Is this the best team of the last 5 years?

[CrazieDUMB]

So as I’m watching this team, I really can’t help but wonder if this is the best Duke team of the last five years. Why five years? Well, two reasons: one, as a culture we love looking at things in arbitrary base-ten time increments, and second, 05-06 was when I first enrolled at Duke and changed from a casual fan to a DBR crazie. My apologies to the vets, whose comparisons of Scheyer to Jim Spanarkel are lost on me :).

Anyway, when looking at the last 5 years its pretty clear who the top contenders are: this team, and the 2006 team. This got me wondering though, how much of our appreciation of teams depends on their preseason hype, and how much does that hype skew our perception of how good they really are?

The 2006 team was hyped beyond belief. As if it weren’t enough that were we returning the Rupp POY and scoring phenom destined to be the most accomplished ACC shooter ever, we also had the reigning defensive POY. The incoming crop of freshman (a class of 5, if you remember) was supposed to bolster the bench and give them the depth that doomed them the year before. It was enough to grace SI’s cover in the preseason with “Can anyone stop Duke?”

Compare that to this team, who I have to admit coming in I didn’t have terribly high hopes for. Granted, I knew they’d be good (top 10 at best, top 25 at worst), but it certainly didn’t seem like they’d dominate the way they have so far. Not only did we lose out on Wall, but we lost Henderson, the only guy I really felt could take over a game should the need arise. If we were down 1 with 15 seconds and the ball, how nervous were you knowing G suddenly developed a midrange pullup game to offset his amazing explosiveness to the basket? I didn’t really think we’d have anyone to replace him.

This year though, the team is dominating like never before. Scheyer’s blossoming from a good player on a good team to an All-American complete player is not only amazing to watch, but in my mind really surprising considering he never got credit for having 'athletic' potential. The other great surprise is MP1, a guy who barely played at the end of last season who now is one of my favorite players to watch on defense. The freshmen have been (thankfully) as reliable as advertised. We have three players that can dominate, a frontcourt that has more than just placeholders, and quality reserves at all positions. Couple that with the best lockdown D I’ve seen since, well, 2001, and this team has me absolutely giddy. I really haven’t been this excited since halfway through last year, when G suddenly realized no one could stop him. The difference is that instead of having one guy I love watching, I have a whole team.

Off the cuff, I’d have to say 2006 was a better team. After all, they spent a lot of time at No. 1 and 2010 has barely cracked the top 5. Redick is my favorite player of all time; I’ll never forget his 41 against Texas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQ_ULUMSY4&feature=PlayList&p=A7BC40185FA53C0E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10), his perfect stroke, or the way he’d take seemingly ridiculous shots and hit nothing but net. Looking through 2006-goggles, that team had 2 definite NBA stars and well as several others with NBA potential.

However, I also remember the incredible hype leaving me disappointed once the season started. Games where we were better than our opponent weren’t satisfying because we weren’t dominating, resulting in a lot of 10-13 point games (Drexel, Indiana, St. Johns come to mind), as well as a couple of near losses to No.11 Memphis in the NIT championship and VT (saved by the Dock shot). The notable exception to this was the aforementioned stomping of No. 2 Texas.

Compare that to this year’s team. Granted, we’ve already had our first loss, but it came in a game similar to the 2006 team’s first loss against Georgetown. They were both one of first true road games for both teams, in which never really got our game going and submitted to the style of our opponent. Other than Wisconsin, I don’t think there’s been a game in which this year’s team hasn’t been less than absolutely dominant, including quality wins over Clemson, Gonzaga, and Connecticut.

Ultimately, it became clear that 2006 was a two-man team. Our only other options on offense were Shav 2.0 (Josh) and Leeeeee leeeee leeee. The incredible assist numbers of the Next Bobby Hurley (Paulus) turned out to be inflated by the fact that our entire offense was GP3 hitting the greatest shooter of all time coming off screens. When our frontcourt got in foul trouble our next option was, uh, Patrick Johnson? When one of our two best was off (Shelden agaisnt Georgetown, Redick against LSU) this team never had the ability to overcome it. Our ousting at the hands of Big Baby and a balanced, athletic team was single handedly the most sickening moment of my young life. Ahh, when dreams are dashed and expectations shattered.

The 2010 team doesn’t have a pure scorer as amazing as Redick or a post presence as reliable as Shelden. But where 2006’s lack of depth killed it, we have in spades. Not only do we have three scoring options, we have a backup in Dawk. We have quality in the frontcourt. Our D now is considerably better and can defend at every position.

Listen, I will always love the 2006 team. But it’s kind of nice rooting for this one, right? We have the possibility of the ultimate vindication of a class (LT, Zou, Scheyer) who three years ago was forced into filling gaps before they were ready had to endure no less than 5 oppenents’ fans rushing the court. They had to listen to people say that Duke wasn’t Duke anymore, and this class had nothing on the Duke classes of the glory days. Wouldn’t be amazing to see a guy like Scheyer win, not because he’s flashy but because he’s smarter and more efficient (a quality that makes an unathletic Duke alum like me drool)?

So who’s better? Is my disappointment in the 2006 team skewing their accomplishments? Am I too high on a team that’s barely started ACC play yet? Is it totally ridiculous that my first post is incredibly subjective and 1000 words?

[roywhite]

Welcome to the board; quite a first post!

In answer to your question...yes, IMO, 2010 is a better team than 2006 and will achieve more. We're not far enough along in the season to prove that definitively, but overall defense is better and less reliance on one scorer.

[Kedsy]

Too early to tell.

[CDu]

Yes, I believe this team is a better team than the 2006 team (which was the previous best team of the last 5 years). While the 2006 team had higher top-end players (Redick, Williams), the depth on this year's team is enough to offset that difference in my opinion. But time will tell. Hopefully the results of the season will agree!

[uh_no]

Too early to tell.

agree

except the way that duke has dismantled good teams is something we haven't seen in a while.....and not just once or twice....but everybody...uconn, gonzaga, clemson.....

[soccerstud2210]

seriously a heck of a first post!!! :) welcome!

i agree. too early to tell. but like yourself i did not have high hopes for this team. but i am continually surprised. the sky really is the limit. but we have to see how this season plays out

[ice-9]

Great first post! You clearly put a lot of time and thought into it and you have a nice writing style.

To answer your central question...it all depends on what happens in the NCAA tournament. For this team to be the best in the past 5 years, we have to go past the Sweet 16. No ifs or buts in my book.

Every year it seems people praise Duke early in the season only to see Duke falter down the stretch. As much as I love this team so far, I'm holding back judgement until after all things are said and done.

But I gotta say, things look mighty good...there's something different about this team. Just a much more mature and dependable bunch.

(Hope I didn't jinx the team for the G Tech game, LOL.)

[El_Diablo]

In the preseason, Coach K said this is the best Duke team since 2003-04.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Great first post! You clearly put a lot of time and thought into it and you have a nice writing style.

To answer your central question...it all depends on what happens in the NCAA tournament. For this team to be the best in the past 5 years, we have to go past the Sweet 16. No ifs or buts in my book.

Every year it seems people praise Duke early in the season only to see Duke falter down the stretch. As much as I love this team so far, I'm holding back judgement until after all things are said and done.

But I gotta say, things look mighty good...there's something different about this team. Just a much more mature and dependable bunch.

(Hope I didn't jinx the team for the G Tech game, LOL.)

You are right that the NCAA Tournament has become the measuring stick. A bad matchup can mess things up. It is unfortunate that a great regular season, great ACC season, and great ACC tournament can be forgotten because a key player had a bad game or maybe was sick against a bad matchup in the NCAA Tournament.

Our one lose was to Wisconsin who had an excellent quick guard. Last year we got beat easily by Villanova who had two excellent quick guards. Before the Iowa State game I read a preview that said they had a strong player underneath but only average guards. I figured we would win with no problem.

Jon Scheyer is a excellent player having a great season. However he can get beat. They key will be whether or not we develop enough inside to get the stop after he is beaten. We seem to get better every game underneath so I am somewhat optimistic.

Not every team has the guard play that can beat us and we should win those games, maybe easily.

The 2006 may been overly dependent on two players. This team is very dependent on Jon. We do have more scoring options. At the end I don't know if we will judge it better than the 2006 team or not, but I do think we will enjoy the ride.

SoCal

[miramar]

It's too early to tell, as noted, but there is one difference with this team. Many of Duke's recent teams had some serious deficiencies that were covered up with some outstanding individual play, great coaching, solid team play, effort, etc.

This team on the other hand has the potential to have the pieces fall into place by the end of the year. It has the big three, a really impressive defensive player and glue guy in Lance, and three bigs, two of whom are still developing.

So while recent teams started the season more or less set, this one is a work in progress with a very big upside.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

In the preseason, Coach K said this is the best Duke team since 2003-04.

Didn't he say the same thing last year?

[mkline09]

I think one of the telling features of this team is that they are taking care of business against what is deemed as inferior teams. In the last few years there has been reason(s) for concern against seemingly any teams since the first round loss to VCU. We as fans were forced to re-evaluate each opponent. Not that we didn't in the past but there was almost a fear that what happens if we lose to this team or that team.
Yet in that stretch their wasn't a bad Duke team, but there wasn't a dominant one either. A team that not only beat the big boys but took pride in beating the lesser opponents into submission. That appears to be back a bit this year. Who knows if it will last and like many others it is a bit too early to tell how this team will stack up but certainly this perhaps has the chance to be the best team since 2006 and there is a chance they could be better than that.

[SCMatt33]

I think we will find out the answer in March. I actually wrote an article on this topic (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/316778-is-this-duke-team-any-different) on B/R about a week ago, though I generally address only the post-JJ/Shelden years.

[Kedsy]

Didn't he say the same thing last year?

I don't know, but even if he did maybe it was true. And if this year's team is better than last year's team then it's true again, right?

[jv001]

I think this team is the best since 03-04. This year we have an excellent guard(Jon), excellent swing man(Kyle) and our center by committee(Miles, Mason & Zoubs) is very good. We have not had that since the 03-04 team. Plus throw in Nolan at the #2 guard and we have a team built for success in post season. However it's still a young season(1 acc game) and we don't know if it's going to last or if it's going to just get better. The ceiling is high for Mason, Miles and Andre. So that should in itself should make us better come tourney time. So I say yes. Go Duke!

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

I have a question. Probably already answered but here it is anyway. Would our team be better with G-Hend or Dre Dawk?

[hurleyfor3]

I think we'd lose to 2006 and beat all the other years. Yeah, the claim that 2006 was a two-man team is materially correct, but really the only team that whole year to expose this fact was lsu (maybe unc).

What would this year's answer be for Shelden and JJ? How would they not go for 25-30 each?

This doesn't mean we won't do better in the NCAAs than 2006 did. We're certainly more balanced, although not perfectly so, and there aren't as many "bad draws" for us outside of the really good teams.

[CrazieDUMB]

Jon Scheyer is a excellent player having a great season. However he can get beat. They key will be whether or not we develop enough inside to get the stop after he is beaten. We seem to get better every game underneath so I am somewhat optimistic.
SoCal

This is absolutely true. Hopefully Nolan can continue to execute some good on ball pressure. Lance has also emerged as a defensive specialist, but he's too big to defend the small guards. Our best tests come ACC season will probably be Ish Smith of Wake and Malcolm Delaney of VT (assuming he's healthy). I might throw General Greivis in that category, but he's more of a shooting/slashing PG than straight up dribble penetration.

The one thing we get this year is some potentially great shotblocking in MP1 and MP2, a lane presence that hasn't been around since the Landlord.

[Highlander]

Our ousting at the hands of Big Baby and a balanced, athletic team was single handedly the most sickening moment of my young life.

Don't ever watch the 2004 loss to UConn in the Final Four then. It was just tragic.

This team seems to me to be much more balanced than 2006, and despite Jon's outstanding performances, doesn't have a POY caliber player on the roster, much less two. It's also the first time since 2006 that we've had a roster dominated by upperclassmen, and that makes a BIG difference (Just ask Cornell). I like the fact that we're beating teams with defense as well, in that it gives me greater confidence that we can survive an off shooting night from one or two of our primary scorers. Lance and Brian have found their niche and their consistency has enabled the freshmen to come along at their own pace.

Our biggest weakness is unchanged, in our inability to handle penetration from a quick guard. Luckily Ty Lawson is no longer in the ACC, and the number of teams who match that description is noticeably off from previous years.

I like the fact that we seem to look better week to week as well. As the Freshman come into their own, we really can get even better which is why Duke fans everywhere should have a reason to smile...

[CDu]

I have a question. Probably already answered but here it is anyway. Would our team be better with G-Hend or Dre Dawk?

That's a very interesting question. My inclination is that it would be better with Henderson, because of his experience and ability to impact the game in more areas than Dawkins, and because he gives us the option of a different look. But I could see the argument the other way, that Dawkins's willingness to receive limited possessions, his better perimeter shot, and because Henderson's tendency to slow ball movement may have hindered the offense a bit.

But given all that, I still think this team would be better with Henderson rather than Dawkins. The added size and improved skill amongst our bigs, as well as the development of Scheyer as a PG and Smith would make the difference. Last year, a big weakness was that we didn't have enough quality size or enough scorers. This year, neither is nearly as big a problem.

[bird]

I don't have an answer, but I have been asking myself basically the same question since early in the season: my head is telling me that while this is not a "great" Duke team on the level of 86, 91-92, 99, and 01, that nevertheless this could be a national contender; but disappointments (recent early exists, and especially the 'Nova debacle) keep me looking for and not finding the body of an NBA power forward in the line up. Anyway, I this team is definitely more than the sum of the parts, has a lot of upside, and promises to be an especially enjoyable squad to follow.

[oldnavy]

I am not as worried about the quick guards beating us off the dribble as much as I have been in the past. First, our perimeter players seem a little more adept at stopping quick guards, and second K seems more inclined to switch to a zone in the event we are getting spread out and blown by. Now quick guards and top tier point guards are going to give any team and any defense trouble, but I feel like the days of opponents spreading the floor and isolating our slower guys on a quick guard for penetration and a dish are over. Not to say that it will not happen at times, but I think teams are going to have to come up with a different game plan to beat us now.

[Kedsy]

I have a question. Probably already answered but here it is anyway. Would our team be better with G-Hend or Dre Dawk?

I'm not sure. G was a great player, but it's possible his presence on this team could have hindered the development of, well, pretty much everyone. Having said that, he could also have blended seamlessly and made this team one of the great Duke squads ever. Impossible to know which, IMO.

[G man]

This team I think has the potential to go further due to depth. Everyone talks about the ability of our guards to keep people out of the paint. Last few years that has been the biggest achilles heel, but now if you come into the paint you better be looking for Miles or Mason because they will toss your stuff.


As for the question regarding if we would be better with G or with Dawkins that is hard. I wonder if we are more of cohesive team without G. That is just to hard to figure we would be more talented with, but I think I like the balance better without. Nolan has done a great job this year and if Gerald came back that would not be as likely!

[CDu]

I'm not sure. G was a great player, but it's possible his presence on this team could have hindered the development of, well, pretty much everyone. Having said that, he could also have blended seamlessly and made this team one of the great Duke squads ever. Impossible to know which, IMO.

I agree. It could go either way. He'd certainly have a bigger impact on the team than Dawkins has had. Whether that impact pushes us further ahead or slowed us down is harder to say. I'd lean towards it pushing us further ahead, but I just don't know.

[CrazieDUMB]

I have a question. Probably already answered but here it is anyway. Would our team be better with G-Hend or Dre Dawk?

I love 'Dre, and he's arguably more valuable now than Henderson was until his junior year. That said, I don't think there's any doubt that I'd rather have last year's G. He started averaging 20/game, and when he was on with his jump shot, he was virtually unstoppable. Like I said in my first post, I don't think we have anyone of G's ability to go one-on-one and create a basket from nothing. Thats kind of an NBA attitude, but that's what I liked about G. And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckLHEUkNOgE


Don't ever watch the 2004 loss to UConn in the Final Four then. It was just tragic.


2004 was bad, but I didn't feel much shame losing to Okafor and Ben Gordon. It was also a close game, and you knew Duke had more good years coming from JJ and Shelden. Hard to believe that team had those two plus Luol Deng and a senior Duhon.

[The Gordog]

Ultimately, it became clear that 2006 was a two-man team. Our only other options on offense were Shav 2.0 (Josh) and Leeeeee leeeee leeee. The incredible assist numbers of the Next Bobby Hurley (Paulus) turned out to be inflated by the fact that our entire offense was GP3 hitting the greatest shooter of all time coming off screens. When our frontcourt got in foul trouble our next option was, uh, Patrick Johnson? When one of our two best was off (Shelden agaisnt Georgetown, Redick against LSU) this team never had the ability to overcome it. Our ousting at the hands of Big Baby and a balanced, athletic team was single handedly the most sickening moment of my young life. Ahh, when dreams are dashed and expectations shattered.

...

So who’s better? Is my disappointment in the 2006 team skewing their accomplishments? Am I too high on a team that’s barely started ACC play yet? Is it totally ridiculous that my first post is incredibly subjective and 1000 words?

Excellent first post.

I still think the 2006 team was better, until proven otherwise on the court. Heck, the 2009 team was better in that they won an ACC Championship and 30 games.

I have said it before, and probably will again:), that what doomed the 2006 team was not lack of balance but lack of staying healthy. Remember DeMarc's boot? He doubled his ppg # the next year when he was healthy. Remember Dock's hand? Basically they triple teamed JJ and dared anyone else to score - good stategy on their part. Shel went off for 23 but nobody else could do a thing.

[sagegrouse]

Welcome. You have asked a good question, especially WRT to 2006.

I think that can be viewed as a challenge to the 2009 team.

1. Will the backcourt of Jon, Nolan and Andre be almost as good as the 2006 backcourt of JJ, Dockery, Greg Paulus and Markie Nelson?

2. Will the 2010 backcourt by committee of LT, MP1, Zoubs, and MP2 be almost as good as Shelden and Josh McRoberts?

If the answer to both these questions is yes, then the 2010 team will definitely be better because, because I haven't mentioned Kyle Singler who had no counterpart in 2006.

sagegrouse

[The Gordog]

Welcome. You have asked a good question, especially WRT to 2006.

I think that can be viewed as a challenge to the 2009 team.

1. Will the backcourt of Jon, Nolan and Andre be almost as good as the 2006 backcourt of JJ, Dockery, Greg Paulus and Markie Nelson?

2. Will the 2010 backcourt by committee of LT, MP1, Zoubs, and MP2 be almost as good as Shelden and Josh McRoberts?

If the answer to both these questions is yes, then the 2010 team will definitely be better because, because I haven't mentioned Kyle Singler who had no counterpart in 2006.

sagegrouse

Kyle > Lee

[Matches]

2006 was a two-man team but they were two *really* good men. 2010 has three really good players but I don't think any of them are at JJ/ Shelden's level.

Even with just JJ and Shel the 2006 team was more balanced offensively than the current group, b/c it had interior scoring (Shel), 3pt shooting (JJ) and the ability to create off the dribble (JJ). This year's team is not as strong yet re: interior scoring, though there's room for improvement as the year goes on.

2010 is much stronger defensively than 2006. Shelden's presence inside masked a lot of defensive deficiencies on the 2006 team. 2010 does not have any defenders who have to be "hidden". I still want to see how the current edition handles strong dribble penetration, especially from a speedy PG.

[CDu]

Welcome. You have asked a good question, especially WRT to 2006.

I think that can be viewed as a challenge to the 2009 team.

1. Will the backcourt of Jon, Nolan and Andre be almost as good as the 2006 backcourt of JJ, Dockery, Greg Paulus and Markie Nelson?

2. Will the 2010 backcourt by committee of LT, MP1, Zoubs, and MP2 be almost as good as Shelden and Josh McRoberts?

If the answer to both these questions is yes, then the 2010 team will definitely be better because, because I haven't mentioned Kyle Singler who had no counterpart in 2006.

sagegrouse

I suspect that the answer to question 2 will be "it's close." The 2006 frontcourt (Williams/McRoberts/Melchionni was better than this year's group, in spite of the lack of depth. The 2006 trio combined for 33.2 pts, 19.2 reb, and 5.2 blks, while the 2010 frontcourt is currently at 27.0 pts, 23.3 reb, and 4.3 blks. Right now, I'd give the edge to the 2006 frontcourt (Williams was just an absolute beast that year), but acknowledge the potential for growth of this year's frontcourt.

I think I'd rephrase that first question to be: "will the perimeter players in 2010 (Singler/Scheyer/Smith/Dawkins) be better than the perimeter players in 2006 (Redick/Nelson/Paulus/Dockery). I'd give the edge to the 2010 group, which gets many more points, rebounds, and assists.

I'd say the edge in the backcourt is bigger than the edge in the frontcourt, meaning that this team should be better than that team. But we'll see.

[SCMatt33]

I have a question. Probably already answered but here it is anyway. Would our team be better with G-Hend or Dre Dawk?

I think it would probably be a lateral move. I think that with G, Nolan would get at most 20 min/game instead of 35, and he and Jon would not be nearly as productive as they currently are now. There might still be a little of that "let's all watch G play" that showed itself at times last year.

I think that another interesting question would be what would have happened if Elliot's mom hadn't gotten sick and he was still here as opposed to Dre. They are two very different players, with Dre being a much better shooter, but Elliot with a better ability to drive and defend.

[soccerstud2210]

I am not as worried about the quick guards beating us off the dribble as much as I have been in the past. First, our perimeter players seem a little more adept at stopping quick guards, and second K seems more inclined to switch to a zone in the event we are getting spread out and blown by. Now quick guards and top tier point guards are going to give any team and any defense trouble, but I feel like the days of opponents spreading the floor and isolating our slower guys on a quick guard for penetration and a dish are over. Not to say that it will not happen at times, but I think teams are going to have to come up with a different game plan to beat us now.

i agree. we also have zoubs miles and mason down low as well when they do get beat. with the improvement of zoubs and miles and addition of mason, i like this team. still a little bit nervous, but looking forward to the rest of the season!

[CDu]

I think it would probably be a lateral move. I think that with G, Nolan would get at most 20 min/game instead of 35, and he and Jon would not be nearly as productive as they currently are now. There might still be a little of that "let's all watch G play" that showed itself at times last year.

I think that another interesting question would be what would have happened if Elliot's mom hadn't gotten sick and he was still here as opposed to Dre. They are two very different players, with Dre being a much better shooter, but Elliot with a better ability to drive and defend.

Yeah, the key to the Henderson question is how much his return would hinder the development of our "big three" on the perimeter. I think Scheyer's game would have developed like this anyway given that he was handed the keys to the offense. Singler would possibly have split more of his time between the 3 and 4, which I think would be a good thing for him. The question would have been Smith's development. How much better would he be than last year? I think the move from PG would still have resulted in a much better player, even with Henderson being the starter.

And this is all ignoring the possibility that Henderson would have continued to develop into the new team concept. Who's to say he couldn't have gelled perfectly into the offense with Scheyer running the show? I mean, Smith and Scheyer both made big leaps forward in their games. Why couldn't Henderson do something similar?

[sagegrouse]

Sorry for the errors in the above post. I meant 2010 rather than 2009 and "frontcourt" for MP1 et al. and not "backcourt."

sagegrouse

[MChambers]

Way, way too early to tell. Many Duke teams in recent years have done very well through early January. Many of them have been ranked among the top teams in both Sagarin and Pomeroy at this point in the season. I remember lots of posts from folks here about how some of those teams seemed happier, more team-oriented than the team from the year before. I see many similar posts this year.

I think the key is whether the defense keeps improving, especially in reducing fouling, and whether the offense develops more through the low post. Of course, it also depends on whether the team stays healthy.

I think this team is at least as talented as any Duke team over the last five years, however, so I am optimistic, but guardedly so.

[superdave]

2006 was a two-man team but they were two *really* good men. 2010 has three really good players but I don't think any of them are at JJ/ Shelden's level.

I remember in the 2005-6 season when a lot of posters to these here boards were basically calling for JJ to shoot 30 3-ptrs a game because our other offensive options were so limited.

This team is more athletic at pretty much every position than the 2006 team, more balanced and doesnt just rely on one exceptional big man inside to erase defensive mistakes.

Ceiling: 2010>2006

[CDu]

I remember in the 2005-6 season when a lot of posters to these here boards were basically calling for JJ to shoot 30 3-ptrs a game because our other offensive options were so limited.

This team is more athletic at pretty much every position than the 2006 team, more balanced and doesnt just rely on one exceptional big man inside to erase defensive mistakes.

Ceiling: 2010>2006

I agree with this, especially the last part. The 2006 team played about as well as you could imagine given that they had to play about 20 mpg with either a 6'2" guy (Nelson) or a 6'6" guy (Melchionni) at PF, and given that they had only two consistent offensive threats. The level of consistent excellence that team achieved through the regular season was just astounding. They had many flaws, but they masked them well enough for most of the season to win a ton of games. In fact, what was most impressive about that 2006 team was the way they just willed themselves to so many close wins throughout the year, despite not being the clearly superior team.

This team has far fewer flaws. They have fewer able bodies on the perimeter, but those bodies have a better distribution of talent. They have a lot more depth up front, even though that depth isn't as polished/experienced as the 2006 team. The result has been a lot more blowout wins to this point.

[Classof06]

As you can tell by my name, I'm a little biased towards the 2006 squad and still cannot believe they lost to LSU in the Sweet 16. The 05-06 squad was more talented and better than this year, it just didn't work out in March.

I think this year's perimeter of Scheyer, Singler and Smith is flat out better than that of Dockery, Redick and Paulus. But for this year's team to be better than 05-06 overall, one of our frontcourt players (specifically the Plumlee brothers) will have to emerge offensively over the course of the season. Not necessarily to the level of Shelden's play, but enough to take legitimate pressure of our outstanding perimeter.

[hq2]

This year's team is more balanced, but doesn't have anyone like J.J. who can take a game over. The '06 team had a problem with 'tweener D; they couldn't stop dribble penetration at the 2 and 3 positions. They also relied too heavily on 3 point shooting. The frontcourt D is maybe a little better this year being deeper ('06 was great with Shelden and McBobs, besides that not much), the backcourt this year is overall about the same; add Scheyer and Nolan and that's about the equal of J.J. and everyone else. Overall, the '06 team may turn out to have been better in the conference, but this team doesn't have the obvious deficiencies that made a 6 game NCAA run unlikely for that one. I'd say that's how it'll turn out too; not as good in the conference for this team, but no obvious weaknesses that will stop them in any particular game in the NCAAs.
Even their one potential weakness (over reliance on the triple S's) has reasonable remedies in Lance, Andre and the Plumlees, so come tourney time I think we'll be in good shape.

[Devilsfan]

A very smart point guard leading Coach K's team is the key. We've always had good tallent now we have smart good leadership. The "J" plus two should take us far into March with Mason and Andre getting better and better through on court experience.

[kingboozer]

This year's team is more balanced, but doesn't have anyone like J.J. who can take a game over. The '06 team had a problem with 'tweener D; they couldn't stop dribble penetration at the 2 and 3 positions. They also relied too heavily on 3 point shooting. The frontcourt D is maybe a little better this year being deeper ('06 was great with Shelden and McBobs, besides that not much), the backcourt this year is overall about the same; add Scheyer and Nolan and that's about the equal of J.J. and everyone else. Overall, the '06 team may turn out to have been better in the conference, but this team doesn't have the obvious deficiencies that made a 6 game NCAA run unlikely for that one. I'd say that's how it'll turn out too; not as good in the conference for this team, but no obvious weaknesses that will stop them in any particular game in the NCAAs.
Even their one potential weakness (over reliance on the triple S's) has reasonable remedies in Lance, Andre and the Plumlees, so come tourney time I think we'll be in good shape.

I agree 100%, without a J.J. we aren't going to come close to that 2006 squad.
As far as the big dance is concerned I wouldn't rule out a repeat as conference tourny champs, but I just dont see this team going past the elite eight. There are just too many other good teams out there that can dominate.

[jv001]

I agree 100%, without a J.J. we aren't going to come close to that 2006 squad.
As far as the big dance is concerned I wouldn't rule out a repeat as conference tourny champs, but I just dont see this team going past the elite eight. There are just too many other good teams out there that can dominate.

the poster thinks this Duke team will have a better shot in the ncaa tournament than the 06 team. More balance and better overall defense. Go Duke!

[kingboozer]

the poster thinks this Duke team will have a better shot in the ncaa tournament than the 06 team. More balance and better overall defense. Go Duke!

yes and yes. now if we could just add J.J. to this squad.. GO DUKE!

[Kedsy]

I agree 100%, without a J.J. we aren't going to come close to that 2006 squad.
As far as the big dance is concerned I wouldn't rule out a repeat as conference tourny champs, but I just dont see this team going past the elite eight. There are just too many other good teams out there that can dominate.

Too many? Who? Kansas would be hard to match up with. Texas and Kentucky are very talented but very young. Who else can "dominate" so much that we wouldn't have a chance against them?

[uh_no]

Too many? Who? Kansas would be hard to match up with. Texas and Kentucky are very talented but very young. Who else can "dominate" so much that we wouldn't have a chance against them?

Hmm....Georgia Tech maybe?

:P

[Kedsy]

Hmm....Georgia Tech maybe?

:P

I know you're joking, but do you honestly think Georgia Tech dominated us?

[NYC Duke Fan]

I am probably in the minority and will most likely get criticized, but I just do not think that this team can win the NCAA tournament. Might be a Sweet 16, Elite 8 or maybe even a Final 4 , but I do not think that we can win 5 straight games against very good compettition. We still depend a lot on the 3s and if we are off as in today's game we will lose. I also do not think that we are as athletic up front as some of the top teams are.

Just my opinion and as I said initially, I am sure that I will be criticized for my opinion.

[Newton_14]

Nothing against the 2006 team but I feel this years team is better. JJ and The Landlord were great players for sure, but the supporting cast around them was suspect. As great as they were, that 06 team could have lost 7 or 8 games. On many nights JJ and Shelden literally willed them to victory.

The point guard play, defense, and bench of the 2010 team would negate the Big 2 of Shelden and JJ. The 2010 team would use Nolan, Jon, and LT to harass JJ all night, and our 4 post players would out last Shelden and a freshman McBob.

Plus we still have not seen the finished product that is to be this 2010 team. If we get improvement from Mason, Andre, and Miles, and get Kyle going again, this team will be a very tough out and will have a good chance to win more games than 06 as well as advance farther in the tourney.

[KyDevilinIL]

I am probably in the minority and will most likely get criticized, but I just do not think that this team can win the NCAA tournament. Might be a Sweet 16, Elite 8 or maybe even a Final 4 , but I do not think that we can win 5 straight games against very good compettition. We still depend a lot on the 3s and if we are off as in today's game we will lose. I also do not think that we are as athletic up front as some of the top teams are.

Just my opinion and as I said initially, I am sure that I will be criticized for my opinion.

It takes six straight victories to win an NCAA title, unless you aren't counting the first-round game as "very good competition." Which, as we learned as recently as 2007, isn't always a wise assumption to make.

This team is better built for an NCAA Tournament than any at Duke since at least 2006, and perhaps all the way back to 2004 should Mason develop into a scoring threat and we stay healthy.

Winning a championship is an extremely unlikely result for every team every year. That's why only one team gets to do it each season. But far worse teams than this Duke squad have made Final Fours, and they've done it in seasons when the overall quality of the field is much better than this year's crop appears right now. Get these Blue Devils to a FF and I'll be ready to take on all comers.

[dukemsu]

Too many? Who? Kansas would be hard to match up with. Texas and Kentucky are very talented but very young. Who else can "dominate" so much that we wouldn't have a chance against them?


Kansas, Kentucky, and Texas are the only teams I don't like Duke's chances against on a neutral.

Kansas is an obvious choice, experience with Collins and Aldrich and a ridiculous talent in Henry.

Texas' lone weakness is foul shooting. They really do everything else well, and aren't overly dependant on any given player.

Kentucky, in an elimination game against Duke, would be so keyed up behind Cal's Us Against Everyone motivation and their fanbase's frightening hatred of Duke that they would either self-destruct from the intensity or be absolutely unbeatable. You have to think Cal is just praying for a shot(s) at the Establishment in March: the Establishment being (and I'm not picking any order) Kansas, Duke, or UNC.

dukemsu