MBB: Duke 74, Clemson 53 Post-Game Thread

[JBDuke]

Put your post-game thoughts here.

[airowe]

This team has a lot of room for improvement but is still beating Top 25 ball clubs by 20+ points. I like what I'm seeing.

[hq2]

All, right, I'll kick this off. We didn't get to see most of the first half, but
from what I saw, this was mostly a Triple S effort. I saw MP1 finally hit a jump
hook in the second half. I'd say the Triple S offense will work against most teams; against the best, I kind of doubt it. Too many jump shots being taken also.

[diveonthefloor]

Didn't get to watch, but listened to most of radio broadcast over internet.

Sounds like Nolan played an intense game, along with Scheyer.

Was our defense really as suffocating as it sounded in the first half?

[SCMatt33]

I thought that the inside guys did a great job in the first half (from what I could hear on the radio) when the outside game wasn't working well. I also liked how we were aggressive against the press so that most of the resulting TO's were in the front court.

[Saratoga2]

I gather it was an intense and physical game but it is hard to know without watching. I look to those at the game and who watched on TV to fill us in. One question about Thomas. Was he injured early in the game? He didn't get into the second half from what I could see.

[RoyalBlue08]

I thought it was a very encouraging win for our guys. We easily handled one of the top teams in the ACC despite not having one of our besting shooting nights. I loved to see Kyle step up and play like an all American candidate again now that ACC play is here. And Jon got his points while still having a bit of an off night. And Nolan is quietly proving to be one of the best guards in the conference. A lot to be excited about in my opinion.

[airowe]

The 3 S's won! 60-53.

[roywhite]

Shutting down teams like UConn, Gonzaga, and Clemson for large periods of the game---this is a big deal.

[Jumbo]

Interesting in that the final score was quite similar to last season's ACC opener, at home against Virginia Tech (that one was 69-44). And from what we got to see, it was a fairly similar game. Great start to the ACC season, and it sounded like Thomas and the Plumlee brothers picked things up early until the Three S's (we really need a better nickname) got going.

[BlueintheFace]

Duke's offense is consistently reliable, but rarely special.

Duke's offense is inconsistently spectacular, but is very good more often than not.

That is where our team is right now and that is not a bad place to be.

[mgtr]

Duke looked bad, but Clemson is the kind of team which makes us look bad. We were able to handle their press pretty well most of the time, but that slowed the game down a lot. Not pretty to watch, but a win just the same.
I note that the upperclassmen performed 95% of the heavy lifting tonight. I hope that doesn't continue throughout conference play.

[Wildcat]

We are a good basketball team. The only schools I see beating us are: teams that can score. We are just too good, too smart, too disciplined and very skilled at playing sound fundamental basketball. The only thing that can trump this is: talent. Good game guys, get some rest, enjoy yourselves and have some fun!

[BlueintheFace]

it sounded like Thomas and the Plumlee brothers picked things up early until the Three S's (we really need a better nickname) got going.

Efforts have been made to no avail...

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18180&highlight=nicknames

[Indoor66]

I don't agree that we looked bad. We beat a very good team by 21. Clemson is big and solid. We beat them every way you can beat a team. We beat their press, defended them to their distraction and we scored from inside and outside. What is not to like?

[VanDuk]

Didn't get to watch, but listened to most of radio broadcast over internet.

Sounds like Nolan played an intense game, along with Scheyer.

Was our defense really as suffocating as it sounded in the first half?

Yes. Duke forced them to take mostly jump shots with hands in their faces.

I was so impressed with the team's perimeter defense and all around defensive rotations tonight. There were very few times when the rotations broke down to give Clemson open looks.

I was also surprised/almost shocked, to see Plumlee with some post moves on offense. I hope that trend continues. All around good effort, and fun to watch, especially after my Clemson friends talked trash before hand.

Good game Devils.

[Duvall]

I note that the upperclassmen performed 95% of the heavy lifting tonight.

Have to factor in both ends of the floor, though.

[Hermy-own]

I am not so optimistic. I think it's great that our big 3 can take over a game like that, but that isn't exactly what everyone was looking for. We were looking for a diverse offense, and didn't get it.

I will say that our bigs were more involved in the game than the box score indicates. They were making screens all over the place, good rebounding, great defense, and a few missed opportunities on the offensive end.

Right now the biggest difference from last year is that our tall men are playing much more solid defense. We have lots of them and they take away many of the easy buckets that our opponents had last year.

Looking forward, I think that we must develop a more diverse offense. I hope that Andre can show more than he did tonight, and I really hope that Mason can develop into a legitimate threat on the offensive end. Miles is looking good, for the most part - he is playing strong, tough basketball, and has a nice hook shot.

I think Andre must be playing worse in practice, or he would be getting more playing time. Possibly was an inevitable change once we made it to ACC play, plus he's in a slight shooting slump. Hopefully he can snap out of it and get back to 10-12 pts a game, along with some improved defense.

[Dukeface88]

Wish we could have held them to 47. It would have been poetic.

Suprised that Andre didn't get mote time. I suppose we wanted to stay tall to deal with the Clemson bigs and didn't want to give up the ballhandling of Scheyer or Smith against the press.

[rotogod00]

couldn't watch the game tonite. can someone please tell me why, in a 20-point game, we had 3 guys playing 38+ minutes, with singler in there all 40? lack of depth could be a real problem

[dukelifer]

Duke looked bad, but Clemson is the kind of team which makes us look bad. We were able to handle their press pretty well most of the time, but that slowed the game down a lot. Not pretty to watch, but a win just the same.
I note that the upperclassmen performed 95% of the heavy lifting tonight. I hope that doesn't continue throughout conference play.

Well I did not see half the game due to the Wake OT win- but in the half I saw- I cannot say that Duke looked bad. Duke did handle the press and ran their end of the game spread offense almost to perfection. Clemson plays very good D and Duke ended up with a 21 point win against one of the top teams in the ACC. That is about as good as it gets in this league. Of course the three S's were spectacular tonight- each had his moments. As for the other guys- they contributed on the glass and by frustrating Booker. All in all an excellent win for this team.

[Duvall]

couldn't watch the game tonite. can someone please tell me why, in a 20-point game, we had 3 guys playing 38+ minutes, with singler in there all 40?

We needed them.

[JaMarcus Russell]

I'm not too surprised. Andre is a very poor ball handler, and with the full court press, we needed to have Smith, Scheyer, and Singler out there for very long stretches of time.

I thought that was one of the team's biggest weaknesses heading into the season, and based on a couple of practice reports, Coach K really emphasized beating the full court press. It was good to see that the team handled the press pretty well today. I actually thought Kelly would have played a bigger role tonight because of his passing and dribbling.

[rotogod00]

We needed them.

in a 21-pt victory, singler had to play all 40? you can't be serious?

[Duvall]

in a 21-pt victory, singler had to play all 40? you can't be serious?

If you had seen the game, you would have seen Clemson turn an 18-point Duke lead to a 7-point lead in a minute and a half.

[hq2]

A good point. Since this game was in hand with 5 minutes to go, K should have
used his bench more. Need to keep the three S's from wearing out before
tournament time.

[91_92_01_10_15]

couldn't watch the game tonite. can someone please tell me why, in a 20-point game, we had 3 guys playing 38+ minutes, with singler in there all 40? lack of depth could be a real problem

Because Coach K decided that's how many minutes they should play. ;-)

Do you think he made a bad decision?

[gwwilburn]

Clemson did not go away until the final minutes of the second half, but I still would have liked to see Dawkins or Kelly used a little more. Yet, we seem to be forgetting that Clemson is one of the best teams in the conference that can explode at any moment, but 40 is kind of ridiculous.

[rotogod00]

If you had seen the game, you would have seen Clemson turn an 18-point Duke lead to a 7-point lead in a minute and a half.

but you're still nervous up 18 with 2:58 left? i would think up 20 with 1:27 left, you might have the game in the bag. i dunno, a little rest for the big three would have been nice.

[DevilHorns]

If you had seen the game, you would have seen Clemson turn an 18-point Duke lead to a 7-point lead in a minute and a half.

Interesting though, when that happened.... we weren't getting shut down by great defense.... we had open looks! they just werent falling. Though I was disappointed that this point in the game (early 2nd half, healthy lead) that we launched 3s I believe on three offensive trips in a row instead of attacking the basket.

Overall great effort by the good guys. Im suprised we didnt play kelly more since he seems to have better handle at this point than andre.

[rotogod00]

Because Coach K decided that's how many minutes they should play. ;-)

Do you think he made a bad decision?

no, but you might have pulled one or two of them up 18 with 3 minutes left. if you win by 10 or 12, who cares?

[Duvall]

but you're still nervous up 18 with 2:58 left? i would think up 20 with 1:27 left, you might have the game in the bag. i dunno, a little rest for the big three would have been nice.

You did see that Kelly and Dawkins came in for the last minute, yes? I doubt that an extra 30 seconds of rest will make much difference in March. Or January.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

From the look of it, I am glad we weren't able to see the first 15 minutes due to the WF/Xav game, but the last 25 minutes I saw I was pleased. I expected Coach K's short bench with Scheyer, Smith, and Singler getting 37-40 minutes. I am always pleased when we beat Trevor Booker. That guy has feasted on Duke the last couple of years, so anytime we beat him I am happy. I can't wait until he is gone in the NBA!
This was one of those games where it was difficult to get into a rhythm. Clemson's pressure didn't bother us as much this time around, but it still gets you in scramble mode a bit and takes you out of a rhythm. There were also a lot of fouls called and that makes it impossible to get into a rhythm. I wasn't very happy with the officiating, I thought they were very tight on our big men and Zoubek/Miles got the bulk of those ticky tack calls.
I was mostly pleased with Nolan. It wasn't just his 22 points, but his pressure D was spectacular and really bothered Stitt and those guys. We are extremely fortunate for Nolan to have raised his game so much because from what I remember last year @Clemson he had an awful game, right?
Overall, good job Dukies! Hopefully Scheyer will have a 30+ point effot back in his hometown of Chicago against ISU. I will be there to watch!

[91_92_01_10_15]

no, but you might have pulled one or two of them up 18 with 3 minutes left. if you win by 10 or 12, who cares?

I agree with you that he did not make a bad decision.

[dyedwab]

in a 21-pt victory, singler had to play all 40? you can't be serious?

The final score was misleading. At no point did this feel like a comfortable 21 point victory.

[dukelifer]

but you're still nervous up 18 with 2:58 left? i would think up 20 with 1:27 left, you might have the game in the bag. i dunno, a little rest for the big three would have been nice.

Duke was working on their end of game play. Also this was one of Singler's better games in a while. I am sure he was just fine with being out there. It is those 1 pt games where players are out there 40 minutes which are killers.

[rotogod00]

You did see that Kelly and Dawkins came in for the last minute, yes? I doubt that an extra 30 seconds of rest will make much difference in March. Or January.

i hear you, but i see no reason to play singler every minute in a 21-pt victory

[BlueintheFace]

couldn't watch the game tonite. can someone please tell me why, in a 20-point game, we had 3 guys playing 38+ minutes, with singler in there all 40? lack of depth could be a real problem

Can we have a designated poster assigned to respond solely to this post after every game... for the sake of efficiency?

[BlueintheFace]

Duke missed a lot of wide open three pointers. This game could have been broken open a bit more a few times.

[rotogod00]

Duke was working on their end of game play. Also this was one of Singler's better games in a while. I am sure he was just fine with being out there. It is those 1 pt games where players are out there 40 minutes which are killers.

and you are going to have a bunch of those when the ACC season kicks into high gear over the next couple of months. that's why to me it'd be nice to be able to rest the big 3 a bit more when you're up 20.

[Oriole Way]

The highlight of this game for me was the Clemson player on the bench with the goofy goggles.

[SCMatt33]

no, but you might have pulled one or two of them up 18 with 3 minutes left. if you win by 10 or 12, who cares?

I don't think that resting during 3 minutes of stall ball is going to do much for anybody at the end of the year.

[roywhite]

i hear you, but i see no reason to play singler every minute in a 21-pt victory

You didn't see the game, but you have made 5 posts on the same topic of too many minutes for the big three.

Perhaps take your own advice and take a rest?

[Newton_14]

For those that did not get to see the whole game, our D was outstanding in the first half. We totally shut down everything they tried to do offensively. There were numerous times in the first half where Clemson was forced to desperation shots with the shot clock running out.

Offensively we struggled mightily. A big part of that was Clemson's D. They played really well on defense. And we had numerous turnovers in the 1st half mainly due to sloppy ball handling and terrible passes. We handled the press easily and the TO's caused by the press were really due to sloppy play and most of those TO's came right after getting the ball across half-court.

The "Super 3 " (hows that??) got it in gear as the game wore on with Scheyer getting 19 in the 2nd half. Kyle and Nolan both had solid games and our bigs were really good on D. They basically held Booker down all night. And Lance, MP1, and MP2 all had a few tough baskets in heavy traffic to ease the offensive load some.

It was an ugly game mainly due to great defenses combined with the ref's blowing a lot of whistles which limited both teams ability to get into rythym on offense.

All in all a workman like win for the Blue Devils against a good and well coached team. A nice start to league play.

One final thing, I will be glad to see the regular crazies back. They are sorely missed.

[rotogod00]

You didn't see the game, but you have made 5 posts on the same topic of too many minutes for the big three.

Perhaps take your own advice and take a rest?

sorry for the conversation.

[RoyalBlue08]

I am so very perplexed by the perception on this board that a few minutes of rest at the end of the game (and thus playing 35 instead of 38 mins or whatever) matters at all for the long term stamina of a college kid that plays basketball twice a week. Maybe if they were playing three straight nights or something...but really, you guys think pulling starters a few minutes early in a game in January is somehow going to make you fresher during a game in March? Really?

[JaMarcus Russell]

and you are going to have a bunch of those when the ACC season kicks into high gear over the next couple of months.

I really don't see too many of those kinds of games this year. The ACC is down quite a bit from last year. Other than Georgia Tech and Duke, every team is worse than they were last year.

[rotogod00]

I am so very perplexed by the perception on this board that a few minutes of rest at the end of the game (and thus playing 35 instead of 38 mins or whatever) matters at all for the long term stamina of a college kid that plays basketball twice a week. Maybe if they were playing three straight nights or something...but really, you guys think pulling starters a few minutes early in a game in January is somehow going to make you fresher during a game in March? Really?

yup. apparently i'm alone in that opinion. my bad

[BlueintheFace]

I don't want to say that refereeing was a problem, but I have two observations:

1) Scheyer continues to get beat around in the lane with no whistles. On one play the refs almost refused to call a foul after he was fouled by two players and almost thrown to the ground. The whistle was very late. This has been a trend throughout the season.

2) I was not thrilled with some of the calls on Zoubek. I am afraid he has been pegged by ACC crews for a few years now, and even though his positioning and defense is much improved, refs might still be relying on preconceived notion. I hope this doesn't continue in to the ACC season. I have no reason to be sure that it will, but we will see...

[arnie]

yup. apparently i'm alone in that opinion. my bad

No, you're not alone - additionally Kelly and Dawkins need more time on the court in important games.

[Wildling]

i hear you, but i see no reason to play singler every minute in a 21-pt victory

If you watched the game, it was clear we needed him out there the whole game. Sure a 30 second blow here and there would have been nice, but we needed that 3rd ball handler with the full court press Clemson was using for 40 minutes.

Seriously, I don' think Clemson stopped the press all game did they?


Can we have a designated poster assigned to respond solely to this post after every game... for the sake of efficiency?

lol, I admit, I spit out part of my drink reading that.

[roywhite]

We no longer have to fear Trevor Booker. How wonderful!

Here's a guy that absolutely killed us at times the last 2 years, and he ended up (unofficially) tonight with 10 points and 5 rebounds. Yes, he's a good player, and we should still respect him, but we now have a combination of pressure on the perimeter and size inside that can effectively combat the Trevor Bookers of the world.

UConn, Gonzaga, and now Clemson have been absolutely stymied for long periods against our defense. Very positive development.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

and you are going to have a bunch of those when the ACC season kicks into high gear over the next couple of months. that's why to me it'd be nice to be able to rest the big 3 a bit more when you're up 20.


A couple of minutes of rest are not going to make a huge difference. Scheyer, Singler, and Smith are not going to be gasping for air in February in a tight game and thinking, "Man, if only Coach K had rested me 4-5 minutes during that Clemson game in January."

I don't care so much about the rest thing as I do a confidence thing for Dawkins and Kelly. The 3 S's will be just fine. They are world class athletes with world class stamina who will want to be on the floor in tight games. My high school team in AZ, all of us guards had to run a mile in 6:30 or under to be even considered for the bball team so we were never in bad shape. This is Duke in the ACC! They don't care. Like I said, it's more of a confidence issues with Dawkins and Kelly. I dont want these guys to get frustrated and think about their play so much every time they get on the floor. The key is to get on the floor and have fun, not play tight. Coach K has always had issues with having faith in young guys and they need to understand that and get over it and play hard in practice. That's how EWill earned PT last year. But it's a 2 way street at the same time. Coach K, have faith in your players!! You did recruit them and you need to put them on the floor!!

[rotogod00]

A couple of minutes of rest are not going to make a huge difference. Scheyer, Singler, and Smith are not going to be gasping for air in February in a tight game and thinking, "Man, if only Coach K had rested me 4-5 minutes during that Clemson game in January."

I don't care so much about the rest thing as I do a confidence thing for Dawkins and Kelly. The 3 S's will be just fine. They are world class athletes with world class stamina who will want to be on the floor in tight games. My high school team in AZ, all of us guards had to run a mile in 6:30 or under to be even considered for the bball team so we were never in bad shape. This is Duke in the ACC! They don't care. Like I said, it's more of a confidence issues with Dawkins and Kelly. I dont want these guys to get frustrated and think about their play so much every time they get on the floor. The key is to get on the floor and have fun, not play tight. Coach K has always had issues with having faith in young guys and they need to understand that and get over it and play hard in practice. That's how EWill earned PT last year. But it's a 2 way street at the same time. Coach K, have faith in your players!! You did recruit them and you need to put them on the floor!!

well, that's the other part of it obviously. need to install confidence in the young players. not going to get that by sitting on the bench. they will be needed down the road.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

I don't want to say that refereeing was a problem, but I have two observations:

1) Scheyer continues to get beat around in the lane with no whistles. On one play the refs almost refused to call a foul after he was fouled by two players and almost thrown to the ground. The whistle was very late. This has been a trend throughout the season.

2) I was not thrilled with some of the calls on Zoubek. I am afraid he has been pegged by ACC crews for a few years now, and even though his positioning and defense is much improved, refs might still be relying on preconceived notion. I hope this doesn't continue in to the ACC season. I have no reason to be sure that it will, but we will see...


Thank you! I was hoping I wasn't the only one thinking that Zoubs was getting hosed. That block they called on him and there was an over the back they called that stick out for me where I was thinking "what???"

[chrisheery]

but you're still nervous up 18 with 2:58 left? i would think up 20 with 1:27 left, you might have the game in the bag. i dunno, a little rest for the big three would have been nice.

Was Maryland nervous up 10 with 1 minute to go in 2001? Were they nervous again up 24 in the second half in the final four? When you are playing a good team that decimated you the year before, you don't take your foot off the gas and you let the guys who got beat hand back a beating all the way to the end.

I am always in favor of getting experience for guys when you can, but this was not the game. Ryan and Dre would have been overwhelmed in this game. I was scared just watching it. Every possesion was scary with they way the play defense. They gamble to the extreme on every play. I wish we could have punished them at the rim a few more times, but when they are giving you open threes, you have to take them. That is not a reflection on our offense, it is simply what Clemson forces you to do. If we had shot a little better, we would have dominated and then perhaps those guys could have gotten to rest, but they cut an 18 point lead to 10 in about 45 seconds to start the second half. I just couldn't disagree with what you are saying more.

[Billy Dat]

Like many, I saw only the 2nd half which was extremely hard fought, despite the Duke lead. Clemson got a few run outs off blocks and misses to start the half and slashed the lead. We responded by pushing it back out but Clemson kept swinging until the end. They are a really relentless defensive team, Duke could not relax on offense. I was really impressed with Clemson's intensity.

As for Singler/Scheyer/Smith, we want to depend on them, no? They are our 3 best players. I am very happy to spread the scoring load between 3 guys. Really like how Smith is finishing on the break. Singler had some really nice one-handed runners. Scheyer ran a great game, credit to Clemson's pressure for his turnovers.

The 4 man frontline committee needs to scrap for their touches a little more.
They are remarkably interchangeable at this point to where, as MP2 improves, it is tough to predict how overall play will be impacted by whichever combo of them is on the court. MP1 & 2 are getting smoother on offense..nice to see. It's great to have 20 fouls to spread among quality big men.

1-0 in ACC...let's go.

[DevilHorns]

The problem with playing only 5-7 players a lot of minutes is not long-term fatigue that will end up crippling us in March. Its simply that we want some of our extended bench to have experience in case they're called upon in a tough situation, or for them to contribute valuable minutes without feeling too green in a moderately tough situation. I think the coaches have modified our practices the last few years so that players could be more fresh by the time the madness begins (from what I can remember).

As for this game, I don't think it was a terrible strategy to leave kyle out their for 40 minutes. I think andre and ryan could've had some more minutes, but realize, we're playing against a press team. Its easy for a lead to erase. And its easy for inexperienced players to commit turnovers.

[juise]

Can we have a designated poster assigned to respond solely to this post after every game... for the sake of efficiency?

Yeah, after every game there should be three threads:
(1) MOTM
(2) Gameplay discussion/analysis
(3) Playing time discussion (complaining)

Frankly, I'm tired of (3) dominating (2) every game.


I was glad that Kyle hit that last shot to put the lead over 20. Last year's game was so incredibly painful. Duke needed to make a statement in ACC play. I think this game set the tone, even if this team's calling card is defense.

[basket1544]

I don't want to say that refereeing was a problem, but I have two observations:

1) Scheyer continues to get beat around in the lane with no whistles. On one play the refs almost refused to call a foul after he was fouled by two players and almost thrown to the ground. The whistle was very late. This has been a trend throughout the season.

2) I was not thrilled with some of the calls on Zoubek. I am afraid he has been pegged by ACC crews for a few years now, and even though his positioning and defense is much improved, refs might still be relying on preconceived notion. I hope this doesn't continue in to the ACC season. I have no reason to be sure that it will, but we will see...

There were several no calls (specifically Lance Thomas was fouled by 2 players and Andre was knocked down on a 3 pointer) that I disagreed with. It also seemed like the refs were looking to go against Duke charges. But that's going to happen in games. Overall, this was a good game. It seemed to be closer than the 20 point win. I was worried that Clemson was going to come back even with 3 minutes left, so I was glad that at least one of the Men of the Match was in the game throughout.

[roywhite]

Yeah, after every game there should be three threads:
(1) MOTM
(2) Gameplay discussion/analysis
(3) Playing time discussion (complaining)

Frankly, I'm tired of (3) dominating (2) every game.

I was glad that Kyle hit that last shot to put the lead over 20. Last year's game was so incredibly painful. Duke needed to make a statement in ACC play. I think this game set the tone, even if this team's calling card is defense.

As usual, Throatybeard's pocket guide has this pegged.

Point 1-A, in fact:
"Krzyzewski's management of the rotation will bite us/has bitten us in the butt."

[ChicagoCrazy84]

The problem with playing only 5-7 players a lot of minutes is not long-term fatigue that will end up crippling us in March. Its simply that we want some of our extended bench to have experience in case they're called upon in a tough situation, or for them to contribute valuable minutes without feeling too green in a moderately tough situation. I think the coaches have modified our practices the last few years so that players could be more fresh by the time the madness begins (from what I can remember).

As for this game, I don't think it was a terrible strategy to leave kyle out their for 40 minutes. I think andre and ryan could've had some more minutes, but realize, we're playing against a press team. Its easy for a lead to erase. And its easy for inexperienced players to commit turnovers.

True dat on the last sentence. I saw Andre in for a minute and he mis-handled a pass for a turnover and got a 3 pointer blocked. You can't be making those types of mistakes and expect to play 20 minutes against an athletic, press oriented team. At the same time, Ryan Kelly has done nothing to lose PT. The guy is a baller straight up, he deserves to get on the court.

[chrisheery]

As far as actual game play, I thought our big men did a lot of really nice things tonight. It was nice to see Mason get an offensive rebond and go back up twice (made one missed one that I remember). I though Zoub and Miles got hosed on a number of calls. We were dominating the boards so much, that they called Zoub for over the back twice when he never made contact with the Clemson guy. On one play in particular, he boxed a guy in, jumped straight up and grabbed the ball as it went over the Clemson guy's hands and got called for over the back. Miles got called for trip as he was running away from a play and block as he stood still and Stitt ran into him and made a layup. I'd like to see them more involved in offense, but this game was just not the time to do it. This game was about a mental hurdle that this team had to get over from last year, and I think all of these other things should be worked on in other games. If you think I am arguing the point that the freshman don't need confidence games, please see any previous post from me on the subject. That said, this just wasn't the game for lessons for young guys. This was a game to make sure our veterans know they are better than they were last year and they should be thinking about winning the whole thing.

[roywhite]

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22726&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=204864548

A few observations from the boxscore:

In spite of some choppy play, Duke shot 50% FG and 80% FT for the night, which coupled with an effective defense for a decisive win.
As noted, the big three dominated scoring but Team Plumlee did combine for 10 points and 10 rebounds, and IMO were a significant presence on defense.

[BlueintheFace]

Alright, I'm writing up a PT distribution thread that I hope will be a catch all for these kind of posts. I'll be throwing in some math and numbers and useless stuff like that as well. It'll be up soon.

Another note on the game-

The gameplan for Booker was solid, and teams with reliable post defenders like ours would be wise to utilize it.

[wilko]

yup. apparently i'm alone in that opinion. my bad

I think folks are touchy, in that we have covered this ground ad nausem in the past. Your slant didnt really add anything new. (No Offense)

I think the risk of injury is high when the game is decided... but no more or less so than any other game.

Maybe Im outta my head..
but in previous yrs, we have had "the guy", who when the game was in doubt would make a key bucket to seal the deal. I dont really see that yet in this yrs team. The closest thing to a "go to guy" is Jon IMHO.. but as previously stated he can be bumped off rythym from time to time. Nolan is growing by leaps and bounds.... Maybe he can become that guy.. Singler is just all around solid and he exerts alot on D so some nights his O lags..

Now do we really see a frosh becoming "that guy?"
I can see the logic in setting the stage for "the guy" to emerge.. Blood in the water, eye of the tiger, alpha dog and all that... When its crunch time and we need a bucket who is gonna get it? The level of play from a player that rises above; even when the other team knows its coming they cant stop it.

I think its a higher priority to get that aspect settled, as opposed to who whos the 3rd or 4th reserve off the bench.

I think developing the bench is clearly a key... but there are other priorities in my mind.

We have been doing well based on all around solid team play... but rather than having an extra guy or three to contribute meaningfully off the bench to that effort, I'd rather have a guy who can snatch the win away in a tight contest.

[klwooten]

Well, I logged in to see comments on the game tonight and was a little disappointed to see some negative vibe. My goodness, with all due respect, we killed the supposed #3 team in the ACC. BY 21 POINTS. Nolan and John were AWESOME, Trevor Booker was basically shut out, the press did not work this time., we worked through some offensive difficulties. What in the world is there possibly to complain about? Yes, the middle is a little soft, scoring-wise, but good heavens. Again, with all due respect....

[El_Diablo]

Smith, Singler, and Scheyer are going to play 35+ minutes every game from here on out this year. Get used to it.

The atmosphere in Cameron was great despite the fact that students are still on winter break. Best moment was after Scheyer made the steal in the backcourt and immediately swished a 3.

The refs on the whole were pretty terrible tonight IMO. Quite a few late whistles and questionable ticky-tack calls against us, while Booker was throwing elbows and forearms all night when trying to establish post position. The shorter, balding ref (the one who made most of the bad calls) even started scornfully wagging his finger at the Crazies after chants of "I'm blind, I'm deaf, I want to be a ref!"

[Kane]

All, right, I'll kick this off. We didn't get to see most of the first half, but
from what I saw, this was mostly a Triple S effort. I saw MP1 finally hit a jump
hook in the second half. I'd say the Triple S offense will work against most teams; against the best, I kind of doubt it. Too many jump shots being taken also.

http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=300030150

Check the box score and note our bigs all total didn't score significant points and the broadcaster noted that with a little over 2+ minutes to play our Triple S had scored ever single second half point except 4 . . . just thinking ahead?

PS Is Kelly in the dog house, why only garbage minutes?

[Aditya]

I gather it was an intense and physical game but it is hard to know without watching. I look to those at the game and who watched on TV to fill us in. One question about Thomas. Was he injured early in the game? He didn't get into the second half from what I could see.

No I don't think he got injured. He did play in the second half though.

[COYS]

http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=300030150

Check the box score and note our bigs all total didn't score significant points and the broadcaster noted that with a little over 2+ minutes to play our Triple S had scored ever single second half point except 4 . . . just thinking ahead?

PS Is Kelly in the dog house, why only garbage minutes?

Although our big three shot almost 60% during the second half, so I don't really think it's a problem. Our shot selection in the second half was superb, as well (the three straight three's to open the period notwithstanding). I think that if we can work the ball around like that and get open looks for our big three, then we're fine with that group shouldering the scoring burden. Remember that in the first half Thomas and Miles got some big buckets/free throws while our offense was getting sorted out (I saw this on game tracker so I can't say how these points came about). Our big guys also played superb D and rebounded well. The bigs (Mason, especially) really helped out against the press, too.

[Acymetric]

There were several no calls (specifically Lance Thomas was fouled by 2 players and Andre was knocked down on a 3 pointer) that I disagreed with. It also seemed like the refs were looking to go against Duke charges. But that's going to happen in games. Overall, this was a good game. It seemed to be closer than the 20 point win. I was worried that Clemson was going to come back even with 3 minutes left, so I was glad that at least one of the Men of the Match was in the game throughout.

In addition to the calls you mention, it has been a theme this season that Jon will get hit after he shoots with no call. I swear it seems like it happens about a third of the time. Could he be selling it? Maybe, but at least on some its pretty clear that there was real, significant contact. What gives?

[Sixthman]

I gather it was an intense and physical game but it is hard to know without watching. I look to those at the game and who watched on TV to fill us in. One question about Thomas. Was he injured early in the game? He didn't get into the second half from what I could see.

Thomas played spectacular defense denying Trevor Booker the ball in the second half. This was really a big factor. Clemson came out strong in the second half, and Booker looked determined to score in the low post. He had one possession early where I rolled my eyes and said we were in trouble. Most of the rest of the half it was a war away from the ball as we fronted him to keep him from getting the ball. I thought we were very effective at this, and that Lance was the most effective. I also thought this was Miles Plumlee's best game yet at Duke. He was not a huge factor, but he was effective on defense against top flight competition, something it has been hard to previously see. I think tonight was a big step forward for him. This was a great game for Duke.

[-bdbd]

Remeber that this is most of a team that drubbed us by 30 last year. We looked good, especially the big-3 of Singler, Smith and Scheyer. If I wanted to nit picks I'd fret a little about the lack of bench scoring. But we did beat a top-20 team by 20+ points. So all is right with the world. I am looking forward to going into Atlanta next weekend and taking on a very athletic (but young) GT team. Good to get off on the right foot for the season.

In retrospect, I agree with 6thMan that Thomas' D on Booker was very important. That kid really looked frustrated!

I sure hope we see more production from the rest of the rotation players the rest of the way...

-BDBD :D:D:D


P.S. A big thumbs-down to Comcast in the DC area which didn't show the first half in order to air the Redskins "Postgame Report" show as they ended a dismal season. Am I being paranoid, as I am aware a couple of their key anchors/reporters are MD journalism grads??

[Sir Stealth]

Two key factors for beating Clemson were containing Booker in the post and taking care of the ball against Clemson's press. There seems to be a connection with a drop in minutes for Kelly (in favor of veteran defenders) and for Andre (needed solid ball handling at all times to prevent a Clemson run). I'm sure K viewed this as an extremely important game against a dangerous team, especially given what happened the last time we played them. All of that is more important than throwing out a couple more minutes to freshmen here or there.

[DukeVol]

I really didn't think this 21 point victory over a Top 20 ranked conference opponent was very good AT ALL.

Why?

When you must rely on only three players to score 60 points, you are asking for trouble. Almost every top team this year has 8-9 players who average more than 10+ points per game. There is NO WAY that all 8-9 players will have an off night from the field. Plus, the 8-9 interchangeable scorer/shooter/slasher/post players only average around 20-25 minutes per game, so they will not get tired come March!!

I think it's dumb to recruit some players that are a lot better than other players when it's clearly smarter to recruit really good interchangeable players. Hall of Fame coach, psshhh, yeah right.





(end sarcasm)


I thought it was a great victory against a very good team. No complaints.

[VaDukie]

I thought we played really well overall, but I'm not sure Clemson is worthy of a top 25 ranking. The big 3 (The JNK Connection? Schmingler? Super Smash brotherS?) all look like All-ACC 1st or 2nd teamers. Our post rotation looks very solid. Can we start reasonably talking about this team going to Indy?

[gwwilburn]

Despite not putting up a lot of points, our bigs did do a lot on D. I thought Zoubek maybe could have been more effective if he didn't have so many horrible calls (at least three by my count, including the block where Zoubek was set at the line and the clemson player drove his knee into Brian's chest) go against him. Miles looked good. On another note, like Kelly, Miles' minutes began to dwindle this time last year, but he turned out all right. Ryan, in my opinion, will continue to improve greatly.

[mo.st.dukie]

I thought we played really well overall, but I'm not sure Clemson is worthy of a top 25 ranking. The big 3 (The JNK Connection? Schmingler? Super Smash brotherS?) all look like All-ACC 1st or 2nd teamers. Our post rotation looks very solid. Can we start reasonably talking about this team going to Indy?

If we can force fast-pace, high scoring teams into playing a half-court, physical game then I think we can beat anyone. This team is certainly no offensive juggernaut but they hang their hat on defense, rebounding, and fundamental basketball. UCLA went to Final Fours in 06 and 07 with only 3 players averaging double-digit points while playing outstanding defense even if their brand of basketball was ugly. Not having another consistent offensive threat outside of the "big 3" isn't THAT big of a deal when great defense allows the team to win when only scoring in the high 60's/low 70's.

[chrisheery]

I agree, but what is really nice about this team is that it has the potential to be a great defensive and great offensive team. Obviously, in any given game, if S-S-S play great, we can score a ton of points, but what I like is that Miles has huge upside, Mason clearly does as well. If we get steady peformances from Lance and Zoub and pick our spots with Dre, this team can find a great flow on offense. I think this was the most intense game this year for our guys, but once the settled in, they started to improve their effeciency. Didn't we score 44 points in the second half despite slow down offense for the last 3-4 minutes? That's pretty good offense. Especially when you consider we were out of sorts for the first 3-4 minutes.

[Greg_Newton]

FYI, it looks like FSS is replaying this at 11AM Tuesday morning, which hopefully means they'll show the first half. (How about that "halftime recap" they never delivered on, btw?)

Like others have mentioned, Clemson is probably our biggest challenge outside of Carolina... so you've got to be happy with this. GT and FSU are up there with them, but Clemson just has a mean streak to them when they play us.

It was nice to see that K read Jumbo's and others' posts about using Singler in a more versatile manner. Lots of catching within 15 feet and sneakily working his way in... he looked great tonight.

The over-reliance on The Big 3 does make me a little uneasy, though. Hopefully other players will start to step up as the season progresses... I'm not sure I can recall a precedent for a team that was as consistently reliant as we were tonight on 3 perimeter players for such an overwhelming amount of their offense that was as successful as we hope this team will be. If that makes any sense.

I think part of the problem is that our guards generally don't look inside until all of their other options are exhausted. Our posts aren't going to hold favorable position for 3-5 seconds... every once in a while I'd like to see us hit a Plumlee just as he turns and seals his man on the block after setting the screen. Instead, we almost exclusively tend to look around the perimeter or attempt to break down the defender before looking down there, which is usually more time than a lanky big guy can hold position.

I also hope the Plumlees get some more transition baskets as the season rolls on... there seemed to be a lot of times tonight when there might have been an opportunity for a lob but we just didn't quite make the connection. A few more easy points would be nice to have if they can get the timing down.

[Bob Green]

...this was mostly a Triple S effort.

I disagree. Our bigs played a great game! When discussing defense, it is easy to overlook rebounding until it isn't there. We outrebounded the Tigers 33-29. Last season, in the 74-47 shellacking in Littlejohn, Clemson had a 41-30 advantage.

Additionally, our bigs were setting screens, chasing down loose balls, and playing solid defense. Trevor Booker is Clemson's star and one of the best players in the ACC but he shot 4-11 from the field. That is a very important and impressive stat.

While it is obvious that S Cubed is the heart and soul of this team, it would be a big mistake to underestimate the importance of the contributions made by Zoubek, Thomas, Plumlee, & Plumlee in kicking off the 2010 ACC schedule with a decisive 21 point defeat of a quality opponent.

[mgtr]

The "half-time recap" turned out to be showing all the ads they were unable to show during the first half. No time for anything else.

[UrinalCake]

and you are going to have a bunch of those [1-pt games] when the ACC season kicks into high gear over the next couple of months. that's why to me it'd be nice to be able to rest the big 3 a bit more when you're up 20.

I disagree with this. I think when we encounter a game that goes down to the wire, we're going to be glad that our best players are accustomed to playing hard for a full 40 minutes.

Conversely, if we pull them every time we have a comfortable lead, then the first time they do have to play crunch time minutes it will be completely new to them.

[camion]

The "half-time recap" turned out to be showing all the ads they were unable to show during the first half. No time for anything else.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

I recorded everything during halftime that wasn't an ad and got 90 seconds total.

[oldnavy]

I don't want to say that refereeing was a problem, but I have two observations:

1) Scheyer continues to get beat around in the lane with no whistles. On one play the refs almost refused to call a foul after he was fouled by two players and almost thrown to the ground. The whistle was very late. This has been a trend throughout the season.

2) I was not thrilled with some of the calls on Zoubek. I am afraid he has been pegged by ACC crews for a few years now, and even though his positioning and defense is much improved, refs might still be relying on preconceived notion. I hope this doesn't continue in to the ACC season. I have no reason to be sure that it will, but we will see...

I agree 100%. The kid cannot catch a break. If he were allowed to play without being whistled for every slight bit of contact, he would be a tremendous assest. The blocking foul called on him in the second half was a joke. Of his 5 fouls (I only saw 4 of them, so I will conceide the 1st), 3 of them were bogus IMO. Anyway, I hope that K can send some film or something to the league pointing out how Z gets called for the most nit picky contact. I am not sure if that happens in BB, but I believe in football the coaches have an avenue to do that...

[MChambers]

I agree 100%. The kid cannot catch a break. If he were allowed to play without being whistled for every slight bit of contact, he would be a tremendous assest. The blocking foul called on him in the second half was a joke. Of his 5 fouls (I only saw 4 of them, so I will conceide the 1st), 3 of them were bogus IMO. Anyway, I hope that K can send some film or something to the league pointing out how Z gets called for the most nit picky contact. I am not sure if that happens in BB, but I believe in football the coaches have an avenue to do that...

See Randolph, Shavlik. I hope you are right, but it never happened with Randolph and I fear that Zoubek now has a reputation that means he gets flagged with all sorts of silly foul calls.

[Channing]

I agree 100%. The kid cannot catch a break. If he were allowed to play without being whistled for every slight bit of contact, he would be a tremendous assest. The blocking foul called on him in the second half was a joke. Of his 5 fouls (I only saw 4 of them, so I will conceide the 1st), 3 of them were bogus IMO. Anyway, I hope that K can send some film or something to the league pointing out how Z gets called for the most nit picky contact. I am not sure if that happens in BB, but I believe in football the coaches have an avenue to do that...

I am not sure I agree with this. I thought the over the back on the free throw was a bad call, but anytime you try and rebound over a guy on a missed free throw they are going to call you. The blocking in the lane looked like a blatant flop. On the replay, it looks like he buckles his knees and takes a dive on contact. Thats the type of play that gets people hurt. I didnt notice any other fouls on him that seemed to egregious. If anything, he was able to get away with a little bit of bumping on the low block.

[hq2]

On another note...

If Clemson is the #3 team in the conference this year, then the conference basically sucks. That may be good for our record, but not for our NCAA play.
We may win the conference this year and not have experience against quality comp to win in March. We could easily get overrated and knocked off early.

[whereinthehellami]

No, you're not alone - additionally Kelly and Dawkins need more time on the court in important games.

I don't like Singler or anyone playing over ~ 35 minutes a game. The season is a war and the games are battles. Especially the way Duke player's play, all out. Singler led all players with 8 boards, 5 offensive. He is relentless. This was a very physical game.

[roywhite]

On another note...

If Clemson is the #3 team in the conference this year, then the conference basically sucks. That may be good for our record, but not for our NCAA play.
We may win the conference this year and not have experience against quality comp to win in March. We could easily get overrated and knocked off early.

Or it could mean that Duke is one of the best teams in the nation. Games against UConn and Gonzaga would seem to confirm that. And the loss at Wisconsin (against a good, highly motivated team playing well on their home court, where they have a terrific record) doesn't detract from that IMO.

My impression is that the ACC may not have quite as many top 25 teams as in some years, but is still a talented conference that compares well nationally. If Duke indeed does very well in conference, I take that as a good sign, not a warning sign.

[TigerTaz]

Good game folks -- took it to us from beginning to end. Even when we tried to show signs of life, we got shut back down. I knew our lack of outside shooting would be an obstacle, but also Duke did a good job of making sure that Booker was not a huge factor inside as well. A great game from the triple S squad -- they were on fire the second half and we had no one who could answer.
Grant played one of his better games which was a good sign and Stitt had a solid game (altho a couple of uncontrolled drives). Johnson looked comfortable, but still not agressive as he needs to be, hopefully that is still to come. Potter is not turning out to be the Rivers-step-in we had hoped. Tanner Smith is good, but needs to crank it up more offensively.
On the other hand -- Duke's intensity had something to do with our play as well -- definitely came out wanting to make a statement and did just that with stellar defense and some very good offensive control and shooting.
Good game -- I hope its a better game in Clemson later this month.

[davekay1971]

On another note...

If Clemson is the #3 team in the conference this year, then the conference basically sucks. That may be good for our record, but not for our NCAA play.
We may win the conference this year and not have experience against quality comp to win in March. We could easily get overrated and knocked off early.

Wow, talk about looking for the cloud behind the silver lining.

This is the same Clemson team that smoked us by 30 last year. They're a solid team. We shut them down in the first half, responded beautifully to the run they made in the 2nd, and closed out the game with precision. It was a very strong performance against a quality opponent.

I'm really surprised by the persistent tone of negativism around here these days. We've got a very good, very likeable team that has the potential to be a final four team. Is it not possible to enjoy and appreciate the fact that we dominated a top 25 team in our conference opener? I get the feeling that this team could win the national championship, and some people on this board would post in the post-game discussion thread how Coach K should have given the bench more minutes, how the guys coming back next year really didn't contribute much, and winning the title was bad because it means Singler and Smith are GONE and boy are we going to suck next year...

[rotogod00]

Wow, talk about looking for the cloud behind the silver lining.

This is the same Clemson team that smoked us by 30 last year. They're a solid team. We shut them down in the first half, responded beautifully to the run they made in the 2nd, and closed out the game with precision. It was a very strong performance against a quality opponent.

I'm really surprised by the persistent tone of negativism around here these days. We've got a very good, very likeable team that has the potential to be a final four team. Is it not possible to enjoy and appreciate the fact that we dominated a top 25 team in our conference opener? I get the feeling that this team could win the national championship, and some people on this board would post in the post-game discussion thread how Coach K should have given the bench more minutes, how the guys coming back next year really didn't contribute much, and winning the title was bad because it means Singler and Smith are GONE and boy are we going to suck next year...

nope, just games in early january when you're up 20

[camion]

On another note...

If Clemson is the #3 team in the conference this year, then the conference basically sucks. That may be good for our record, but not for our NCAA play.
We may win the conference this year and not have experience against quality comp to win in March. We could easily get overrated and knocked off early.

And yet both Sagarin (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkc0910.htm) and Pomeroy (http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?y=2010&c=ACC) rate the ACC as the best conference from top to bottom. The ACC doesn't have as many top ten teams as some others, but it doesn't have as many sucky ones either. There aren't many road games in the ACC that are gimmes. I think we'll be tested plenty.

[Indoor66]

FYI, it looks like FSS is replaying this at 11AM Tuesday morning, which hopefully means they'll show the first half.

On Pompano Beach (FL) Comcast the game will be replayed at 3:00 PM pm FCSA, channel 723.

[BlueintheFace]

Duke just beat a top 25 team by 21 points

Duke just beat a top 25 team by 21 points

Duke just beat a top 25 team by 21 points

Duke just beat a top 25 team by 21 points

Duke just beat a top 25 team by 21 points

Duke just beat a top 25 team by 21 points

Duke just beat a top 25 team by 21 points

Duke just beat a top 25 team by 21 points

...come on guys, get with the program.

[Jessica5]

One final thing, I will be glad to see the regular crazies back. They are sorely missed.

For what it's worth, a lot of the "regular crazies" were there last night and doing a great job driving the Clemson players nuts. Jennings, Hill, and both Bookers were getting harassed from the second they started warming up. The little ref we call Mario was even cussing at a friend of mine for offering him her 3d movie glasses to better see the game.

I think some people also mistake freshmen for Christmas replacements because they don't start a lot of cheers.

Anyway, good work last night, guys.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

the Three S's (we really need a better nickname)

Gminski called them "the law firm of Scheyer, Singler, and Smith", which amused me.

[elvis14]

Great game by our boys last night. Really liked the way we controlled the game. For me a really exciting part about watching this team is that although they are playing very well, I still see lots of room for improvement. That's not a criticism, it's optimism. If we can peak in March we can do some damage this year. I really like what I'm seeing from Jon and Nolan right now. Nolan, in particular, has improved his decision making and shot selection since the start of the season. MP2 looks like he can really grow into a special player, maybe even this year. I love the way he is in attack mode when he gets the ball. He's looking to make something happen by either taking it to the hole or setting up a teammate. He's going to be fun to watch.

On the 23rd we play Clemson again in Littlejohn. I really hope we show up for that game. After last year's debacle at Clemson I'd like us to really step up and put a good ol' country beat down on the Tigers.

Like others, I was disappointed in the short bench but I'm used to it (and the K apologists). My concerns are not The Firm of Scheyer, Smith and Singler getting tired and wearing down but more of the development and confidence of Kelly and Dawkins. Also, the selfish side of me just likes watching Kelly play :-). Note I'm mentioning this here not because it's a big concern of mine following a great win, but because it's been a focal point of this thread (and many others over the years).

[flyingdutchdevil]

Wow, talk about looking for the cloud behind the silver lining.

This is the same Clemson team that smoked us by 30 last year. They're a solid team. We shut them down in the first half, responded beautifully to the run they made in the 2nd, and closed out the game with precision. It was a very strong performance against a quality opponent.

This is actually a very different Clemson team from last year. Last year, they had Terrence Ogilvy and KC Rivers, both huge assets in the backcourt. This year, their backcourt is pretty awful. Booker is a beast and is better than last year, but he is just one man. Clemson was so much better last year, IMO.

This was a great game for us. We looked so damn hungry. I love the way that the whole team is playing, and I love that you can't leave S/S/S alone or you will get completely burned. My only concern, and this does happen a lot with recent Duke teams, is "taking a break" from a game and not playing tough or with a lot of passion. I feel that this team is different in that sense (I have no evidence for this, just gut) and they will play hard no matter what the circumstances.

[rsvman]

but you're still nervous up 18 with 2:58 left? i would think up 20 with 1:27 left, you might have the game in the bag. i dunno, a little rest for the big three would have been nice.

IMO, Coach K wanted to let the "stars" run the "stall" against a good team. We obviously could have won this game without them in there at that time, but there is no way to learn how to effectively run "stall ball" other than actually doing it. We may NEED them to do that well in order to win much more important games against very strong teams much later in the season, including in the NCAA tournament.

[trinity92]

Gminski called them "the law firm of Scheyer, Singler, and Smith", which amused me.

Let's just call them "The Firm" and be done with it.

[91_92_01_10_15]

nope, just games in early january when you're up 20
You know what, you may be right. I don't think so, but I could be wrong. The bottom line, though, is that Coach K does not think you are right, and he gets to make the decisions. Furthermore, he has consistently done it this way, IIRC, for the last 30 years or so. Criticize him if you like, but I don't think he's going to start substituting differently because you, or anyone else for that matter, think he should. I suggest that you accept that this is a part of Duke basketball and try to enjoy it as it is.

[COYS]

If we can force fast-pace, high scoring teams into playing a half-court, physical game then I think we can beat anyone. This team is certainly no offensive juggernaut but they hang their hat on defense, rebounding, and fundamental basketball. UCLA went to Final Fours in 06 and 07 with only 3 players averaging double-digit points while playing outstanding defense even if their brand of basketball was ugly. Not having another consistent offensive threat outside of the "big 3" isn't THAT big of a deal when great defense allows the team to win when only scoring in the high 60's/low 70's.

I actually think everyone from Duke fans to the national media underestimate Duke's offensive firepower. We're sixth in points per game in the nation even though we play at a middling pace. According to www.kenpom.com we are first in the nation in offensive efficiency after last night, sitting just a few decimal points above Kansas (which is some elite company). The second half of this game against Clemson demonstrated just how devastating our offense can be when we move the ball around and look for a good shot. We spent the second half completely controlling the game. We ran the break against their press when it was available. Otherwise, we protected the ball, moved it on offense, and got open looks for our best players who knocked them down. We also did a better job getting to the line when nothing else was clicking. When we play with this type of efficiency on offense, we are extremely, extremely hard to beat because we value the basketball so well. We may not be a traditional Duke high scoring team where we force lots of turnovers and score a lot of high flying buckets in transition, but this team is very good on the offensive side of the ball and will hopefully only continue to improve.

[MChambers]

Like others, I was disappointed in the short bench but I'm used to it (and the K apologists). My concerns are not The Firm of Scheyer, Smith and Singler getting tired and wearing down but more of the development and confidence of Kelly and Dawkins. Also, the selfish side of me just likes watching Kelly play :-). Note I'm mentioning this here not because it's a big concern of mine following a great win, but because it's been a focal point of this thread (and many others over the years).
Yes, to me this is the worry. Let's hope that this motivates the players on the bench to bear down in practice and in games.

[Chitowndevil]

If you really want a negative from that game, just look at the second half box score. Clemson outrebounded Duke (12 to 11) and shot 58% from the floor and 43% from 3 (to Duke's 60% and 33%).

Most alarmingly to me, Clemson shot 22 free throws (to Duke's 12) in a half where Duke held the lead throughout. 28 out of Clemson's 41 second half points came from free throws, layups, and dunks (their 11-0 run to open the half was 2 layups, a dunk, and 5 made free throws).

During the first 4:30 of the second half, Duke took 7 straight jump shots, six of them from 3. 17 of Duke's 23 second half shots were jump shots.

Duke still outscored Clemson 44-41 for the half. But Clemson missed some open jump shots as well. This was a nice win - Duke now has 3 convincing wins over top 25 opponents. But it bothered me that for much of the second half Clemson looked like the more aggessive team. The positives far outweigh the negatives but there is still plenty to work on.

[roywhite]

Yes, to me this is the worry. Let's hope that this motivates the players on the bench to bear down in practice and in games.

I imagine practice today will find the freshmen very receptive to comments and coaching from K. Something alongs the lines of---Oh, okay, this is what conference play looks like...now I see what some of the guys were saying. Better step it up.

All part of normal development.

[airowe]

My favorite image from the game:

http://www.blueplanetshots.com/2009-10/Games/Duke-74-Clemson-53/DSC4505/757028496_omDEb-L.jpg

[Duvall]

My favorite image from the game:

http://www.blueplanetshots.com/2009-10/Games/Duke-74-Clemson-53/DSC4505/757028496_omDEb-L.jpg

Air Krzyzewski?

[airowe]

Air Krzyzewski?

http://www.blueplanetshots.com/2009-10/Games/Duke-74-Clemson-53/DSC4506/757028513_xg3bB-L.jpg

[jjasper0729]

My main issue with last night was the press. We beat the press, but we were playing to beat the press, not beating the press to score. Only once (maybe twice) did we get the long pass out to someone that went in for an easy score (and then we promptly gave one up on the other end). I hope that was just making sure we had the ball secured.

I was a little concerned with Kyle and Nolan dribbling in the corners and by the half-court line. They seemed to pick up the dribble a lot and invite the trap. A little bit sloppy even though they were able to get the ball out of traffic and trouble. Not a harbinger of bad things, but something I noticed.

I think the Firm played as much as they did because we don't really have someone that can get to midcourt against the press, catch, turn and distribute. I'm hoping Mason can turn into that player and then we can be devastating against pressing teams.

[NSDukeFan]

This was a great game for us. We looked so damn hungry. I love the way that the whole team is playing, and I love that you can't leave S/S/S alone or you will get completely burned. My only concern, and this does happen a lot with recent Duke teams, is "taking a break" from a game and not playing tough or with a lot of passion. I feel that this team is different in that sense (I have no evidence for this, just gut) and they will play hard no matter what the circumstances.
I agree with what you are saying here. I am very impressed with our consistency so far this year. I don't know if it is much of a change over previous years, but is different than most, if not all, of the other teams out there. So far this year, we have easily beaten the teams we should have easily beaten, and solidly beaten all the tough teams we have played (with the exception of Wisconsin.) The Wisconsin game was certainly not a great game for us, but we were in a tough place to play, against a good team, with some cold shooting and still had a chance to win. We have not played down to the level of our opposition, when we played weak teams.

My main issue with last night was the press. We beat the press, but we were playing to beat the press, not beating the press to score. Only once (maybe twice) did we get the long pass out to someone that went in for an easy score (and then we promptly gave one up on the other end). I hope that was just making sure we had the ball secured.

I was thinking the same thing, as we certainly could have looked to score more off the press. My thoughts were that we didn't want to get into an up and down, fast paced game against them, so made a conscious effort to slow things down and not attack the press looking to score quickly. I think this was certainly the case after our outstanding defensive first half, when Clemson had trouble scoring against our half-court. Why give them an opportunity to get some easy baskets in transition that may give them confidence when we don't need to? This is especially true given what COYS posted earlier. (Thanks for that, by the way. I was unaware.) This is so far a very efficient offensive team, that gets very good shots in the half-court.

[ncexnyc]

I couldn't resist stealing a line from Robocop for my opening. I voiced doubts about Duke's earlier wins against UConn and Gonzaga, but after last nights win I am sold on this team's ability to shutdown quality teams. As I've said before this isn't your normal Duke team defensively. The bigs constest every shot and the chippees are no longer chippees, but rather tough contested shots.

The kids did a solid job of rendering the press ineffective and even got an easy basket off of it when Mason inbounded the ball the length of the court to Smith.
It was a tense game, with Clemson making a nice run to open the 2nd half, but a lot of that had to do with us missing some WIDE open 3's. I really don't mind the 3's, as our ball movement continues to be very good.
While not getting a lot of scoring from the bigs, they did their part on the boards and they clearly stymied Booker to the point he was complaining to the refs.

Playing time, well that is always going to be questioned. I never really felt this game was in the bag until the very end as Clemson was game from start to finish. I'm not sure Dre and Kelly were quite ready for this game. IIRC Dre had two quick negative plays when he came in and I don't believe Ryan is ready physically for a match-up like last nights. I'm sure some will say the kid should have been given the chance to show if he could handle it, but I trust Coach K's judgement on that matter.

This team has a lot going for it, if they stay healthy and some players improve over the season then we should have a pleasant March.

[jimsumner]

"I was disappointed in the short bench but I'm used to it (and the K apologists)."

The "K apologists?" What a telling choice of words.

[YourLandlord]

My favorite image from the game:

http://www.blueplanetshots.com/2009-10/Games/Duke-74-Clemson-53/DSC4505/757028496_omDEb-L.jpg

What play was it that caused this reaction?

[Duvall]

What play was it that caused this reaction?

Pretty sure it was the Scheyer steal and 3-pointer (number 1 here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUMVtQ9Se4k&feature=player_embedded)).

[airowe]

What play was it that caused this reaction?

This was after Scheyer's inbounds steal and 3 pointer in the 2nd half. Unfortunately, FSN's camera angles didn't let us see the play but the reaction is priceless.

[Highlander]

Wow, talk about looking for the cloud behind the silver lining.
...
I get the feeling that this team could win the national championship, and some people on this board would post in the post-game discussion thread how Coach K should have given the bench more minutes, how the guys coming back next year really didn't contribute much, and winning the title was bad because it means Singler and Smith are GONE and boy are we going to suck next year...

Nah, a NC would calm them down, but ending the season with a loss in any other game would be fodder for the "See! I told you so!" crowd.

[RockyMtDevil]

I was impressed by Lance Thomas' physical play on Booker last night. I know Lance takes some heat for his lack of offensive prowess, but he was incredible last night on the defensive end. He played with poise, maturity and strength. He has had some stellar games this year against top big men, especially defensively, we need to honor that. Great job Lance!!!!!!

[elvis14]

"I was disappointed in the short bench but I'm used to it (and the K apologists)."

The "K apologists?" What a telling choice of words.

Yeah, that might not have been my best choice of words but it fit in to the sentence without the paragraph that would have been more careful. I hope I didn't offend anyone here with that, it was not my intent. After reading this board for about 10 years, I know there are some that will point out the short bench after a game like last night and others who will defend K no matter what. I'm a big K fan but I'm OK discussing things he can do better and feel that I can do so somewhat intelligently even though I haven't won 9 million games and 275 rings as a coach of a major program. Then again, what do I know, I'm a Clemson grad :D

[slower]

Can we start reasonably talking about this team going to Indy?

You want to start talking about it after the FIRST ACC game of the year? Sure, you can TALK about it - but reasonably? Sheesh.

[rsvman]

Good game folks -- took it to us from beginning to end. Even when we tried to show signs of life, we got shut back down. I knew our lack of outside shooting would be an obstacle, but also Duke did a good job of making sure that Booker was not a huge factor inside as well. A great game from the triple S squad -- they were on fire the second half and we had no one who could answer.
Grant played one of his better games which was a good sign and Stitt had a solid game (altho a couple of uncontrolled drives). Johnson looked comfortable, but still not agressive as he needs to be, hopefully that is still to come. Potter is not turning out to be the Rivers-step-in we had hoped. Tanner Smith is good, but needs to crank it up more offensively.
On the other hand -- Duke's intensity had something to do with our play as well -- definitely came out wanting to make a statement and did just that with stellar defense and some very good offensive control and shooting.
Good game -- I hope its a better game in Clemson later this month.

Always nice to have an opposing team's fan come on these boards and make a classy post.

With all due respect, though, I hope you are equally disappointed with the game at Clemson!:D

[chrisheery]

I imagine practice today will find the freshmen very receptive to comments and coaching from K. Something alongs the lines of---Oh, okay, this is what conference play looks like...now I see what some of the guys were saying. Better step it up.

All part of normal development.

I totally agree. I can't even imagine playing in a game that intense. I bet Ryan and Dre hadn't imagined it prior to last night either. All things considered, I was amazed how well Mason played in that pressure cooker.

[KShip21]

This team has a lot of room for improvement but is still beating Top 25 ball clubs by 20+ points. I like what I'm seeing.


Shutting down teams like UConn, Gonzaga, and Clemson for large periods of the game---this is a big deal.


Duke's offense is consistently reliable, but rarely special.

Duke's offense is inconsistently spectacular, but is very good more often than not.

That is where our team is right now and that is not a bad place to be.


Rather than reading through all 6 pages and weighing in with my thoughts. I read the first page and these 3 quotes pretty much sum up everything. We are in a good place right now, and I am excited (more than I have been the last 3 years) to see what happens the rest of the season. I feel there are great great things to come!

[jimsumner]

Elvis,

K certainly isn't infallible and after all this is a board for discussion of all things Duke basketball.

But I think the K defenders are on pretty solid ground in most discussions of this nature. Using the Carl Sagan axiom that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I've not found much of the K-bashing that reaches that level of proof.

For me, the kvetching on substitution patterns is way past tiresome. For whatever reasons, the head basketball coach at Duke University feels that healthy, well-conditioned college athletes can play 30 or more minutes of competitive basketball twice a week for four months and still be effective at the end of that period. He has had some success using that philosophy and doesn't seem especially inclined to change.

[oldnavy]

Elvis,

K certainly isn't infallible and after all this is a board for discussion of all things Duke basketball.

But I think the K defenders are on pretty solid ground in most discussions of this nature. Using the Carl Sagan axiom that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I've not found much of the K-bashing that reaches that level of proof.

For me, the kvetching on substitution patterns is way past tiresome. For whatever reasons, the head basketball coach at Duke University feels that healthy, well-conditioned college athletes can play 30 or more minutes of competitive basketball twice a week for four months and still be effective at the end of that period. He has had some success using that philosophy and doesn't seem especially inclined to change.

Amen! It really is as simple as that. He will put the best guys on the floor for as long as he needs to to win and teach the guys how he wants the game played. Armchair, Monday morning... second guessing a HOF coach over mins played or not played is silly. Sorry, but think about it... no one on this site, NO ONE (unless we have the coaching staff posing) knows the players and their ability better than K and the staff, so why second guess when you have none of the facts... I understand the reflex to want to do it, but you have to step back and think... Do I really know who is ready to play more or what combination of players would work best against a matchup zone press based on what we have seen in practice... WE DONT. Coaching is a results oriented profession. Judge the man on his results and when you do you will see that there is no better coach in the game right now.

Reading posts that second guess everything from playing time to who gets more touches makes me sympathetic to Roy when he says he hates to do the call in shows... I think I understand what he means, and that scares me a little...:eek:

[Hancock 4 Duke]

I just found myself holding this sign on the Duke Blue Planet site. Pretty cool, considering I held it up the entire game waiting to be on TV

[Rudy]

Coaching is a results oriented profession. Judge the man on his results and when you do you will see that there is no better coach in the game right now.
I can't think of any other college coach I'd rather have in charge of my favorite team. Before one of mine became a Dukie I always admired Duke's program but was more devoted to UVa or Penn (when they were good). I have watched Duke's team very closely for only about six years. My impression has been that its players, particularly its jump shooters (including the best ever) had tired legs by the second round of the NCAA tournament, and by that I mean more tired than other teams' shooters. So those "results" cause some concern or maybe hypersensitivity among some fans to the issue of over working the star players.

[DukeBlood]

This is the same Clemson team that smoked us by 30 last year. They're a solid team. We shut them down in the first half, responded beautifully to the run they made in the 2nd, and closed out the game with precision. It was a very strong performance against a quality opponent.

This is not the same team that beat us by 30 last year. They lost three of their top five players in Rivers, Oglesby, and Sykes. This is still a very good Clemson team, A very young team that struggled at CIS.

For the poster who said the conference is weak, Have you seen the Pac-10? I wouldn't be surprised if this Clemson team beat Duke at Little John. Dont believe they will, but it wouldn't shock me. There is a lot of talent on the Tiger's roster. There is just so much youth that they would blow a 20+ lead one night(Illini), and beat a very good Butler team the next.

What happened to Sykes anyway? I thought he was only a Junior last year?

[Clipsfan]

nope, just games in early january when you're up 20

Seriously - not only is this a topic that's been discussed ad nauseum over the years, but you've managed to make more pointless posts about it than anyone else I've ever seen on this board. Repeatedly posting the same 6-8 words doesn't strengthen your "argument" - are you just trying to pad your post totals?

[hq2]

I'm the poster who thought the conference was weak, and I still think it is. If Clemson, the number three team, is barely in the top 25, and the top two are Duke and Carolina (who is having a slightly down year), then this is a down year. I'm not saying the rest of the conference is horrible, but what it appears to be is a number of fair to O.K. teams (say top 40 or 50) who are capable of playing well on any given night, but don't have the talent to do it
consistently. What there does not appear to be (besides Carolina, whose backcourt appears suspect) is one or two really tough teams that will give us one or two epic battles to prepare Duke for the tournament. No doubt Duke will lose some conference games, but I think it will mostly happen because they had a down game or didn't get up for their opponent.

In years past, when Duke did well in the NCAAs they were (usually) pretty battle tested in the conference. The '91 championship team barely won the conference title and got blown out by Carolina in the ACC championship. The '92 team, hands down the best in Duke history, lost two games in conference. The 2001 team had to rally from 22 down to get by Maryland in the Final Four. The '86 team had to slug it out with Georgia Tech and Carolina all year for the #1 ranking; the 88, 89, and 90 teams made the final four despite not winning the ACC regular season. The 94 team was in a dog fight with Carolina and Wake all year.

Only the '99 team stands out as one that did well in the NCAA's despite the conference being weak overall. And, I note, that team sailed through the NCAAs considered unbeatable, and was set up for the biggest fall in Duke history.

I actually don't believe this will be a '99 repeat this year; this team isn't that good, and will surely lose one or two (or more) conference games (which that team did not). But nonetheless, pollsters being what they are, I can see Duke sort of floating their way up to near the top, only to have a big fall at the end of the year. They need to watch out about over confidence (and Triple S exhaustion) near the end of the year.

[Clipsfan]

hq2 - I guess it all comes down to what you consider a good conference. Pomeroy does have the ACC rated as the toughest conference, but with relative parity. 9 ACC teams are in the top 45, which is pretty solid, and BC is the worst at 94th. In comparison, the Big 12 (the second-ranked conference) is very strong at the top, with 4 teams in the top 14, but they don't have any other teams in the top 45 and their worst team is Colorado at 112. For consistently tough games, the ACC is going to give Duke a great learning ground. There are still very tough games vs UNC, GT and Clemson, and pretty much every team at their place. They won't be the marquee game which Texas/Kansas provide (other than UNC) but they'll test the team and get them ready for battle.

I'm also a UCLA fan, and trust me, the ACC is a TON stronger than the Pac-10, for instance.

[DukeVol]

Using the Carl Sagan axiom that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I've not found much of the K-bashing that reaches that level of proof.

Great line Jim. I think that all the K-doubting, "playing time distribution" experts should put their effort where their mouth is. Any attempt to imply that cumulative playing time has a negative impact on performance should begin with inferential statistics.

Start with a regression analysis that uses field goals/attempt or assists or turnovers or rebounds as the output and minutes played as the predictor variable. Heck, come up with a way to factor in cumulative minutes for the whole season-to-date AND minutes played in a game and use that as your predictor variable. What was your R-value for each of our Big 3? Was there a causal relationship?

Then, take a significant sample of star players from other Top 20 teams and run the same stats. Subdivide all the players into 5 minute categories based on average minutes played and run the analysis. Is there any statistical difference in the results between any of these subgroups? Any statistical difference between our Big 3 and all the other players from Top 20 teams?

Now that would be "extraordinary proof" to back up these "extraordinary claims". Anything else is just a drive-by opinion and we all know how much that is worth.

[ice-9]

I'm the poster who thought the conference was weak, and I still think it is. If Clemson, the number three team, is barely in the top 25, and the top two are Duke and Carolina (who is having a slightly down year), then this is a down year. I'm not saying the rest of the conference is horrible, but what it appears to be is a number of fair to O.K. teams (say top 40 or 50) who are capable of playing well on any given night, but don't have the talent to do it consistently. What there does not appear to be (besides Carolina, whose backcourt appears suspect) is one or two really tough teams that will give us one or two epic battles to prepare Duke for the tournament. No doubt Duke will lose some conference games, but I think it will mostly happen because they had a down game or didn't get up for their opponent.

In years past, when Duke did well in the NCAAs they were (usually) pretty battle tested in the conference. The '91 championship team barely won the conference title and got blown out by Carolina in the ACC championship. The '92 team, hands down the best in Duke history, lost two games in conference. The 2001 team had to rally from 22 down to get by Maryland in the Final Four. The '86 team had to slug it out with Georgia Tech and Carolina all year for the #1 ranking; the 88, 89, and 90 teams made the final four despite not winning the ACC regular season. The 94 team was in a dog fight with Carolina and Wake all year.

Only the '99 team stands out as one that did well in the NCAA's despite the conference being weak overall. And, I note, that team sailed through the NCAAs considered unbeatable, and was set up for the biggest fall in Duke history.

I actually don't believe this will be a '99 repeat this year; this team isn't that good, and will surely lose one or two (or more) conference games (which that team did not). But nonetheless, pollsters being what they are, I can see Duke sort of floating their way up to near the top, only to have a big fall at the end of the year. They need to watch out about over confidence (and Triple S exhaustion) near the end of the year.

Hmm, first, I think "biggest fall in Duke history" is a bit of a hyperbole given the '99 team got all the way to the championship game and lost only on the last possession.

I do agree that the ACC is down this year. My guess is that the vast majority of ACC teams that do make the NCAA tournament this year will lose in the first weekend -- the ACC simply doesn't have many teams capable of making a deep run. I'm guessing by the second weekend it'll just be us and UNC, and even UNC is highly susceptible to an upset.

There is a lot of parity in the middle of the ACC, but that parity won't translate to tournament success.

[MChambers]

For me, the debate about playing time is more about whether the bench is getting the experience necessary to grow.

I agree that a few extra minutes in January for the Big 3 don't matter and may in fact be good for them.

I'd still like to see more of Dawkins, MP2, and Kelly, because I think it would help their growth, but I'm a securities lawyer, a pretty good one at that, but certainly not a Hall of Fame coach. So I've learned to accept what Coach K decides. He certainly has an amazing track record.

[Lord Ash]

I tend to agree with the poster above... while the top three may or may not wear out a bit, I do think that game time experience at game speed against unfamiliar, hungry players can be a very good thing for a young guy to have. Not sure if Andre could have played against the press, but I did expect maybe to see Ryan a bit, both because a big with some passing and dribbling skills could help, but it would also be good for Ryan to get that experience in a game we seem to be able to handle vs in a big game if 2 of the Big 3 are struggling.

[pfrduke]

I tend to agree with the poster above... while the top three may or may not wear out a bit, I do think that game time experience at game speed against unfamiliar, hungry players can be a very good thing for a young guy to have. Not sure if Andre could have played against the press, but I did expect maybe to see Ryan a bit, both because a big with some passing and dribbling skills could help, but it would also be good for Ryan to get that experience in a game we seem to be able to handle vs in a big game if 2 of the Big 3 are struggling.

Let's also remember that this game was unique. We were playing a team that thoroughly whipped us last season, and had won the last two times we played. It was also the first ACC game for our freshmen. It was, I believe, extremely important to this team's psyche to come out with a strong win (and to give our upperclassmen a chance at revenge for last year).

If, 15 ACC games from now, Kelly and Dawkins are averaging 1 and 8 minutes, respectively, in conference play, we have something that might merit discussion. But leaning heavily on the experienced players in a game that sets the tone for the conference season and avenges a really, really bad loss is certainly justifiable, if not the more reasonable decision.

[jimsumner]

"Any attempt to imply that cumulative playing time has a negative impact on performance should begin with inferential statistics."

I was told there would be no math. :)

[Kedsy]

I'm guessing by the second weekend it'll just be us and UNC[...]

Unless UNC runs into the College of Charleston along the way.

[RelativeWays]

It should be noted that Stall Ball kinda worked in this game. Most of the time our players would either get fouled or convert shots. Its also worth noting that Duke never quite let Clemson get any sustained momentum. They would take it to 10-11 points, and Duke would rebuild the dam. This team is starting to come together. Only concerns are still getting consistent scoring outside of 3S, and the amount of minutes for 3S. Thats not a bench criticism, which I think K is utilizing pretty well. I don't see any of our guys disappearing at the end of it as the season goes on.

[flyingdutchdevil]

It should be noted that Stall Ball kinda worked in this game. Most of the time our players would either get fouled or convert shots. Its also worth noting that Duke never quite let Clemson get any sustained momentum. They would take it to 10-11 points, and Duke would rebuild the dam. This team is starting to come together. Only concerns are still getting consistent scoring outside of 3S, and the amount of minutes for 3S. Thats not a bench criticism, which I think K is utilizing pretty well. I don't see any of our guys disappearing at the end of it as the season goes on.

Agreed. I also think our interior defense is fantastic. Not only do we have a lot of bodies, but we also have a lot of capable bodies. As you said, I am a little worried about the the Firm's minutes (but not so much about other players getting minutes). The players and K know best, so I'll leave it to them.

One thing - the way that Smith and Scheyer play together and off each other is incredible. I've said this a few times, but this is the most exciting duo in the ACC, and possibly in the NCAA. Our backcourt, despite being the most shallow (depth-wise) in the ACC, is also clearly the best.

[MChambers]

It should be noted that Stall Ball kinda worked in this game. Most of the time our players would either get fouled or convert shots. Its also worth noting that Duke never quite let Clemson get any sustained momentum. They would take it to 10-11 points, and Duke would rebuild the dam. This team is starting to come together. Only concerns are still getting consistent scoring outside of 3S, and the amount of minutes for 3S. Thats not a bench criticism, which I think K is utilizing pretty well. I don't see any of our guys disappearing at the end of it as the season goes on.

The folks who criticize the slowdown game will always focus on the games where it doesn't work, or at least doesn't work well. They tend to ignore the games where it works beautifully.

[roywhite]

The folks who criticize the slowdown game will always focus on the games where it doesn't work, or at least doesn't work well. They tend to ignore the games where it works beautifully.

A 3-pointer by Jon Scheyer (on a pass from Nolan) right at the shot clock buzzer late in the game sticks in my mind. Very nice.

[diesel]

One thing that has really impressed--and pleased-me this year is our free throw shooting. Against Clemson, we hit 80% of our free throws. The Tigers also did well-hitting 75% of their free throws.

By way of contrast, it was actually painful for me to watch the free throw shooting of the other ACC teams I watched this weekend. Wake hit only 56% of their free throws. And State could have won their game against Florida easily if they had hit more than the actual 53% of their free throws they made.

[jimsumner]

"Its also worth noting that Duke never quite let Clemson get any sustained momentum. They would take it to 10-11 points, and Duke would rebuild the dam. "

Clemson began the second half with an 11-0 run that cut the lead to 7. Sure seemed like they had some serious mo at the time.

Then Scheyer had a 5-0 run and Duke stabilized. I agree, that with the exception of that run, Duke controlled the second half. But that was a big exception.

[striker219]

A 3-pointer by Jon Scheyer (on a pass from Nolan) right at the shot clock buzzer late in the game sticks in my mind. Very nice.

That. Was. Freaking. Gorgeous.

[ice-9]

"Its also worth noting that Duke never quite let Clemson get any sustained momentum. They would take it to 10-11 points, and Duke would rebuild the dam. "

Clemson began the second half with an 11-0 run that cut the lead to 7. Sure seemed like they had some serious mo at the time.

Then Scheyer had a 5-0 run and Duke stabilized. I agree, that with the exception of that run, Duke controlled the second half. But that was a big exception.


I thought the two key Scheyer plays in the beginning of the second half were when he spun into the middle and popped in a jumper and much later on when he got the steal from the inbounds pass and sank the three. The first because it was the basket that stopped the Clemson run, and the second because it was so demoralizing to Clemson.

But I place fewer prop points for Scheyer's other threes early in the second half because part of what contributed Clemson's big run were Scheyer's missed shots in the first place.

Clemson actually made several runs in this game and not just in the opening of the second half. Each time they made a run though our three key guys always made plays to stop it, whether it be an assist-jumper, steal-fastbreak, or taking the charge.

Overall very impressive game by our Devils to have the maturity and composure to win in the fashion that we did in the face of the Clemson press.

[jimsumner]

"But I place fewer prop points for Scheyer's other threes early in the second half because part of what contributed Clemson's big run were Scheyer's missed shots in the first place."

Duke missed four threes at the beginning of the second half, first two by Singler, next two by Scheyer.

Duke had some bad luck. Misses led to long rebounds, which led to Clemson fast-break baskets.

K called timeout at 17:24 after Booker scored inside to make it 30-22. [Subsequent and-one made it 30-23] Know what he told his team? Those were good shots and keep on taking good shots.

None of the four missed threes were bad shots or forced shots. At 16:10 Scheyer hit a three to put Duke up by a dozen. At 13:56, he hit another three to put Duke up by 17.

So, less than four minutes after a timeout called in part to tell his team to continue to be aggressive on offense, Scheyer had buried two threes and Duke had rebuilt its lead. Clemson never got closer than 11 again.

At that timeout, Scheyer was 0-4 on 3s and had scored all of three points. He was encouraged to keep shooting, made 3 of his final 4 threes and ended with 22 points.

Works for me.

[mapei]

K called timeout at 17:24 after Booker scored inside to make it 30-22. [Subsequent and-one made it 30-23] Know what he told his team? Those were good shots and keep on taking good shots.


Jim, how do you know? Not challenging, just curious.

[jimsumner]

Footnote,

1.Post-game with Scheyer and post-game press conference by K.

[mapei]

Thanks.