligible next year.

Wouldn't the waiver be considered due to a combination of the coach being fired, and the fact that the coach is his dad? I am confused on this one. For example, if his dad was an assistant who was fired, would the waiver still be considered? Or, if the fired coach was not his dad, the waiver would not be considered right? Not sure why this would be a "family situation" consideration. Weird deal this one is...

[CDu]

Wouldn't the waiver be considered due to a combination of the coach being fired, and the fact that the coach is his dad? I am confused on this one. For example, if his dad was an assistant who was fired, would the waiver still be considered? Or, if the fired coach was not his dad, the waiver would not be considered right? Not sure why this would be a "family situation" consideration. Weird deal this one is...

Well you might be reading more into my words than you should. My completely uneducated guess is that it would be entirely contingent on the family situation, and that the waiver would be requested even if the fired father was an assistant. But as I have no idea how the process works and what would be considered waiver worthy, it is just a guess on my part.

[COYS]

Well you might be reading more into my words than you should. My completely uneducated guess is that it would be entirely contingent on the family situation, and that the waiver would be requested even if the fired father was an assistant. But as I have no idea how the process works and what would be considered waiver worthy, it is just a guess on my part.

From Duke's perspective, it seems like there's little risk either way. If K and the staff like Trey, then bring him on board. With Austin gone, he'll provide some veteran scoring punch and size to the perimeter next season if he is eligible. If he has to sit out a year, he steps in to provide some experience to a team that is otherwise relatively young at the guard spots. Quinn and Tyler will be vets, but otherwise all we've got on board for now is Rasheed and a freshman Matt Jones. Trey's abilities would be a nice complement to a lineup with Quinn/Tyler and Rasheed manning the 1-2 spots. He could also play in a bigger lineup as a shooting guard alongside Mike, Alex, and a redshirt soph Marshall.

[Greg_Newton]

Wouldn't the waiver be considered due to a combination of the coach being fired, and the fact that the coach is his dad? I am confused on this one. For example, if his dad was an assistant who was fired, would the waiver still be considered? Or, if the fired coach was not his dad, the waiver would not be considered right? Not sure why this would be a "family situation" consideration. Weird deal this one is...

I think this would be a pretty unprecedented and unique case of the hardship waiver. As far as I'm aware, it's been almost exclusively reserved for a) a player moving closer to home, in relation to family health issues, or b) NCAA sancations (i.e. Oriakhi).

I suppose there's an argument that your father being fired as HC could qualify as extraordinary cirmustances, or whatever the language is, but I don't know if I'd grant that if I were the NCAA. I mean, you commit to the school, not the coach... and if the only reason you go to a certain school is because your father is the coach, I think the possibility of a firing is a risk you take when you commit.

But who knows. I'd be glad to be wrong, although I also wouldn't mind having a big, physical wing who turns 23 shortly after his junior season ends.

[CDu]

I think this would be a pretty unprecedented and unique case of the hardship waiver. As far as I'm aware, it's been almost exclusively reserved for a) a player moving closer to home, in relation to family health issues, or b) NCAA sancations (i.e. Oriakhi).

I suppose there's an argument that your father being fired as HC could qualify as extraordinary cirmustances, or whatever the language is, but I don't know if I'd grant that if I were the NCAA. I mean, you commit to the school, not the coach... and if the only reason you go to a certain school is because your father is the coach, I think the possibility of a firing is a risk you take when you commit.

But who knows. I'd be glad to be wrong, although I also wouldn't mind having a big, physical wing who turns 23 shortly after his junior season ends.

Correct. It is unprecedented, which is why nobody really knows yet. There is precedent with coaches being fired (no waiver would be approved for that). There is no precedent for a family member being fired (in any capacity). As such it is unclear what the outcome of such a waiver request would be. My gut would say that he won't be granted the waiver (as you said, you commit to the school knowing there is a risk that the coach won't be there for your entire college career). But it's just not a situation that I can ever remember seeing before.

[wilko]

As per - Josh Goodson ‏ @joshwgoodson

Rivers on next year "We have a good recruiting class and possibly even better if Shabazz were to come to #Duke and they have a transfer"

I guess this belongs here and not posted under the UConn transfer...

[dyedwab]

Correct. It is unprecedented, which is why nobody really knows yet. There is precedent with coaches being fired (no waiver would be approved for that). There is no precedent for a family member being fired (in any capacity). As such it is unclear what the outcome of such a waiver request would be. My gut would say that he won't be granted the waiver (as you said, you commit to the school knowing there is a risk that the coach won't be there for your entire college career). But it's just not a situation that I can ever remember seeing before.

and this is probably part of a larger discussion, but with what happened at St. Joe's and with the UMD football team, it seems that sooner rather then later the NCAA is gonna have to think through its transfer rules a lot. Frankly, Phil Martelli refusing to grant a kid a transfer after he had graduated, but still had eligibility left, and the NCAA upholding that decision makes it much harder for them to turn around and argue that a scholarship player commits to a school, not a coach.

So, this is an unprecedented situation, and it happens at a time where the NCAA might not exactly hold the strongest cards.

No matter, if Trey Ziegler wants to come to Duke, and we want him to come to Duke, I'm happy whether its next year or the year after

[CDu]

and this is probably part of a larger discussion, but with what happened at St. Joe's and with the UMD football team, it seems that sooner rather then later the NCAA is gonna have to think through its transfer rules a lot. Frankly, Phil Martelli refusing to grant a kid a transfer after he had graduated, but still had eligibility left, and the NCAA upholding that decision makes it much harder for them to turn around and argue that a scholarship player commits to a school, not a coach.

So, this is an unprecedented situation, and it happens at a time where the NCAA might not exactly hold the strongest cards.

No matter, if Trey Ziegler wants to come to Duke, and we want him to come to Duke, I'm happy whether its next year or the year after

I agree. Especially now that it doesn't appear that Zeigler would create a scholarship crunch. The only concern I had was that he'd cause problems by burning one of our scholarships as he sits out his transfer year. With Rivers gone and Mason possibly joining him, that's much less likely to be a concern.

[Matches]

I suppose there's an argument that your father being fired as HC could qualify as extraordinary cirmustances, or whatever the language is, but I don't know if I'd grant that if I were the NCAA. I mean, you commit to the school, not the coach... and if the only reason you go to a certain school is because your father is the coach, I think the possibility of a firing is a risk you take when you commit.



Yeah, it does seem a bit thin. Honestly I thought the NCAA stretched a bit farther than it probably should have in letting E-Will play right away - I understand the desire to be near a sick relative but don't quite get why that means the player should immediately be eligible. This seems even a bit beyond that.

Of course we can debate whether these kids ought to have to sit for a year at all (when coaches can move unimpeded), but if that's going to be the rule, it shouldn't be watered down.

[Dev11]

Yeah, it does seem a bit thin. Honestly I thought the NCAA stretched a bit farther than it probably should have in letting E-Will play right away - I understand the desire to be near a sick relative but don't quite get why that means the player should immediately be eligible. This seems even a bit beyond that.

I believe the thinking goes, "Player X plays at University of Y, but University of Z is back home where sick relatives need to be cared for. Player X MUST transfer back to U of Z to be close to sick relatives and to continue to play basketball. Holding him out for a season would be unfair because there's no other choice." In this scenario, there is only one option for Player X to go. That's the Williams situation.

The Zeigler situation is much less imposing. Player X just needs to leave University of Y, but any other D1 school would suffice as an alternative, unless Zeigler's dad gets a new job and the angle is that he must be with his father (even then, still a stretch for 'hardship.')

I would always agree with the NCAA granting what they did for Williams, not so much for Zeigler. The point of the rule is that severe life problems that clearly don't have to do with competition, exposure, etc supersede the transfer policy. I think it might be neat to have a player like Zeigler (although the overlap at SF is evident), but I doubt anybody gets a waiver for him to play right away.

[gumbomoop]

Zeigler's stats are interesting. He seems to have played wing/SF, but wasn't a 3-bomber, not much at all. Good rebounder suggests he likes to get to rim much more than 3-bomb. But for an attack-rim guy, lousy, lousy FT%, went from 56.6% Fr to 49.5% So. Red flag, that. His 3-pt % fell from 33% to 29%. Even more interesting, his total # of 3PA fell from 79 to 38.

To summarize, from the stats: from Fr to So year, he shot only 1/2 as many 3s, got more rebounds, shot more FTs, shot lower, and lousy, FT%.

Seems a chance he'll come. Hope he plays D, rebounds from wing, and improves a whole lot that FT%. With Sulaimon coming, and Matt Jones in 2013-'14, we presumably wouldn't need Zeigler to shoot 3s, but could use a willing rebounder, defender, driver at wing/SF. And one who hits 75% FTs, not 50%.

[devilsadvocate85]

Yeah, it does seem a bit thin. Honestly I thought the NCAA stretched a bit farther than it probably should have in letting E-Will play right away - I understand the desire to be near a sick relative but don't quite get why that means the player should immediately be eligible. This seems even a bit beyond that.

Of course we can debate whether these kids ought to have to sit for a year at all (when coaches can move unimpeded), but if that's going to be the rule, it shouldn't be watered down.

I actually think his chances of getting a waiver would be quite good. In my way of thinking, without a waiver, he is faced with two options that both effectively include a punishment.

1) Stay where he is and be forced to play for the athletic department and university that fired his father. I can't imagine anyone expecting this to be even a comfortable scenario.

2) Transfer and be forced to sit for a year.

This is certainly not a case of a player transferring for convenience. This is really more akin to athletes in other sports where the university cancelled their program. I know that those players were eligible immediately.

Regardless of the outcome, it will be interesting to watch this process.

[superdave]

I actually think his chances of getting a waiver would be quite good. In my way of thinking, without a waiver, he is faced with two options that both effectively include a punishment.

1) Stay where he is and be forced to play for the athletic department and university that fired his father. I can't imagine anyone expecting this to be even a comfortable scenario.

2) Transfer and be forced to sit for a year.

This is certainly not a case of a player transferring for convenience. This is really more akin to athletes in other sports where the university cancelled their program. I know that those players were eligible immediately.

Regardless of the outcome, it will be interesting to watch this process.

Is there any precedent for a hardship transfer because of a similar issue?

[dcar1985]

Zeigler's stats are interesting. He seems to have played wing/SF, but wasn't a 3-bomber, not much at all. Good rebounder suggests he likes to get to rim much more than 3-bomb. But for an attack-rim guy, lousy, lousy FT%, went from 56.6% Fr to 49.5% So. Red flag, that. His 3-pt % fell from 33% to 29%. Even more interesting, his total # of 3PA fell from 79 to 38.

To summarize, from the stats: from Fr to So year, he shot only 1/2 as many 3s, got more rebounds, shot more FTs, shot lower, and lousy, FT%.

Seems a chance he'll come. Hope he plays D, rebounds from wing, and improves a whole lot that FT%. With Sulaimon coming, and Matt Jones in 2013-'14, we presumably wouldn't need Zeigler to shoot 3s, but could use a willing rebounder, defender, driver at wing/SF. And one who hits 75% FTs, not 50%.



Gbinije.....

[CDu]

[/B]

Gbinije.....

Yeah, a junior Gbinije and a redshirt sophomore Murphy should theoretically be able to fill that role quite nicely. There's less certainty about next year in that regard. But considering that Gbinije was top-30 last year and Murphy was top-15 before jumping a class early, if they aren't able to contribute by 2013-2014 then we've got some concerns with our recruiting targets.

[gumbomoop]

[/B]Gbinije.....


Yeah, a junior Gbinije and a redshirt sophomore Murphy should theoretically be able to fill that role quite nicely. There's less certainty about next year in that regard. But considering that Gbinije was top-30 last year and Murphy was top-15 before jumping a class early, if they aren't able to contribute by 2013-2014 then we've got some concerns with our recruiting targets.

I'm with both of you. Zeigler's stats make me wonder why the staff is recruiting him.

Do they see Murphy as primarily a 4, even in 2013-'14? Is Zeigler more advanced than Gbinije? Is it simply that after 2011-'12, staff feels it's better to have an excess of wings with size?

I'm happy the staff wants Zeigler. I infer from your posts, that, like me, you're not quite sure why.

[roywhite]

I'm with both of you. Zeigler's stats make me wonder why the staff is recruiting him.

Do they see Murphy as primarily a 4, even in 2013-'14? Is Zeigler more advanced than Gbinije? Is it simply that after 2011-'12, staff feels it's better to have an excess of wings with size?

I'm happy the staff wants Zeigler. I infer from your posts, that, like me, you're not quite sure why.

Well, I hope things work out with Zeigler, and admit that he's less than ideal in the shooting category, both from the perimeter and the free throw line.

My take on Duke's apparent strong interest here stems from 2 related factors IMO:

1. Coach K is determined not to be so defensively limited in the future, and he sees Zeigler as beneficial in that area particularly
2. Similarly, K loves versatility, and felt a distinct lack of it this past year, with a number of players who were not well-rounded, and a shortage of intermediate sized players.

Just my opinion also on the NCAA appeal...seems doubtful that Zeigler would gain instant eligibility.

[MChambers]

I'm with both of you. Zeigler's stats make me wonder why the staff is recruiting him.

Do they see Murphy as primarily a 4, even in 2013-'14? Is Zeigler more advanced than Gbinije? Is it simply that after 2011-'12, staff feels it's better to have an excess of wings with size?

I'm happy the staff wants Zeigler. I infer from your posts, that, like me, you're not quite sure why.

Don't forget that Duke recruited Zeigler two years ago. The coaching staff knows him and must think he's a good fit.

[CDu]

Well, I hope things work out with Zeigler, and admit that he's less than ideal in the shooting category, both from the perimeter and the free throw line.

My take on Duke's apparent strong interest here stems from 2 related factors IMO:

1. Coach K is determined not to be so defensively limited in the future, and he sees Zeigler as beneficial in that area particularly
2. Similarly, K loves versatility, and felt a distinct lack of it this past year, with a number of players who were not well-rounded, and a shortage of intermediate sized players.

Just my opinion also on the NCAA appeal...seems doubtful that Zeigler would gain instant eligibility.

I agree with all of this - especially the part about versatility on the defensive end. And I'll add that we recruited him a few years ago, too.

[Troublemaker]

I think the key with Zeigler is that (1) he has those long arms and nice size and will almost certainly be a good-to-great defender for Duke and (2) he has versatility because of his ball-handling and ability to dribble with his head up. He could guard and play the point for Duke in a pinch and overall, is versatile enough to play the 1, 2, or 3 spots. But I admit, the offensive efficiency numbers for him are concerning.

[CDu]

I think the key with Zeigler is that (1) he has those long arms and nice size and will almost certainly be a good-to-great defender for Duke and (2) he has versatility because of his ball-handling and ability to dribble with his head up. He could guard and play the point for Duke in a pinch and overall, is versatile enough to play the 1, 2, or 3 spots. But I admit, the offensive efficiency numbers for him are concerning.

Defensive versatility is something that I think we're going to see become bigger and bigger with time. This year's team had incredibly limited flexibility defensively. Most guys were one-position defenders. That frequently got us in matchup problems (especially against teams that could attack from multiple positions). A guy like Zeigler can conceivably guard 3-4 positions (SG and SF for sure, probably adequate against PG and smaller PF). That makes a big difference when an opponent is trying to create isolations off screens.

And that's not even mentioning the offensive side, where it'd be nice to have another player with the size, strength, and ability to attack the rim off the dribble. It just adds a dynamic that this team lacked.

[roywhite]

Defensive versatility is something that I think we're going to see become bigger and bigger with time. This year's team had incredibly limited flexibility defensively. Most guys were one-position defenders. That frequently got us in matchup problems (especially against teams that could attack from multiple positions). A guy like Zeigler can conceivably guard 3-4 positions (SG and SF for sure, probably adequate against PG and smaller PF). That makes a big difference when an opponent is trying to create isolations off screens.

And that's not even mentioning the offensive side, where it'd be nice to have another player with the size, strength, and ability to attack the rim off the dribble. It just adds a dynamic that this team lacked.

So, we're thinking Dave McClure with hopefully more offense?

[superdave]

So, we're thinking Dave McClure with hopefully more offense?

More of an athlete, like Nate James.

[CDu]

So, we're thinking Dave McClure with hopefully more offense?

I'm thinking more athletic than McClure. And yes, much more offense.

[SupaDave]

This is a guy we might want to keep in mind:

http://scouthoops.scout.com/2/921314.html

Just noticed the irony of the first post. How prophetic...

[SilkyJ]

Just my opinion also on the NCAA appeal...seems doubtful that Zeigler would gain instant eligibility.

gotta love all the random people opining here that he'll get a waiver with zero evidence or examples to offer. so much noise on the board these days....

The NCAA is a largely broken machine as far as I'm concerned, so who knows what they'll do, but I can't think of a logical reason to grant a waiver, i.e. to offer instant eligibility, so like you I'm skeptical it'll happen, but who knows. Your coach getting fired has never been a legit reason before. He's your dad? So what? No one made you play for your dad. I'm being blunt, but I see no reason to offer the waiver if I'm the NCAA.

[airowe]

Just noticed the irony of the first post. How prophetic...

Ha ha. Broken clock and all that. :D

[dyedwab]

gotta love all the random people opining here that he'll get a waiver with zero evidence or examples to offer. so much noise on the board these days....

The NCAA is a largely broken machine as far as I'm concerned, so who knows what they'll do, but I can't think of a logical reason to grant a waiver, i.e. to offer instant eligibility, so like you I'm skeptical it'll happen, but who knows. Your coach getting fired has never been a legit reason before. He's your dad? So what? No one made you play for your dad. I'm being blunt, but I see no reason to offer the waiver if I'm the NCAA.

I don't necessarily disagree, but when you have a systemic breakdown, inexplicable or unprecedented decisions run both ways. Do I think its likely he'll get a waiver? No. Do I think its possible? Yes. Do I think that sooner rather than later a challenge to the transfer rules will occur and that the NCAA's actions will make its defense of them more difficult? Yep.

As I said earlier, if Trey Zeigler want to come, and if our coaching staff wants him to come, I'm for it -either this year or next year.

[MChambers]

gotta love all the random people opining here that he'll get a waiver with zero evidence or examples to offer. so much noise on the board these days....
Hey, this is an Internet discussion board, on sports to boot. Did you expect well-informed, reasoned analysis? (Still, there is far more of the good analysis here than most discussion boards.)

[Rich]

I believe the thinking goes, "Player X plays at University of Y, but University of Z is back home where sick relatives need to be cared for. Player X MUST transfer back to U of Z to be close to sick relatives and to continue to play basketball. Holding him out for a season would be unfair because there's no other choice." In this scenario, there is only one option for Player X to go. That's the Williams situation.

The Zeigler situation is much less imposing. Player X just needs to leave University of Y, but any other D1 school would suffice as an alternative, unless Zeigler's dad gets a new job and the angle is that he must be with his father (even then, still a stretch for 'hardship.')

I would always agree with the NCAA granting what they did for Williams, not so much for Zeigler. The point of the rule is that severe life problems that clearly don't have to do with competition, exposure, etc supersede the transfer policy. I think it might be neat to have a player like Zeigler (although the overlap at SF is evident), but I doubt anybody gets a waiver for him to play right away.

I would even take it one step further. Just because his father was fired doesn't mean he "needs" to leave the university. "Wants to," yes, "Totally understandable", yes, "Needs to," no. I don't see the NCAA giving him a waiver.

[Rich]

I would even take it one step further. Just because his father was fired doesn't mean he "needs" to leave the university. "Wants to," yes, "Totally understandable", yes, "Needs to," no. I don't see the NCAA giving him a waiver.

Now, if his father moved to Durham and had a heart attack because he was so distraught about being fired, and Trey had to take care of him, different story entirely. Waiver granted! Such is the NCAA.

[jimsumner]

At the risk of violating the no-rumor rule, let me suggest that the possibility of Zeigler getting a waiver enabling him to play next season is not just idle internet speculation. It has legs.

[MChambers]

At the risk of violating the no-rumor rule, let me suggest that the possibility of Zeigler getting a waiver enabling him to play next season is not just idle internet speculation. It has legs.
Jim,

We know that anything coming from you has enough substance not to be a rumor. (Look at all those sporks by your name!)

[CDu]

At the risk of violating the no-rumor rule, let me suggest that the possibility of Zeigler getting a waiver enabling him to play next season is not just idle internet speculation. It has legs.

Are we talking Tina Turner legs or Joe Namath legs?

[SilkyJ]

Did you expect well-informed, reasoned analysis?

Yes. Unfortunately the open nature means the S2N ration issue is hard to avoid...guess i'm still venting from the lehigh game :cool:


At the risk of violating the no-rumor rule, let me suggest that the possibility of Zeigler getting a waiver enabling him to play next season is not just idle internet speculation. It has legs.

Thanks, Jim. Very interesting.

[Indoor66]

Are we talking Tina Turner legs or Joe Namath legs?

Check for panty hose. If they are there, it is Namath.

[oldnavy]

At the risk of violating the no-rumor rule, let me suggest that the possibility of Zeigler getting a waiver enabling him to play next season is not just idle internet speculation. It has legs.

Well, if he does get a waiver and comes to Duke, stand by for the outpouring of complaints that it was a conspiracy to help Duke get back on top....

[Dukehky]

Well, if he does get a waiver and comes to Duke, stand by for the outpouring of complaints that it was a conspiracy to help Duke get back on top....

I would love to see some of these conspiracy theories come to fruition. I'd love for NCAA to help Duke out or for the refs to give us more calls. Maybe both already happen, but I'd certainly like them to be more profound because I don't exactly see it.

Hey Shabazz, come to Duke.

[CDu]

Well, if he does get a waiver and comes to Duke, stand by for the outpouring of complaints that it was a conspiracy to help Duke get back on top....

I'd rather hear that than hear about how Duke flames out in the tournament.

[Big Pappa]

Well, if he does get a waiver and comes to Duke, stand by for the outpouring of complaints that it was a conspiracy to help Duke get back on top....

True. But, I would rather have complaints with Zeigler in Duke blue, than no complaints without him.

[Des Esseintes]

gotta love all the random people opining here that he'll get a waiver with zero evidence or examples to offer. so much noise on the board these days....


It's not limited to NCAA legal speculation, either. I remember somebody started a "Quinn Cook Needs to Start" thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26400-Quinn-Cook-start&highlight=quinn+cook) about ten minutes into the season.

[BD80]

It's not limited to NCAA legal speculation, either. I remember somebody started a "Quinn Cook Needs to Start" thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26400-Quinn-Cook-start&highlight=quinn+cook) about ten minutes into the season.

Would that have yielded less NCAA tourney wins this year? Might have led to a more dynamic offense by year end.

[Duvall]

Would that have yielded less NCAA tourney wins this year? Might have led to a more dynamic offense by year end.

Unlikely given the way Cook played on the court, as opposed to the way he played in message board threads.

[sagegrouse]

Would that have yielded less NCAA tourney wins this year? Might have led to a more dynamic offense by year end.

No, of course not -- by definition. - sage

[SilkyJ]

It's not limited to NCAA legal speculation, either. I remember somebody started a "Quinn Cook Needs to Start" thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26400-Quinn-Cook-start&highlight=quinn+cook) about ten minutes into the season.

I don't think its fair to compare lineup suggestions with rampant speculation about what the NCAA might do. Its the same when a random person says "I've got a good feeling about recruit X." We all read the same blogs, we all have the same rough info. Who cares that you (not you specifically) woke up on the right side of the bed today? This board is about additive content and intelligent discussion, not about whether you're feeling lucky. I don't think 99% of people have any inside info or idea about what the NCAA might do. (jimsumner on the other hand...)

dont mean that to come off snarky, just mean it matter of factly.


Would that have yielded less NCAA tourney wins this year? Might have led to a more dynamic offense by year end.

Team certainly needed something. Not sure it would have been quinn, as our defense seemed to be the real issue, but a more potent offense would have been nice.

I also have to admit that I didn't give enough weight to his knee. I hear that the staff says he's back to 100% after they sat him and I think the kid's ready to go. He was still 1 year removed from tearing his acl so you have to think that hurt him at least a touch...but even with that you could see the flashes. I wonder if his defense would have been better with a healthy knee, have to imagine it would have been, but clearly there was some technique/experience missing as well.

And technically the title of my thread was "quinn cook should maybe, probably be starting" but the mods shortened it up to "quinn cook start?" but yea, I drove that bandwagon and stand by it. If he can hit 3s at 35%+ next year he easily becomes an all-acc caliber player. I also our think offense was choppy, and part of that was probably having 2 pure PGs and running different tempos, different combos all the time in the backcourt. Creates a weird situation for our team as we usually are led by a single PG. Then Ryan being out hurt too....

So who knows, maybe Q would have been the answer, maybe not...I dunno, but we needed something...I hope he can make enough progress over the summer to earn the PG spot outright. Defense and 3 pt shooting is all he needs to think about.

[Class of '94]

I don't think its fair to compare lineup suggestions with rampant speculation about what the NCAA might do. Its the same when a random person says "I've got a good feeling about recruit X." We all read the same blogs, we all have the same rough info. Who cares that you (not you specifically) woke up on the right side of the bed today? This board is about additive content and intelligent discussion, not about whether you're feeling lucky. I don't think 99% of people have any inside info or idea about what the NCAA might do. (jimsumner on the other hand...)

dont mean that to come off snarky, just mean it matter of factly.



Team certainly needed something. Not sure it would have been quinn, as our defense seemed to be the real issue, but a more potent offense would have been nice.

I also have to admit that I didn't give enough weight to his knee. I hear that the staff says he's back to 100% after they sat him and I think the kid's ready to go. He was still 1 year removed from tearing his acl so you have to think that hurt him at least a touch...but even with that you could see the flashes. I wonder if his defense would have been better with a healthy knee, have to imagine it would have been, but clearly there was some technique/experience missing as well.

And technically the title of my thread was "quinn cook should maybe, probably be starting" but the mods shortened it up to "quinn cook start?" but yea, I drove that bandwagon and stand by it. If he can hit 3s at 35%+ next year he easily becomes an all-acc caliber player. I also our think offense was choppy, and part of that was probably having 2 pure PGs and running different tempos, different combos all the time in the backcourt. Creates a weird situation for our team as we usually are led by a single PG. Then Ryan being out hurt too....

So who knows, maybe Q would have been the answer, maybe not...I dunno, but we needed something...I hope he can make enough progress over the summer to earn the PG spot outright. Defense and 3 pt shooting is all he needs to think about.

I think the team needed more leadership......No offense to Miles, Ryan or Seth because I think they tried; but the bottom line was that the team lacked the kind of on and off the court leadership that the 2010 team had and to a lesser extent the 2011 team had, for example. A poster said it another thread, the championship teams (be it ACC and/or NC teams) had good, strong leadership on the court and during practice. Unlike this team, the coaches weren't the ones that were doing all the talking, motivating and leading; they had guys like Lance that wasn't afraid to get into someone's face and let them know they had to step up. This year's team lacked that kind of leadership.

Maybe Quinn might've helped and maybe he might start this year; but I think next year's team will need tougher leaders; and it would help if one of them is the PG. I just don't know if Quinn is ready for that; but I think Tyler is. The challenge is that he is not as gifted offensively and as a passer compared to Quinn imo.

[Des Esseintes]

I don't think its fair to compare lineup suggestions with rampant speculation about what the NCAA might do. Its the same when a random person says "I've got a good feeling about recruit X." We all read the same blogs, we all have the same rough info. Who cares that you (not you specifically) woke up on the right side of the bed today? This board is about additive content and intelligent discussion, not about whether you're feeling lucky. I don't think 99% of people have any inside info or idea about what the NCAA might do. (jimsumner on the other hand...)

dont mean that to come off snarky, just mean it matter of factly.

I don't see them as much different. In the NCAA case, there is no real precedent (that I know of) for the Zeigler situation. In the Cook case, almost none of us saw what happened in practice, and that thread sprang up after a single game. To me, the latter qualifies as "rampant speculation" as much as the former, and if we're going to take a high-handed approach, we should take it to both.

In any event, I didn't mean to divert the thread into a Quinn Cook discussion. Apologies to all.

[nolan8or]

Why are we going after Zeigler when we have Mike Gbinije? They seem like very similar players.

[COYS]

Why are we going after Zeigler when we have Mike Gbinije? They seem like very similar players.

Similar, perhaps, but far from mutually exclusive. I think it's easy to see a situation in which Alex/Josh split time at the 4 spot while Ryan/Marshall split time at the 5. In that scenario, the small forward spot really only goes 2 deep with Mike and Trey. Furthermore, Mike and Trey can spend time on the court together if Trey slides over to the 2. I don't think that is likely to happen very often, but it could be an intriguing lineup, especially since Alex, Ryan, and Seth (or Quinn or possibly Tyler) could still provide enough perimeter shooting to keep the defense honest. If we add no more recruits, Mason leaves AND Trey comes and is immediately eligible, I'd think that Quinn, Tyler, Trey, Mike, Alex, Josh, Ryan, and Andre would be most likely to make up the rotation with Marshall filling in as needed as he continues to develop. One of those top 8 will probably have a role similar to the one Quinn had this past season come the meat of the ACC season. However, considering how much emphasis I expect the staff to put on defense and the fact that I expect Trey and Mike to have the best chance of converting their physical abilities into good defense on the wing, I don't think there's any reason to think that either one of them might be able to beat out one of the other perimeter guys for more court time.

Edit: whoops, how could I forget about Rasheed?!?!? Even with Rasheed, though, if Alex spends most of his time at the 4 (which I think is quite possible), having two guys in the 6-5 to 6-7 range to fill in at the 2/3 would be awesome.