PDA

View Full Version : Talent, Transfers, etc (aka, anything but Roscoe Smith)



Kedsy
11-16-2009, 11:56 AM
I am missing something in this discussion. Don't most top programs have scholarships to spare? Duke, for example, has two walk-ons on scholarship.

Thirteen scholarships is a lot of recruited players on a roster -- three guys that don't even make the court when the first two teams scrimmage. So, in reality, most schools have a scholarship or two in reserve, which would be available if an outstanding player becomes available.

On a slightly different topic and more in agreement with RelativeWays: In this day of high turnover on college rosters, it seems to me that schools should have an average of four recruited players in each incoming class. I remember (my long-term memory is still holding up) when Bill Foster said he was looking for only one player in a class -- that to replace the graduating Jim Spanarkel. Vince Taylor was a good one. It was strange at the time -- but unthinkable today.

With pro basketball salaries as they are, it is to be expected not only that players will go the NBA as soon as they can merit a three-year contract (first round selection) but also that players not fitting in at one program take a stab at transferring, to see if they can get traction somewhere else.

With a four-person recruiting class, one could transfer and one could go early, leaving only two to complete a four-year career. If I have time, I'll do a retrospective of past Duke recruting classes to see what the Duke experience has been.

sagegrouse

When Vince Taylor was recruited, Spanarkel was still a junior. The only recruited player to graduate was 11th man Bruce Bell. With the top ten players back from a team that played for the national championship, a one player class made sense. Spanarkel graduated after Taylor's freshman year, along with 4 other seniors (plus I think Johnny Harrell left as well), and was replaced by a four player freshman class.

Duke currently has 11 recruited players on scholarship. We have three seniors, and a junior who could possibly leave and are bringing in three freshmen (not counting Roscoe), which would bring us to 10 recruited scholarship players for 2010-11, assuming nobody else transfers or goes pro, which is obviously not a lock but is a fairly safe assumption. We have one additional senior in 2011, which would bring us down to 9 recruited scholarship players and allow us to recruit four 2011 high school seniors for 2011-12.

If Roscoe comes to Duke, then the only scholarship "in reserve" that would allow us to recruit four guys in 2011 would be if Kyrie is one-and-done (which is possible but doesn't seem likely) or if someone else transfers (ditto).

The argument that we may not get all four of our top targets in 2011 and therefore should accept the "bird in hand" if Roscoe wants to come to Duke makes some sense to me. But if you're suggesting we ought to go full steam ahead with 2010 recruiting because we'll always have a scholarship or two in reserve if things go perfectly in 2011, that doesn't make so much sense.

jesus_hurley
11-16-2009, 11:57 AM
Duke is still needing a wing player for next season, now instead of HB, we're going after RS. May be too late to get him though. Holding a scholy for hopes of signing everyone you're targeting for the next recruiting class is foolish and naive. Duke will not get all of their targets for 2011, lets hope that Huckleberry doesn't decide he wants any of them. I say sign who you can, when you can.

Ol' Roy is maxed out for 2010 and is currently one over the limit for 2011 now. If only Davis leaves early this year he's still at somewhat of a recruiting disadvantage since you cannot guarantee another player will leave early and open up a scholarship. Not to say he won't go out and pull a Calapari, but it would be unethical for him to offer scholarships to anymore 2011 prospects until he has open spots

flyingdutchdevil
11-16-2009, 12:23 PM
I agree. It is possible that Henson and Thompson both leave, but I doubt it. Honestly, I think it was a mistake by the Wear brothers to go to UNC. They aren't going to get a whole lot of playing time, until maybe their junior years. Maybe one of them, but there is so much depth there, I just don't see them fitting in with their system and lineups. I wonder if Ol Roy will encourage one or both of them to transfer to have another open scholly for 2011.

Thompson is a senior and gone anyway. Did you mean Davis? IMO, he is the only one that has the potential to leave early. If Henson goes under the Eric Cartman diet (Weight Gain 4000), then there is a small chance. But I just don't see it...

jesus_hurley
11-16-2009, 12:29 PM
Thompson is a senior and gone anyway. Did you mean Davis? IMO, he is the only one that has the potential to leave early. If Henson goes under the Eric Cartman diet (Weight Gain 4000), then there is a small chance. But I just don't see it...

Beefcake!!

Tim1515
11-16-2009, 12:37 PM
Ol' Roy is maxed out for 2010 and is currently one over the limit for 2011 now. If only Davis leaves early this year he's still at somewhat of a recruiting disadvantage since you cannot guarantee another player will leave early and open up a scholarship. Not to say he won't go out and pull a Calapari, but it would be unethical for him to offer scholarships to anymore 2011 prospects until he has open spots

I'm not convinced Davis leaves after this year like so many seem to be.

He was coming of a national title and was a projected top 5 pick...instead he comes back to a team that shouldn't make the final four. If he stays another year he has a good chance at his second NT. Davis staying really sucks...UNC would be half as dangerous this year without him.

Henson might go and someone might transfer.

ChicagoCrazy84
11-16-2009, 12:40 PM
I'm not convinced Davis leaves after this year like so many seem to be.

He was coming of a national title and was a projected top 5 pick...instead he comes back to a team that shouldn't make the final four. If he stays another year he has a good chance at his second NT. Davis staying really sucks...UNC would be half as dangerous this year without him.

Henson might go and someone might transfer.


The Wears should go elsewhere (or one of them). They're good, but there's so much depth there already, I don't see them factoring in the rotation much in bigger games.

Battierfan01
11-16-2009, 12:48 PM
The Wears should go elsewhere (or one of them). They're good, but there's so much depth there already, I don't see them factoring in the rotation much in bigger games.

I can see someone on this UNC team transferring. I think that next year there is going to be a real problem with players and playing time. I can defiantly see the Wears sitting at the end of a long bench next year.

flyingdutchdevil
11-16-2009, 12:51 PM
I can see someone on this UNC team transferring. I think that next year there is going to be a real problem with players and playing time. I can defiantly see the Wears sitting at the end of a long bench next year.

Also, what about Larry Drew? The incoming PG is supposed to be darn good, a good fit for Ole Roy. Will Drew give up his starting position so readily?

oldnavy
11-16-2009, 01:35 PM
Excellent post! You hit on the concern/frustration I've had with our teams since '04. We've had great recruits come in but it seems since we missed Wright we have been one key recruit away from being a complete team. I honestly feel that if we had gotten any of the bigs we were seeking the last several years we'd have been in a legit position to win a national title. And I agree that we need Roscoe now to finally get over the hump and have that complete team again.

I hope no one takes what I've said as being disrespectful of any of our teams since '04, but I do believe what you stated is 100% correct and we need to right the ship in that area. Smith would certainly be key at this point, IMHO.

I agree with the points being made, but I would like to think that we have had complete teams since 2004. We won 30 games and an ACC title last year. Maybe we need that one player to become an elite or special team, but saying we are not complete is not painting an accurate picture IMHO.

_Gary
11-16-2009, 01:56 PM
I agree with the points being made, but I would like to think that we have had complete teams since 2004. We won 30 games and an ACC title last year. Maybe we need that one player to become an elite or special team, but saying we are not complete is not painting an accurate picture IMHO.

Yeah, I understand how you could take that comment in the wrong way. By "Complete" I'm talking having a team that truly is a strong national title contender because all the parts are in place. I think since '04 we've lacked a piece to the puzzle that would have put us in that position, hence my use of the word "complete". It's in a truly legit national title contender sense that I use the word, not a good or even very good team sense.

Kedsy
11-16-2009, 03:20 PM
Yeah, I understand how you could take that comment in the wrong way. By "Complete" I'm talking having a team that truly is a strong national title contender because all the parts are in place. I think since '04 we've lacked a piece to the puzzle that would have put us in that position, hence my use of the word "complete". It's in a truly legit national title contender sense that I use the word, not a good or even very good team sense.

You don't think the 2005 and 2006 teams were national title contenders? In the final pre-tournament coaches poll we were #2 in the country in 2005 and #1 in 2006. What more do you need to be a contender?

jipops
11-16-2009, 03:38 PM
You don't think the 2005 and 2006 teams were national title contenders? In the final pre-tournament coaches poll we were #2 in the country in 2005 and #1 in 2006. What more do you need to be a contender?

At no point in those seasons did I think we were title contenders. What more do you need to be a contender? A pg would've helped. In the case of '06, how about having more than 1 guy who can hit a perimeter shot? I always thought we were massive over-achievers actually in those seasons, though I know most couldn't (wouldn't) see it that way.

oldnavy
11-16-2009, 04:01 PM
At no point in those seasons did I think we were title contenders. What more do you need to be a contender? A pg would've helped. In the case of '06, how about having more than 1 guy who can hit a perimeter shot? I always thought we were massive over-achievers actually in those seasons, though I know most couldn't (wouldn't) see it that way.

National titles have been won with significantly less talent. We just didn't play well during the tournement when it counted. There is more to winning the title than putting the most talent on the court. Often you need to catch a couple of breaks, and you certainly cannot afford to have a shooting slump in a 6 game "season".

Bluedevil114
11-16-2009, 04:14 PM
I think it is important we lock him up for 2010 to increase our Recruiting Rankings and to improve our front court and add some toughness. If we improve our recruiting after not getting HB this looks good for the Millers, Rivers and Beals of the future.

At least we will not lose Smith to UNC.

NSDukeFan
11-16-2009, 04:19 PM
At no point in those seasons did I think we were title contenders. What more do you need to be a contender? A pg would've helped. In the case of '06, how about having more than 1 guy who can hit a perimeter shot? I always thought we were massive over-achievers actually in those seasons, though I know most couldn't (wouldn't) see it that way.

I agree with some of the above posters that it would be ideal to have a big center and some strong interior players, some good slashing wing players, good shooters, a point guard who can create shots and penetrate and will, guys who can defend all positions, good rebounders, and depth at all positions. The reality is that to be a contender for a national title, you don't necessarily have to have all these things.

I agree a better penetrating point guard would have helped in 2005 and 2006. But I am not sure how you can argue a team that was ranked in the top four most of the year is not a title contender.

Poincaré
11-16-2009, 04:22 PM
I agree with the points being made, but I would like to think that we have had complete teams since 2004. We won 30 games and an ACC title last year. Maybe we need that one player to become an elite or special team, but saying we are not complete is not painting an accurate picture IMHO.

Just because we won 30 games does not mean the team was complete. I think that speaks more to the level of preparation and coaching we have at Duke. The problem is, come tournament time, everyone plays so hard that our advantage in the preparation department shrinks. Furthermore, if our team is not complete it is a given that we will eventually run into a serious match-up problem given the size of the tournament.

Hermy-own
11-16-2009, 04:22 PM
I agree with the points being made, but I would like to think that we have had complete teams since 2004. We won 30 games and an ACC title last year. Maybe we need that one player to become an elite or special team, but saying we are not complete is not painting an accurate picture IMHO.


I disagree - with all respect to the players on those teams, they weren't complete. While we can win 30 games thanks to great players and great coaches covering up certain weak spots, it always made it hard to win the NCAA tourney. To get far in the tourney, we needed to go on a long streak, which is difficult when you hope each game that the other team doesn't exploit your weakness (PG, big man, athleticism, only one star, etc).
Also, our 'best' play can still be great - think Duke vs Wake Forest last year, going up 41-19 - but with a weakness, it means that you never feel comfortable - Wake ended up getting very near us before we finally put them away, 101-91.

Edouble
11-16-2009, 04:31 PM
I disagree - with all respect to the players on those teams, they weren't complete. While we can win 30 games thanks to great players and great coaches covering up certain weak spots, it always made it hard to win the NCAA tourney. To get far in the tourney, we needed to go on a long streak, which is difficult when you hope each game that the other team doesn't exploit your weakness (PG, big man, athleticism, only one star, etc).
Also, our 'best' play can still be great - think Duke vs Wake Forest last year, going up 41-19 - but with a weakness, it means that you never feel comfortable - Wake ended up getting very near us before we finally put them away, 101-91.

I believe our team last year was complete with regards to personel, but it was not fully evolved. Coach K basically said that because the NCAA Tourney version of the Blue Devils had only been together for a month or so, if we had run into a team like 'Nova in January, we could have learned from the loss and developed further. Unfortunately the lineup with Jon at PG and Ewill playing big minutes was a new, and relatively untested group. Generally speaking, you need 3 NBA players on your team to win an NC. We had that last year.

Kedsy
11-16-2009, 04:33 PM
At no point in those seasons did I think we were title contenders. What more do you need to be a contender? A pg would've helped. In the case of '06, how about having more than 1 guy who can hit a perimeter shot? I always thought we were massive over-achievers actually in those seasons, though I know most couldn't (wouldn't) see it that way.

Well, the actual title winner that year was Florida, who had Taurean Green at PG and had exactly one player who shot well from the perimeter (Lee Humphrey, who only scored 11 ppg). So based on your criteria, I think Duke was at least a contender.

If the #1 team in the country, with two first-team all-Americans, isn't a title contender then what team ever will be?

jipops
11-16-2009, 05:14 PM
Well, the actual title winner that year was Florida, who had Taurean Green at PG and had exactly one player who shot well from the perimeter (Lee Humphrey, who only scored 11 ppg). So based on your criteria, I think Duke was at least a contender.

If the #1 team in the country, with two first-team all-Americans, isn't a title contender then what team ever will be?

Seriously? Do you really think the overall talent level existing for Duke at the time was equal to that of Florida's? Corey Brewer was also excellent from deep btw and is currently on an NBA roster.

Oh jeesh, I really got off topic though. yes Roscoe would help with balance, something that is very important for a title contender (note the last several champs).

Kedsy
11-16-2009, 05:32 PM
Seriously? Do you really think the overall talent level existing for Duke at the time was equal to that of Florida's? Corey Brewer was also excellent from deep btw and is currently on an NBA roster.

Oh jeesh, I really got off topic though. yes Roscoe would help with balance, something that is very important for a title contender (note the last several champs).

Both Dockery and McRoberts shot significantly better that year on 3-point shots than Brewer did. If we only had one outside threat, as you stated in your previous post, then Brewer shouldn't count either.

And perhaps I missed where you talked about overall talent. I saw you saying Duke wasn't a contender because of PG play and outside shooting, which were exactly that Florida team's biggest weaknesses.

Florida, by the way, lost 6 games that year and were not even a top 10 team going into the tournament. Duke had lost 3 games going in and had won both the ACC regular season and tournament titles.

Finally, does the team with the most talent always win? If you don't have the most physical talent in the country then you're not even a contender? Seriously?

_Gary
11-16-2009, 05:57 PM
I don't want this thread to get too far afield, so I'll make this my last post about previous teams. Kedsy, do you seriously think either I or anyone else here is saying that only the most talented team wins the title every year? Come on, we all know better. No one is making that argument. Any team can get hot and go on a roll in March. We aren't talking about whether or not the Duke teams from '04 till now had enough talent to win it all. That's just not the point. The point is that some of us feel there were deficiencies on those teams and even though some of them had great years, record wise, they just didn't have the feel of being elite teams. Could just about any of those teams have won a championship? Sure. But like others have stated, I never had the feeling going into the Tourney that any of our Duke teams were really strong title contenders since '04. I hoped each and every one would win, but I never really felt they had every component needed. If you did feel any of those teams were really heads up favorites to win it all that's great. But I didn't, for many of the reasons others have mentioned today.

Take care. And go DUKE!

ChicagoCrazy84
11-16-2009, 06:08 PM
Both Dockery and McRoberts shot significantly better that year on 3-point shots than Brewer did. If we only had one outside threat, as you stated in your previous post, then Brewer shouldn't count either.

And perhaps I missed where you talked about overall talent. I saw you saying Duke wasn't a contender because of PG play and outside shooting, which were exactly that Florida team's biggest weaknesses.

Florida, by the way, lost 6 games that year and were not even a top 10 team going into the tournament. Duke had lost 3 games going in and had won both the ACC regular season and tournament titles.

Finally, does the team with the most talent always win? If you don't have the most physical talent in the country then you're not even a contender? Seriously?


Good point and for the record, I did think that our 2006 team was a title contender, but only because we had 2 extremely good players. Outside of Williams and Redick, that team was not very good and going into that LSU game in the sweet 16, I had a bad feeling because Glen Davis and Shelden would battle it out pretty evenly and we didn't have a very good option to stop Tyrus Thomas. LSU was the exact type of team that we were vulnerable to because of their athleticism and that brings me to the reason why I started this whole argument. I would much rather lose in the Elite 8 because our opponent played a little bit better than us rather than lose because our opponent was clearly better than us. Since 2004 KU, Nova, WVU, LSU were all better than us and no one can really deny it. The only exception was VCU who only beat us because of Maynor.

jipops
11-16-2009, 11:07 PM
Both Dockery and McRoberts shot significantly better that year on 3-point shots than Brewer did. If we only had one outside threat, as you stated in your previous post, then Brewer shouldn't count either.

And perhaps I missed where you talked about overall talent. I saw you saying Duke wasn't a contender because of PG play and outside shooting, which were exactly that Florida team's biggest weaknesses.

Florida, by the way, lost 6 games that year and were not even a top 10 team going into the tournament. Duke had lost 3 games going in and had won both the ACC regular season and tournament titles.

Finally, does the team with the most talent always win? If you don't have the most physical talent in the country then you're not even a contender? Seriously?

No, the team with the most talent doesn't always win. Did you somehow interpret what I wrote as having said something else? Is there anything in college basketball that always happens? I would venture to say however that the team with the most talent does stand the best chance. Check the winners of the last few seasons. Was Syracuse the most talented in '03?, probably not. Was Duke the most talented team in '94 with Grant Hill and a bunch of role players in the title game? Definitely not.

I actually brought up pg play and outside shooting because those were the two aspects lacking which were our ultimate demise in 2006 to LSU. Looking back at that game, several guys not named JJ missed completely wide open looks down the stretch, then game over. I never saw the 2006 as being what many might consider a "contender". We had two guys to rely on for scoring... that was it. Nelson was hobbled almost the entire season and still had no jumper at that stage. Sure Florida may have shared some somewhat similar weaknesses though I'm not buying Taurean Green as being one of them. They also had quite a bit to counter with - namely speed.

But whatever, if you want to call that team a contender that's fine. It was my opinion that they were not one of the teams I expected to see in the Final Four. So I had a hard time calling them a contender then, so naturally I would now. Unfortunately I had correctly picked them to lose to LSU that season. Probably one of the few picks I've gotten right in an ncaa bracket.

dukeblue39
11-16-2009, 11:27 PM
Gary,Duke has won more basketball games this decade than any team ever in any decade in college basketball history. If you measure team of the decade by being consistantly good,Duke wins hands down.Its not even close.If you measure by ncaa titles ,unc edges Duke out.By your logic,Florida would be tied with unc as team of the decade.They have 2 national tritles but have missed the ncaa tourny 2 years in a row.Although I would love for Duke to have more ncaa titles,I will takes Dukes record anyday.

ChicagoCrazy84
11-16-2009, 11:35 PM
Gary,Duke has won more basketball games this decade than any team ever in any decade in college basketball history. If you measure team of the decade by being consistantly good,Duke wins hands down.Its not even close.If you measure by ncaa titles ,unc edges Duke out.By your logic,Florida would be tied with unc as team of the decade.They have 2 national tritles but have missed the ncaa tourny 2 years in a row.Although I would love for Duke to have more ncaa titles,I will takes Dukes record anyday.


Yeah, I agree, but how do you think teams get judged by more? And if you are the winningest team of the decade and you have 2 final four's and 1 championship to show for it, how do you THINK people will judge you? Dissapointing. It's like comparing Dan Marino and Tom Brady. A lot of people will look at Brady as the better all time quarterback because he is a flat out championship QB. Marino was never that and that how he is remembered a lot. Not saying I agree with it all that much, but that's the way it is.

Edouble
11-16-2009, 11:45 PM
Since 2004 KU, Nova, WVU, LSU were all better than us and no one can really deny it. The only exception was VCU who only beat us because of Maynor.

I think you are confusing KU (NCAA loss in 2003) with Michigan State (NCAA loss in 2005).

dukeblue39
11-17-2009, 12:17 AM
Measuring a teams success just on ncaa titles is close sighted.Its just one of several ways to measure a teams success.Duke has a really good chance to win 30 games and make the final 4 and they will be right there as team of the decade wheather they win the ncaa title this year or not.UNC has been really hot lately because of 1 recruiting class that stayed in school which was unususal.Donot forget the first 4 or 5 years when they were not really good.Duke will continue to pull in great talent and compete with unc even without Barns.

speedevil2001
11-17-2009, 07:16 AM
Didn't this used to be a Roscoe Smith thread?

not anymore, this thread is about overall talent and winning championships.

the team with the most nba talent will be in the final four and have the best chance to win the national championship.

oldnavy
11-17-2009, 07:26 AM
That's not very encouraging...

Roscoe has been quoted as saying that he's made up his mind already. If the Duke staff are trying to get him to at least visit before he does make a final decision, it implies that Duke is not the school that's already in his mind.

Hopefully if that's the case the coaching staff is able to change that when he visits.

For encouragement I would refer you to a recruiting battle recently where the front runner was overcome late in the game by a strong push by a high profile team and coach. If it happened "to us" it can happen "for us"... keep the faith.

El_Diablo
11-19-2009, 12:34 AM
How's this for some additional heartache? http://gary-parrish.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6271764/18394821

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Roy played this one well.

I hope we get Roscoe...

Wow. So UNC didn't recruit anyone else at HB's position? WHAT ABOUT REGGIE BULLOCK? :confused: Are we just going to pretend that he doesn't exist?

So it's okay to already have someone locked up before moving onto your son, but not okay to recruit someone else during that time? How does it show a higher level of commitment to HB? He was in fact UNC's SECOND option...unless you want to say that they started recruiting HB first, and then Bullock. But then, that's exactly what Shirley said was wrong with Duke's approach...so UNC certainly didn't do that.

Also, Roy wasn't recruiting anyone else toward the end because he was already over the scholarship limit. HB now puts them +1 for 2011. Recruiting another person would potentially put them at +2 for 2011.

It's amazing how easy it is to pull the wool over someone's eyes...but I gotta give Roy credit. He definitely played them like a fiddle.

ACCBBallFan
11-19-2009, 02:52 AM
Bilas is right the kid should have acted like an adult and told the other 5 coaches in person (actually via pohone but real conversation).

Not so sure Parrish is right but if that is how Shirley Barnes felt, worked in this case. Gary was right that Coach K had previously employed that technique and ciriticzed fo rno back up plan. May be because it was Roscoe and bad blood more than exlclusivity angel but sure Barnes knew he was frist option.

Real reson though is victor gets the spoils and UNC has won 2 of past 5 years. When Duke was winning back to bak=cks and multiple consecutive F4's Duke got the prze recruits.

Other than UNC and KU who have won recetnly and UK last year though with a combined memphis/UK class, and perhaps TX and Ohio State, not many teams winnign more recruits than Duke, Mich St and wake about same.

RelativeWays
11-19-2009, 07:38 AM
I really really really doubt that none of the other coaches knew HB's decision to go to UNC until last Friday. Based on Bill Self's comments two days earlier and that K and Chris Collins made a point to see Roscoe Smith in Winston two days before the announcement seems to indicate that they had a pretty good indication on where the chips were falling for HB. My guess is that HB notified K, Self and the Iowa State Coach at least a few days before, he may have asked them to keep his decision private and they respected it. I may be wrong, but if the opposite is really true, and the way K found out was having to watch the recruiting show and see Huckleberry pop up on skype, then thats pretty classless. I wouldn't want it to be that way for any of the coaches even if it had turned out our way. Nobody deserves to be embarrassed like that after exerting that amount of energy in recruiting him.

readerblue
11-19-2009, 08:41 AM
Well, I'm looking at the bright side of the equation. Duke has gotten a great point guard in Irving. He will provide the quickness and ballhandling Duke has lacked in recent years. Thus, this was a huge recruit for coach K.

As for UNC, with all the quality players they have recruited, any division I coach could win the NCAA. Not taking anything away from Roy, but look at the talent. Coach K is the best coach and teacher of the game, bar none. He can get the most out of any basketball player out there. Duke won the ACC tournament last year...............give them credit.

As far as Barnes is concerned, the handwriting was really on the wall after Roy was called to come in for a home visit on the heels of coach K's visit.
Coach K and Duke are going to be fine now and in the future. I predict a sweep of UNC this season.

Wheat/"/"/"
11-19-2009, 08:46 AM
I can see someone on this UNC team transferring. I think that next year there is going to be a real problem with players and playing time. I can defiantly see the Wears sitting at the end of a long bench next year.

There's no reason for anyone to transfer that I see.

You guys continue to way underestimate the Wear boys. I''ve only seen UNC play 3 games on a small computer screen and fell very confident saying they are solid ACC quality players.

The media has overrated Henson at this point, and underrated the Wear twins.

It would not surprise me if one of them got into the game against OSU tonight before Henson.

Kedsy
11-19-2009, 09:16 AM
As for UNC, with all the quality players they have recruited, any division I coach could win the NCAA.

This quite simply is not true. So many teams with by far the most talent have fallen short at NCAA time. Besides, if it was true, you could say the same things about Duke's NCAA champion teams.

Kedsy
11-19-2009, 09:19 AM
There's no reason for anyone to transfer that I see.

* * *

The media has overrated Henson at this point, and underrated the Wear twins.

It would not surprise me if one of them got into the game against OSU tonight before Henson.

Well, if that's true maybe Henson transfers... :D

miramar
11-19-2009, 09:55 AM
This quite simply is not true. So many teams with by far the most talent have fallen short at NCAA time. Besides, if it was true, you could say the same things about Duke's NCAA champion teams.

This may be the only time I ever come out in favor of ol' Roy, but as Coach Wooden once said, "While no coach can win without talented athletes, not all coaches can win – even with talent."

He also said, "I'd rather have a lot of talent and a little experience than a lot of experience and a little talent," which might describe UNC this year.

SupaDave
11-19-2009, 10:15 AM
This quite simply is not true. So many teams with by far the most talent have fallen short at NCAA time. Besides, if it was true, you could say the same things about Duke's NCAA champion teams.

This just shows the age of the board b/c if most really understood this concept they would INSTANTLY think of that UNLV team that was considered UNBEATABLE. What a year they had. Their average margin of victory was like 55 points that year and they had destroyed Duke the year before (I can't imagine what the board would look like if that game took place today).

Not to mention - ROY took the MATT's players and made them natty champs. If you don't think coaching matters - just rewind to UNC's first chip of the last 5 years...

Gewebe14
11-19-2009, 10:17 AM
I would agree -- look at Calimari's teams at Memphis and even more specifically Memphis against Kansas the other day. They have a ton talent, but basically all they could do is isolate to either drive one on four or take a contested fade away three. If you have good enough players, this will work sometimes... but not really a tried and true go-to strategy.

roywhite
11-19-2009, 10:18 AM
Great talent with good coaching wins championships. I love the guys we have coming in next year and adding Roscoe would be tremendous. At the same time, given the talent and apparent character of Barnes, Bullock and Marshall, we are looking through Dark Blue colored glasses if we do not see these new additions as potential championship material.

I've come to accept the fact that the Heels will have plenty of talent so long as Roy Williams is there. But I don't see a clear-cut advantage for their roster going forward (as was the case last year, for example).

I like this Duke team and our recruiting pipeline. We'll be able to compete just fine with the Heels or anyone else.

SupaDave
11-19-2009, 10:24 AM
I've come to accept the fact that the Heels will have plenty of talent so long as Roy Williams is there. But I don't see a clear-cut advantage for their roster going forward (as was the case last year, for example).

I like this Duke team and our recruiting pipeline. We'll be able to compete just fine with the Heels or anyone else.

Always have and always will... Ebb and flow - ebb and flow...

Indoor66
11-19-2009, 10:30 AM
Always have and always will... Ebb and flow - ebb and flow...

Remeber when thinking of that ebb and flow, water flows down from the hill.

-bdbd
11-19-2009, 10:49 AM
This may be the only time I ever come out in favor of ol' Roy, but as Coach Wooden once said, "While no coach can win without talented athletes, not all coaches can win – even with talent."

He also said, "I'd rather have a lot of talent and a little experience than a lot of experience and a little talent," which might describe UNC this year.

Don't forget, even very good coaches with superior talent lose sometimes. Look, its a fickle game. Balls bounce odd ways, players have "off" nights or opponents play surprisingly well. You can't just pop it in a formula and out comes the predetermined winner -- unless its one of those 'fixed' BC games... ;)

We tend to forget that even Coach K has lost a few important games to teams with inferior talent. And I say that with the full belief that K is one of the very best bench/motivator coaches in the game. Think back to the 1999 Championship game vs UCONN - I was there in St. Petersburg and will always remember the very loud, obnoxious taunting by some Husky fans afterward (e.g. a hand-held sign proclaiming "Now Duke has TWO losers!" - as the woman had just lost in FF as well). But K had incredible talent that year -- Brand, Battier, Magette, Langdon, Avery -- yet things just didn't break our way in a very close, down-to-the-last-possession game. Some still believe that that was the most purely talented Blue Devil team ever.

Now, all that said, I'd much rather have talent than not, as it certainly does improve one's chances... Which is why we all follow recruiting so avidly. And, given equal talent levels in a game, I'd easily take K over pretty much ANY other coach out there!

drksuh
11-19-2009, 10:59 AM
SupaDave's Avatar
SupaDave SupaDave is offline
Moderator

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,528
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by roywhite View Post
I've come to accept the fact that the Heels will have plenty of talent so long as Roy Williams is there. But I don't see a clear-cut advantage for their roster going forward (as was the case last year, for example).

I like this Duke team and our recruiting pipeline. We'll be able to compete just fine with the Heels or anyone else.
Always have and always will... Ebb and flow - ebb and flow...


Ebb and flow, ebb and flow is not rational given Ol' Roy's success over us since arriving at Chapel Hole. Again, they are bringing in superior talent. If ol' Roy is anything, he is a great recruiter. Again we are looking through Dark Blue colored glasses if we cannot admit that he has outrecruited us in the past four to five years overall. Now given, that we have more total victories, pehaps we (or rather K) have outcoached him in that same stretch. Truthfully, I would trade that edge in victories for two national championships.

jesus_hurley
11-19-2009, 11:19 AM
Ebb and flow, ebb and flow is not rational giving Ol' Roy's success over us since arriving at Chapel Hole. Again, they are bringing in superior talent. If ol' Roy is anything, he is great recruiter. Again we are looking through Dark Blue colored glasses if we cannot admit that he has outrecruited us in the past four to five years overall. Now given, that we have more total victories, pehaps we or (K) have outcoached him in that same stretch. Truthfully, I would trade that edge in victories for two national championships.

It is though. And what is being said is that recruiting victories now may be misses in a few years. UNC-CH has had a good run of success - not always in getting the top players but in retaining talent and having other players out-perform their rankings. This is something that is unlikely to continue forever. Next year they will have 13 recruited scholarship players. Watts will be the lowest ranked player (3 star). The following year they will have 14 recruited players (if nobody leaves early) so someone would be without a scholarship. IF that were to happen couldn't you see a UK like hatred come down in Chapel Hill? or at least a few negative articles? I think that may affect recruiting. Add to that the fact that right now they cannot, ethically, do much more then 'stay in touch' with recruits for next year or 2011. And if Roy follows NABC guidelines (as the fans so loudly pointed out when Coach K offered Tokoto), he won't offer for 2012 until the start of the 2010 school year. That will put him at a disadvantage. Now on top of that, top recruits want to play. If the #1 player in a position from 2010 is going to be a junior, think the #1 player who plays in the same position will automatically sign on the dotted line when Roy comes calling?

Most of this is why things like ebb and flow are said. teams can get so stocked with talent that future recruits go elsewhere for more playing time. It's happened to Duke and it's happened to UNC-CH in the past.

CDu
11-19-2009, 11:24 AM
The UNC results are pretty well documented. But things don't stay the same in this rivalry; if anything, history tells us that the "down" program comes back after a period of time.

I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion either way (because quite frankly nobody can know who is right on this one), but I'm not sure history necessarily applies. The "ebb and flow" has generally involved the rise of Coach K, and the failures of Guthridge in recruiting and the failures Doherty in coaching. There's no history such history with Roy Williams at UNC. He's basically trended exclusively highly while at UNC.

This is basically the crux of the issue on both sides. On the "we'll catch Carolina soon" side is the "well there's always been a reversal of trends" argument, while the "Carolina is pulling away" side can say "that history doesn't apply to Williams, because he wasn't the coach during that history."

Clearly, we're still a very good team and a very good program. But just as clearly, UNC has been the better team/program over the last 5 years (basically the Williams era). Is it possible that a reversal of trends happens? Sure. Is it also possible that Williams is merely going to stretch (or maintain) the gap as the superior recruiter in (possibly) a superior recruiting situation? I'd say sure to that as well.

What we can discuss is this year, and this year at least I think we have the edge. That could change if UNC's guard play picks up with more experience, but I don't know that there'll be enough time for them to catch us this year (barring injuries to our backcourt, of course).

CDu
11-19-2009, 11:40 AM
There's no reason for anyone to transfer that I see.

You guys continue to way underestimate the Wear boys. I''ve only seen UNC play 3 games on a small computer screen and fell very confident saying they are solid ACC quality players.

The media has overrated Henson at this point, and underrated the Wear twins.

It would not surprise me if one of them got into the game against OSU tonight before Henson.

Regarding the Wear twins, I think you're falling into the classic trap of seeing big men look adequate/solid against undersized, inferior opponents. You just can't tell that against small, bad teams. And saying that, I didn't even come away impressed with them in those advantageous matchups. I could be wrong, but I really don't see them having an impact in meaningful games. We'll get a bit of a better idea tonight against OSU.

On Henson, I think the problem is that he has "guard-like" skills for a PF. Unfortunately, Williams seems insistent upon playing him at SF, largely because Thompson, Davis, and Zeller are getting so many minutes at PF and C. And that's because they're more experienced on a team that lacks experience.

As for the transfer issue, I think it could be an issue for UNC. They'll have six guys (Drew, Strickland, McDonald, Bullock, Barnes, and Marshall) competing for three spots on the floor, with the frontcourt pretty full as well (Zeller, the Wears, Henson). If the frosh beat out the sophs for playing time, the sophs could get disgruntled. Not saying it will happen, but that's potentially a lot of juggling of egos. The problem dissipates some if Henson and Davis both go pro after this year, but I don't think that early attrition helps the team overall.

Kedsy
11-19-2009, 12:47 PM
We tend to forget that even Coach K has lost a few important games to teams with inferior talent. And I say that with the full belief that K is one of the very best bench/motivator coaches in the game. Think back to the 1999 Championship game vs UCONN - I was there in St. Petersburg and will always remember the very loud, obnoxious taunting by some Husky fans afterward (e.g. a hand-held sign proclaiming "Now Duke has TWO losers!" - as the woman had just lost in FF as well). But K had incredible talent that year -- Brand, Battier, Magette, Langdon, Avery -- yet things just didn't break our way in a very close, down-to-the-last-possession game. Some still believe that that was the most purely talented Blue Devil team ever.

Our 1999 team was extremely talented, but I don't think 1999 UConn is a good example of a team with inferior talent. They were pre-season #1 that year and stayed #1 for half the year before we took the mantle. We should have only been a 1 or 2 point favorite in that game; it was not the huge upset people have made it out to be.

I agree with your original point, but I would use the 2002 loss to Indiana as a much better example.


This just shows the age of the board b/c if most really understood this concept they would INSTANTLY think of that UNLV team that was considered UNBEATABLE. What a year they had. Their average margin of victory was like 55 points that year and they had destroyed Duke the year before (I can't imagine what the board would look like if that game took place today).

That 1991 UNLV team was unbeatable. I was there and I have no idea how we did it. To tell the truth, I sometimes watch the game on video and I still think we're going to lose.


Not to mention - ROY took the MATT's players and made them natty champs. If you don't think coaching matters - just rewind to UNC's first chip of the last 5 years...

This is a great point.




(I apologize for perpetuating a non-Roscoe theme in the Roscoe thread.)

moonpie23
11-19-2009, 03:19 PM
Don't forget, even very good coaches with superior talent lose sometimes.

40-12

jimsumner
11-19-2009, 03:37 PM
Most of the time the team that gets off the bus with the most talent, wins.

But there's a world of difference between most of the time and all of the time.

The NCAA Tournament is full of examples.

The 1984 UNC team with Michael Jordan, Sam Perkins, Brad Daugherty, Kenny Smith, et. al. losing in the Sweet 16 to Indiana.

Indiana's defending NCAA champions losing in the 1988 first round to Richmond.

The 1998 Kansas team with first-team All-Americas Paul Pierce and Raef LaFrentz losing to Rhode Island in the second round.

The 2002 Duke team with Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy, Chris Duhon, and Dahntay Jones losing in the S16 to an Indiana team with Jared Jeffries and not a single other player who ever set foot on an NBA court.

The 2006 Connecticut team with Rudy Gay, Josh Boone, and Marcus Williams that lost to George Mason.

I use these five examples in part because of the losing coaches. Dean Smith, Bob Knight, Roy Williams, Mike Krzyzewski, and Jim Calhoun. Five Hall of Fame coaches who lost in the NCAAs to teams with demonstrably inferior talent bases.

That's why I cringe whenever I read a message-board-post where the acquistion of a particular prospect "guarantees" an NCAA title, a Final Four, a conference championship, whatever.

There are no guarantees in March. None, nada, zilch, zero.

RoyalBlue08
11-19-2009, 03:41 PM
Good post, I think the same thing every time someone posts one of these predictions on this or any other website. However, next time you have to make this point, could you leave the 2002 team loss off of it. I don't know that I have emotionally recovered from that one yet!!

G man
11-19-2009, 04:20 PM
Jeremy Lamb Shooting Guard 6-4 170 Norcross H.S. (GA) SG #44 91 Signed
Cleveland Melvin Power Forward 6-8 200 Notre Dame Prep (MA) POST 90 Verbal
Michael Bradley Center 6-10 210 Tyner Academy (TN) C #61 85 Signed


None of these guys play SF so not sure how much this helps me

moonpie23
11-19-2009, 04:36 PM
Most of the time the team that gets off the bus with the most talent, wins.

But there's a world of difference between most of the time and all of the time.

There are no guarantees in March. None, nada, zilch, zero.


who was on that UNC team in that weeber state debacle?

ChicagoCrazy84
11-19-2009, 04:36 PM
What kind of name is Cleveland Melvin anyway? Ugh!

jimsumner
11-19-2009, 04:41 PM
Ed Cota, Ademola Okulaga, Brendan Haywood, Kris Lang, Jason Capel, et. al.

Wheat/"/"/"
11-19-2009, 04:56 PM
1) Regarding the Wear twins, I think you're falling into the classic trap of seeing big men look adequate/solid against undersized, inferior opponents. You just can't tell that against small, bad teams....

2) On Henson, I think the problem is that he has "guard-like" skills for a PF. ....

3) As for the transfer issue, I think it could be an issue for UNC. ..... but that's potentially a lot of juggling of egos.

1) Stevie Wonder could see that they are fundamentally sound big men...with ACC quality talent.

2) Since when is a 6'10" inch player with "guard like" skills a problem? Henson has a huge upside, just overrated and physically overmatched coming in. He's a three year, NBA bound player, IMO.

3) UNC rarely has transfer issues due to PT. Good luck trying to sell the "Roy can't juggle the egos" arguement, that's been tried before.

RepoMan
11-19-2009, 05:15 PM
Can we keep this thread about Roscoe Smith?

CDu
11-19-2009, 06:40 PM
1) Stevie Wonder could see that they are fundamentally sound big men...with ACC quality talent.

I think you might be letting the baby blue goggles cloud your judgment with regard to two guys who've done next to nothing so far, and have done that next-to-nothing against three bad teams. I could be wrong, but (like Ryan Kelly) I see the Wear twins as guys who just aren't ready to consistently contribute against ACC-quality competition this year.


2) Since when is a 6'10" inch player with "guard like" skills a problem? Henson has a huge upside, just overrated and physically overmatched coming in. He's a three year, NBA bound player, IMO.

Well, you edited out the part that answered your question. Henson has very good skills for a PF. The problem is that he's being forced to play out of position right now at the SF spot, where his skillset is not as outstanding (though his height/athleticism can make him still a presence). I suspect that next year when he's back at the 4 (and with some more mass) he'll be a force.

I don't disagree that he'll likely be an NBA player. I don't think badly of Henson at all. I just think he's not suited to play the college 3, and not strong enough yet to play ahead of UNC's more experienced bigs at the 4.


3) UNC rarely has transfer issues due to PT. Good luck trying to sell the "Roy can't juggle the egos" arguement, that's been tried before.

Judging by your points #2 and #3, you seem to like to misstate my point. I didn't say that a transfer is likely. And I never said Williams can't juggle egos. I simply said it's possible. Williams has not had transfer problems, but he's also never had as much quality depth as he'll have next year. He's had depth, but not this many supposedly top-tier players all at a similar position.

jipops
11-19-2009, 09:54 PM
The 1984 UNC team with Michael Jordan, Sam Perkins, Brad Daugherty, Kenny Smith, et. al. losing in the Sweet 16 to Indiana.



That '84 UNC team had to be one of the most awesome teams I've ever seen in person. It was also nice to see them fall to us in the ACC tournament... in person.

Welcome2DaSlopes
11-19-2009, 10:05 PM
Can we keep this thread about Roscoe Smith?

HAHAHA i thought this was the exact reason someone made this thread.

Devilsfan
11-19-2009, 11:37 PM
My dream senario. The heels lose the second game in the NCAA tournament.

Welcome2DaSlopes
11-19-2009, 11:52 PM
My dream senario. The heels lose the second game in the NCAA tournament.

Don't sell yourself short. They lose first round or miss it all together.:)

juise
11-20-2009, 12:00 AM
Yeah, if the Heels are really good, the dream definitely has to involve the Heels becoming the first #1 seed to lose in the first round. I love record-setting Heel losses.

Welcome2DaSlopes
11-20-2009, 12:02 AM
That sounds great but i wouldn't want them to have a #1 seed. That means they won a lot of their games and that just sucks.

Kane
11-20-2009, 04:30 AM
Since UNC has kicked our I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. (won at least) 7 out of the last 9 meetings, why don't we focus on bringing hell down upon them with a complete season sweep for a change (to even the recent series out some), then dream about a national championship. Getting swept last year and losing the last 7 out of 9doesn't even constitute a rivalry . . . it makes me sick!

Kedsy
11-20-2009, 12:47 PM
Since UNC has kicked our I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. (won at least) 7 out of the last 9 meetings, why don't we focus on bringing hell down upon them with a complete season sweep for a change (to even the recent series out some), then dream about a national championship. Getting swept last year and losing the last 7 out of 9 doesn't even constitute a rivalry . . . it makes me sick!

What makes me sick is your myopia. Before losing 7 of 9, we WON 14 of the 16 before that. Did that consitute a rivalry? Doing a little addition, if you take the past 25 games, it's Duke 16, UNC 9, even including the tiny sliver of time that seems to take up all your memory.

Carolina has been above us for the past three years. The rivalry has gone on a heckuva lot longer than that.

roywhite
11-20-2009, 12:52 PM
Georgetown plays a boring style of offense, but could you care to look at this Duke team from a non homer stand point and realize our system isn't as "trendy" as other schools'.

Coach K's system has turned off top recruits recently which is a reason Roy has been able to pick up recruits over us. Either choice Roscoe makes between Georgetown and Duke, he will have to look at whats best for him and which system he wants to learn.

Obviously, we got bad news last Friday from Harrison Barnes, but recent commitments from Seth Curry and Kyrie Irving seem to disprove the idea that Coach K's system has turned off top recruits.

There are some basketball-savvy parents involved here, too...Kyrie's father Drederick played NCAA basketball and overseas; Dell Curry was a long-time NBA player, and Doc Rivers, an NBA player and coach, has been involved with discussions about Austin possibly going to Duke. I don't think they would be so positive toward Duke if they didn't like Coach K's system.

bluedevilallie
11-20-2009, 01:23 PM
I completely disagree with the point that top recruits don't want to play for Duke and Coach K. Every great program goes through periods where they miss top recruits for one reason or another. I know some of these kids want to play right away and contribute (be the star) and aren't interested in working their way into the rotation. that is one of the thigns I really respect and admire about Coach K and the Duke system. Remember it is easy to go to the program that is winning and everyone seems to 'have fun' while they are there (ie Carolina). It takes a special kind of player who wants to put in the time, work and effort to come to Duke. I'd rather rest knowing that. Someone else posted that some programs are 'trendy' right now--I think that sums it up. I'd rather be that classic, never going out of style, first class you can hang your hat on place like Duke. Wonder how Monroe and Patterson really like where they are? I can't believe for one minute they hadn't had times where they have thought 'what if'.

jipops
11-20-2009, 01:26 PM
Georgetown plays a boring style of offense, but could you care to look at this Duke team from a non homer stand point and realize our system isn't as "trendy" as other schools'.

Coach K's system has turned off top recruits recently which is a reason Roy has been able to pick up recruits over us. Either choice Roscoe makes between Georgetown and Duke, he will have to look at whats best for him and which system he wants to learn.

I have never understood this idea of a Coach K "system". What specifically is it about this "system" that holds players back? Can anyone answer this?

K does have a philosophy which centers around motion offense and man-to-man defense. Two basic principles that are hardly unique in the world of college basketball. Over the last decade we've seen Duke teams do a ton of free-lancing with very few set plays. I hardly see how free-lancing and few set plays is at all limiting for players. This garbage about holding players back is just something to put in the mind of opposing fans who will grab on to it wanting it to be true. From Dexter Strickand's comments it seems to have fallen into the recruiting world as well. Yet everything shown on the court points to the contrary.

NSDukeFan
11-20-2009, 01:32 PM
Georgetown plays a boring style of offense, but could you care to look at this Duke team from a non homer stand point and realize our system isn't as "trendy" as other schools'.

Coach K's system has turned off top recruits recently which is a reason Roy has been able to pick up recruits over us. Either choice Roscoe makes between Georgetown and Duke, he will have to look at whats best for him and which system he wants to learn.

I am impressed with your inside knowledge of how these top recruits feel and their reasons for not choosing Duke. Are you good friends with all of them to know what they were thinking? I could be missing something, as I have never heard a recruit say that a particular system is a reason they didn't go to any school, let alone Duke.

miramar
11-20-2009, 03:20 PM
I have never understood this idea of a Coach K "system". What specifically is it about this "system" that holds players back? Can anyone answer this?


This reminds me of the comment that people used to make about 20 years ago that Dean Smith (with his "system") was the only guy ever to keep Michael Jordan from scoring 25 PPG.

I would say that if MJ thought the whole Carolina system was so bad, then he wouldn't have helped recruit Harrison Jordan Barnes.

SupaDave
11-20-2009, 03:39 PM
What makes me sick is your myopia. Before losing 7 of 9, we WON 14 of the 16 before that. Did that consitute a rivalry? Doing a little addition, if you take the past 25 games, it's Duke 16, UNC 9, even including the tiny sliver of time that seems to take up all your memory.

Carolina has been above us for the past three years. The rivalry has gone on a heckuva lot longer than that.

Thank you Kedsy. It's post like those that let me know that some folks are more likely fans of 'winning' than they are necessarily fans of DUKE. I've said it before and I'll say it again - It took a losing season for me to realize just how really good Coach K is - since then I've kept my mouth shut and enjoyed the ride.

As our good friend Valvano would say - "Don't ever give up!!!"

6th Man
11-20-2009, 03:52 PM
I hardly see how free-lancing and few set plays is at all limiting for players. This garbage about holding players back is just something to put in the mind of opposing fans who will grab on to it wanting it to be true. From Dexter Strickand's comments it seems to have fallen into the recruiting world as well. Yet everything shown on the court points to the contrary.

AMEN.....I have posted these same thoughts alot lately. I am amazed that anyone could make an arguement that Duke's system limits you. Ask Andre Dawkins if he felt limited after he shot 11 3 pointers as a freshman guard off of the bench the other night.

jipops
11-20-2009, 04:06 PM
This reminds me of the comment that people used to make about 20 years ago that Dean Smith (with his "system") was the only guy ever to keep Michael Jordan from scoring 25 PPG.

I would say that if MJ thought the whole Carolina system was so bad, then he wouldn't have helped recruit Harrison Jordan Barnes.

Although to be somewhat technical, Roy's approach is very different from Dean's.

Tim1515
11-20-2009, 04:08 PM
I have never understood this idea of a Coach K "system". What specifically is it about this "system" that holds players back? Can anyone answer this?

K does have a philosophy which centers around motion offense and man-to-man defense. Two basic principles that are hardly unique in the world of college basketball. Over the last decade we've seen Duke teams do a ton of free-lancing with very few set plays. I hardly see how free-lancing and few set plays is at all limiting for players. This garbage about holding players back is just something to put in the mind of opposing fans who will grab on to it wanting it to be true. From Dexter Strickand's comments it seems to have fallen into the recruiting world as well. Yet everything shown on the court points to the contrary.

IMO the "system" that is being referred to isn't really a system at all. I think it comes down to the fact K wants controlled aggressiveness. A lot of top flight high school players are used to shooting whenever they want and driving against 4 players at any time.

You don't see players going 1v1 for a contested middle-range jumper at Duke...because it's a bad shot. Players need to know when to attack on offense so it doesn't put the defense in a bad position.

It is why players like Singler, Brand, Battier, (and likely Irving) get a ton of minutes day one...and raw players like Miles, Boykins, King, Elliot..etc need to earn time and understand the "system".

ChicagoCrazy84
11-20-2009, 04:18 PM
AMEN.....I have posted these same thoughts alot lately. I am amazed that anyone could make an arguement that Duke's system limits you. Ask Andre Dawkins if he felt limited after he shot 11 3 pointers as a freshman guard off of the bench the other night.


I agree. I really don't know where this whole thing started. You want to talk about a system in place at a school? How about Georgetown? I think that just because Coach K doesn't have a well known "run and gun" offense like UK or UNC, it gets billed as this predictable half court set. The other thing is that we haven't and a run and gun style PG since 2004, so people have looked at our team lately and saw Paulus back his way in to the halfcourt set and they say, "wow, this is so boring" or whatever.

The whole argument that recruits use like "I fit into their system really well" and stuff like that is so dumb. 98% of coaches base their offense around their personnel, Coach K no exception. If Coach K didn't want to use an up-tempo game, he wouldn't have recruited Kyrie!! He's a smart guy, he knows how Kyrie wants to play. He's not going to show film of Paulus and say "hey, this could be you next year." Im done!!

jipops
11-20-2009, 04:19 PM
IMO the "system" that is being referred to isn't really a system at all. I think it comes down to the fact K wants controlled aggressiveness. A lot of top flight high school players are used to shooting whenever they want and driving against 4 players at any time.

You don't see players going 1v1 for a contested middle-range jumper at Duke...because it's a bad shot. Players need to know when to attack on offense so it doesn't put the defense in a bad position.

It is why players like Singler, Brand, Battier, (and likely Irving) get a ton of minutes day one...and raw players like Miles, Boykins, King, Elliot..etc need to earn time and understand the "system".

Nothing about this ideal is unique to Duke. If anything it could be argued that the team down the road tries to control this more than K does.

The premise of all this is I fail to see how the approach or "system" that has been applied by K could adversely affect recruiting.

billy
11-20-2009, 04:47 PM
This garbage about holding players back is just something to put in the mind of opposing fans who will grab on to it wanting it to be true. From Dexter Strickand's comments it seems to have fallen into the recruiting world as well.

The continued presence of this mindset, that the Duke system is limiting to certain players, seems to be a byproduct of good "marketing", possibly by coaches locally in the triangle. Remember Roy's late contact with Wall during the recruiting process? Who's to say that the gist of his message wasn't so much "Please come play for me" but rather "Don't go to Duke because you'll be held back". Mr Strickland certainly got his message from somewhere....

ChicagoCrazy84
11-20-2009, 04:50 PM
If the "Duke system" is limiting to some players, why have we had super stars from all positions? PG, SG, SF, PF, C, the good ones have all thrived at Duke!

Tim1515
11-20-2009, 04:52 PM
Nothing about this ideal is unique to Duke. If anything it could be argued that the team down the road tries to control this more than K does.

The premise of all this is I fail to see how the approach or "system" that has been applied by K could adversely affect recruiting.

I think Elliot is a perfect example. Elliot was extremely raw...didn't always take good shots and struggled in the Duke "system". Because of this he saw little to no time. There are a lot of programs out there that he could play in from day 1 due to his raw athletic ability.

Other recruits see that and may shy away from falling into that situation.

One thing UNC does seem to do well is give everyone playing time during important minutes...not just clean up time.

Kedsy
11-20-2009, 05:23 PM
I think Elliot is a perfect example. Elliot was extremely raw...didn't always take good shots and struggled in the Duke "system". Because of this he saw little to no time. There are a lot of programs out there that he could play in from day 1 due to his raw athletic ability.

Well, he ended up a starter by the end of the year, so I'm not sure what he's a perfect example of.

jimsumner
11-20-2009, 05:38 PM
Krzyzewski's system has produced 7 national players of the year, 15 NBA lottery picks, 35 All-America seasons, 64 All-ACC seasons, and 34 NBA players. Oh, to be shackled in such a restrictive system.

juise
11-20-2009, 05:52 PM
I love how the Roscoe Smith thread got so far off topic that the mods spawned another thread for the side conversation... and now the original thread has gone back to the side conversation. ;)

Tim1515
11-20-2009, 06:02 PM
Well, he ended up a starter by the end of the year, so I'm not sure what he's a perfect example of.

To some degree i think that made it worse...he might have averaged 3 mpg throughout 90% of the year...then he starts getting 30 to end it. People were asking why he wasn't in sooner. There were rumors of him transferring well before his mother got sick.

In any case i'm not saying K is wrong...the NBA 1 year rule landed people like Beasley, Rose, Durant and company in college...now every 5* recruit in the country thinks they should be starting and playing 30 mpg.

BlueintheFace
11-20-2009, 06:08 PM
Potential Lineup on the floor:

Irving
Smith
Smith
Plumlee
Plumlee


...weird right?

Tim1515
11-20-2009, 06:20 PM
Potential Lineup on the floor:

Irving
Smith
Smith
Plumlee
Plumlee


...weird right?

When you put it that way Nolan should've redshirted this year...

Smith
Smith
Plumlee
Plumlee
Plumlee

Franzez
11-20-2009, 10:29 PM
Obviously, we got bad news last Friday from Harrison Barnes, but recent commitments from Seth Curry and Kyrie Irving seem to disprove the idea that Coach K's system has turned off top recruits.
Seth Curry is a transfer, and Irving wanted to come to Duke.

What I meant is as clear as day, look at the top ranked players in the country outside of HB and the guys we do have signed. How many players considered Duke among their Top 5 schools for 2010?

A Duke scholarship offer for a lot of these kids is just confirmation that they are a top player, they'll consider us early as there is a lot to offer here but eventually we'll be eliminated as they take visits to the schools that have become "trendy" for top recruits.



There are some basketball-savvy parents involved here, too...Kyrie's father Drederick played NCAA basketball and overseas; Dell Curry was a long-time NBA player, and Doc Rivers, an NBA player and coach, has been involved with discussions about Austin possibly going to Duke. I don't think they would be so positive toward Duke if they didn't like Coach K's system.
Its good to have parents like those, they realize the value of going to Duke and learning under Coach K.

jipops
11-20-2009, 11:04 PM
Seth Curry is a transfer, and Irving wanted to come to Duke.

What I meant is as clear as day, look at the top ranked players in the country outside of HB and the guys we do have signed. How many players considered Duke among their Top 5 schools for 2010?

A Duke scholarship offer for a lot of these kids is just confirmation that they are a top player, they'll consider us early as there is a lot to offer here but eventually we'll be eliminated as they take visits to the schools that have become "trendy" for top recruits.


Wow, you seem to have a firm grip of inside info on the recruiting world. I'm not sure I get this whole "trendy" thing though. What does it mean? What is a program doing specifically to become "trendy"?

SupaDave
11-21-2009, 12:30 AM
Wow, you seem to have a firm grip of inside info on the recruiting world. I'm not sure I get this whole "trendy" thing though. What does it mean? What is a program doing specifically to become "trendy"?

Good question. I mean, don't you have to be pretty cool and accepted by many to be "trendy"? Flavor of the month perhaps? Naw, couldn't be us...

MADevil30
11-21-2009, 12:23 PM
Seth Curry is a transfer, and Irving wanted to come to Duke.

So it is K's fault that he can't convince more top recruits to seriously consider coming to Duke (a point I disagree with) and especially not to commit here, but when he does get a top recruit (Irving) its not because of him? I'm not sure how you see the fact that Kyrie "wanted to come to Duke" as having nothing to do with how K recruited him. Please explain this logic because you're playing both sides of the coin

Franzez
11-21-2009, 12:30 PM
Wow, you seem to have a firm grip of inside info on the recruiting world. I'm not sure I get this whole "trendy" thing though. What does it mean? What is a program doing specifically to become "trendy"?
I know you're being sarcastic but I follow recruiting very closely.

The "trendy" schools seem to be programs that allow their players to get touches immediately, you could mention the system also but these schools allow their highly rated guys to come in and have an opportunity to excel early on in terms of playing time. Often these teams are undisciplined and struggle defensively.

Im referring to schools like Florida State, Tennessee, Memphis, Baylor, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Kansas State among others and to an extent North Carolina.

At Duke you have to fit into the system to have success and you have to earn your job to receive consistent playing time and have an opportunity to take shots. Henderson didn't earn the green light as our #1 option until he proved himself, the same can't be said for other schools who give their incoming players an opportunity to showcase themselves early on.

Obviously the level of talent plays a huge factor, but look at our classes in the last 4 years: Only 2 players have reached the NBA although we've had 9 McDonalds All Americans. Duke has long been great for college basketball and our players come away with knowledge of the game, but lack of player development has hurt us.

Its off topic but its a big reason why I think a lot of kids we go after don't consider Duke among their final schools, so many of those guys have their eyes on the NBA and view Duke as a school where you end up as a role player. We still recruit well but its safe to suggest we only recruit a specific type of player, obviously a player who excels academically, but a player willing to put team first rather than showcasing themselves for the next level. Wasn't that a problem we had with McBob?

Franzez
11-21-2009, 12:41 PM
So it is K's fault that he can't convince more top recruits to seriously consider coming to Duke (a point I disagree with) and especially not to commit here, but when he does get a top recruit (Irving) its not because of him? I'm not sure how you see the fact that Kyrie "wanted to come to Duke" as having nothing to do with how K recruited him. Please explain this logic because you're playing both sides of the coin

Irving long wanted to be apart of this tradition, of course Coach K recruited him hard but you have to also realize that Irving throughout this process for 2010 was our back-up plan for Brandon Knight, while for almost every other school on his list we was considered their #1 recruiting option(of any player) for 2010. Knight dropped us when he cut his list to 5 early, and we seemed to recruit Irving even harder although we have Thornton coming in in 2010.

Im not blaming Coach K for not convincing top recruits to come to Duke, the problem has been in recent years the popularized notion that our team runs a system that doesn't produce NBA ready players although we bring in McDonalds All Americans. Whether its true or not the main thing is we have to get back to contending for National Championships, rather than getting outplayed when we get bumped off in the tournament.

The college basketball game has changed with the increased presence of shoe company runners, shady AAU travel teams, and the fact guys who wouldn't have gone to college are now in college for 1-2 years. Roy Williams adapted without any care for Dean Smith's tradition at UNC, Coach K is one of the last who still realize the importance of what college basketball is all about.

fgb
11-21-2009, 12:41 PM
Henderson got plenty of touches (by which i mean "shots") as a during his freshman and sophomore seasons. He just made more of them as a junior.

jimsumner
11-21-2009, 12:42 PM
"Obviously the level of talent plays a huge factor, but look at our classes in the last 4 years: Only 2 players have reached the NBA although we've had 9 McDonalds All Americans"

Aren't most of the players recruited by Duke in the last four years still in school?

Kyrie Irving doesn't count as a recruiting success because he wanted to come to Duke? Maybe, I'm missing something but most recruits who sign with a school do so because they want to go to that school; recruits who don't want to go to a particular school rarely sign with that school.

BTW, every recruiting prospect worth his salt had Irving all pegged for Indiana just a few months ago. So, I guess at some point Irving didn't want to go to Duke. Then he did. Magic, I suppose?

Duvall
11-21-2009, 12:48 PM
Henderson got plenty of touches (by which i mean "shots") as a during his freshman and sophomore seasons. He just made more of them as a junior.

Not to mention the fact that Henderson's freshman minutes were mostly limited by the fact that fellow freshman Jon Scheyer was playing better than him.

SMO
11-21-2009, 12:48 PM
I know you're being sarcastic but I follow recruiting very closely.

The "trendy" schools seem to be programs that allow their players to get touches immediately, you could mention the system also but these schools allow their highly rated guys to come in and have an opportunity to excel early on in terms of playing time. Often these teams are undisciplined and struggle defensively.

Im referring to schools like Florida State, Tennessee, Memphis, Baylor, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Kansas State among others and to an extent North Carolina.

At Duke you have to fit into the system to have success and you have to earn your job to receive consistent playing time and have an opportunity to take shots. Henderson didn't earn the green light as our #1 option until he proved himself, the same can't be said for other schools who give their incoming players an opportunity to showcase themselves early on.

Obviously the level of talent plays a huge factor, but look at our classes in the last 4 years: Only 2 players have reached the NBA although we've had 9 McDonalds All Americans. Duke has long been great for college basketball and our players come away with knowledge of the game, but lack of player development has hurt us.

Its off topic but its a big reason why I think a lot of kids we go after don't consider Duke among their final schools, so many of those guys have their eyes on the NBA and view Duke as a school where you end up as a role player. We still recruit well but its safe to suggest we only recruit a specific type of player, obviously a player who excels academically, but a player willing to put team first rather than showcasing themselves for the next level. Wasn't that a problem we had with McBob?

This post contains most of the red herrings that are prevalent on recruiting threads on this board. I'm not sure why they persist.

For instance, the "paying your dues to fit into the system" to earn playing time argument is odd when you look at the minutes Singler played his freshman year. If a guy is ready, he plays. Does anyone honestly think if a freshman comes in to any program and doesn't play well that he'll continue to be the number 1 option? Do recruits actually think they can get playing time without earning it? Look at Henson thus far at UNC.

Duke doesn't develop players and Duke is not right for guys with NBA ambitions? Watch many NBA games? Deng, Boozer, Battier, Brand, Maggette...the list goes on and on. Maybe it was a problem with McBob, but look at the numbers not just one example.

There's virtually no factual basis to these arguments!

airowe
11-21-2009, 12:48 PM
I know you're being sarcastic but I follow recruiting very closely.

The "trendy" schools seem to be programs that allow their players to get touches immediately, you could mention the system also but these schools allow their highly rated guys to come in and have an opportunity to excel early on in terms of playing time. Often these teams are undisciplined and struggle defensively.

Im referring to schools like Florida State, Tennessee, Memphis, Baylor, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Kansas State among others and to an extent North Carolina.

Most of those teams you mentioned play their Freshmen because they don't have a whole lot of players to begin with. While Roy does go deeper into his bench than K does, ask Brandan Wright or Marvin Williams if they feel like they really got a lot of playing time as Freshmen and whether they were developed well for the NBA.



At Duke you have to fit into the system to have success and you have to earn your job to receive consistent playing time and have an opportunity to take shots. Henderson didn't earn the green light as our #1 option until he proved himself, the same can't be said for other schools who give their incoming players an opportunity to showcase themselves early on.


Kyrie Irving will start from Day 1.



Obviously the level of talent plays a huge factor, but look at our classes in the last 4 years: Only 2 players have reached the NBA although we've had 9 McDonalds All Americans. Duke has long been great for college basketball and our players come away with knowledge of the game, but lack of player development has hurt us.


While I agree the results have been far from spectacular recently, Duke still has the most NBA players in the League and are tied with UCLA for the highest salaries by professional basketball players. This too will pass.



Its off topic but its a big reason why I think a lot of kids we go after don't consider Duke among their final schools, so many of those guys have their eyes on the NBA and view Duke as a school where you end up as a role player. We still recruit well but its safe to suggest we only recruit a specific type of player, obviously a player who excels academically, but a player willing to put team first rather than showcasing themselves for the next level.

Not sure I can agree with most of this, except the academically and team first players, which I'll gladly take any day of the week. Our recruiting classes have not been that bad recently, we've had a lot of early departures (or non-arrivals) that hurt our continuity in reloading and some players that we took as sure things instead of the one-and-dones or direct NBA entries didn't pan out like we thought they would.


Wasn't that a problem we had with McBob?

McBob had a problem with the weight room. In other words, he didn't walk into it.

Oh yeah, and Roscoe Smith had 13 points last night but doesn't play for two weeks...

Franzez
11-21-2009, 12:50 PM
"Obviously the level of talent plays a huge factor, but look at our classes in the last 4 years: Only 2 players have reached the NBA although we've had 9 McDonalds All Americans"

Aren't most of the players recruited by Duke in the last four years still in school?
True.

Which is a good & bad thing. Good for us because we don't have the roster turnover other schools suffer with, Bad for us because it shows that they have become role players on the college level rather than improving for the next level.

Example: Zoubek & Thomas


Kyrie Irving doesn't count as a recruiting success because he wanted to come to Duke? Maybe, I'm missing something but most recruits who sign with a school do so because they want to go to that school; recruits who don't want to go to a particular school rarely sign with that school.

BTW, every recruiting prospect worth his salt had Irving all pegged for Indiana just a few months ago. So, I guess at some point Irving didn't want to go to Duke. Then he did. Magic, I suppose?

Just a few months ago, Kyrie Irving wasn't even our #1 recruiting target at PG, that was Brandon Knight. Its not magic, its called us showing more interest than previously and him jumping at the opportunity to come to Duke to play for Coach K.

You could make the same argument for Roscoe Smith who is now our biggest recruiting target for 2010, after HB chose UNC.

Franzez
11-21-2009, 12:53 PM
This post contains most of the red herrings that are prevalent on recruiting threads on this board. I'm not sure why they persist.

For instance, the "paying your dues to fit into the system" to earn playing time argument is odd when you look at the minutes Singler played his freshman year. If a guy is ready, he plays. Does anyone honestly think if a freshman comes in to any program and doesn't play well that he'll continue to be the number 1 option? Do recruits actually think they can get playing time without earning it? Look at Henson thus far at UNC.

Duke doesn't develop players and Duke is not right for guys with NBA ambitions? Watch many NBA games? Deng, Boozer, Battier, Brand, Maggette...the list goes on and on. Maybe it was a problem with McBob, but look at the numbers not just one example.

There's virtually no factual basis to these arguments!

Thats the typical response I expected to see.

How long can you continue to point to these guys?

What have we done recently?

The college basketball game has changed over the last several years specifically with the glorification of the HS to NBA jump for recruits, and then eventually the shutting of the door by the NBA forcing these guys to go to college to showcase themselves. As we haven't had comparable success in the NCAA Tournament since then, we haven't been able to produce NBA ready talent from the already good high school talent we've brought in.

Franzez
11-21-2009, 01:02 PM
Most of those teams you mentioned play their Freshmen because they don't have a whole lot of players to begin with. While Roy does go deeper into his bench than K does, ask Brandan Wright or Marvin Williams if they feel like they really got a lot of playing time as Freshmen and whether they were developed well for the NBA.
All those schools I mentioned have good talent, those schools aren't loading up on 2 and 3* players either. The fact they allow Freshmen to come into the program and be featured from day 1 helps them with recruits who want that same showcase.

How about you ask Greg Paulus how Coach K developed him for the NBA? I know I'm being a pessimist about things but in recent years it is hard to argue that Duke has developed guys for the league compared to other "trendy" programs.






Kyrie Irving will start from Day 1.
Thats not certain.

Smith, Curry, Dawkins, & Thornton will all be here.




While I agree the results have been far from spectacular recently, Duke still has the most NBA players in the League and are tied with UCLA for the highest salaries by professional basketball players. This too will pass.
I doubt it. This is a new age of college basketball, Duke along with UMD are 2 of the last programs from the "good ol' days".



Not sure I can agree with most of this, except the academically and team first players, which I'll gladly take any day of the week. Our recruiting classes have not been that bad recently, we've had a lot of early departures (or non-arrivals) that hurt our continuity in reloading and some players that we took as sure things instead of the one-and-dones or direct NBA entries didn't pan out like we thought they would.[/quote]
Im not complaing about our recruiting classes, we're almost yearly guranteed to a good class of players.

But in recent years what do you consider Duke's basketball program to be, a College basketball powerhouse or a NBA factory?




McBob had a problem with the weight room. In other words, he didn't walk into it.

Oh yeah, and Roscoe Smith had 13 points last night but doesn't play for two weeks...
I thought it was more than that with McBob having problems with the coaching staff regarding his role, and he himself was trying to showcase himself for the league rather than putting the team first?

Maybe that was all rumors.

RoyalBlue08
11-21-2009, 01:10 PM
Thats the typical response I expected to see.

How long can you continue to point to these guys?

What have we done recently?

The college basketball game has changed over the last several years specifically with the glorification of the HS to NBA jump, and then eventually the shutting of the door by the NBA forcing these guys to go to college. As we haven't had comparable success in the NCAA Tournament since then, we haven't been able to produce NBA ready talent from the already good high school talent we've brought in.

What I would like to know is who are we being compared to? We have more NBA players that any other school. It's true that not every McDonald's All American that comes to Duke goes to the NBA. That is also true of every other school in the country. What school is cranking out these NBA stars every year? Every year we send at least one player to the league. This is bound to continue. We probably have at least 3 future NBA players on our roster right now.

I get so tired of reading all of this whining about teams that have been relatively successful and have contained a lot of talented players that we have been able watch develop over the years. Recruiting is far from an exact science. Sometimes guys aren't as good as the hype. Sometimes they come to Duke (McRoberts, Paulus), sometimes they go to Carolina (Henson), and sometimes they go to other schools.

And regardless, if our friends down the road have taught us anything, the way to win championships is not to find the superstar players that leave after one year, but to find a group a guys who are just not quite good enough for the NBA and have them stay 3-4 years. Seems to me, this happening is pretty much solely based on luck of the draw.

Kfan4Life
11-21-2009, 01:13 PM
Franzez, how is it K's fault that Paulus is slow and short. He also had a lot of injuries to set him back. Why don't we ask Frasor how good Ol' Roy prepared him for the NBA.

airowe
11-21-2009, 01:21 PM
Greg Paulus was never going to play in the NBA but I'm going to leave my feelings about Paulus aside because I thought he gave great heart and effort for the program and left everything on the floor. How about you ask Chris Duhon how he helped him become more than just an off-guard and get a second contract in the NBA?

Kyrie Irving WILL start from Day 1. All those guys you listed are two guards except Thornton and barring an injury to KI, even he'll tell you Irving will start from Day 1.

Let's go to RSCI to back up your claim that all these "trendy" schools are getting better recruits than Duke:

Last year, not including Andre Dawkins:

Duke #8
Florida State, Tennessee, Memphis, Baylor, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Kansas State NOT LISTED

2008

Memphis #3
Wake Forest #6
Tennessee #8
Duke #11


Florida State, Baylor, West Virginia, Kansas State NOT LISTED

2007

Duke #3
Memphis #7 (Take off the Morris twins because they went to KU and we'll see where this class was rated...)
Fla State Tied for #10
Wake tied for #15

2006

Duke #3
Tennessee #8


See a trend here?

airowe
11-21-2009, 01:22 PM
And regardless, if our friends down the road have taught us anything, the way to win championships is not to find the superstar players that leave after one year, but to find a group a guys who are just not quite good enough for the NBA and have them stay 3-4 years. Seems to me, this happening is pretty much solely based on luck of the draw.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for making this point. I completely forgot to include it...

yancem
11-21-2009, 03:18 PM
Thats the typical response I expected to see.

How long can you continue to point to these guys?

What have we done recently?

The college basketball game has changed over the last several years specifically with the glorification of the HS to NBA jump for recruits, and then eventually the shutting of the door by the NBA forcing these guys to go to college to showcase themselves. As we haven't had comparable success in the NCAA Tournament since then, we haven't been able to produce NBA ready talent from the already good high school talent we've brought in.

Name 1 unc player since Carter and Jamison left that has done really well in the nba. Mays and McCants from the 05 nc team have done nothing. Felton and Williams are average starters at best. So far Wright is a bench role player. Hansolo and Ellington are also most likely role players (a little too early to tell for sure). Lawson is the only one that is looking like he may make an a real impact but again it is too early to tell (Felton looked pretty strong parts of his rookie year as well). All of those guys (except probably Hansolo) were considered solid nba prospects coming out of high school. In fact Lawson and Ellington were supposed to be 1-2 year players but they developed to well they HAD to come back or a third year. UNC is still living off there reputation established with guys like Worth, Jordan and Brad Daugherty and then Wallace, Stackhouse, Carter and Jamison. Talk about what have you done for me lately.

During that same time period, the only Duke recruits that were considered solid nba prospects were McRoberts, Henderson and Singler. McRoberts never lived up to expectations (however I think he was much better than many on this board give him credit for). You can blame that on coaching but I think at least part of the blame lies on his own shoulders. Henderson was considered an exceptional athlete that needed time to develop, which he did and quite well I must add. Singler could have declared last year and ended up like Wright who left before his games were ready and would be also sitting on a bench. We will have to wait to see how he fairs in the nba but I don't think that you can claim that he hasn't developed quite a bit over the past 2+ years.

SMO
11-21-2009, 04:15 PM
What I would like to know is who are we being compared to? We have more NBA players that any other school. It's true that not every McDonald's All American that comes to Duke goes to the NBA. That is also true of every other school in the country. What school is cranking out these NBA stars every year? Every year we send at least one player to the league. This is bound to continue. We probably have at least 3 future NBA players on our roster right now.

I get so tired of reading all of this whining about teams that have been relatively successful and have contained a lot of talented players that we have been able watch develop over the years. Recruiting is far from an exact science. Sometimes guys aren't as good as the hype. Sometimes they come to Duke (McRoberts, Paulus), sometimes they go to Carolina (Henson), and sometimes they go to other schools.

And regardless, if our friends down the road have taught us anything, the way to win championships is not to find the superstar players that leave after one year, but to find a group a guys who are just not quite good enough for the NBA and have them stay 3-4 years. Seems to me, this happening is pretty much solely based on luck of the draw.

Thank you for beating me to this response. If you use the "what have you done for me lately" standard, then Florida is probably the best program around with Noah, Horford, and Brewer in the NBA. Somehow I think Duke is better positioned for continued success both in the NCAA and NBA.

SMO
11-21-2009, 04:45 PM
And for good measure, exhibit A: Andre Dawkins has gone for 20 today on 7 for 9 shooting (so far). Just imagine what he could do if he could only get some touches or be given the green light! As I recall, a guy named Taylor King had a nice game against Wisconsin his freshman year largely due to his ability to pull the trigger on 3's anytime he wanted. As his effectiveness dwindled, so did his playing time. Lack of touches is not the issue folks.

airowe
11-21-2009, 05:33 PM
Which system to play in?

http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?&gameId=293250150&refresh=OFF

http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=293262542

Welcome2DaSlopes
11-21-2009, 06:22 PM
Which system to play in?

http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?&gameId=293250150&refresh=OFF

http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=293262542

The first one by a landslide.

El_Diablo
11-21-2009, 08:24 PM
Franzez, sorry, but this is a pretty stupid line of reasoning. We can't convince top recruits to come to Duke...except for the ones we do get to commit...but they wanted to come here...so they don't count. Why is that? I'm still not clear. Did you ever stop to think about why Kyrie Irving wants to come here? I'm pretty sure it has something to do with what the coaching staff presented to him.

And why does Seth Curry not count because he's a transfer? I'm pretty sure he'll still be suiting up just like the rest of the team next year. If he puts the ball in the basket, it counts just as much as if we had recruited him out of high school...

We brought in three five-star recruits this year...Kelly, Plumlee, and Dawkins. We have another good class coming in next year. Yeah, we didn't land any top-five players in the past few years (except for the ones we did land), but did you ever stop to think that maybe Coach K wasn't interested in OJ Mayo or Derrick Rose?

We're not "trendy"? Um, so what? If Florida State, Kansas State, and Baylor are trendy...then I don't want Duke to be trendy. You can criticize all you want, but you just sound foolish.

Tell me: if Roscoe Smith is basing his pick on the "trendy" pick....what school is he going to pick then? West Virginia? Baylor? HA.

EDIT: And your understanding of the Knight/Irving recruitments are not accurate. Irving was not a "backup" who only became a priority after Knight cut us from his list. We were going hard after Irving at the expense of Knight for months before Knight cut us.

Franzez
11-21-2009, 08:46 PM
Franzez, sorry, but this is a pretty stupid line of reasoning. We can't convince top recruits to come to Duke...except for the ones we do get to commit...but they wanted to come here...so they don't count. Why is that? I'm still not clear. Did you ever stop to think about why Kyrie Irving wants to come here? I'm pretty sure it has something to do with what the coaching staff presented to him.

And why does Seth Curry not count because he's a transfer? I'm pretty sure he'll still be suiting up just like the rest of the team next year. If he puts the ball in the basket, it counts just as much as if we had recruited him out of high school...

We brought in three five-star recruits this year...Kelly, Plumlee, and Dawkins. We have another good class coming in next year. Yeah, we didn't land any top-five players in the past few years (except for the ones we did land), but did you ever stop to think that maybe Coach K wasn't interested in OJ Mayo or Derrick Rose?

We're not "trendy"? Um, so what? If Florida State, Kansas State, and Baylor are trendy...then I don't want Duke to be trendy. You can criticize all you want, but you just sound foolish.

How was I criticizing Duke? Pointing out that guys who were McDonalds All Americans in recent years have come to Duke and become role players is not being critical.

And I never stopped to think that Coach K wasn't interested in OJ Mayo or Derrick Rose. But then I never stopped to think why Coach K was interested in John Wall, when technically he is in the same boat as Mayo & Rose as a 1 & Done with shady handlers.

It seems that I upset a lot of people with my comments. And of course playing in a motion offense that relies heavily on ball movement and spot shooting is definetly a big sell to 18 year old kids with their eyes on the NBA. A lot of people here are getting old like me and are forgetting that the kids we're recruiting for 2010 were about 8 years old when Duke last won a National Championship. If there is nothing in recent years to suggest that our system can reach a NC or showcase a guys talent for the NBA, then what exactly is the appeal for Duke to your typical 17 year old basketball standout?

Franzez
11-21-2009, 08:54 PM
Tell me: if Roscoe Smith is basing his pick on the "trendy" pick....what school is he going to pick then? West Virginia? Baylor? HA.
If he picks Georgetown like most people here expect, then what will be the excuse?
The only reason this thread swirled off track was comments made previously claiming the Princeton offense doesn't utilize Greg Monroe, which couldn't be further from the truth.



EDIT: And your understanding of the Knight/Irving recruitments are not accurate. Irving was not a "backup" who only became a priority after Knight cut us from his list. We were going hard after Irving at the expense of Knight for months before Knight cut us.
Actually my understanding is 100% correct regarding the situation, we've been longer in on recruiting Knight than we were Irving. Trying to argue that Irving was never our "backup" plan to Knight, is like trying to argue that we've always wanted Roscoe Smith over Harrison Barnes.

Obviously we couldn't get both at either position, but to think we've wanted Irving longer than we wanted Knight is pretty ridiculous. Knight had been our #1 target for 2010 for about 2-3 years now.

El_Diablo
11-21-2009, 08:55 PM
If there is nothing in recent years to suggest that our system can reach a NC or showcase a guys talent for the NBA, then what exactly is the appeal for Duke to your typical 17 year old basketball standout?

Why don't you ask Kyrie Irving? You can reach him on twitter:

@kyrieirving

Let us know what he says...I'm sure that he agrees with you and feels that he has no chance to reach a NC or showcase his talent at Duke, so I'm curious why he wants to play here.

Seriously, have you seen the last two games? What aspect of our 'system' is holding any of our players back? What would prevent Roscoe Smith from playing and contributing from Day One? If he can play, he'll play. That's our system.

Franzez
11-21-2009, 09:05 PM
Why don't you ask Kyrie Irving? You can reach him on twitter:

@kyrieirving

Twitter is for little kids.


Let us know what he says...I'm sure that he agrees with you and feels that he has no chance to reach a NC or showcase his talent at Duke, so I'm curious why he wants to play here.
Tradition, and the fact his father is there to tell him what fits best for him and what he could learn from playing under Coach K.

Has anything hes shown previously suggested he has eyes for the NBA or wants to go somewhere to showcase himself?



Seriously, have you seen the last two games? What aspect of our 'system' is holding any of our players back? What would prevent Roscoe Smith from playing and contributing from Day One? If he can play, he'll play. That's our system.
I dont watch these games because I realize how meaningless they are, we played Radford. Did you expect us to even struggle in a game like that? This always the time when everybody on here gets really cocky and then we get bumped back to reality.

It looks all great until we face some competition, our Villanova loss is still too fresh in my mind to even care what we do against DII schools.

The only thing I could think of that would keep Roscoe from playing from Day One is a guy named Kyle Singler. Would we move Singler back to PF in order to give Roscoe playing time at the 3? Roscoe will certainly play some minutes if he did come to Duke, but it all depends on what it specifically comes down to between Georgetown and Duke.

El_Diablo
11-21-2009, 09:06 PM
Actually my understanding is 100% correct regarding the situation, we've been longer in on recruiting Knight than we were Irving. Trying to argue that Irving was never our "backup" plan to Knight, is like trying to argue that we've always wanted Roscoe Smith over Harrison Barnes.

Obviously we couldn't get both at either position, but to think we've wanted Irving longer than we wanted Knight is pretty ridiculous. Knight had been our #1 target for 2010 for about 2-3 years now.

Irving emerged as a huge prospect a LOT later than Knight did. We started recruiting him later, but he was not a 'backup plan.' There's a difference.

Okay, back to Roscoe...

He's a good player, so he can fit in fine with our system. If he chooses Georgetown, maybe he likes their system more....but it's not a "trendy" system, so I'm not sure how your previous posts apply. Alternatively, maybe he would prefer GU because he feels more comfortable with the coach, or the players, or the proximity to his home.

BlueintheFace
11-21-2009, 09:09 PM
What have I walked in on here... what a debate.

I'm not jumping in on most of these points except for two that I believe are as close to objectively correct as can be.

1) Kyrie Irving was prioritized OVER Knight for months in recruiting.

2) Kyrie Irving WILL start on the first day at Duke barring injury.

SMO
11-21-2009, 09:14 PM
It seems that I upset a lot of people with my comments.

That's because your arguments are poorly supported and make little sense. Picking them apart is like shooting fish in a barrel.

moonpie23
11-21-2009, 09:15 PM
twitter is for little kids.

ack !!!!!!! ! Busted......

juise
11-21-2009, 09:17 PM
Irving emerged as a huge prospect a LOT later than Knight did. We started recruiting him later, but he was not a 'backup plan.' There's a difference.

Thanks for making this point. I typed a post saying this and when I previewed my post, I saw that you had beat me to it.



That's because your arguments are poorly supported and make little sense. Picking them apart is like shooting fish in a barrel.
It looks like Yosemite Sam's ready to go! :p

Franzez
11-21-2009, 09:17 PM
Irving emerged as a huge prospect a LOT later than Knight did. We started recruiting him later, but he was not a 'backup plan.' There's a difference.
Irving was our backup plan when Knight fell through, I know you dont want to admit it but that was clearly the case. If Knight had signed with us, would Kyrie Irving be at Duke?

Irving had wanted to come to Duke for awhile, maybe I pay attention to too much to what these guys say but you could tell that Duke fell in line with what he wanted to do in college. Thats why things progressed so quickly with Kyrie in my opinion, it went from Indiana a few months ago to an emerging Duke lean in a matter of 1 day once Knight cut his list.


Okay, back to Roscoe...

He's a good player, so he can fit in fine with our system. If he chooses Georgetown, maybe he likes their system more....but it's not a "trendy" system, so I'm not sure how your previous posts apply. Alternatively, maybe he would prefer GU because he feels more comfortable with the coach, or the players, or the proximity to his home.
I never said Georgetown was a "trendy" school.

I was referring to the top recruits who don't even consider Duke, I once believed that these guys werent interested because Coach K didn't want guys he knew would leave after 1 or 2 years. Then a guy named John Wall came and that logic changed.

Franzez
11-21-2009, 09:22 PM
That's because your arguments are poorly supported and make little sense. Picking them apart is like shooting fish in a barrel.
How exactly?

Tell me how I am off base with the comments I've made? T
Tell me how Duke not preparing guys in recent years for the NBA is not true?

jv001
11-21-2009, 09:26 PM
How exactly?

Tell me how I am off base with the comments I've made? T
Tell me how Duke not preparing guys in recent years for the NBA is not true?

Who has Duke failed to prepare for the NBA in recent years?

roywhite
11-21-2009, 09:27 PM
How exactly?

Tell me how I am off base with the comments I've made? T
Tell me how Duke not preparing guys in recent years for the NBA is not true?

Your basic premises include:
1. Duke is not currently recruiting well
2. Duke is not preparing players well for the NBA

Both are false.

For example....the recruiting class of 2009 is already showing itself to be very productive, and the class of 2010 includes highly ranked prospects like Kyrie Irving and Josh Hairston. And Duke had the greatest number of players of any school on opening day NBA rosters.

moonpie23
11-21-2009, 09:28 PM
Elton Brand - 76ers
Carlos Boozer - Jazz
Shane Battier - Rockets
Mike Dunleavy - Pacers
Chris Duhon - Knicks
JJ Redick - Magic
Corey Maggette - Warriors
Luol Deng- Bulls
Shelden Williams - Celtics
Dahntay Jones - Pacers
Shav Randolph - Heat
Josh McRoberts- Pacers
Gerald Henderson - Bobcats


the only "not recent" would possibly be
Grant Hill - Suns


i'm not sure who you're counting as "didn't prepare" please explain...

BlueintheFace
11-21-2009, 09:28 PM
If Knight had signed with us, would Kyrie Irving be at Duke?

If the answer is yes, how would this mean KI was a backup? Let me ask you this, if Brad Beal commits, will Austin Rivers sign with Duke? The answer is very likely no for obvious reasons (competition, depth, etc...). Does that mean that Austin Rivers was a backup option? Of course not.

jipops
11-21-2009, 09:30 PM
Twitter is for little kids.

I dont watch these games because I realize how meaningless they are, we played Radford. Did you expect us to even struggle in a game like that? This always the time when everybody on here gets really cocky and then we get bumped back to reality.

It looks all great until we face some competition, our Villanova loss is still too fresh in my mind to even care what we do against DII schools.



Pretty sad if you think any game during the season is meaningless. Not sure if you're aware but it's easy to see your own team's weaknesses even vs. what you see as inferior competition. Also, Radford was a tournament team last year and returns 4 of 5 starters. Hypothetically speaking, would a game vs. VCU early in the 2006-2007 season have been meaningless?

Everything I've read indicates you're quite wrong about Irving being a backup btw. Once he started showing more interest in Duke, Duke moved more interest over to him from Knight. It also helped that Irving started blowing up the AAU circuit. Knight's interest may have actually waned as a result of our increased interest in Irving. It appears K tried to cast a wider net in the pg search, and it worked out.

jv001
11-21-2009, 09:36 PM
Pretty sad if you think any game during the season is meaningless. Not sure if you're aware but it's easy to see your own team's weaknesses even vs. what you see as inferior competition. Also, Radford was a tournament team last year and returns 4 of 5 starters. Hypothetically speaking, would a game vs. VCU early in the 2006-2007 season have been meaningless?

Everything I've read indicates you're quite wrong about Irving being a backup btw. Once he started showing more interest in Duke, Duke moved more interest over to him from Knight. It also helped that Irving started blowing up the AAU circuit. Knight's interest may have actually waned as a result of our increased interest in Irving. It appears K tried to cast a wider net in the pg search, and it worked out.

Knight was injured and Duke may have felt that Kyrie had passed him in some aspects of the pg position. Plus Kyrie let Duke know he was very interested in playing for Coach K. Knight never gave Duke those same vibes. Go Duke!

Welcome2DaSlopes
11-21-2009, 10:02 PM
How do you know Knight never gave Duke the vibes that he wanted to go to duke?????


Edit: This thread has gotten way off topic.

jipops
11-21-2009, 10:07 PM
Tell me how Duke not preparing guys in recent years for the NBA is not true?

This is one of the lamest notions around. Really you're letting all the flaming message boards out there get the best of your mindset. This is a seemingly convenient blanket statement with no actual specific backup evidence. I could very well waste my time blowing this notion out of the water. But instead I give you this... one single example of how you are wrong here.

From Pacers' coach Jim O'Brien on Dunleavy:
"He's so important in many aspects of the team. He's really almost like a genius offensively from a standpoint of how he moves. He has a way of modeling of what we want in our passing game."

Oh yeah, and Dunleavy was averaging almost 20 ppg before his injury. I suppose K's coaching caused the injury.

jipops
11-21-2009, 10:10 PM
Edit: This thread has gotten way off topic.

Once again it has, and I'm guilty of it. My bad. Maybe the mods should create another split thread? Or just put a moratorium on all comments not related to Roscoe.

Welcome2DaSlopes
11-21-2009, 10:40 PM
Once again it has, and I'm guilty of it. My bad. Maybe the mods should create another split thread? Or just put a moratorium on all comments not related to Roscoe.

LOL this is exactly what happened.