Future Pros

[Kedsy]

When evaluating whether a team is a title contender, someone said a few days ago something along the lines of "how many NBA players are on their roster?"

Obviously having future NBA players helps, and just as obviously you don't absolutely need any to get to the Final Four (see Mason, George). But still I thought it'd be interesting to look into.

As a reference point I looked at recent (non-Duke) teams that people expected to win from start to finish:

2007 Florida had six (Horford, Noah, Brewer, TGreen, CRichard, Speights);
2009 UNC had at least five (Hansbrough, Lawson, Ellington, Green, Davis) and two more possible/probable (Thompson, Zeller).
2005 UNC had six (Felton, May, McCants, M Williams, Jaw Williams, Noel) plus Terry who went to an NBA training camp but didn't make the team.

Now, the last 12 Duke teams:

1999 (5 -- Brand, Langdon, Avery, Maggette, Battier)
2000 (4 -- Battier, J Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy)
2001 (5 -- Battier, J Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy, Duhon)
2002 (6 -- D Jones, J Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy, Duhon, Ewing)
2003 (6 -- D Jones, Redick, Ewing, Duhon, S Williams, Randolph)
2004 (6 -- Deng, Redick, Ewing, Duhon, S Williams, Randolph)
2005 (5 -- Redick, S Williams, Ewing, D Nelson, Randolph)
2006 (4 -- Redick, S Williams, D Nelson, McRoberts)
2007 (3 sure -- D Nelson, McRoberts, G Henderson; +1 probable= Scheyer)
2008 (3 sure -- D Nelson, Singler, G Henderson; +2 prob/poss= Scheyer, N Smith)
2009 (2 sure -- G Henderson, Singler; +4 prob/poss= Scheyer, N Smith, E Williams, Mi Plumlee)
2010 (1 sure -- Singler; +6 prob/poss= Scheyer, N Smith, A Dawkins, Ma Plumlee, Mi Plumlee, Kelly)


Obviously there are NBA players and then there are NBA players. An undrafted guy like Randolph who catches on as the last guy on the bench is quite different from a lottery pick. On the other hand, how many guys on last year's UNC team were lottery picks? Just Davis, right (and that hasn't even happened yet)?

We can also obviously debate how many of Jon, Nolan, Andre, Mason, Miles, and Ryan will eventually find themselves in the NBA, but personally I think they all have at least a decent shot (although obviously Miles and the freshman have a lot of development to go through before we'll know for sure).

The interesting thing is if they all make it eventually, we'll have more future NBA players this year than any Duke team in recent memory (and probably ever), and more than either the 2005 UNC team or the 2007 Florida team and the same or more than the 2009 UNC team.

Not saying it's going to happen, but it's interesting.

[Indoor66]

Too many ifs for me.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Nolan is on nba mock draft, so i say 2 pros.

[jipops]

There is a pattern in your above list. All 3 of Duke's final four teams had 4 very talented players that played more than 1 season together. Both the '05 and '09 UNC teams had a very talented core that played 3 years together.

[Kedsy]

There is a pattern in your above list. All 3 of Duke's final four teams had 4 very talented players that played more than 1 season together. Both the '05 and '09 UNC teams had a very talented core that played 3 years together.

That's true, but 2002, 2005, and 2006 also meet that criteria, don't they?

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Hopefully over 2010 can go all the way, as well as 2011 and 2012.

[Kedsy]

Nolan is on nba mock draft, so i say 2 pros.

I expect so, although he's kind of short for a "2" guard. Personally, I think Jon will also end up on an NBA team, probably in a bench role. A 6'5" guy who can shoot is a commodity in the League. I also expect Andre and Mason to be drafted. Miles and Ryan will have to progress a lot in the next 2 (or 3) years, but they each have something (Miles, size and athleticism; Ryan, size and skills) that is valued in the NBA.

If it all works out, 7 pros is a lot for one college team. It bodes well.

[jipops]

That's true, but 2002, 2005, and 2006 also meet that criteria, don't they?

In a way yes. But the 2002 was a completely different team without Battier, as was 2006 without Ewing.

The most successful teams in your list had returning core components.

[Kedsy]

In a way yes. But the 2002 was a completely different team without Battier, as was 2006 without Ewing.

The most successful teams in your list had returning core components.

What does that say for this year? We have the three returning guys but we lost G. It does look like a completely different team. Although to me it looks better...

[COYS]

I expect so, although he's kind of short for a "2" guard. Personally, I think Jon will also end up on an NBA team, probably in a bench role. A 6'5" guy who can shoot is a commodity in the League. I also expect Andre and Mason to be drafted. Miles and Ryan will have to progress a lot in the next 2 (or 3) years, but they each have something (Miles, size and athleticism; Ryan, size and skills) that is valued in the NBA.

If it all works out, 7 pros is a lot for one college team. It bodes well.

I'm usually pretty optimistic, however I think that the reason why we can project this team as having as many as 7 pros is because we're predicting an overly favorable future for our team and players than is what is most likely. There are only 60 spots in the NBA draft. Many second rounders fail to make a team. Some of the first round will be taken up by international players. While a few guys are able to make it on a team for a while as undrafted free agents, the number of college players who make it in the NBA any given year is probably not much more than 60 or so. I did a quick search for an exact number, but couldn't find anything right off the bat. It would be a truly incredible feat to have seven NBA players on one team at the same time and, as has already been mapped out, has NEVER happened at Duke even when we've had our strongest teams. To be so lucky as to have 7 of the 60 college kids who have any NBA career at all would be to have assembled some serious talent. We have a team that I think has the talent to compete for the Final Four this year, but it just seems very unlikely that seven of our guys will make NBA rosters. I hope I'm wrong, as that would be such an awesome accomplishment for our players, but it is extremely unlikely that it happens.

[jipops]

What does that say for this year? We have the three returning guys but we lost G. It does look like a completely different team. Although to me it looks better...

I think we look better too, despite losing G. I love our style of offense so far, to me that's been the biggest difference. We'll see what shakes out.

[Kedsy]

To be so lucky as to have 7 of the 60 college kids who have any NBA career at all would be to have assembled some serious talent.

Well, sort of. It's stretched out over four years, so it would really be 7 out of 240. Which is still amazing, but not out of the realm of possibility. If Thompson and Zeller make it, last year's UNC team would have done it. And the 2005 Heels would have done it if Terry had made the Mavs out of training camp last year.

Still, at the moment I'd have to label Miles and Ryan as long shots, but it's not completely pie in the sky. And even 6 would put us in some pretty good company. As you pointed out, the 1999 and 2001 teams only had 5.

[DukeHoopsGuru]

Take a look at the past NCAA champions going back a long time. Every 1 had a lottery pick. It's irrelevant whether or not they pan out in the NBA, but every champion had a lottery pick on the team. On this current team Singler seems to be the only guy that can be a top 12 pick. Maybe............maybe, Mason in 3 years. Think about Duke 2001, they had 3 lottery picks in its starting 5, and Boozer and Duhon were NBA players as well. Duke 92 had 4 (Don't forget Cherokee Parks.).

This Duke team has very good talent, but I'm not sure it has the top notch talent that other Final 4 Duke teams had nor past NCAA champions.

[Kedsy]

Take a look at the past NCAA champions going back a long time. Every 1 had a lottery pick. It's irrelevant whether or not they pan out in the NBA, but every champion had a lottery pick on the team. On this current team Singler seems to be the only guy that can be a top 12 pick. Maybe............maybe, Mason in 3 years. Think about Duke 2001, they had 3 lottery picks in its starting 5, and Boozer and Duhon were NBA players as well. Duke 92 had 4 (Don't forget Cherokee Parks.).

This Duke team has very good talent, but I'm not sure it has the top notch talent that other Final 4 Duke teams had nor past NCAA champions.

I'll go back one year. Who was the top 12 pick on last year's UNC team?

[Kedsy]

Take a look at the past NCAA champions going back a long time. Every 1 had a lottery pick. It's irrelevant whether or not they pan out in the NBA, but every champion had a lottery pick on the team. On this current team Singler seems to be the only guy that can be a top 12 pick. Maybe............maybe, Mason in 3 years. Think about Duke 2001, they had 3 lottery picks in its starting 5, and Boozer and Duhon were NBA players as well. Duke 92 had 4 (Don't forget Cherokee Parks.).

This Duke team has very good talent, but I'm not sure it has the top notch talent that other Final 4 Duke teams had nor past NCAA champions.

OK, I'll go back two years. Who was the top 12 pick on the 2008 Kansas?

[lifelongdevil]

davis and aldrich? i assume he's anticipating.

[Kedsy]

davis and aldrich? i assume he's anticipating.

Maybe. I expect they'll both be lottery picks, but they were both freshmen who didn't start on the championship teams. Aldrich only played 8 mpg and his scoring and rebounding averages were both less than 3. I expect Mason to contribute more than that and he has as much chance of being in the lottery as you would have said Aldrich had in 2008.

[Oriole Way]

I have absolutely no doubt that Dawkins will play in the NBA and be an NBA starter at some point, and I think both Dawkins and Mason have a chance to go in the lottery.

[Edouble]

Take a look at the past NCAA champions going back a long time. Every 1 had a lottery pick. It's irrelevant whether or not they pan out in the NBA, but every champion had a lottery pick on the team. On this current team Singler seems to be the only guy that can be a top 12 pick. Maybe............maybe, Mason in 3 years.


I'll go back one year. Who was the top 12 pick on last year's UNC team?

OK, but the lottery is now the top 14 teams, so Hansbeaker was a lottery pick last year.

[airowe]

The numbers go up next year. Even if Singler goes, which I'll go on record right now and say he doesn't, we have Irving and Curry playing, both of whom IMO will be 1st round picks.

[DukeHoopsGuru]

I had a reply, but I don't know where it went. If you look at the lottery being 14, Brandon Rush was a lottery pick as was HansTRAVEL. However, Ed Davis, Collins, and Aldrich will be lottery picks. They don't have to start, they just have to get minutes. That is a hard and fast rule. You need a lottery pick on the team to win it all. I do think Singler could go Top 14 so Duke potentially meets that rule. Even so, one has to be pretty myopic to not realize the talent on this team doesn't match 1991-92, 2001, or even 2004 IMO. Missing out on the elite talents really hurts Duke.

Duke lost by 30 in the Sweet 16 last year. Think about that? Kyrie Irving was a HUGE HUGE get, but Barnes was a HUGE HUGE loss. Duke needs to land multiple guys out of the Beal, Miller, Rivers trio IMO.

[jipops]

You need a lottery pick on the team to win it all.

false.

UNC '93 - ok my bad Montross was the 9th pick. (how about a legit lottery pick :))
Michigan St. '00
UK '98

[COYS]

Well, sort of. It's stretched out over four years, so it would really be 7 out of 240. Which is still amazing, but not out of the realm of possibility. If Thompson and Zeller make it, last year's UNC team would have done it. And the 2005 Heels would have done it if Terry had made the Mavs out of training camp last year.

Still, at the moment I'd have to label Miles and Ryan as long shots, but it's not completely pie in the sky. And even 6 would put us in some pretty good company. As you pointed out, the 1999 and 2001 teams only had 5.

You're right about stretching it out over four years, but I think this still kind proves my point. Even if you stretch it out over 4 years, it's very unlikely.

That being said, I agree with the overall sentiment that top tier talent is often the most telling indicator of whether or not a team can win a title. Singler certainly has the talent to put us in that category. Mason and Dawkins certainly have the physical tools to be potential lottery picks, but we'll have to see how they develop. IF Singler comes back next year, you definitely have to think that our team fits the bill. Kyrie, Kyle, Mason, Andre, Curry . . . I'd be willing to bet we get two lottery picks out of that bunch and five guys who make an NBA roster. I think that puts us in very good shape.

[DukeHoopsGuru]

false.

UNC '93 - ok my bad Montross was the 9th pick. (how about a legit lottery pick :))
Michigan St. '00
UK '98

UK 98 is the only exception. Michigan State did have Jason Richardson who was a lottery pick. So out of the past however many years there has been 1 team that doesn't meet the "you can't win it all without a lottery pick getting minutes on your team" rule. You may be able to count Arkansas 94 since Williamson went 13. Other than that, they all had a lottery pick and often multiple lotter picks.

It's a talent issue simply put. Duke's near misses result in a 30 point shilacking when playing quality opponents in the tournament.

[DukeHoopsGuru]

You're right about stretching it out over four years, but I think this still kind proves my point. Even if you stretch it out over 4 years, it's very unlikely.

That being said, I agree with the overall sentiment that top tier talent is often the most telling indicator of whether or not a team can win a title. Singler certainly has the talent to put us in that category. Mason and Dawkins certainly have the physical tools to be potential lottery picks, but we'll have to see how they develop. IF Singler comes back next year, you definitely have to think that our team fits the bill. Kyrie, Kyle, Mason, Andre, Curry . . . I'd be willing to bet we get two lottery picks out of that bunch and five guys who make an NBA roster. I think that puts us in very good shape.


If Singler comes back Duke can absolutely win a national championship next year IMO. And that is without Mr. Barnes.

[flyingdutchdevil]

You're right about stretching it out over four years, but I think this still kind proves my point. Even if you stretch it out over 4 years, it's very unlikely.

That being said, I agree with the overall sentiment that top tier talent is often the most telling indicator of whether or not a team can win a title. Singler certainly has the talent to put us in that category. Mason and Dawkins certainly have the physical tools to be potential lottery picks, but we'll have to see how they develop. IF Singler comes back next year, you definitely have to think that our team fits the bill. Kyrie, Kyle, Mason, Andre, Curry . . . I'd be willing to bet we get two lottery picks out of that bunch and five guys who make an NBA roster. I think that puts us in very good shape.

I definitely think those five players will make an NBA roster. I also think Nolan will have his shot, even if it is a second round pick.

However, contrary to what others have said, I don't think that Scheyer will ever be on an NBA roster, IMO. I think he is an amazing player and a huge asset to our team, but his profile doesn't fit the bill: although not turnover prone, as a 1, he can't penetrate, distribute, or defend (the 1, not the 2) as well as potential NBA point guards. As a 2, he needs to put on some serious weight to make that happen. Is there any 2 in the NBA that is lighter than Scheyer? Also, as he doesn't drive, he needs to rely on his shot, which last year wasn't that great (.385). Also, Jon struggled last year at the 2 because he couldn't shoot well other taller players. If he does make an NBA roster, I will be happily surprised.

Nolan is a great defender, a good penetrater, and has an improved shot. Also, his distribution skills seem to have improved. Although it's too early to tell, let's see what happens this year.

GO NOLAN!!!!

[jipops]

UK 98 is the only exception. Michigan State did have Jason Richardson who was a lottery pick. So out of the past however many years there has been 1 team that doesn't meet the "you can't win it all without a lottery pick getting minutes on your team" rule. You may be able to count Arkansas 94 since Williamson went 13. Other than that, they all had a lottery pick and often multiple lotter picks.

It's a talent issue simply put. Duke's near misses result in a 30 point shilacking when playing quality opponents in the tournament.

Forgot about Richardson. However he only averaged about 15 minutes per game in that season (his freshmen year) so he wasn't contributing nearly heavily as other players such as Peterson and Cleaves. So the argument still holds water, you don't HAVE to have lottery picks to win championships.

[NSDukeFan]

UK 98 is the only exception. Michigan State did have Jason Richardson who was a lottery pick. So out of the past however many years there has been 1 team that doesn't meet the "you can't win it all without a lottery pick getting minutes on your team" rule. You may be able to count Arkansas 94 since Williamson went 13. Other than that, they all had a lottery pick and often multiple lotter picks.

It's a talent issue simply put. Duke's near misses result in a 30 point shilacking when playing quality opponents in the tournament.

It sounds like quite a number of these teams had borderline lottery picks in the 10-15 range as their top talent. These teams also had other future NBA players. If you can agree that Kyle will be a lottery pick or very close to it, then according to your criteria, we have that top level talent and other future pros, as discussed in this thread. Certainly there are other teams that also meet this criteria, but we are certainly in the running based on this.

Any possibility we not take the results of one game to indicate a trend of results against quality opponents? By my calculations, we played at least 16 games against tournament teams last year and had two shellackings in a couple of games where we played very poorly. I am sure we will have games where we play poorly this year as well, as every team does.

[johnb]

It seems like we're predicting NBA careers for players who--aside from Singler--have yet to play an ACC game and that we aren't showing a lot of love to a few of our veterans who have flaws but who were rated as highly as some of the guys we're assuming will become all-acc type players.

Anyway. aside from Singler, I'd think Zoubs stands as good a chance as any of our guys of signing an NBA contract--can't teach height, and he runs well.

[johnb]

Barnes was a HUGE HUGE loss
Can't lose what you never had.

[Kedsy]

I had a reply, but I don't know where it went. If you look at the lottery being 14, Brandon Rush was a lottery pick as was HansTRAVEL. However, Ed Davis, Collins, and Aldrich will be lottery picks. They don't have to start, they just have to get minutes. That is a hard and fast rule. You need a lottery pick on the team to win it all. I do think Singler could go Top 14 so Duke potentially meets that rule. Even so, one has to be pretty myopic to not realize the talent on this team doesn't match 1991-92, 2001, or even 2004 IMO. Missing out on the elite talents really hurts Duke.

Duke lost by 30 in the Sweet 16 last year. Think about that? Kyrie Irving was a HUGE HUGE get, but Barnes was a HUGE HUGE loss. Duke needs to land multiple guys out of the Beal, Miller, Rivers trio IMO.

I know the lottery is 14 (although it wasn't before 2004). I used top 12 because you did in your first post. And, as others have pointed out, talent certainly helps, but it is nothing close to a "hard and fast rule."

I also never said we had the talent level of 1991, 1992, 2001, 2004, or many other of Duke's great teams. That's pretty obvious. My point was with all the potential NBA talent we have, we have a good chance to compete for good things. You deride my logic and then contradict yourself -- Kyle will almost certainly be drafted in the top 14 when he goes out, so we meet your arbitrary criteria no matter what.

Regarding the Villanova loss, I point you back to 1990. We lost by 30 in the title game to UNLV, and lost 3 of our top 4 scorers and 3 of our top 4 rebounders, including a first round NBA draft pick. The following year we picked up only one freshman who would be in our top seven (albeit a really good one), but we went on to beat an even better UNLV team and win the national championship. Before you say my logic is flawed, I'm not suggesting this team is as good as that team. I am suggesting that the 30 point loss to finish the 1990 season didn't mean so much in 1991.

Incidentally, at 5'11" I'll be very surprised if Collins is in the lottery. And the freshman Mason is going to be better than the freshman Aldrich.

[slower]

I'd think Zoubs stands as good a chance as any of our guys of signing an NBA contract--can't teach height, and he runs well.

Runs well? Compared to whom?

[rsvman]

Runs well? Compared to whom?

Compared with you, apparently, if your screen name is to be believed. ;)

[Kedsy]

However, contrary to what others have said, I don't think that Scheyer will ever be on an NBA roster, IMO. I think he is an amazing player and a huge asset to our team, but his profile doesn't fit the bill: although not turnover prone, as a 1, he can't penetrate, distribute, or defend (the 1, not the 2) as well as potential NBA point guards. As a 2, he needs to put on some serious weight to make that happen. Is there any 2 in the NBA that is lighter than Scheyer? Also, as he doesn't drive, he needs to rely on his shot, which last year wasn't that great (.385). Also, Jon struggled last year at the 2 because he couldn't shoot well other taller players. If he does make an NBA roster, I will be happily surprised.

Nolan is a great defender, a good penetrater, and has an improved shot. Also, his distribution skills seem to have improved. Although it's too early to tell, let's see what happens this year.

GO NOLAN!!!!

You may be right about Jon, but I'm not sure. If he can show himself to be a top notch shooter, there is a place in the League for a 6'5" guy who can hit outside shots (e.g., Steve Kerr, Kyle Korver, JJ Redick, Michael Redd, Juan Dixon, Trajan Langdon). I know Jon isn't really as good as any of those guys, but if he has a stellar shooting year I think he can make it as a second round pick.

Incidentally, Jon is listed at 190, the same weight JJ is listed in the NBA. I don't think weight is going to be his problem.

Regarding Nolan, if he's going to come out as a combo guard I think height will be his biggest hurdle to getting into the NBA. He'd have to be a Ben Gordon (or maybe an Eric Gordon) to make it, and even they are a little taller than he is. I think he's going to have a great year, though, and could improve even more next year, so I certainly think he has a good shot.

[slower]

Compared with you, apparently, if your screen name is to be believed. ;)

Can't believe I didn't see that one coming. :D

[DukeHoopsGuru]

I know the lottery is 14 (although it wasn't before 2004). I used top 12 because you did in your first post. And, as others have pointed out, talent certainly helps, but it is nothing close to a "hard and fast rule."

I also never said we had the talent level of 1991, 1992, 2001, 2004, or many other of Duke's great teams. That's pretty obvious. My point was with all the potential NBA talent we have, we have a good chance to compete for good things. You deride my logic and then contradict yourself -- Kyle will almost certainly be drafted in the top 14 when he goes out, so we meet your arbitrary criteria no matter what.

Regarding the Villanova loss, I point you back to 1990. We lost by 30 in the title game to UNLV, and lost 3 of our top 4 scorers and 3 of our top 4 rebounders, including a first round NBA draft pick. The following year we picked up only one freshman who would be in our top seven (albeit a really good one), but we went on to beat an even better UNLV team and win the national championship. Before you say my logic is flawed, I'm not suggesting this team is as good as that team. I am suggesting that the 30 point loss to finish the 1990 season didn't mean so much in 1991.

Incidentally, at 5'11" I'll be very surprised if Collins is in the lottery. And the freshman Mason is going to be better than the freshman Aldrich.


Just a couple of quick points of contention:
1. That 30 point loss was in the national championship game, not the Sweet 16.
2. That 30 point loss was to one of the greatest college basketball teams of all time. 1990 UNLV beats Villanova by 50.
3. Just that one Freshman happened to be one of the greatest college basketball players of all time.

So I'd would say there are some big differences between the 1990 Duke team even without Grant Hill and the 2008 Duke team. 1990 Duke absolutely destroys this Duke team.

Hey, I'm a Duke fan. But these past few seasons have not been very talented Duke teams per Duke standards. They represent the "misses" on the recruiting trail. Irving changes that a little. 2 out of Beal, Miller, and Rivers would really change that IMO.

[Acymetric]

I definitely think those five players will make an NBA roster. I also think Nolan will have his shot, even if it is a second round pick.

However, contrary to what others have said, I don't think that Scheyer will ever be on an NBA roster, IMO. I think he is an amazing player and a huge asset to our team, but his profile doesn't fit the bill: although not turnover prone, as a 1, he can't penetrate, distribute, or defend (the 1, not the 2) as well as potential NBA point guards. As a 2, he needs to put on some serious weight to make that happen. Is there any 2 in the NBA that is lighter than Scheyer? Also, as he doesn't drive, he needs to rely on his shot, which last year wasn't that great (.385). Also, Jon struggled last year at the 2 because he couldn't shoot well other taller players. If he does make an NBA roster, I will be happily surprised.

Nolan is a great defender, a good penetrater, and has an improved shot. Also, his distribution skills seem to have improved. Although it's too early to tell, let's see what happens this year.

GO NOLAN!!!!

If you don't think Jon drives you haven't been watching games since he's been here. Just because he doesn't drive the lane and dunk doesn't mean he doesn't get into the lane to make crafty plays and layups. Jon is either 2nd or 3rd on our team at getting into the lane, and he's great at drawing contact once he gets there too (he also excels at this on the perimeter...what a player).

[Kedsy]

But these past few seasons have not been very talented Duke teams per Duke standards.

You seem to be deliberately missing my points, which are (a) Duke has a very talented team this year, by any standards (which does not mean I think it's a better team than [fill-in-your-favorite-team-here]; it simply means we're very talented); (b) season ending losses don't define a team, and mean absolutely nothing the following year.

I will add here that I reject the notion that failures in the NCAA tourney are all due to lack of talent. History clearly shows us that is not the case. If you accept the axiom that losses (even early losses) in the NCAAs are often not due to a lack of talent, you would also relax your preconception that, for example, last year's Duke team was not talented.

If Duke had played Villanova 10 times last year, we would have won some of them. I'm not going to try guessing how many, but certainly more than zero. For the purposes of this argument let's say one (although personally I think it would have been several more than that). So in my hypothetical example we had a 1 in 10 chance; if the one happened to come up in the actual game, and we won it to go to the Final Eight, I think people would be singing a different song about Duke's decline and how we just don't have the talent we used to have. And if you agree they'd be singing a different song, then the whole thing is just silly. The team either did or didn't have talent, and losing one game (even by 30) at the end of the year doesn't change that.

[DukeHoopsGuru]

This will be my last post on the topic b/c we're going to agree to disagree. In conclusion, if you don't think losing by 30 in the Sweet 16 is indicative of talent than you are sadly mistaken. Duke's tourney losses the past 4 seasons or so are in fact mostly talent related. The Duke team that lost to VCU was Duke's least talented team in a long long time. Sure there will be years where talented teams lose to lesser talented teams, but a 5 year span of not advancing beyond the Sweet 16 is more talent related than anything else. Why were people so crushed when Harrison Barnes elsewhere? He was the recruit that could once again bring Duke back to "elite" status.

UK has at least 3 (probably 4) guaranteed first round picks that start for them. Kansas has at least 3. Duke? 1, maybe 2 with Mason. There's a talent gap b/t Duke and the top tier teams right now. Anyone watching Duke the past 5 seasons with a straight face cannot say otherwise. Again, Irving is "elite." Beals, Rivers, and Miller are "elite." Duke is close, but they are not the 99-2004 Duke teams talent wise. They just aren't. Duke's best player this year, Kyle Singler, wouldn't even have started on 2001 championship team, and maybe not over Redick on the 2004 team. That is a fact.

[slower]

Duke's best player this year, Kyle Singler, wouldn't even have started on 2001 championship team, and maybe not over Redick on the 2004 team. That is a fact.

Actually, that is an OPINION. You may be right about the 2001 team - not sure if Kyle would have displaced Dunleavy. And why would he start over Redick in 2004? Wasn't Ewing more of a 3 than Redick? I do think he would start over Ewing, though.

[Wander]

Duke's best player this year, Kyle Singler, wouldn't even have started on 2001 championship team, and maybe not over Redick on the 2004 team. That is a fact.

It's neither a fact nor an opinion, just an incorrect statement. There's not a single Duke team that a junior Kyle Singler wouldn't start for. Not one.

[NSDukeFan]

This will be my last post on the topic b/c we're going to agree to disagree. In conclusion, if you don't think losing by 30 in the Sweet 16 is indicative of talent than you are sadly mistaken.
If you think that was a typical Duke game last year, you are sadly mistaken.

Duke's tourney losses the past 4 seasons or so are in fact mostly talent related. The Duke team that lost to VCU was Duke's least talented team in a long long time. Agreed, as long as a long long time is 10 years.
Sure there will be years where talented teams lose to lesser talented teams, but a 5 year span of not advancing beyond the Sweet 16 is more talent related than anything else. And having some bad games in there against teams that we were at least as talented as, but had bad games at the wrong time.
Why were people so crushed when Harrison Barnes elsewhere? He was the recruit that could once again bring Duke back to "elite" status. It may have been related to the fact he was the #1 recruit, who we thought was going to come to our already talented team and is instead at the rival school down the road.


UK has at least 3 (probably 4) guaranteed first round picks that start for them. Kansas has at least 3. Duke? 1, maybe 2 with Mason. There's a talent gap b/t Duke and the top tier teams right now. Anyone watching Duke the past 5 seasons with a straight face cannot say otherwise.
I'm not sure if my face has been straight or not the last few years, but I thought we have had very good chances to make a run in the tournament when JJ and Shelden were here and again last year.

Again, Irving is "elite." Beals, Rivers, and Miller are "elite." Duke is close, but they are not the 99-2004 Duke teams talent wise. They just aren't. Duke's best player this year, Kyle Singler, wouldn't even have started on 2001 championship team, and maybe not over Redick on the 2004 team. That is a fact.
I believe you have just lost all credibility with your last "fact". I would state it as more of a "fact" that there has never been a Duke team, where a Jr. Kyle Singler would not have started. Kyle, by the way, is very "elite."

[Kedsy]

In conclusion, if you don't think losing by 30 in the Sweet 16 is indicative of talent than you are sadly mistaken.

Well, what I think is a lot more indicative of talent were the 30 wins before that.


Why were people so crushed when Harrison Barnes elsewhere? He was the recruit that could once again bring Duke back to "elite" status.

I wasn't "crushed" when HB chose elsewhere. Disappointed, perhaps, because he seemed like a good kid, but certainly not crushed. Duke didn't need him nearly as much as we need Kyrie.


There's a talent gap b/t Duke and the top tier teams right now. Anyone watching Duke the past 5 seasons with a straight face cannot say otherwise.

The 2006 team (4 years ago) was the #1 team in the country (both pre-season and final regular season) and had two first-team All Americans. I think I can say that and a lot more about that team with a completely straight face.


Duke's best player this year, Kyle Singler, wouldn't even have started on 2001 championship team, and maybe not over Redick on the 2004 team. That is a fact.

If it were really a fact, you wouldn't have to use words like "maybe" in the sentence.