PDA

View Full Version : MBB: Georgia Tech 71, Duke 67 Post Game Thread



Pages : [1] 2

Bob Green
01-09-2010, 04:20 PM
Discuss the game here.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 04:22 PM
Two reasons:

1) Not attacking the press consistently
2) Missing wide open shot after wide open shot

There you have it.

_Gary
01-09-2010, 04:22 PM
I think Ferryfor50 said it best:

"Outrebounded, out-hustled, out-worked."

Sprinkle in a very poor shooting night from 3 and the outcome isn't all that shocking. Frankly, the fact that we were right there with them at the end is actually encouraging. Not sure GT could play much better or we could shoot much worse from the outside. No panic from me after this one.

uh_no
01-09-2010, 04:22 PM
2) Missing wide open shot after wide open shot

There you have it.

#1 reason why we lose when to teams we shouldn't....is the resons why its risky to build teams so built off the three

jipops
01-09-2010, 04:23 PM
Very good defensive performance, terrible offense. Hard to win in the ACC on the road when you can't throw it in the ocean.

Not real happy about losing all our true road games so far. But I would be much more worried (and I'm not at all b/c of today) if it were our defense that was struggling.

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 04:23 PM
I'm still not sure that this team is a different as everyone thinks. Final Four teams don't shoot 47% of their shots in a game from three. You should be able to shoot 26% from three and beat a team that looks like a 5-8 seed right now.

NashvilleDevil
01-09-2010, 04:24 PM
And flaming will begin in 5,4,3,2.......

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 04:24 PM
saw a lot to be excited about in this game. Still, the fact that we got the production we did out of Mason and still lost this one tells you something about how much we didn't get out of the guys who have to really carry this team.

Our big men need to be smarter about fouling, especially Miles. We must learn how to actually execute the offense down the stretch and close out the other team's possessions. Too many jacked up threes and extra GT possessions down the stretch.

But most importantly, we have to figure out a way to get consistent offense out of singler. his problems have gone on too long to be a fluke. There has to be some way to get him going again. This team can be great but not without maximum efficiency and we don't come anywhere close to that without Kyle being Kyle.

gep
01-09-2010, 04:24 PM
looks like one *big* difference was FT's... GT was 22 of 28... Duke only 9 of 14...

Coballs
01-09-2010, 04:25 PM
3 reasons:
1) GT too physical in this one
2) Poor 3 point shooting
3) Singler was awful

If Singler had come to play, we do not lose.

0-2 in true road games is slightly concerning.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 04:25 PM
#1 reason why we lose when to teams we shouldn't....is the resons why its risky to build teams so built off the three


Obviously we are not built off the three this year (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=346835&postcount=29). We got a lot of open threes this game and missed most of them. The statistic will also be inflated since we were forced to throw up a lot of threes in the last minute. What would you have us do as a top 10 three point shooting team in the nation with wide open threes... pull it back out? We just couldn't hit. It happens.

FireOgilvie
01-09-2010, 04:25 PM
Great game by Mason, but it couldn't make up for the multiple problems we had in this one.

Surprised at how poorly LT and Singler played. Lawal killed us. He looked great today. The ball bounced GT's way today.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 04:26 PM
Very good defensive performance, terrible offense. Hard to win in the ACC on the road when you can't throw it in the ocean.

Not real happy about losing all our true road games so far. But I would be much more worried (and I'm not at all b/c of today) if it were our defense that was struggling.

Defense doesn't end until you have the ball. Gtech got way too many second chances. We have to close out possessions better. Still, if this is the defensive effort we get all year, it should be enough to win. I think the real letdown in this game was offensively. That part has to get better for us to be really good.

Oriole Way
01-09-2010, 04:26 PM
One of Singler's worst games ever.

Glad to see Plumlee have a great game, but he really needs to be playing at the same time as his brother, in other words, both Plumlees need to start, and the sooner the better. Zoubek and Thomas are solid role players, but Mason and Miles are substantially more talented and the future of this program. Really hope to see Mason in the starting lineup immediately.

This loss was disheartening because once again, Duke owns the pre-conference schedule and as soon as the competition improves on the road, Duke loses. I hope Duke improves, but this looks like a broken record right now.

Until today, I haven't been impressed by winning all of our games thus far while Coach K fails to develop Dawkins and Kelly, and running Scheyer and Singler into the ground with heavy minutes in blowouts. Dawkins and Kelly need to get more time going forward so that we aren't so reliant on the three S's, and so that those two talented kids get acclimated to ACC games and DEVELOP. As we saw today, when two or more of our top 3 scorers have bad games, and we have foul trouble, we need quality depth to help win games. Today was a bad omen for ther rest of the conference slate, but if K realizes that he needs to develop his bench (not holding my breath), we'll won't see Duke realize it's fullest potential.

ForeverBlowingBubbles
01-09-2010, 04:27 PM
Miles 4-4
Mason 5-6
Zoub - 2-3
11 - 13


Rest of team 15 - 47

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 04:27 PM
I'm sure there will be the usual teeth-gnashing after any loss, but I'm viewing this one as a real teachable moment. Think of all the things that went against Duke:
-Singler/Smith playing their worst games of the season.
-Dreadful 3-point shooting.
-Unusually poor FT shooting.
-Tons of foul trouble.
-Fifth game in 12 days.
-2 road trips (with a stop back in Durham) in four days.
-And, most importantly, playing a good team on the road.

And after all of this, Duke was right there in the end. We didn't get a couple of key stops, missed a couple of wide-open looks and then didn't execute a couple of late-game scenarios well. These are the situations that -- you hope -- Coach K will use to build this team for March success. Clearly, Duke can overcome all the problems above because, again, an a defensive rebound against an airball here, an open 3-pointer in the final minute there, and Duke wins. This team needed to play a close game; needed to go through an experience where a lot of things went wrong. It would have been much, much better to win that game to gain confidence. But this is the type of loss you can build on.

dyedwab
01-09-2010, 04:27 PM
Tech beat us to all the loose balls in the 2nd half. That was as much of a problem as our bad shooting

bluebuck
01-09-2010, 04:27 PM
Very good defensive performance, terrible offense. Hard to win in the ACC on the road when you can't throw it in the ocean.

Not real happy about losing all our true road games so far. But I would be much more worried (and I'm not at all b/c of today) if it were our defense that was struggling.

I agree - I would be more worried if it were our defense that was struggling. We all know and have seen how great our offense can play so to see our defense play well too is good even in this type of game and loss.

I'm not to worried after this game, the boys will be back in top form and come March we won't even remember that we lost to Tech.

Lord Ash
01-09-2010, 04:27 PM
Tough to win when two weapons are misfiring... with both Nolan and Kyle struggling, and the tough tough D from GTech, that would have been very, very hard to win.

Nice to see Mason playing well, he is clearly improving with each game. Glad to see Dre get some minutes early; would love to see him hit a few of those threes.

Tough game. GTech seems like the type of team which has sunk us in the post season a few times over the last four or five years... athletic, long, strong... I am sorry we couldn't close them out.

CDu
01-09-2010, 04:28 PM
We're not a very deep offensive team. So when we get 6-23 shooting from two of our big three, it's going to be a tough game. Especially when Scheyer isn't exactly lights-out either. Shooting 6-28 from 3 as a team was pretty awful too.

Tough loss. We played reasonable defense but got killed on the boards in the second half.

It was a really nice game from Mason Plumlee. He started looking a lot more confident out there today. Hopefully he continues to progress. That will help a lot, because the offense has been almost completely reliant on the big three to create all the buckets up to this point in the season.

YourLandlord
01-09-2010, 04:28 PM
I think Ferryfor50 said it best:

"Outrebounded, out-hustled, out-worked."



Disagree, they were just more physical than us. And when they're physically larger at most positions, when you lose that battle it's not because they tried harder -- they're just bigger.

miramar
01-09-2010, 04:29 PM
Singler was 2-13 and Smith was 4-10 after hitting a couple of shots towards the end. The team was 21% from 3 PT.

Kyle is now shooting 41% on the year, which is a real concern.

natedog4ever
01-09-2010, 04:29 PM
I think it's safe to say that Singler is not as effective playing in this year's offensive structure. The coaches have to do something to get him some easier offense, because Jon can't do it himself, now or in March.

soccerstud2210
01-09-2010, 04:30 PM
as frustrating as this loss is, its ok. its early. teachable. and encouraging because despite being out hustled out rebounded and out shot and out played, we were right there with a chance up until the last seconds.

sucks, but hopefully this makes us better in the end

Saratoga2
01-09-2010, 04:30 PM
It was a very physical game that saw Scheyer have another very good game and I think Mason and Miles Plumlee also played very well. They are emerging as players who can defend as well as handle the ball and score some. Dawkins is also pretty green and seems to have lost his touch for the time being.

Unfortunately, neither Singler or Smith had stong offensive games and seemed to have difficulty dealing with the pressure applied. Both wound up turning the ball over too often, giving Tech extra opportunities.

Our defense was solid throughout, with the final score inflated by all the FT they shot at the end.

Give GT credit. They hit all their free throws down the stretch, giving us no chance to get the lead back. Favors didn't do a lot and it was up to Gani Lawal to provide their offense and he came through.

OldSchool
01-09-2010, 04:30 PM
GT did a very good job of using their length and athleticism to take us out of our normal half-court passing offense. Their on-ball defense was very effective in making us pass to positions that were farther out from our normal comfort zone.

They were greatly helped by the fact that the game was called loosely for much of the game. If the officials had been sticklers for bumps and reaches on the perimeter, GT could not have maintained that kind of defensive pressure.

Even with that, if the team hits 30% from 3 we win this game.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 04:30 PM
One of Singler's worst games ever.

Glad to see Plumlee have a great game, but he really needs to be playing at the same time as his brother, in other words, both Plumlees need to start, and the sooner the better. Zoubek and Thomas are solid role players, but Mason and Miles are substantially more talented and the future of this program. Really hope to see Mason in the starting lineup immediately.

Strongly disagree. We need either Z or LT on the floor most of the game for defense.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 04:31 PM
Two reasons:

1) Not attacking the press consistently
2) Missing wide open shot after wide open shot

There you have it.

I think we got a lot better against the press in the 2nd half. i'm actually not too worried about that anymore -- especially with mason out there. with his size attacking the press w/the dribble, team will back off that in a hurry. he'll kill 'em.

Agree we missed a lot of open shots but i don't think many of those open looks we had down the stretch were actually good ones. jon and kyle both forced shots down the stretch from way way outside, and completely out of the offense. kyle's were especially deep on multiple occasions.

I'm more concerned that we seemed to regress to 3balling wildly when things got tight -- especially singler.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 04:31 PM
#1 reason why we lose when to teams we shouldn't....is the resons why its risky to build teams so built off the three

Do you really think Georgia Tech is a team "we shouldn't lose to?" They were ranked 17th and playing at home. Going by your standard, then, there's no game remaining on Duke's schedule that the team should lose. Also, only 32.6% of Duke's shots are 3-pointers -- 154th in the country. So there are 153 other teams that rely on the 3 more than Duke.

_Gary
01-09-2010, 04:31 PM
Disagree, they were just more physical than us. And when they're physically larger at most positions, when you lose that battle it's not because they tried harder -- they're just bigger.

They are very physical. I don't deny that. But I also maintain they played with more intensity and aggressiveness. Agree to disagree if you want.

Oriole Way
01-09-2010, 04:31 PM
Singler was 2-13 and Smith was 4-10 after hitting a couple of shots towards the end. The team was 21% from 3 PT.

Kyle is now shooting 41% on the year, which is a real concern.

It's shouldn't be too surprising considering he's playing on the perimeter now. Honestly, he's a better player playing the 4 spot on offense, but given the makeup of the rest of the team (having so many big men and a lack of a true 3), Kyle plays almost exclusively on the wing.

I do agree in the sense Singler has simply not looked good this season. He has regressed, which I really didn't expect.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 04:32 PM
I have questions about shot selection down the stretch... surprisingly by Jon. I'm sure that will be addressed tonight or tomorrow.

soccerstud2210
01-09-2010, 04:32 PM
Disagree, they were just more physical than us. And when they're physically larger at most positions, when you lose that battle it's not because they tried harder -- they're just bigger.

disagree. they out hustled us plain and simple. and pushed us around on the boards.

ya the ball bounced their way a lot today, but thats no excuse

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 04:32 PM
GT did a very good job of using their length and athleticism to take us out of our normal half-court passing offense. Their on-ball defense was very effective in making us pass to positions that were farther out from our normal comfort zone.

They were greatly helped by the fact that the game was called loosely for much of the game. If the officials had been sticklers for bumps and reaches on the perimeter, GT could not have maintained that kind of defensive pressure.

Even with that, if the team hits 30% from 3 we win this game.

We made their D a lot better by never forcing the issue and working to get into attacking positions on the offensive end. we were way too passive today. nolan is the biggest factor in eliminating that problem. All he needs is confidence. You can see it. It's frustrating to know he's so close to being really great.

Duvall
01-09-2010, 04:33 PM
They are very physical. I don't deny that. But I also maintain they played with more intensity and aggressiveness. Agree to disagree if you want.

Foul trouble. Can't dive after loose balls if it might lead to a DQ.

dukeblue1206
01-09-2010, 04:33 PM
I think it is most everyone can see that Kyle has struggled with the change to playing on the wing. He is doing fine defensively with the change but on offense, he is having a hard time driving. Keeps getting stipped because he can not get his shoulder past his defender like he did when he had a power foward chasing him outside. It is just going to take him some time to find his go to moves from certain spots on the floor with someone smaller guarding him.

I also hope that this game with get Mason into the starting lineup. He was a bright spot in the game.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 04:35 PM
Do you really think Georgia Tech is a team "we shouldn't lose to?" They were ranked 17th and playing at home. Going by your standard, then, there's no game remaining on Duke's schedule that the team should lose. Also, only 32.6% of Duke's shots are 3-pointers -- 154th in the country. So there are 153 other teams that rely on the 3 more than Duke.

we did regress into wildly hoisting 3s down the stretch though. And we were too passive on offense in general. However, this year I think that problem is fixable. Last year, I really don't think it was.

Oriole Way
01-09-2010, 04:35 PM
Strongly disagree. We need either Z or LT on the floor most of the game for defense.

I strongly disagree as well. I think both Plumlees can turn into strong defenders, and already bring a lot of good defense to the table as it is, and the defense both Z and LT provide can also be utilized coming off the bench. Either way, it's more an issue of talent and the long-term outlook for this team. Miles and Mason are more talented than Zoubek and Thomas, plain and simple. More importantly, I am convinced that the Plumlee brothers will make each other better playing at the same time. They already have chemistry, and they complement each other very well on both ends of the floor.

I guarantee you that you can expect more games like this from Thomas going forward against ACC competition. Seeing Miles and Mason work together makes me excited for the team's prospects, but they need to be on the floor together for that to happen.

Stray Gator
01-09-2010, 04:36 PM
IMO, the main problem that did us in today was the maddening inability to corral loose balls and rebounds. Time and again, GT players outhustled, or outpositioned, or outmuscled our players for the ball. If an equal number of those contested possessions go to Duke instead of GT, that alone would probably represent at least a 6-8 point swing.

CMARTZ
01-09-2010, 04:36 PM
I don't mean to suggest that our offense was effective in this game, but the outcome could have been different had a few of the many blocked/air-balled GT shots not landed directly in the hands of a guy under the basket...

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 04:36 PM
Obviously we are not built off the three this year (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=346835&postcount=29). We got a lot of open threes this game and missed most of them. The statistic will also be inflated since we were forced to throw up a lot of threes in the last minute. What would you have us do as a top 10 three point shooting team in the nation with wide open threes... pull it back out? We just couldn't hit. It happens.

How can you say that we aren't built off of the three right now. We we're shooting 42-45% of our FG's from three even before the last minute. That number didn't change much throughout. It's even a bigger problem because we did it against a team that was daring us to take it inside with the half court pressure. If they had played a zone the entire game, I could understand it. But with as well as Mason was playing, we could have dribbled the ball inside much more to get easy looks for him.

Kyle needed to try and get to the bucket aggressively. If that meant getting rejected a few times, so be it, but he also would have gotten some fouls and some chanced for layups and assists. He seemed content to back off of double teams and settle for a jump pass and made no efforts to dribble out of it. This was a pretty good game if you want kyle back next year.

OldSchool
01-09-2010, 04:37 PM
It's shouldn't be too surprising considering he's playing on the perimeter now. Honestly, he's a better player playing the 4 spot on offense, but given the makeup of the rest of the team (having so many big men and a lack of a true 3), Kyle plays almost exclusively on the wing.

I do agree in the sense Singler has simply not looked good this season. He has regressed, which I really didn't expect.

I think the problem is more that he is in a shooting slump than that he is playing out of position.

He is getting a very respectable amount of rebounds and assists from the 3 position (although he had 4 turnovers today).

I would like to see him not drive his man all the way to the rim so much, where often there are low post players moving in to help defend, but pull up now and then and just pop an 8-footer over the defender.

JaMarcus Russell
01-09-2010, 04:38 PM
Do you really think Georgia Tech is a team "we shouldn't lose to?" They were ranked 17th and playing at home. Going by your standard, then, there's no game remaining on Duke's schedule that the team should lose. Also, only 32.6% of Duke's shots are 3-pointers -- 154th in the country. So there are 153 other teams that rely on the 3 more than Duke.

Two excellent points, Jumbo. I have been saying for a long time that this was a potential roadblock after two games against legit teams in the past 6 days. Along with the Clemson road game, this frightened me more than any other game left on our schedule.

CDu
01-09-2010, 04:40 PM
Do you really think Georgia Tech is a team "we shouldn't lose to?" They were ranked 17th and playing at home. Going by your standard, then, there's no game remaining on Duke's schedule that the team should lose. Also, only 32.6% of Duke's shots are 3-pointers -- 154th in the country. So there are 153 other teams that rely on the 3 more than Duke.

Sorry to nitpick, but according to Ken Pomeroy we are favored in every single game the rest of the year. So it's actually true that there is no game remaining that we should lose. And to your first question, we were favored today as well according to Pomeroy. So we shouldn't have lost that.

Now, it's completely understandable why we lost. We happened to have a horrible shooting game (which shouldn't happen, right?). But saying we shouldn't lose to this team doesn't mean that it's incomprehensible that we could lose to this team. There won't be a game the rest of the year that we should lose (until the NCAA tournament), but there are many games that we could lose.

I agree with the point that we're not typically too reliant on the three. But it should be noted that nearly half of our shot attempts today were three (well above our season average). So today we were in fact too reliant on the 3, especially given how poorly we shot it. But that's partly because Tech played very physical defense and made it tough for us to get better looks.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 04:40 PM
One of Singler's worst games ever.

Glad to see Plumlee have a great game, but he really needs to be playing at the same time as his brother, in other words, both Plumlees need to start, and the sooner the better. Zoubek and Thomas are solid role players, but Mason and Miles are substantially more talented and the future of this program. Really hope to see Mason in the starting lineup immediately.

I just picture you sitting at your computer over the past few weeks, waiting for the moment, as Zoubek and Thomas gave outstanding performances, to say "See, I told you so! The Plumlees should be starting together!"

Look, I'm the guy who has consistently said that Mason will be our fourth best player. But your comments are way off base, overlook a lot of excellent recent play from Zoubek and Thomas -- particularly Lance -- and some poor outings by Miles. None of those guys is consistent yet. As long as K keeps rotating they have, and as long as Mason continues to improve, we'll need all of them.


This loss was disheartening because once again, Duke owns the pre-conference schedule and as soon as the competition improves on the road, Duke loses. I hope Duke improves, but this looks like a broken record right now.
A broken record because of one loss? At a ranked team? With all the things I mentioned working against Duke? Sheesh.


Until today, I haven't been impressed by winning all of our games thus far while Coach K fails to develop Dawkins and Kelly, and running Scheyer and Singler into the ground with heavy minutes in blowouts. Dawkins and Kelly need to get more time going forward so that we aren't so reliant on the three S's, and so that those two talented kids get acclimated to ACC games and DEVELOP.
Oh, totally. Scheyer and Singler just look sooooo tired. I mean, I'm surprised they could still walk by the end of the game. Give me a break. He's not running them into the ground. Andre got tons of playing time early. You have absolutely no idea what he's going through off the court, and on the court, he is a defensive liability. And multiple people I trust have comented that against good teams, the speed of the game is just too much for Kelly right now, who is also a defensive liability and doesn't have a true position (again, he's Duke's fifth big). Oh, and you're also assuming the only way to devleop is by playing in game instead of, you know, learning the right way to do things in practice. In fact, why practice at all?


As we saw today, when two or more of our top 3 scorers have bad games, and we have foul trouble, we need quality depth to help win games. Today was a bad omen for ther rest of the conference slate, but if K realizes that he needs to develop his bench (not holding my breath), we'll won't see Duke realize it's fullest potential.

K consistently rotated players in and out of the game. But you're right -- we should clearly be on the lookout for games in which 2 top players will look as bad as they have in ages, and also encounter foul trouble. Oh, and we should expect to win those games. Gotcha.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 04:40 PM
IMO, the main problem that did us in today was the maddening inability to corral loose balls and rebounds. Time and again, GT players outhustled, or outpositioned, or outmuscled our players for the ball. If an equal number of those contested possessions go to Duke instead of GT, that alone would probably represent at least a 6-8 point swing.

GT is smaller than us but also stronger. I think that's a big part of it. Unfortunately, I don't think that factor will change much this year. But I think we can do a better job of boxing out and also be a bit less tentative. This was our first conference road game and I think that showed. Scheyer and, surprisingly, Mason Plumlee were the only guys who really looked comfortable out there, to me, although in Kyle's case I think it's more about being disoriented than timid/intimidated.

Greg_Newton
01-09-2010, 04:41 PM
Most important point: I really hope Nolan is okay.

To me, this was the Clemson game from last year. A big, physical, athletic, pressing team that just out-ripped every loose ball from us in their house while we couldn't hit the broad side of a barn... we kind of had our "weak faces" today, as K would say, we were reacting a split second slower than when things got sloppy.

Not to mention this was an absolute must win for them today and they were shooting unusually well (Udofia from 3, Lawal from FTs). GT played like a legit Top 10 team today... IMO, this wasn't a bad loss.

Still, we're now 0-2 on the road if I'm not mistaken. Which is slightly troubling.

Very impressed with the Plumlees. They really rose to the level of the competition. They combined for 18, which is the same as Nolan and Kyle (and on 9-10 shooting, rather than (6-23). If Scheyer had any help from either of his running mates today, this game would have been a 10 point win for us.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 04:41 PM
I think it's safe to say that Singler is not as effective playing in this year's offensive structure. The coaches have to do something to get him some easier offense, because Jon can't do it himself, now or in March.

Yah, it is becoming clearer every day that he is more in the Battier mold than the Dunleavy mold. The problem is that we can't play him major minutes at the 4 until next year...

Wander
01-09-2010, 04:43 PM
Also, only 32.6% of Duke's shots are 3-pointers -- 154th in the country. So there are 153 other teams that rely on the 3 more than Duke.

I agree that on the season we've done a good job not being overly reliant on 3s. Today, however, nearly 50% of our shots were 3s. Even that would be OK with me if they were nearly all good shots, but I thought a lot of them were Singler and even Scheyer having poor shot selection. The fact that this many 3s has been the exception rather than the rule this season gives me hope, but we really need to learn how to draw fouls better.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 04:43 PM
K consistently rotated players in and out of the game. But you're right -- we should clearly be on the lookout for games in which 2 top players will look as bad as they have in ages, and also encounter foul trouble. Oh, and we should expect to win those games. Gotcha.

Jumbo, i agree w/most of your takedowns in that post but this one I quibble with. Only because I don't think the 2 top players' bad games just came "at random" and there's nothing to be done about them. Some changes need to come -- in mentality in nolan's case and in tactics in kyle's. It's fixable this year, though.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 04:45 PM
How can you say that we aren't built off of the three right now. We we're shooting 42-45% of our FG's from three even before the last minute. That number didn't change much throughout. It's even a bigger problem because we did it against a team that was daring us to take it inside with the half court pressure. If they had played a zone the entire game, I could understand it. But with as well as Mason was playing, we could have dribbled the ball inside much more to get easy looks for him.

Kyle needed to try and get to the bucket aggressively. If that meant getting rejected a few times, so be it, but he also would have gotten some fouls and some chanced for layups and assists. He seemed content to back off of double teams and settle for a jump pass and made no efforts to dribble out of it. This was a pretty good game if you want kyle back next year.

Did you look at the numbers? Yah, we shot a lot of threes today but that is one game. We are not built on making threes. If we are, then half of the NCAA is. Do you understand that?

gofurman
01-09-2010, 04:46 PM
I'm sure there will be the usual teeth-gnashing after any loss, but I'm viewing this one as a real teachable moment. Think of all the things that went against Duke:
-Singler/Smith playing their worst games of the season.
-Dreadful 3-point shooting.
-Unusually poor FT shooting.
-Tons of foul trouble.
-Fifth game in 12 days.
-2 road trips (with a stop back in Durham) in four days.
-And, most importantly, playing a good team on the road.

And after all of this, Duke was right there in the end. We didn't get a couple of key stops, missed a couple of wide-open looks and then didn't execute a couple of late-game scenarios well. These are the situations that -- you hope -- Coach K will use to build this team for March success. Clearly, Duke can overcome all the problems above because, again, an a defensive rebound against an airball here, an open 3-pointer in the final minute there, and Duke wins. This team needed to play a close game; needed to go through an experience where a lot of things went wrong. It would have been much, much better to win that game to gain confidence. But this is the type of loss you can build on.

5 games in 12 days is pretty ridiculous - this is what I posted about elsewhere addressing Tulsa,etc... that it would lead to a loss. I am much more in favor skipping a ISU-type game and being more rested for ACC games.

One loss isn't huge I just hate to see the 35+ minute stat combined with 5 games in 12 days... that leads to tired legs.

Saratoga2
01-09-2010, 04:46 PM
I think we got a lot better against the press in the 2nd half. i'm actually not too worried about that anymore -- especially with mason out there. with his size attacking the press w/the dribble, team will back off that in a hurry. he'll kill 'em.

Agree we missed a lot of open shots but i don't think many of those open looks we had down the stretch were actually good ones. jon and kyle both forced shots down the stretch from way way outside, and completely out of the offense. kyle's were especially deep on multiple occasions.

I'm more concerned that we seemed to regress to 3balling wildly when things got tight -- especially singler.

The announcers criticized Scheyer for taking a shot from around the top of the key with 3 defenders on him and with time running down. Perhaps he was thinking that with 3 on him there might be a very good chance for our bigs to get the rebound for an easy putback. It didn't happen as we got beat to the rebound. I think he probably considered the situation before taking the shot.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 04:46 PM
I agree that on the season we've done a good job not being overly reliant on 3s. Today, however, nearly 50% of our shots were 3s. Even that would be OK with me if they were nearly all good shots, but I thought a lot of them were Singler and even Scheyer having poor shot selection. The fact that this many 3s has been the exception rather than the rule this season gives me hope, but we really need to learn how to draw fouls better.

For the Phase III thread I have been tracking three pointers. I counted 8 of 28 threes as "not open" and that included last minute threes.

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 04:46 PM
I think I should note that we started making threes in the last five minutes, so overall, this wasn't a complete disaster from three, we shot 26%, well within the realm of possibility for any given night. This isn't the Michigan game from last year when we shot something ridiculous like 12%. My worry is that when the going got tough, we had nothing to fall back on but jacking up three's.

I was also worried that as well as we have been defending inside, we failed miserably against a team with multiple inside threats. It's one thing to shut down just Booker and just Brakins, but we could only stop one out of Favors and Lawal. That worries me when we face Deon Thompson AND Ed Davis.

natedog4ever
01-09-2010, 04:47 PM
Yah, it is becoming clearer every day that he is more in the Battier mold than the Dunleavy mold. The problem is that we can't play him major minutes at the 4 until next year...

Whether it's pulling up for the 10 foot jumper or inverting him (which resulted in automatic points against ISU), something has to change. It is not just a "slump".

OldSchool
01-09-2010, 04:47 PM
I would have liked to have seen Andre used more in the second half.

With Jon, Kyle and Nolan all cold in 3-pt shooting, and the team finding it difficult to pass into the post, I would have tried to get Andre a few looks in the second half to try to knock down a few threes.

I know he was 0-2 in the first half but his form is so superior that at some point in a game he's very likely to get it going.

KyDevilinIL
01-09-2010, 04:47 PM
No reason to panic here, but it simply exposed a weakness that – just as in recent seasons - we've been able to mask with outside shooting. Which is: Our bigs aren't reliable or trustworthy enough to get down there and create a score when we need it, which would take some pressure off the shooters. Mason's game shows that he will probably be the guy to do that by the time March rolls around, but we're not there yet. Interior defense and rebounding is fine, but if this team is going to be "special," we simply have to manufacture some points down there.

I wonder if Kyle's freedom to play however and to do more or less whatever he wants has him a little confused about his role, and has him a little hesitant on offense. His drives today reminded me of J.J. as a freshman and sophomore, when his attempts to enter the lane almost always ended in disaster. It's like he's not sure what he's trying to do.

As for losing on the road again, it's not an issue yet. Twice is a coincidence, three time's a story. If we blow it at NC State, we've got a real problem. But it's not one yet.

That's about it. Road games in the conference are usually pretty hardcore, and when Duke's got so little going on offensively, they're almost impossible to win. The fact that we still could have won is encouraging.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 04:47 PM
IMO, the main problem that did us in today was the maddening inability to corral loose balls and rebounds. Time and again, GT players outhustled, or outpositioned, or outmuscled our players for the ball. If an equal number of those contested possessions go to Duke instead of GT, that alone would probably represent at least a 6-8 point swing.

I'm not sure I agree with this. A lot of what happens with loose balls ends up being a random result. In fact, I think the reason Duke was in this was precisely because Duke played hard. I thought we were outrebounded in the first half, for instance, when in fact Duke was up 20-12 in boards.

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 04:49 PM
Did you look at the numbers? Yah, we shot a lot of threes today but that is one game. We are not built on making threes. If we are, then half of the NCAA is. Do you understand that?

Being in the middle of the NCAA is fine if your a mid major team, But we are second among ACC teams and pretty high among all major conference teams. This one game is pretty important, because its the first time we saw a high pressure half court defense and a close game throughout. It's easy to not shoot threes when your up by 20.

gep
01-09-2010, 04:51 PM
Yah, it is becoming clearer every day that he is more in the Battier mold than the Dunleavy mold. The problem is that we can't play him major minutes at the 4 until next year...

Maybe this is dumb... but can Mason and Kyle change positions (when they are on the court together)... and be more effective?

darkblue2769
01-09-2010, 04:51 PM
I don't think this loss indicates anything we really need to worry about. Sure, we were missing shots, but I didn't think most were "poor shot selection" (though some definitely were). No 3 will be automatic, no matter how wide-open it is. Sometimes it just won't fall. It was unfortunate that so many came in a row, but hey, it happens. These guys are great shooters, and the shots will fall. I say keep shooting.

As for Singler, I think it's a combination both of having trouble beating his man when he's being guarded by somebody smaller, unlike the past two years, and just being in a bit of a shooting slump. We know how talented he is- he'll get past it.

Overall, though, this is probably the least upset I have been over a Duke loss in a while. Just a bad game against a good team, and we stayed in it.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 04:51 PM
Sorry to nitpick, but according to Ken Pomeroy we are favored in every single game the rest of the year. So it's actually true that there is no game remaining that we should lose. And to your first question, we were favored today as well according to Pomeroy. So we shouldn't have lost that.

Oh, I'm aware of Kenpom's numbers. You'll also note that despite Duke being "favored" in each individual game, we were projected to go 14-2 in the conference. My point was that this was an extremely loseable game coming in -- I was worried. And yes, I think you are picking at some serious nits there.

CDu
01-09-2010, 04:53 PM
Oh, I'm aware of Kenpom's numbers. You'll also note that despite Duke being "favored" in each individual game, we were projected to go 14-2 in the conference. My point was that this was an extremely loseable game coming in -- I was worried. And yes, I think you are picking at some serious nits there.

I admitted it was nitpicky. And I fully understand that we aren't expected to win all of our games. But in looking at any one particular game, we are expected to win. Obviously, standard deviation from the mean will result in the occasional loss.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 04:55 PM
Maybe this is dumb... but can Mason and Kyle change positions (when they are on the court together)... and be more effective?

No. Mason cannot be relied upon to handle the ball that far from the basket. Now we can, and I think we should, run sets in which we pull mason out high on the wing rather than the center of the court and allow Kyle to iso his man in the post more. However, Kyle simply cannot play a different position this season.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 04:56 PM
I think I should note that we started making threes in the last five minutes, so overall, this wasn't a complete disaster from three, we shot 26%, well within the realm of possibility for any given night. This isn't the Michigan game from last year when we shot something ridiculous like 12%. My worry is that when the going got tough, we had nothing to fall back on but jacking up three's.

I was also worried that as well as we have been defending inside, we failed miserably against a team with multiple inside threats. It's one thing to shut down just Booker and just Brakins, but we could only stop one out of Favors and Lawal. That worries me when we face Deon Thompson AND Ed Davis.

How did Duke "fail miserably" against a team with multiple inside threats? Favors did nothing all day. Well, he did travel a lot. And Tech had 62 points heading into the last minute, before we started fouling. We should win just about any game where the other team has 62 points with a minute to play. I'm hardly worried about Duke's interior D.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 04:57 PM
The announcers criticized Scheyer for taking a shot from around the top of the key with 3 defenders on him and with time running down. Perhaps he was thinking that with 3 on him there might be a very good chance for our bigs to get the rebound for an easy putback. It didn't happen as we got beat to the rebound. I think he probably considered the situation before taking the shot.

I understand your desire to give jon the benefit of a doubt. He's certainly earned it, within reason. But you're reaching.

He rose above it quite a bit today and deserves a lot of credit. But that was simply a bad shot. It didn't cost us the game, though. And he certainly didn't.

CDu
01-09-2010, 04:57 PM
Maybe this is dumb... but can Mason and Kyle change positions (when they are on the court together)... and be more effective?

No. Mason is a 4/5 (more of a 4 than a 5). Singler is a 4/3 (more of a 4 than a 3). Switching the two would make things worse, because Mason would be way out of position at that point.

There isn't really a switch that can be made, because we just don't have enough wing players to put Singler primarily at the 4 spot. So we're going to continue to see Singler at the 3 for the whole season. The good news is that it's not like he's terrible at the 3 spot. He's in the middle of a slump, but his season numbers are still very solid. Playing the 3 is not ideal for him (at the college level), but he can do it well enough.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 04:58 PM
Being in the middle of the NCAA is fine if your a mid major team, But we are second among ACC teams and pretty high among all major conference teams. This one game is pretty important, because its the first time we saw a high pressure half court defense and a close game throughout. It's easy to not shoot threes when your up by 20.

So what is you suggestion? Pass up the wide-open threes we got (and make no mistake -- most were wide open) and drive into a clogged up lane? That makes sense?

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 04:59 PM
How did Duke "fail miserably" against a team with multiple inside threats? Favors did nothing all day. Well, he did travel a lot. And Tech had 62 points heading into the last minute, before we started fouling. We should win just about any game where the other team has 62 points with a minute to play. I'm hardly worried about Duke's interior D.

What I was saying is that we had be shutting down the inside game of teams with only one inside scoring threat. Against a team with two, we could only stop one. The best teams in the country tend to have multiple big and/or athletic guys. We need to be able to stop more than one at a time if we want to be in Indy.

MarkD83
01-09-2010, 05:00 PM
My wife suggested that today was not a good day to be wearing blue.

UConn lost

Ky is struggling

So we need to retire the blue road jerseys.

_Gary
01-09-2010, 05:02 PM
I'm not sure I agree with this. A lot of what happens with loose balls ends up being a random result. In fact, I think the reason Duke was in this was precisely because Duke played hard. I thought we were outrebounded in the first half, for instance, when in fact Duke was up 20-12 in boards.

Yes and No. Certainly there is some randomness to loose balls. But overall I strongly feel GT wanted this one more and played like it. I'm not one of these guys that dismisses emotion, especially on the college level. GT was ramped up for this game and they did out-hustle us for most of the game, IMHO.

K-Duke
01-09-2010, 05:03 PM
So what is you suggestion? Pass up the wide-open threes we got (and make no mistake -- most were wide open) and drive into a clogged up lane? That makes sense?

This is a really good point. So many of those 3's were absolutely wide open. It was frustrating that they weren't falling, but when you're that open, you've got to take it.

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 05:04 PM
So what is you suggestion? Pass up the wide-open threes we got (and make no mistake -- most were wide open) and drive into a clogged up lane? That makes sense?

I'm suggesting that if you haven't hit much of anything all day and you are "wide open" you can probably take the extra dribble or two and shoot a mid-range shot or if somebody comes over, pass it. Nolan was missing his threes in the first half and got to the bucket in the second, until he tweaked his ankle. Kyle kept shooting threes that while they were open, were not what I would call "wide open." He was shooting directly off the catch with someone closing. That may technically be open, but you don't put your hand back on the hot stove when you already got burned.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 05:05 PM
So what is you suggestion? Pass up the wide-open threes we got (and make no mistake -- most were wide open) and drive into a clogged up lane? That makes sense?

I think one answer is more high ball screens with nolan and mason. We saw it once, nolan got a 3 out of it but had the lane if he'd wanted it.

Any answer must involve a more aggressive nolan. all he need is the confidence, imo. he's so close.

dukeblue225
01-09-2010, 05:08 PM
We really missed Lance Thomas towards the end of the game on some of Lawal's rebounds. We also got beat on hustle plays that we have to have on the road in the ACC. We also sent their team to the line with fouls towards the end of the game that were completely unnecessary. However, our defense was good except for a lack of hustle and rebounding at times.
Obviously, Scheyer was the only part of The Law Firm that really got his offense going. Although Smith and most notably, Singler, did not play well at all, we need to get more production from Dawkins and Kelly down the road.
By far the brightest spot of the game was Mason's play. There isn't much to worry about right now. But we need to hope the offense does improve by March. And most importantly we need to take pride in rebounding and hustle plays. Which are Lance's speciality, proving we need to keep him out of foul trouble.

Wander
01-09-2010, 05:09 PM
Favors did nothing all day.

Understandably, we're all looking for reasons we lost, but this point should be talked about at least a little. Probably the biggest positive to take away from this game.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 05:09 PM
I don't think this loss indicates anything we really need to worry about. Sure, we were missing shots, but I didn't think most were "poor shot selection" (though some definitely were). No 3 will be automatic, no matter how wide-open it is. Sometimes it just won't fall. It was unfortunate that so many came in a row, but hey, it happens. These guys are great shooters, and the shots will fall. I say keep shooting.

As for Singler, I think it's a combination both of having trouble beating his man when he's being guarded by somebody smaller, unlike the past two years, and just being in a bit of a shooting slump. We know how talented he is- he'll get past it.

Overall, though, this is probably the least upset I have been over a Duke loss in a while. Just a bad game against a good team, and we stayed in it.

Well, the forced 3s down the stretch were poor shots. I expected better leadership from our vets today. Only Jon looked comfortable on the road, to me. But, that is fixable. It should get much better actually.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 05:11 PM
What I was saying is that we had be shutting down the inside game of teams with only one inside scoring threat. Against a team with two, we could only stop one. The best teams in the country tend to have multiple big and/or athletic guys. We need to be able to stop more than one at a time if we want to be in Indy.

And I think that's a completely unrealistic contention. Lawal had 21. So? Scheyer had 25. You can win a game where one guy scores 21. And, again, with 2 minutes to go, this game was 60-60. Duke didn't lose the game on defense, and certainly didn't lose because it can't stop multiple inside scoring threats.

bird
01-09-2010, 05:12 PM
My wife suggested that today was not a good day to be wearing blue.

UConn lost

Ky is struggling

So we need to retire the blue road jerseys.

I was unhappy losing wearing our Duke blues. Blue having been jinxed, we may be seeing all black all seaon. And I really like Duke blue.

Vincetaylor
01-09-2010, 05:13 PM
This game doesn't bother me at all, other than the fact that we haven't won a game on another team's homecourt yet. Singler does need to turn it up a few notches, but I am confident he will. Scheyer was carrying way too much weight on his shoulders today and forced several shots. We need more balance in the offense going forward.

cspan37421
01-09-2010, 05:14 PM
At 60-60 I thought, this would have been a lot more entertaining if it was 80-80.

Most of it has been said, but let me add the following

- I was sad to see Kyle not attack the basket until very late (which led to shooting FTs)

- Zoubek only need breathe on someone to get called for a foul. And in general, I felt we got called for tiny bumps from behind whereas GT could smother someone in a double team with all kind of slaps on the arm and not get called.

- that one foul Nolan committed on the endline - where he forearmed a guy in the front? I think he was expecting a lot more resistance. The guy flopped - after a bit of contact - and it worked.

- With all the bigs we have, we really should develop a repertoire of plays for them. We shot too many 3s today, and if it is true that we haven't generally relied on the 3 too much THIS season, I would suggest our re-embracing it didn't work.

- is Wojo sick? His cheeks looked really puffy, and he was still in excellent shape last summer.

- I like how the Bros. Plumlee worked together.

- I like Mason's straight-up blocking style.

- I like how our bigs aren't afraid to dribble a little bit when wide open.

- Jon's shooting percentage wasn't great today, but he brought the effort.

- I didn't like how we failed to adjust after halftime. Even with a small lead, it clearly wasn't going well offensively. We did not adjust - or if we did, we got out-adjusted.

- Break the press! Every team that can is going to press us aggressively and dare the refs to call fouls. That's been the book on us for a very long time.

- Fastbreak points? We didn't get steals from ball pressure. Of our steals, 3 of 4 were from guys named Plumlee. This is a team that turned it over 19 times to UT-Chatt; they only turned it over 15 times today. So I'm not convinced our defense was really so great.

Hopefully the boys are just tired, but hey, deep bench, why so tired? (another thread).

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 05:14 PM
I think one answer is more high ball screens with nolan and mason. We saw it once, nolan got a 3 out of it but had the lane if he'd wanted it.

Any answer must involve a more aggressive nolan. all he need is the confidence, imo. he's so close.

I think Nolan has been extremely aggressive all year. I don't think that's the issue. There's no sense in his putting his head down and driving into the teeth of a set defense or forcing shots that way. I still think we should be inverting our offense more with Kyle in the post, but I also strongly believe that if a good shooter is wide open from 3-point range, he needs to take that shot. Threes and layups are the most efficient shots in basketball. If you get good shooters good shots, you're doing a good job. Sometimes they miss.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 05:15 PM
I actually feel pretty good coming out of this loss. I don't think we lost because of any fundamental problem with this team. Tech didn't expose any kind of huge weakness that we will likely have all season. Additionally, I am really focused on two things until the 1st Carolina game. Plumlee development and the use of Kyle Singler. This game was great for the Plumlees. There was a lot to like. They were a good team that got some bounces, hit threes they normally miss, and benefitted from the way the game was reffed and our inability to hit open shots.

I feel okay.

Oriole Way
01-09-2010, 05:15 PM
I just picture you sitting at your computer over the past few weeks, waiting for the moment, as Zoubek and Thomas gave outstanding performances, to say "See, I told you so! The Plumlees should be starting together!"

Look, I'm the guy who has consistently said that Mason will be our fourth best player. But your comments are way off base, overlook a lot of excellent recent play from Zoubek and Thomas -- particularly Lance -- and some poor outings by Miles. None of those guys is consistent yet. As long as K keeps rotating they have, and as long as Mason continues to improve, we'll need all of them.

Picture whatever you want, but I'm just stating what the team needs if they want to achieve their goals and win the most games.

Zoubek and Thomas have been playing great, but it has been against inferior competition. ACC teams will give them trouble, even in a down year, because ACC big men are bigger, more athletic and more talented than the out of conference opponents they have faced (with the exception of a team like UConn). Zoubek and Thomas have, without fail, and every single year of their careers, performed better in the pre-conference portion of the schedule. Would you disagree with that claim simply by looking back at their careers and how they have typically performed? If Zoubek and Thomas continue to play well, or if they don't significantly become less effective during ACC play I will gladly admit that I am wrong.


A broken record because of one loss? At a ranked team? With all the things I mentioned working against Duke? Sheesh.

Absolutely. So far this season has been a carbon copy of each of the past two seasons. The only main difference is that this year's team is more talented, but Coach K needs to better manage his roster and minutes distribution in order to avoid losing games on the road in conference. Plumlee's injury was a huge setback for him and for the team, but he's rounding into shape and he should be starting from now on. I am not blaming K for that, I just hope he realizes that the Plumlee brothers should both be starting and playing together sooner rather than later.


Oh, totally. Scheyer and Singler just look sooooo tired. I mean, I'm surprised they could still walk by the end of the game. Give me a break. He's not running them into the ground. Andre got tons of playing time early. You have absolutely no idea what he's going through off the court, and on the court, he is a defensive liability. And multiple people I trust have comented that against good teams, the speed of the game is just too much for Kelly right now, who is also a defensive liability and doesn't have a true position (again, he's Duke's fifth big). Oh, and you're also assuming the only way to devleop is by playing in game instead of, you know, learning the right way to do things in practice. In fact, why practice at all?

When did I say Singler and Scheyer looked tired? I just said they have played too many minutes in blowouts. And it's hard to dispute people who think that Singler each of the past two seasons and J.J. Redick his senior season wore down considerably when it mattered the most. I'm more concerned becuase those precoious 3-5 minutes can be used to play and develop Dawkins and Kelly.

In regards to Dawkins, I'm not sure on what planet 9 minutes for the entire game constitutes "tons of playing time" at any point, but based on where I'm from Dawkins at no point saw a ton of minutes. He was inserted early for about 2 minutes and taken out. Not even LeBron James could make much of an impact on a game in that amount of time.

I am short on time, so I would like to discuss Dawkins and Kelly with you more extensively at a later time. But to say that Dawkins got "tons of playing time early" is absolutely ridiculous and simply not true.


K consistently rotated players in and out of the game. But you're right -- we should clearly be on the lookout for games in which 2 top players will look as bad as they have in ages, and also encounter foul trouble. Oh, and we should expect to win those games. Gotcha.

Just rotating players in and out for less than 2 or 3 minutes at a time does not mean that several players are getting a substantial amount of minutes. You seem to have a habit of putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about what I think, out of context. I will just say that I didn't think, nor say, that we should beat GT with our top 2 players struggling. But losing on a tough opponents home court early in ACC play has been a trend for the past few seasons, and I think there are ways to make sure the trend doesn't continue. It involves developing the bench more, and it is something I would like to discuss later on.

House G
01-09-2010, 05:17 PM
Georgia Tech is typical of many teams around the country with regard to their strength and phyicality (NBA-like). For years, Duke has had trouble banging with some of these teams because we have either not had the bruisers or we have only had one or two and they constantly had to be wary of foul trouble (Sheldon William, Carlos Boozer come to mind as exceptions). We have tended to have finesse teams and coaches like Hewitt have tried to bully us. I am encouraged by our depth in the frontcourt this year and believe we will not be "beaten up" as readily as in past years.

This game reminded me of the type we are apt to encounter in the second round of the NCAA tournament. Fortunately, these games are (supposedly) played on neutral courts and perhaps a lot of the mugging :mad: will not be allowed.

I believe our coaches and players will learn from this game and that we will continue to improve throughout the year. Remember, our first national championship team lost 7 games during the regular season (if I remember correctly), not to suggest any similarity between the two teams.

RockyMtDevil
01-09-2010, 05:17 PM
I've been saying this for three weeks and today exposed the question once again, How does this Duke team reach another level and can they? Look, we are a good basketball team, nothing to slouch at. But is there any upside to this team beyond what we've already witnessed? I don't know. Yes, Mason can get better and obviously Kyle cannot play much worse, but how does this team take major leaps forward heading into intense conference play?

Juxtapose our team currently with a young and extremely talented UNC team. Their upside is much higher than ours is, I just wonder if and what are the ways this Duke team can improve on who we are. Maybe it's good enough to finish at the top of the league, but we were exposed today but a very athletic team, making shots hard to come by.

Sucks to lose, but we competed and that is huge.

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 05:18 PM
And I think that's a completely unrealistic contention. Lawal had 21. So? Scheyer had 25. You can win a game where one guy scores 21. And, again, with 2 minutes to go, this game was 60-60. Duke didn't lose the game on defense, and certainly didn't lose because it can't stop multiple inside scoring threats.

And the only stop we had the rest of the way was on the trap after the rebound. We had 0 rebounds in the last two minutes. It was more than just missing shots at the end.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 05:22 PM
I've been saying this for three weeks and today exposed the question once again, How does this Duke team reach another level and can they? Look, we are a good basketball team, nothing to slouch at. But is there any upside to this team beyond what we've already witnessed? I don't know. Yes, Mason can get better and obviously Kyle cannot play much worse, but how does this team take major leaps forward heading into intense conference play?

Juxtapose our team currently with a young and extremely talented UNC team. Their upside is much higher than ours is, I just wonder if and what are the ways this Duke team can improve on who we are. Maybe it's good enough to finish at the top of the league, but we were exposed today but a very athletic team, making shots hard to come by.

Sucks to lose, but we competed and that is huge.


You got it. Good Call. I'd even add in Miles since we have already seen significant improvement.


Yes, Mason can get better and obviously Kyle cannot play much worse

dukelifer
01-09-2010, 05:22 PM
The boys did not have their jump shot tonight. I thought the bigs played pretty well today on both ends. We got some points with the the P brothers making plays and short passes in the lane. But too many misses from deep and Singler needs to be more effective for Duke to win. There were MANY wide open shots missed. Credit Tech though- they played very hard all game. And Lawal is a beast- too strong and making a case for ACC player of the year. They will not play that hard against other teams and they will struggle on O all year. But they needed this game and muscled Duke throughout. Still Duke was right there until the end. Unfortunately- this is how it will be all year for Duke on the road. Very physical - intense games. This is what wears Duke out- games like this. Duke will likely be in every game they play - but to win they have to execute in the last few minutes if they want to come away with a W. They did not today. Duke needs to use their bigs more at the end of the game and tried - so that is a good sign. Mason showed me a lot. Hopefully he can build off of that game. I am concerned because this is two true road losses in a row- but then again Wisconsin just beat Purdue and are legit and Tech can be a very good defensive team. Still - Duke is 0-2 on the road and will need to get better in hostile arenas. Singler will need to break out soon.

OldSchool
01-09-2010, 05:22 PM
I still think we should be inverting our offense more with Kyle in the post

We need to find ways to pull the defender big men out from under the basket so Kyle can have some space to post up his man without then facing the secondary defender. For example, maybe Mason can start showing more of his jump shot. Although, no smart defender is going to follow Z out to the perimeter.

Either that or Kyle should try work on finishing his post moves more often with a sharp interior pass to Z or Miles or Mason when that man's defender rotates over to help out on Kyle.

Wildcat
01-09-2010, 05:23 PM
Hats off to Tech and Shumpert/point guard; he/they showed alot of maturity over a years time. Last year, they would've found some way to cough the ball up into a loss. Their team deserves some real credit right about now. The outcome of this game wasn't a surprise to me. Tech was ranked 17th, loaded with talent, long, strong, quick and playing at home. What it does spell is: we will continue to struggle season after season without more quickness, strength, aggressiveness and toughness. I like what I saw out of Mase and Miles; the two play with great energy and intensity. Clearly Mase' coming out party.

I too believe Mase needs to be given the ball like Hurley had it given to him in his freshmen season. The kid needs to maximize his ability while the spotlight is his for the taking. Miles, I believe, feeds off of him as well. Zoubs and Lance weren't that significant in todays game; but hey that happens. Nolan, I thought played moderate to decent, percentages and stats aside. He had some good drives, a couple decent shots, but what I liked most from him was his assertiveness and his ability to finish against tough defense. (Good sign. Last year he would wilt under that kind of pressure. Also a confidence builder for him)

Kyle.... Not sure I have any answers for him right now. All I can say is: A big man coach. Jon had another superb performance; even if he did have bad shot selection the last couple trips down. Without his play we wouldn't have even been in the game. He is turning out to be a solid player. I believe the scouts will seriously look at this guy. I still want more of an above the rim presence from him if possible; as this will definitely catipult his game to another level. Again, no surprise. When teams who are more athletic than we are, play with their heads and their physicality, they have a good chance at beating us. As for us; we'll get right back in the thick of things. We'll come to play for the next game; hopefully we get better and better.

Last: Dre had a decent showing I thought. He looked looser out there. Kelly: I don't know how K will fit him in; especially in games like today's. We'll be back.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 05:24 PM
I think Nolan has been extremely aggressive all year. I don't think that's the issue. There's no sense in his putting his head down and driving into the teeth of a set defense or forcing shots that way. I still think we should be inverting our offense more with Kyle in the post, but I also strongly believe that if a good shooter is wide open from 3-point range, he needs to take that shot. Threes and layups are the most efficient shots in basketball. If you get good shooters good shots, you're doing a good job. Sometimes they miss.

I agree he's been aggressive MOST of the year. He wasn't today most of the time. That was my biggest problem w/today. That he, like most of the team, was tentative. Our older guys have played a lot of tough, close acc road games. I expected more composure. Also, I don't have a problem w/the number of 3s we shot today, per se. I just think that down the stretch we regressed to just jacking them up. That's my problem with today.

The design is pretty good in my opinion but I think that high screen with nolan and mason can be absolutely deadly, so i want more of it. I agree with you about inversion (if you mean the plumlees out high passing to kyle in the post) as well. Both would be good wrinkles, IMO. I think all of those things can address the problem of falling back into the habit of jacking 3s come crunch time. That's why I mentioned it within the context of your exchange w/the other poster.

phaedrus
01-09-2010, 05:26 PM
I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm rarely this little upset after a Duke loss. We made a lot of mistakes that we shouldn't, we missed a lot of wide-open looks, we didn't get a lot of loose balls and bounces. It seems some people can barely sleep at night for fear that our teams will ultimately be nothing more than the 2007 team, but this game was nothing like that team's loss at GT. We looked like we could utterly dismantle this team if things went our way, and GT is a pretty good team.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 05:30 PM
I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm rarely this little upset after a Duke loss. We made a lot of mistakes that we shouldn't, we missed a lot of wide-open looks, we didn't get a lot of loose balls and bounces. It seems some people can barely sleep at night for fear that our teams will ultimately be nothing more than the 2007 team, but this game was nothing like that team's loss at GT. We looked like we could utterly dismantle this team if things went our way, and GT is a pretty good team.

Last year this game was our worst loss since UNLV... I feel fine.

_Gary
01-09-2010, 05:31 PM
I've been saying this for three weeks and today exposed the question once again, How does this Duke team reach another level and can they? Look, we are a good basketball team, nothing to slouch at. But is there any upside to this team beyond what we've already witnessed? I don't know. Yes, Mason can get better and obviously Kyle cannot play much worse, but how does this team take major leaps forward heading into intense conference play?

Juxtapose our team currently with a young and extremely talented UNC team. Their upside is much higher than ours is, I just wonder if and what are the ways this Duke team can improve on who we are. Maybe it's good enough to finish at the top of the league, but we were exposed today but a very athletic team, making shots hard to come by.

Sucks to lose, but we competed and that is huge.


I think those are fair questions and honestly I think the only spot where we can reasonably expect to see any significant improvement is with Mason being more aggressive offensively. And possibly seeing Kyle and Andre find their shooting stroke again. Not sure we can expect Jon, Nolan, Miles, Brian, Lance or Ryan to make any great leaps from where they are right now. I honestly believe the only spot we can legitimately expect improvement from is Kyle and his shooting and Mason just getting better in all facets. Other than that, I agree with you that there aren't a lot of spots where we can reasonably expect to see huge leaps.

Greg_Newton
01-09-2010, 05:31 PM
I've been saying this for three weeks and today exposed the question once again, How does this Duke team reach another level and can they? Look, we are a good basketball team, nothing to slouch at. But is there any upside to this team beyond what we've already witnessed? I don't know. Yes, Mason can get better and obviously Kyle cannot play much worse, but how does this team take major leaps forward heading into intense conference play?

Juxtapose our team currently with a young and extremely talented UNC team. Their upside is much higher than ours is, I just wonder if and what are the ways this Duke team can improve on who we are. Maybe it's good enough to finish at the top of the league, but we were exposed today but a very athletic team, making shots hard to come by.

Sucks to lose, but we competed and that is huge.

Huh? Where is the room for improvement on a team whose preseason A-A just shot 2-13 or 9 points, whose 18.5 ppg guard scored single digits, whose 2 athletic freak big men are just starting to emerge, whose top 5 freshman has been a non-factor in the past 3 games due to extenuating circumstances?

Not to mention Lance and Z are far better than they showed today (see UConn). This team still has a HUGE upside. We just need to figure out our road timidness...

House G
01-09-2010, 05:32 PM
Was anyone else disappointed that we fouled a senior (who shoots 89% from the free throw line) in the back court with about 35 seconds left in the game when we were only down by 2 points? I believe there was at least one freshman on the court for G.T. at the time (I realize they made almost all of their FTs at the end anyway).

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 05:35 PM
I guess what gets me a little upset is that in the last 7:00 of the game, Duke was 4-10 from three, and 3-7 before going 1-4 in a desperate last minute. Duke actually shot well.

For all the credit our defense has gotten, GTech scored on 6 of 8 possessions between the 8 minute timeout and when we started fouling on purpose. That won't get it done come March.

RoyalBlue08
01-09-2010, 05:37 PM
Deep breaths people. We lost to a good team on the road in a game where are shots weren't falling and they had a lot of shots falling for them. It happens. I still like our team and it's chances moving forward.

Go Duke!

YourLandlord
01-09-2010, 05:41 PM
Was anyone else disappointed that we fouled a senior (who shoots 89% from the free throw line) in the back court with about 35 seconds left in the game when we were only down by 2 points? I believe there was at least one freshman on the court for G.T. at the time (I realize they made almost all of their FTs at the end anyway).

Nolan [made a mistake on this play]. As soon as he fouled, Scheyer was yelling at him, then they cut to the Duke bench and the coaches were yelling at him or looked exasperated.

arnie
01-09-2010, 05:42 PM
Strongly disagree. We need either Z or LT on the floor most of the game for defense.

And I completely disagree with the BlueintheFace post. Lance and Zoubek are seniors and are still simply poor offensive players. We can't win big games in the tournament with 0 points from our starting forward and constant mistakes from the center. Mason and Miles showed a lot of talent today and think they are the keys to success at the end of the year.

This game doesn't really concern me, if we can get Singler on track and the Plumlees continue to improve -we'll go a long way in March.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 05:45 PM
Picture whatever you want, but I'm just stating what the team needs if they want to achieve their goals and win the most games.

No, you're stating what you think the team needs and ignoring mounds of evidence the contrary in the process.


Zoubek and Thomas have been playing great, but it has been against inferior competition. ACC teams will give them trouble, even in a down year, because ACC big men are bigger, more athletic and more talented than the out of conference opponents they have faced (with the exception of a team like UConn).

So Clemson is not only "inferior competition," apparently, they are also no longer part of the ACC? Quick, someone alert John Swofford!


Zoubek and Thomas have, without fail, and every single year of their careers, performed better in the pre-conference portion of the schedule. Would you disagree with that claim simply by looking back at their careers and how they have typically performed? If Zoubek and Thomas continue to play well, or if they don't significantly become less effective during ACC play I will gladly admit that I am wrong.

I'd say most players become less effective against lesser opponents. Miles Plumlee was also less effective last year against ACC teams. And actually, I don't necessarily agree about Lance.




Absolutely. So far this season has been a carbon copy of each of the past two seasons. The only main difference is that this year's team is more talented, but Coach K needs to better manage his roster and minutes distribution in order to avoid losing games on the road in conference. Plumlee's injury was a huge setback for him and for the team, but he's rounding into shape and he should be starting from now on. I am not blaming K for that, I just hope he realizes that the Plumlee brothers should both be starting and playing together sooner rather than later.

That is utter bunk. Essentially, here's what you said: Everything is exactly the same except Duke is even more talented and K is doing an even worse job of coaching. Have you been watching the games? Duke is playing a totally different style than the previous two years. It has a totally different statistical profile. Its offense is different. Its defense is different. The only things that are the same are that Duke played extremely well to start the season and has now lost a game early in the ACC schedule. You know who else that sounds like? Pretty much any good team.


When did I say Singler and Scheyer looked tired? I just said they have played too many minutes in blowouts. And it's hard to dispute people who think that Singler each of the past two seasons and J.J. Redick his senior season wore down considerably when it mattered the most. I'm more concerned becuase those precoious 3-5 minutes can be used to play and develop Dawkins and Kelly.

So "wearing down" does not mean tired? Interesting, I'll make note of that one. Oh, and Kyle wore down last year? Like, in say, the ACC Tourney? Oh, wait, he played 40 minutes 3 days in a row. And averaged 18 ppg. And shot 47.4% from 3-point range. And grabbed 8 rpg. Yeah, he really had dead legs. Or maybe he was tired when he came flying in at the end of the Texas game to tip in the winning basket. Heck, he even scored 15 points against Villanova in a game where everyone was awful. It's utterly absurd to suggest that he wore down last year, and even more ridiculous to sugest that playing a few extra minutes twice a week makes a college player wear down. This isn't the NBA, where teams play 4 games a week quite often over an 82-game grind. Practices are far more punishing than games, especially under Coach K. Dawkins got 9 minutes tonight, btw, and hardly contributed. Sticking Scheyer and Singler on the bench a few extra minutes each game won't do anything to "develop" him.


In regards to Dawkins, I'm not sure on what planet 9 minutes for the entire game constitutes "tons of playing time" at any point, but based on where I'm from Dawkins at no point saw a ton of minutes. He was inserted early for about 2 minutes and taken out. Not even LeBron James could make much of an impact on a game in that amount of time.

Well, let's see. It's basically a quarter of the game. It was also enough time for Tech's 8th man -- Glen Rice Jr. (BTW, you're aware that Tech's bench played 60 minutes and Duke's played 57 right? Huge difference there.) Right now, Andre is in a total funk, which isn't surprising, given all that he's been through and the fact that he's a freshman. Minutes are earned. He played plenty when he was playing well earlier this year. When he earns more minutes, he'll get more. It's that simple.

And I can't wait to hear why Duke needs to give regular playing time to a fifth big man in Ryan Kelly.


Just rotating players in and out for less than 2 or 3 minutes at a time does not mean that several players are getting a substantial amount of minutes. You seem to have a habit of putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about what I think, out of context. I will just say that I didn't think, nor say, that we should beat GT with our top 2 players struggling. But losing on a tough opponents home court early in ACC play has been a trend for the past few seasons, and I think there are ways to make sure the trend doesn't continue. It involves developing the bench more, and it is something I would like to discuss later on.

The only words I'm putting in your mouth are the ones I'm directly quoting. This team was always going to lose some games. Every team loses games. Heck, even the Orioles beat the Yankees every now and then. There will always seem to be trends in losses because they share one key distinction: The other team will have scored more points than Duke. And, as such, things will go wrong. BTW, Duke didn't lose a conference road game until Jan. 28 at Wake last year. But I can't wait to hear why that game -- and all of Duke's other road losses -- was the product of Duke not "developing the bench more."

This isn't football. Teams shouldn't go undefeated. Stuff happens.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 05:49 PM
And I completely disagree with the BlueintheFace post. Lance and Zoubek are seniors and are still simply poor offensive players. We can't win big games in the tournament with 0 points from our starting forward and constant mistakes from the center. Mason and Miles showed a lot of talent today and think they are the keys to success at the end of the year.

This game doesn't really concern me, if we can get Singler on track and the Plumlees continue to improve -we'll go a long way in March.

Sorry, I didn't realize this was the first Duke game you have seen this season. I'll send you the game tape of Z and LT from the first 14 games. No worries.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 05:51 PM
I've been saying this for three weeks and today exposed the question once again, How does this Duke team reach another level and can they? Look, we are a good basketball team, nothing to slouch at. But is there any upside to this team beyond what we've already witnessed? I don't know. Yes, Mason can get better and obviously Kyle cannot play much worse, but how does this team take major leaps forward heading into intense conference play?

Juxtapose our team currently with a young and extremely talented UNC team. Their upside is much higher than ours is, I just wonder if and what are the ways this Duke team can improve on who we are. Maybe it's good enough to finish at the top of the league, but we were exposed today but a very athletic team, making shots hard to come by.

Sucks to lose, but we competed and that is huge.

I really want to smack my head against something extremely hard. Where is Duke's upside? Mason Plumlee! You said it yourself! Or how about his brother developing his positional D and footwork around the hoop? How about Duke learning different ways to utilize Singler and Kyle, in turn, adjusting to his new position? How about Andre Dawkins grasping Duke's D, thus earning more minutes, thus allowing Duke even more lineup flexibility and another dead-eye shooter? How about everyone becoming more familiar with a different offense than we've run in past seasons?

And UNC has more upside? Why? Because they've looked terrible so far? We weren't "exposed" today by a very athletic team, and shots weren't hard to come by. We missed a ton of wide open shots. We only committed 12 turnovers. Oh, and here's the line from their "athletic" point guard, who is supposedly a surefire NBA prospect, Mr. Iman Shumpert: 34 minutes, 1-for-9 shooting, 7 turnovers.
Derrick Favors, supposedly the #2 pick in the next NBA draft? Seven points, 4 turnovers.

Saratoga2
01-09-2010, 05:52 PM
Other than foul problems, I thought Miles also showed a lot in the game. He is big, athletic and aggressive and can provide offense. With Mason and Miles down low, we should expect 20 points and more from the 4 & 5 positions, considering Thomas and Zoubek and even Kelly will chip in a few along the way. We should be able to get 60 out of Scheyer, Singler, Smith and Dawkins
in the majority of games. That would give us 80 points and with our defense, it should provide for a lot of wins.

Today we got 22 from the 4 & 5 positions, but only 45 from our big three plus Dawkins.

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 05:53 PM
Sorry, I didn't realize this was the first Duke game you have seen this season. I'll send you the game tape of Z and LT from the first 14 games. No worries.

I'll send you the game tapes from the conference season last year. Both scored just as much OOC last year and then fell off against ACC competition. If you want consistent offense from bigs this year, you're going to want to see lots of Plumlees. Z and LT are fine on defense, but won't give you much outside an occasional put back offensively against good teams.

Duvall
01-09-2010, 05:54 PM
I love all the Sturm und Drang about who Duke should start in the frontcourt given the fact that the team has clearly settled into a rotation in which the top four players get 15-25 minutes in every game, depending on matchups.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 05:54 PM
I'll send you the game tapes from the conference season last year.

I hope you look at it first so you can see the differences. I'm not saying they are offensive juggernauts, but they bring things we NEED, especially in March.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 05:54 PM
And the only stop we had the rest of the way was on the trap after the rebound. We had 0 rebounds in the last two minutes. It was more than just missing shots at the end.

Wow, talk about a meaningless stat. Guess how many shots from the field Tech took in those last two minutes? Two. The first one was an airball. We boxed out so well that the airball basically fell right into Peacock's lap for a layup. You want to know what that's called? Bad luck. The next trip down, Lawal hit a tough banker late in the so clock. After that, we were trapping and either getting a steal (next possession) or fouling (every other possession). So there were exactly two chances for a stop. One ended in an unlucky rebound. On the other, a guy made a tough shot. Stuff happens.

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 05:58 PM
Wow, talk about a meaningless stat. Guess how many shots from the field Tech took in those last two minutes? Two. The first one was an airball. We boxed out so well that the airball basically fell right into Peacock's lap for a layup. You want to know what that's called? Bad luck. The next trip down, Lawal hit a tough banker late in the so clock. After that, we were trapping and either getting a steal (next possession) or fouling (every other possession). So there were exactly two chances for a stop. One ended in an unlucky rebound. On the other, a guy made a tough shot. Stuff happens.

That's great to hear. I'm going to love relying on luck come March for us to win games. Plus We also had chances at offensive rebounds in that time as well. The more telling stat was them scoring on 6 of 8 possessions before we started fouling.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 05:59 PM
I love all the Sturm und Drang about who Duke should start in the frontcourt given the fact that the team has clearly settled into a rotation in which the top four players get 15-25 minutes in every game, depending on matchups.

I agree, although I think when people talk about the Plumlees both starting, they are saying that minutes should be taken from LT and given to the Plumlees.

K has done the smart thing and gone with a post rotation that combines offense with defense and experience with youth on both lines.

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 05:59 PM
I hope you look at it first so you can see the differences. I'm not saying they are offensive juggernauts, but they bring things we NEED, especially in March.

I totally agree. I just don't think that you should expect non-second chance points to be one of those things.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:01 PM
Was anyone else disappointed that we fouled a senior (who shoots 89% from the free throw line) in the back court with about 35 seconds left in the game when we were only down by 2 points? I believe there was at least one freshman on the court for G.T. at the time (I realize they made almost all of their FTs at the end anyway).

Yeah -- in fact, the team and coaches were frustrated. A bunch of people were getting on Nolan for doing that; there was plenty of time left and clearly they'd been instructed to do something else.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 06:01 PM
Oh, and here's the line from their "athletic" point guard, who is supposedly a surefire NBA prospect, Mr. Iman Shumpert: 34 minutes, 1-for-9 shooting, 7 turnovers.
Derrick Favors, supposedly the #2 pick in the next NBA draft? Seven points, 4 turnovers.

But they looked so much more athletic than our guys doing it!

Spam Filter
01-09-2010, 06:04 PM
The real disappointment is that this game just feels like all the other games that Duke has been unable to win the last few years, yeah, you can blame bad luck or whatever, but bottom line is we still can't get over the hump.

There was another thread earlier that compared this team to 2006. And frankly this game felt exactly like the LSU loss. Same type of ugly physical game, against teams with athletic front court, and same result, with Singler having the exact same type of terrible shooting game that JJ had.

I've seen this movie a hundred times and it ends the same way every time, and I really don't want it see it again this March.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 06:04 PM
I totally agree. I just don't think that you should expect non-second chance points to be one of those things.

So they shouldn't get significant time if they are weak at creating their own shot? Because that is what we are talking about here. (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=349600&postcount=102)

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:04 PM
I'll send you the game tapes from the conference season last year. Both scored just as much OOC last year and then fell off against ACC competition. If you want consistent offense from bigs this year, you're going to want to see lots of Plumlees. Z and LT are fine on defense, but won't give you much outside an occasional put back offensively against good teams.

I didn't realize Thomas had developed his 15-foot jumper last year. But please, send those relevant game tapes.

CAT Blue Devil
01-09-2010, 06:05 PM
I may have missed this, but one key thing that stands out for me is giving a differential of 13 points on the charity stripe, while only shooting 64% as a team. Of course some credit needs to go to the 22 points GT scored while shooting 10% points better with twice as many chances.

Even good shooting nights from the floor will be hard pressed to close that gap on a road ACC game.

Pernell
01-09-2010, 06:06 PM
I really want to smack my head against something extremely hard. Where is Duke's upside? Mason Plumlee! You said it yourself! Or how about his brother developing his positional D and footwork around the hoop? How about Duke learning different ways to utilize Singler and Kyle, in turn, adjusting to his new position? How about Andre Dawkins grasping Duke's D, thus earning more minutes, thus allowing Duke even more lineup flexibility and another dead-eye shooter? How about everyone becoming more familiar with a different offense than we've run in past seasons?

And UNC has more upside? Why? Because they've looked terrible so far? We weren't "exposed" today by a very athletic team, and shots weren't hard to come by. We missed a ton of wide open shots. We only committed 12 turnovers. Oh, and here's the line from their "athletic" point guard, who is supposedly a surefire NBA prospect, Mr. Iman Shumpert: 34 minutes, 1-for-9 shooting, 7 turnovers.
Derrick Favors, supposedly the #2 pick in the next NBA draft? Seven points, 4 turnovers.

I couldn't agree more. I'm actually not too down about this loss because, yes, "we missed a ton of wide open shots." I was a little pissed that Nolan committed that foul. But this is a game that was more than winnable and I hope it will serve as positive lesson going forward.

Go Duke...

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:06 PM
I love all the Sturm und Drang about who Duke should start in the frontcourt given the fact that the team has clearly settled into a rotation in which the top four players get 15-25 minutes in every game, depending on matchups.

Exactly. Also hilarious that if, say, that airball that Peacock put back in went, say, off the rim or out of bounds, and Duke scored on the next trip, or if Singler had simply hit a 3 down 2 and Duke held on, all we'd be talking about was how tough Duke was, how much the team overcame to win, even though the first 38 minutes would have gone exactly the same.

Mcluhan
01-09-2010, 06:07 PM
I think it's safe to say that Singler is not as effective playing in this year's offensive structure. The coaches have to do something to get him some easier offense, because Jon can't do it himself, now or in March.

I'm inclined to think that we try putting Kyle back at the 4, but I'm not sure who would replace him at the 3. I remain confident that our best lineup is Scheyer, Smith, Singler, and two of our four frontcourt players. A lot of people are itching to see more Dawkins or Kelly, but I think the more worthy experiment is to find out how much better our four frontcourters can get. Let's face it-- they're all getting better, and their progress would be significantly inhibited if the four of them were competing for only one spot in our core lineup. That said, I agree that Singler's struggles might be structural.

As for today, I'm also not terribly surprised that we lost with 2 of our big 3 playing their worst games of the season. It happens, and it's the reason why the best teams in the country drop two to five games a year.

Spam Filter
01-09-2010, 06:10 PM
Exactly. Also hilarious that if, say, that airball that Peacock put back in went, say, off the rim or out of bounds, and Duke scored on the next trip, or if Singler had simply hit a 3 down 2 and Duke held on, all we'd be talking about was how tough Duke was, how much the team overcame to win, even though the first 38 minutes would have gone exactly the same.

Yeah, imagine that, some people actually evaluate a team's toughness by their ability to make big plays and hit big shots at the end of games, the nerve.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 06:11 PM
The real disappointment is that this game just feels like all the other games that Duke has been unable to win the last few years

Does it feel the same because losing hurts and every loss hurts? Think about it.

yeah, you can blame bad luck or whatever, but bottom line is we still can't get over the hump.

What hump?


There was another thread earlier that compared this team to 2006. And frankly this game felt exactly like the LSU loss. Same type of ugly physical game, against teams with athletic front court, and same result, with Singler having the exact same type of terrible shooting game that JJ had.

The game in which we shot 18-65 for 27.7%?
The one in which 18 of our 26 3pt attempts were shot by one player that our entire offense revolved around?


I've seen this movie a hundred times and it ends the same way every time, and I really don't want it see it again this March.

Newsflash, the movie ends the same way for every team but one. I think you need to follow another team. You don't sound like you are cut out for Duke fandom from this comment.

sagegrouse
01-09-2010, 06:12 PM
It's shouldn't be too surprising considering he's playing on the perimeter now. Honestly, he's a better player playing the 4 spot on offense, but given the makeup of the rest of the team (having so many big men and a lack of a true 3), Kyle plays almost exclusively on the wing.



This isn't what I saw. Singler's problem is finishing within ten feet, where he was 0-5 this afternoon. He makes 3-4 of these shots, and Duke wins. Don't know this has anything with him playing the wing.

sagegrouse

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 06:14 PM
There was another thread earlier that compared this team to 2006. And frankly this game felt exactly like the LSU loss. Same type of ugly physical game, against teams with athletic front court, and same result, with Singler having the exact same type of terrible shooting game that JJ had.

I've seen this movie a hundred times and it ends the same way every time, and I really don't want it see it again this March.

That 2006 team was a finished product. This one is a work in progress. We should be much better by say, the start of February, than we are now. Some of our other teams in recent years haven't really had it in them to accomplish that.

If you follow college basketball, you should know that almost every team takes a tumble on the road early in its conference schedule. No matter how good a team is. Those conference road games are the toughest wins to get. This is how a team grows. Watch. If the team looks no better in the 2nd half of the conference schedule, be frustrated. But for now, this is just part of a journey they need to take.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 06:14 PM
I feel like Jumbo and I are playing whack-a-mole on this thread.... Anybody else want to play with us?

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:15 PM
That's great to hear. I'm going to love relying on luck come March for us to win games. Plus We also had chances at offensive rebounds in that time as well. The more telling stat was them scoring on 6 of 8 possessions before we started fouling.

Your posts are really distinguishing themselves in this thread. Quite a debut. Every single game contains a large dose of luck and randomness for every single team. Don't like it? Don't watch basketball.

I'm also enjoying your made-up stats. It was actually 7 of 12 possessions (https://www.nmnathletics.com//pdf4/664495.pdf?ATCLID=204867012&SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200) in the final 8 minutes, which was the time frame you stated in another post. And while that's not great, the defense wasn't bad by any means -- against, sometimes teams hit tough shots (Lawal's fadeaway) and sometimes teams get lucky on offensive boards (the airball, Lawal's layup after Smith blocked Shumpert's shot, which was another good defensive play where the ball could have ended up anwyhere).

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 06:17 PM
So they shouldn't get significant time if they are weak at creating their own shot? Because that is what we are talking about here. (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=349600&postcount=102)

I think that Lance will get the playing time for his defense and energy, but with Mason's development, I do believe that Zoubek will lose a lot his playing time come March. Not all, but I think he will end up with closer to 10 min/game during February and March.


I didn't realize Thomas had developed his 15-foot jumper last year. But please, send those relevant game tapes.

Lance has definitely worked hard and has improved, but his contributions will be mostly on the defensive end and on the boards. Maybe it will change, but right now, I wouldn't want him taking that shot times a game, which he hasn't and, and as a result, hasn't been that much of an offensive contributor against tournament level competition.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 06:18 PM
very surprised to see this: http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=300090059

quotes

"They were fresher than we were," said coach Mike Krzyzewski, whose team had been on a seven-game winning streak. "They wore us down some. That can tell in the shooting, when your legs aren't completely there."

"Obviously, we didn't get the game we needed from Singler," Krzyzewski said. "I thought he had some really open looks that were there. But sometimes you don't hit."

I'm really stunned to see those quotes.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:18 PM
The real disappointment is that this game just feels like all the other games that Duke has been unable to win the last few years, yeah, you can blame bad luck or whatever, but bottom line is we still can't get over the hump.

There was another thread earlier that compared this team to 2006. And frankly this game felt exactly like the LSU loss. Same type of ugly physical game, against teams with athletic front court, and same result, with Singler having the exact same type of terrible shooting game that JJ had.

I've seen this movie a hundred times and it ends the same way every time, and I really don't want it see it again this March.

But don't most losses look the same for any team that plays a certain style? Talk to USC football fans. Or Cowboys fans. Or Lakers fans. They'll all tell you that all their big losses over the past however-many years felt the same. A lot of Duke losses have similar characteristics ... because a lot of the wins do, too. A loss means things have gone wrong, and those things are generally the ones that go right in victories. I mean, even in the years where Duke won championships, there were losses that looked similar to this one. That's why the Clemson game was so deflating last year -- Duke amost never loses a game like that. Today's? Ho-hum.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:21 PM
Yeah, imagine that, some people actually evaluate a team's toughness by their ability to make big plays and hit big shots at the end of games, the nerve.

How is a shot going in-and-out a measure of "toughness?" Or, for that matter, how does being lucky that a shot ends up way short when you've been properly boxed out indicate "toughness?"

You know what was tough? When Duke missed, down four, trapped the heck out of Tech, forced a turnover and fed Miles for a dunk to keep hope alive. That play? All toughness.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 06:22 PM
Newsflash, the movie ends the same way for every team but one. I think you need to follow another team. You don't sound like you are cut out for Duke fandom from this comment.


In fairness, I don't think his beef is with not winning the NC every year, or not having won it recently enough. I think it's the nature of the exit losses he's complaining about.

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 06:22 PM
Your posts are really distinguishing themselves in this thread. Quite a debut. Every single game contains a large dose of luck and randomness for every single team. Don't like it? Don't watch basketball.

I'm also enjoying your made-up stats. It was actually 7 of 12 possessions (https://www.nmnathletics.com//pdf4/664495.pdf?ATCLID=204867012&SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200) in the final 8 minutes, which was the time frame you stated in another post. And while that's not great, the defense wasn't bad by any means -- against, sometimes teams hit tough shots (Lawal's fadeaway) and sometimes teams get lucky on offensive boards (the airball, Lawal's layup after Smith blocked Shumpert's shot, which was another good defensive play where the ball could have ended up anwyhere).

I said after the 8 minute timeout, which actually happened with about 6 and a half minutes left. It may have been 6 of 9, I stopped counting before that steal on the rebound, but that happened because of where the rebound was caught and an alert trap, not our set defense.

Crisker
01-09-2010, 06:24 PM
Picture whatever you want, but I'm just stating what the team needs if they want to achieve their goals and win the most games.

Zoubek and Thomas have been playing great, but it has been against inferior competition. ACC teams will give them trouble, even in a down year, because ACC big men are bigger, more athletic and more talented than the out of conference opponents they have faced (with the exception of a team like UConn). Zoubek and Thomas have, without fail, and every single year of their careers, performed better in the pre-conference portion of the schedule. Would you disagree with that claim simply by looking back at their careers and how they have typically performed? If Zoubek and Thomas continue to play well, or if they don't significantly become less effective during ACC play I will gladly admit that I am wrong.



Absolutely. So far this season has been a carbon copy of each of the past two seasons. The only main difference is that this year's team is more talented, but Coach K needs to better manage his roster and minutes distribution in order to avoid losing games on the road in conference. Plumlee's injury was a huge setback for him and for the team, but he's rounding into shape and he should be starting from now on. I am not blaming K for that, I just hope he realizes that the Plumlee brothers should both be starting and playing together sooner rather than later.



When did I say Singler and Scheyer looked tired? I just said they have played too many minutes in blowouts. And it's hard to dispute people who think that Singler each of the past two seasons and J.J. Redick his senior season wore down considerably when it mattered the most. I'm more concerned becuase those precoious 3-5 minutes can be used to play and develop Dawkins and Kelly.

In regards to Dawkins, I'm not sure on what planet 9 minutes for the entire game constitutes "tons of playing time" at any point, but based on where I'm from Dawkins at no point saw a ton of minutes. He was inserted early for about 2 minutes and taken out. Not even LeBron James could make much of an impact on a game in that amount of time.

I am short on time, so I would like to discuss Dawkins and Kelly with you more extensively at a later time. But to say that Dawkins got "tons of playing time early" is absolutely ridiculous and simply not true.



Just rotating players in and out for less than 2 or 3 minutes at a time does not mean that several players are getting a substantial amount of minutes. You seem to have a habit of putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about what I think, out of context. I will just say that I didn't think, nor say, that we should beat GT with our top 2 players struggling. But losing on a tough opponents home court early in ACC play has been a trend for the past few seasons, and I think there are ways to make sure the trend doesn't continue. It involves developing the bench more, and it is something I would like to discuss later on.

I'm with Oriole on all these issues; there are certain trends here that look much like the last two years, prominently including the "rotation" and player development. Keep up the good analytical work, even if you ostensibly get "taken down" by the eternal optimists.

Mcluhan
01-09-2010, 06:26 PM
I really want to smack my head against something extremely hard. Where is Duke's upside? Mason Plumlee! You said it yourself! Or how about his brother developing his positional D and footwork around the hoop? How about Duke learning different ways to utilize Singler and Kyle, in turn, adjusting to his new position? How about Andre Dawkins grasping Duke's D, thus earning more minutes, thus allowing Duke even more lineup flexibility and another dead-eye shooter? How about everyone becoming more familiar with a different offense than we've run in past seasons?

And UNC has more upside? Why? Because they've looked terrible so far? We weren't "exposed" today by a very athletic team, and shots weren't hard to come by. We missed a ton of wide open shots. We only committed 12 turnovers. Oh, and here's the line from their "athletic" point guard, who is supposedly a surefire NBA prospect, Mr. Iman Shumpert: 34 minutes, 1-for-9 shooting, 7 turnovers.
Derrick Favors, supposedly the #2 pick in the next NBA draft? Seven points, 4 turnovers.

Several posts full of strong logic from Jumbo. Well done.

We should all try to make an effort to expand our sample size beyond the game we just watched.

allenmurray
01-09-2010, 06:27 PM
very surprised to see this: http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=300090059

quotes

"They were fresher than we were," said coach Mike Krzyzewski, whose team had been on a seven-game winning streak. "They wore us down some. That can tell in the shooting, when your legs aren't completely there."

"Obviously, we didn't get the game we needed from Singler," Krzyzewski said. "I thought he had some really open looks that were there. But sometimes you don't hit."

I'm really stunned to see those quotes.

Why are you stunned? The quotes seem to be an honest appraisal from a coach known for such. He is aware that it is a long season, things can and will improve, sometimes teams aren't sharp, and sometimes players have bad outings. I doubt he is worried about hurting Kyle's feelings - Singler probably knows the team could have used a better game from him than what he gave tonight - I doubt K's comments come as any big surprise to Kyle.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:27 PM
very surprised to see this: http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=300090059

quotes

"They were fresher than we were," said coach Mike Krzyzewski, whose team had been on a seven-game winning streak. "They wore us down some. That can tell in the shooting, when your legs aren't completely there."

"Obviously, we didn't get the game we needed from Singler," Krzyzewski said. "I thought he had some really open looks that were there. But sometimes you don't hit."

I'm really stunned to see those quotes.

Why are you stunned? I mean, I mentioned the same stuff up top. Fifth game in 12 days. In the last four days, they've flown form Durham to Chicago, back to Durham, then to Atlanta. That's a heavy burden. And I think K is challenging Kyle to step up. As I said earlier, when you get a good player good shots, you've done a good job. He just needs to make them. If we can get the kind of looks we got today all year, I'll be happy.

ChicagoCrazy84
01-09-2010, 06:28 PM
Newsflash, the movie ends the same way for every team but one. I think you need to follow another team. You don't sound like you are cut out for Duke fandom from this comment.



What kind of comment is that? You aren't cut out for Duke fandom? Is there a specific definition of a Duke basketball fan? I understood where the guy was coming from. We play a team that may be a little more physical and versatile than us and we have a really poor shooting day. We dont have enough to bail us out.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:29 PM
I'm with Oriole on all these issues; there are certain trends here that look much like the last two years, prominently including the "rotation" and player development. Keep up the good analytical work, even if you ostensibly get "taken down" by the eternal optimists.

Eternal optimists? Hardly. Try rational thinkers. Again, please show me a team that doesn't have "trends" in its losses.

ChicagoCrazy84
01-09-2010, 06:29 PM
Why are you stunned? I mean, I mentioned the same stuff up top. Fifth game in 12 days. In the last four days, they've flown form Durham to Chicago, back to Durham, then to Atlanta. That's a heavy burden. And I think K is challenging Kyle to step up. As I said earlier, when you get a good player good shots, you've done a good job. He just needs to make them. If we can get the kind of looks we got today all year, I'll be happy.


I also wonder if the poor Chicago weather had an impact on their travel. If they left right after the game on Wednesday, they were probably fine, but it got nasty soon after.

Mcluhan
01-09-2010, 06:30 PM
Frankly, I'm fed up with this team.

First we lose by ten to Arkansas before freaking Thanksgiving.

Then we blow a very winnable game against the Hoyas by 5.

The WAHOOS manhandled us by 17 just four days ago.

And now this?

Oh wait-- that was 1991 (http://www.dukeupdate.com/Seasons/19901991_duke_blue_devils.htm).

:D

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 06:31 PM
Your posts are really distinguishing themselves in this thread. Quite a debut. Every single game contains a large dose of luck and randomness for every single team. Don't like it? Don't watch basketball.

Sorry about that, I tend to get a little heated when I get going. That come's from year's of living and rooting for Philadelphia professional teams, where not many people subscribe to the "oh well, get up off of the mat" approach to losing. My general feeling about why this particular loss wasn't a "good loss" is that while GTech is certainly a formidable opponent, especially at their place, it didn't take an extra special effort on their part to shut down our offense. Against Wisconsin, their bigs shot unusually well from outside which opened up other things. This was a second round type opponent that beat us with a somewhat ordinary effort.

lpd1982
01-09-2010, 06:32 PM
I feel like Jumbo and I are playing whack-a-mole on this thread.... Anybody else want to play with us?

I would, but when anyone makes a positive comment about Duke's play, hell when you refute a ridiculous point, nobody listens. They just keep on yackin,' so thanks for keeping up the good fight but is seems kind of useless, and in many cases uninformed.

BTW, I think a bunch of UNC fans would love to trade places with us even after this afternoon.

OldSchool
01-09-2010, 06:32 PM
As far as Andre grasping Duke's D, he actually wasn't that bad today.

Very early after he was put in the game, he allowed his man to get open briefly on a back door cut but the ball-handler didn't see the opportunity. And later in the game Andre allowed himself to be crossed over by Rice on the dribble.

Other than that, pretty solid. He caused a turnover by Brian Oliver.

He and Miles were burned on a pick-and-roll, but that was entirely Miles' fault, who left Gani Lawal alone (big mistake) to make a deep hedge on the perimeter instead of merely showing, and Lawal ended up with an easy slam.

I'm not saying he is a defensive asset at this point, but he held his end down fairly adequately today.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 06:33 PM
What kind of comment is that? You aren't cut out for Duke fandom? Is there a specific definition of a Duke basketball fan? I understood where the guy was coming from. We play a team that may be a little more physical and versatile than us and we have a really poor shooting day. We dont have enough to bail us out.

I was simply pointing out that somebody who says "I really don't want to see it again," referring to Duke losing (or more specifically, Duke losing playing Duke's style of basketball) might want to rethink the team they follow. If you don't think you are capable of seeing Duke lose playing their style of basketball, which is inevitable, why would you be a Duke fan?

Duvall
01-09-2010, 06:37 PM
I also wonder if the poor Chicago weather had an impact on their travel. If they left right after the game on Wednesday, they were probably fine, but it got nasty soon after.

I believe they made it out on time (http://twitter.com/dukeblueplanet/status/7469566400), but still got in late. I think that's the worst turnaround we have this year; maybe Georgia Tech/@BC in a few weeks.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:37 PM
Sorry about that, I tend to get a little heated when I get going. That come's from year's of living and rooting for Philadelphia professional teams, where not many people subscribe to the "oh well, get up off of the mat" approach to losing.

Dude, if you'd just said you were a Philly fan at the beginning, I totally would have understood! ;)


My general feeling about why this particular loss wasn't a "good loss" is that while GTech is certainly a formidable opponent, especially at their place, it didn't take an extra special effort on their part to shut down our offense. Against Wisconsin, their bigs shot unusually well from outside which opened up other things. This was a second round type opponent that beat us with a somewhat ordinary effort.

I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "good loss" anyway, so I agree with you there. I just don't think it was a particularly concerning loss. I just saw so much go wrong that will rarely happen at once that I'm not that concerned. Could it happen again? Sure! But it could happen to anyone. That's why the tourney is known as March Madness. I think Tech is more talented than a second-round opponent. I think their effort was strong. And, they were playing at home. So as far as long-term tourney ramifications, I just don't see them.

And as far as the shooting goes, it's fickle. I mean, Scheyer is a 91% FT shooter, and he missed the front end of a 1-and-1. There's no real reason for that, but it cost Duke two points. Do you play golf at all? It's not an exact comparison, but sometimes you can go out there, your swing can feel fine, but you'll just be a little off. Same with open 3's in basketball. If you're wide open, you have to shoot it. And if it doesn't go in, what can you do? It's unbelievably frustrating, but you have to finish the round.

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 06:39 PM
I actually feel pretty good coming out of this loss. I don't think we lost because of any fundamental problem with this team. Tech didn't expose any kind of huge weakness that we will likely have all season. Additionally, I am really focused on two things until the 1st Carolina game. Plumlee development and the use of Kyle Singler. This game was great for the Plumlees. There was a lot to like. They were a good team that got some bounces, hit threes they normally miss, and benefitted from the way the game was reffed and our inability to hit open shots.

I feel okay.

Just reposting, because I have posted a lot and this really is my primary impression from this whole thing.

Duvall
01-09-2010, 06:39 PM
But losing on a tough opponents home court early in ACC play has been a trend for the past few seasons, and I think there are ways to make sure the trend doesn't continue. It involves developing the bench more, and it is something I would like to discuss later on.

Is this even true? I think Duke's record in the first halves of ACC seasons has been fairly high in recent years - 33-7 the last five years. It's the back halves where Duke has struggled, if at all.


On the other hand, maybe this just means that we are doomed this year.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 06:41 PM
Why are you stunned? I mean, I mentioned the same stuff up top. Fifth game in 12 days. In the last four days, they've flown form Durham to Chicago, back to Durham, then to Atlanta. That's a heavy burden. And I think K is challenging Kyle to step up. As I said earlier, when you get a good player good shots, you've done a good job. He just needs to make them. If we can get the kind of looks we got today all year, I'll be happy.

I'm stunned because whether it's true or not I'm surprised to hear K admit it. Psychologically, admitting it allows it to be a crutch. No biggie, i'm just surprised, that's all.

Curious, how does saying Kyle missed shots because he's tired challenge him? It would seem to me that challenging him would mean saying something like "Kyle has to hit those shots. We need a better game from him, and we need it every night. Yes, we've played a lot of games lately but that's nothing he hasn't faced before. That's no excuse."

I'm not saying that's what I wanted to hear him say but I think that would be challenging him, not saying tired legs were the problem.

Finally, I don't think the looks Kyle got in the last few minutes were good ones -- with the exception of the one baseline 3 he hit. The ones he put up from well behind the 3pt line extremely early in the possession at the end of the game were not good shots. The most disappointing thing about this game for me was that our offense deteriorated to that at the end.

lpd1982
01-09-2010, 06:42 PM
Today if Dre, Kyle or Nolan had hit two threes we would have said-

Fun to see the Plumlees on that play that they must have practised 1,000 times in their driveway

It's great to see how Lance takes on the big guns and pretty much shuts them down when he's covering them over the last three games

That Scheyer seems to crank out a score even in ugly play

Nice to have a year when defensive foul trouble doesn't spell instant death

Forgive me, I plan on enjoying all 20 plus remaining games ,so I'm a silver lining guy.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 06:48 PM
Dude, if you'd just said you were a Philly fan at the beginning, I totally would have understood! ;)



I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "good loss" anyway, so I agree with you there. I just don't think it was a particularly concerning loss. I just saw so much go wrong that will rarely happen at once that I'm not that concerned. Could it happen again? Sure! But it could happen to anyone. That's why the tourney is known as March Madness. I think Tech is more talented than a second-round opponent. I think their effort was strong. And, they were playing at home. So as far as long-term tourney ramifications, I just don't see them.

And as far as the shooting goes, it's fickle. I mean, Scheyer is a 91% FT shooter, and he missed the front end of a 1-and-1. There's no real reason for that, but it cost Duke two points. Do you play golf at all? It's not an exact comparison, but sometimes you can go out there, your swing can feel fine, but you'll just be a little off. Same with open 3's in basketball. If you're wide open, you have to shoot it. And if it doesn't go in, what can you do? It's unbelievably frustrating, but you have to finish the round.

Jumbo, while I agree with your take on this game in the main, I do think you are attributing too much of the blame for this loss to bad luck. I really think our loose-ball problems (the ones around the basket anyway) were about them being stronger than us, not bad luck. I also think that the biggest problem with the 3s was at the end, when we had some misses that really were poor shots. We didn't execute down the stretch. That has to be fixed. If we run our offense down the stretch and the shots just go in and out, that's maybe bad luck. Maybe. But we stopped running our offense. That's lack of composure, not bad luck.

sagegrouse
01-09-2010, 06:52 PM
Zoubek and Thomas have been playing great, but it has been against inferior competition. ACC teams will give them trouble, even in a down year, because ACC big men are bigger, more athletic and more talented than the out of conference opponents they have faced (with the exception of a team like UConn). Zoubek and Thomas have, without fail, and every single year of their careers, performed better in the pre-conference portion of the schedule. Would you disagree with that claim simply by looking back at their careers and how they have typically performed? If Zoubek and Thomas continue to play well, or if they don't significantly become less effective during ACC play I will gladly admit that I am wrong.

Lets see. Duke loses while going 6-28 from three, most of them open shots, and you want to remake the front court?

I utterly disagree with the meaningfulness of your premise about the preseason vs. the regular season. If LT and Zoubs do better against cupcakes, then who doesn't? How about Jon against Penn?

LT had a rough day today, as did everyone who had to guard Lani Gawal. What a load! Mason was the only big guy not forced to guard Gawal.

BTW I think you will get your wish. Mason will start because we need the offense in the interior, and to me, his offensive game looks like a freshman Christian Laettner. I don't mean to say that he will good as Laettner; heck, if he became half as good, I would be deliriously happy. I don't know that he will play with Miles; he may start with LT. Anyway, Duke will continue to use a rotation among the Big Four.



So far this season has been a carbon copy of each of the past two seasons. The only main difference is that this year's team is more talented, but Coach K needs to better manage his roster and minutes distribution in order to avoid losing games on the road in conference.

A canard of the highest order that needs to be challenged every time it is uttered. I don't believe best coach of all time "needs to better manage" anything.

Now, every year, I felt the same about the freshman players. I thought they deserved more minutes minutes. And I finally decided it was a pure conceit: I just wanted to see the freshmen on the court and did not really believe they deserved more minutes than they were getting.



And it's hard to dispute people who think that Singler each of the past two seasons and J.J. Redick his senior season wore down considerably when it mattered the most. I'm more concerned becuase those precoious 3-5 minutes can be used to play and develop Dawkins and Kelly.



Jumbo answered this. Kyle Singler did not wear down at the end of last season; in fact, he became stronger. And your wording ("hard to dispute people...") suggests you don't believe it either.

As to JJ, if he had had an ounce of help from anyone but Shelden against LSU, we would never have to hear this again. Redick had a bad game because LSU decided to let Dockery, Paulus, Lee and Markie beat them. They didn't exactly rise to the challenge, so JJ had to shoot with guys all over him.

sagegrouse
'Sorry to be so late with this thread. I decided to go shovel a foot or so of snow off the walk to cool off after the game. However, shoveling snow is one of the hottest activities going.'

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:53 PM
I'm stunned because whether it's true or not I'm surprised to hear K admit it. Psychologically, admitting it allows it to be a crutch. No biggie, i'm just surprised, that's all.

Curious, how does saying Kyle missed shots because he's tired challenge him? It would seem to me that challenging him would mean saying something like "Kyle has to hit those shots. We need a better game from him, and we need it every night. Yes, we've played a lot of games lately but that's nothing he hasn't faced before. That's no excuse."

I'm not saying that's what I wanted to hear him say but I think that would be challenging him, not saying tired legs were the problem.

Finally, I don't think the looks Kyle got in the last few minutes were good ones -- with the exception of the one baseline 3 he hit. The ones he put up from well behind the 3pt line extremely early in the possession at the end of the game were not good shots. The most disappointing thing about this game for me was that our offense deteriorated to that at the end.

Becauase he didn't say Kyle missed because he was tired. He specifically said: "Obviously, we didn't get the game we needed from Singler. I thought he had some really open looks that were there. But sometimes you don't hit."

And as far as the good looks, you didn't think the one, for instance, where Nolan tripped, hurt his ankle, but kicked it out was a good one? His feet were set, he was in rhythm, no one was near him. He just missed.

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:54 PM
Is this even true? I think Duke's record in the first halves of ACC seasons has been fairly high in recent years - 33-7 the last five years. It's the back halves where Duke has struggled, if at all.


On the other hand, maybe this just means that we are doomed this year.

I think you're right. What does the Mayan calendar say about Duke basketball?

BlueintheFace
01-09-2010, 06:56 PM
I think you're right. What does the Mayan calendar say about Duke basketball?

That we only have 2 more shots at a national championship

Jumbo
01-09-2010, 06:57 PM
sagegrouse
'Sorry to be so late with this thread. I decided to go shovel a foot or so of snow off the walk to cool off after the game. However, shoveling snow is one of the hottest activities going.'

Why didn't you hit the slopes? To me, there couldn't be a better way to take my mind off a sporting event.

devildownunder
01-09-2010, 06:59 PM
Becauase he didn't say Kyle missed because he was tired. He specifically said: "Obviously, we didn't get the game we needed from Singler. I thought he had some really open looks that were there. But sometimes you don't hit."

And as far as the good looks, you didn't think the one, for instance, where Nolan tripped, hurt his ankle, but kicked it out was a good one? His feet were set, he was in rhythm, no one was near him. He just missed.

You know what, i conflated two quotes on the singler thing. you're right. my bad. I still don't think what he said was exactly challenging singler. "he needs to hit those shots" would be more of a direct challenge. But I suppose we could tinker with that wording all night.

OK, I give you the kick from nolan. What about the other 3 (i believe it was 3, i was know it was at least 2) in the last 2:30 minutes. Well behind the arc, off the first pass across the halfcourt line. Would you call those good shots? Kyle did miss a lot of typically good shots in this game but he took some bad ones down the stretch, too. Everybody did.

phaedrus
01-09-2010, 07:07 PM
But losing on a tough opponents home court early in ACC play has been a trend for the past few seasons, and I think there are ways to make sure the trend doesn't continue.

I guess you can call that a trend, if you think that clouds and rain coinciding or seeing a lot of rednecks with UNC bumper stickers are also trends. I tend to believe those are results that logically follow from their circumstances. After all, if we're not occasionally losing to tough ACC opponents on their home floor, who are we losing to? Would you feel better if we beat GT on the road but lose to Virginia at home? OF COURSE we lose some ACC games on the road - that's not a trend, it's a consequence of having a team that's not literally invincible.

chrisheery
01-09-2010, 07:16 PM
I thought I would post my thoughts anyway and then try to go back and see if there is anything not too over the top after a loss.

I know it sucks to lose, but when you miss open shots, it is hard to get wins. Some will say that there should be some way to compensate for missing threes, but I, obviously, disagree. True, you can win some games even when not shooting well, you can also lose games when you are shooting well, but the notion that we should not have kept shooting open threes when we have many players capable of getting hot and making this a 10-12 point game during any stretch, is silly. No team will win consistently without adequate shooting, especially when the rest of that team's offense is still a work in progress.

I thought our big guys played pretty well in a very oddly officiated game. I loved that in the first few possessions Miles caught the ball on the post and went straight up with a jump hook over his left shoulder. Beautiful. 10 more shots like that a game would be nice. I have discussed ad nauseum the need to get the ball into post players hands in a more timely fashion, and I think Duke is trying to do that even if we missed a few chances at it today.

Kyle will be fine. He's a stud, just going through a rough patch. It should also be noted that he does a lot of other things so well that we ignore that he is even doing them. Mostly, these are seemingly minor plays that all add up in the end of games to make us the better team. The most important of these skills is actually corralling the ball when it is loose on rebounds or tipped passes. He has the surest hands (outside of Jon) on the team.

Mason looked really good at times tonight. So did Miles as noted. I am really enjoying watching them get better all the time.

Dre and Ryan got to play in important minutes today and are starting to understand how intense conference basketball is. I love that that got to play some and I hope they can start contributing more as the season goes on. No question, we are going to need Kelly next year when Zoub and Lance are gone. (Maybe Singler too, but who knows about that.) Dre's shot will also come around, they look good, just not getting as many shots and it is tough to get a rhythm.

Overall, I don't have too much to complain about with this game. We have only lost two games all season and both times we shot poorly against a team that played well. I think we will continue to improve all year and be very good by tournament time. I have not been able to say that for I don't know how long. Its a great feeling.

SeattleIrish
01-09-2010, 07:29 PM
The team played tough against GT, which was great to see. There were games over the past three years where the team seemed to back down from contact and get intimidated by physical play. Not this game. Not this team. GT played a really good game and it was exactly the type of game they like - loosely officiated and very physical.

Absolutely love to see them play like that. Tough loss, but not one of those losses that, in the past, left me thinking, "Dang...we just got exposed."



I really like this teams mentality - gonna be a very fun season :)

bhop22
01-09-2010, 07:30 PM
Look at the bright side-- my truck got booted in the Varsity parking lot because I parked on the wrong side of a white line... In all seriousness, this team will be fine. Bad game against an inproving team. Mason played well, but the ball didn't bounce our way at all. I agree with Jumbo, a very teachable loss.

tele
01-09-2010, 08:03 PM
I feel like Jumbo and I are playing whack-a-mole on this thread.... Anybody else want to play with us?

I've enjoyed reading your efforts, keep up the good work! Maybe you'll win a stuffed animal or something.

Kewlswim
01-09-2010, 08:04 PM
Hi,

I just hate it when we lose. I should know by now that I shouldn't let my happiness be dictated by a bunch of 18-22 year olds. :-)

GO DUKE!

Devilsfan
01-09-2010, 08:06 PM
The way I see it the bright side is two of our freshmen could be very good by year end. Someone needs to inform Mason that he's not a guard and should limit his dribbling. Andre will get better with more minutes. Also maybe Kyle needs some R & R after so much combat. What was our percentage from the three? Pretty bad. Jon is the best and Nolan is playing better and better. Our rebounding committee did a great job tonight.

Newton_14
01-09-2010, 08:32 PM
Becauase he didn't say Kyle missed because he was tired. He specifically said: "Obviously, we didn't get the game we needed from Singler. I thought he had some really open looks that were there. But sometimes you don't hit."

And as far as the good looks, you didn't think the one, for instance, where Nolan tripped, hurt his ankle, but kicked it out was a good one? His feet were set, he was in rhythm, no one was near him. He just missed.

Ok Jumbo, after about 15 posts in this thread you finally said something I disagree with. Am I the only guy that saw what happened on that play? Nolan did not trip and he did not tweak his ankle. He got kneed in the thigh by Lawal trying to drive around him. Should have been a foul call as the ref was about 5 feet away and looking right at it. One of the many non calls that hurt us.

Other than that, carry on!!

CUNKNNK
01-09-2010, 08:38 PM
I've enjoyed most of your takes on the game. Count me amongst those who aren't too concerned about this loss. I didn't expect to go through the ACC undefeated. There are some tough road games in our conference and this was one of them. I still feel confident we are the better team and would win on a neutral court...same as I feel about Wisconsin. I actually feel we would even beat GTech at their place if we got to play them again tomorrow.

This stuff happens. We had a lot of things go against us today and were still in it right to the end. We gave them a lot of second chances, not just on rebounds, but also on an unusually large number of deflected balls that just didn't bounce our way and turn into turnovers like they usually do.

I was happy to see continued improvement by Mason. By year end, I think our "Big 3" will be a "Big 4". He's gonna be a stud.

Lance Thomas really showed his worth today. Even though he didn't score, the game was markedly different once he fouled out. For the last 10 minutes, Gani was the main factor and that was a direct result of "Lock Down Lance" being on the pine. His role is largely unsung, but today demonstrated why he is actually a big key to our success.

We're still improving, we weren't undefeated anyway...so who cares. This isn't a bad loss. It was a ranked team with future NBA talent that I'm confident we'll beat when we get to meet again.

_Gary
01-09-2010, 08:40 PM
Jumbo, while I agree with your take on this game in the main, I do think you are attributing too much of the blame for this loss to bad luck. I really think our loose-ball problems (the ones around the basket anyway) were about them being stronger than us, not bad luck.

I was going to post the exact same thought as I was reading and catching up on the thread this evening. While I'm not too concerned with this loss and do agree with Coach K (and others) that a big problem was the tired legs after a tough stretch, I can't just attribute everything to bad luck. We did get out-hustled in this game. Was that entirely a function of us being tired? Perhaps. We all know the old adage that fatigue makes cowards of us all. But I also think GT was majorly ramped up for this game and just wanted it a bit more than we did. I know some people think that's bunk, but I've watched and played too much basketball in my life to dismiss the role emotion plays in sports, especially college ball. I think their emotion, combined with our tiredness, made this loss possible. Bad luck had little to do with it, IMHO.

AlaskanAssassin
01-09-2010, 08:43 PM
Mister Gottlieb on the upset:

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/1570/gottlieb-on-gts-upset-of-duke

RelativeWays
01-09-2010, 08:53 PM
The only thing this loss exposed was the same thing everyone already knew. If one of 3S struggles to score, Duke can have a hard time winning tough games. Today both Smith and Singler struggled and we lose by four. Smith had an off game that probably had a little to door with turning his ankle. Didn't look too serious but it could have affected his driving. I'm not sure what to do about Kyle at this point. His body is too skinny now to go back to the post, he doesn't seem to trust his abilities to take people to the basket (wiscy was the only game he did that with success) but he'll jack up a 3 in a heartbeat. Thats a problem, because it truly exacerbates the problem Duke has had for the past 3-5 years. the 3's stop falling, the wins stop coming. Its been a bit less over the past two years, but Kyle seems to settle for 3s too fast. He has got to find a way to create in his on way.

Greg_Newton
01-09-2010, 08:59 PM
I was going to post the exact same thought as I was reading and catching up on the thread this evening. While I'm not too concerned with this loss and do agree with Coach K (and others) that a big problem was the tired legs after a tough stretch, I can't just attribute everything to bad luck. We did get out-hustled in this game. Was that entirely a function of us being tired? Perhaps. We all know the old adage that fatigue makes cowards of us all. But I also think GT was majorly ramped up for this game and just wanted it a bit more than we did. I know some people think that's bunk, but I've watched and played too much basketball in my life to dismiss the role emotion plays in sports, especially college ball. I think their emotion, combined with our tiredness, made this loss possible. Bad luck had little to do with it, IMHO.

But I agree that GT just played stronger than us tonight. I watched a little of the game again and it was pretty evident. That's the kind of team that can make us look bad at times - a quick, strong team that really gets after us on D and on the boards. If a team does that to you and you don't really hit them back, it's a problem. They were in our players faces so much tonight, and not really showing any respect for their space. To counter that, we needed to be moving strongly with our elbows up, and reclaiming that space you're entitled to as an offensive player or rebounder. Instead, we kind of conceded that space to them (the refs helped a little) which sort of set the tone for the game. We also got outrebounded 34-26, btw.

Newton_14
01-09-2010, 08:59 PM
We did not have our normal "pep" in our step today and I attribute that to the travel schedule the past few days more than anything.

The game was lost mainly at the foul line, along with poor shooting and lack of execution down the stretch. Tech was 22 for 28 from the line. How many times have you seen that out of a Tech team in recent years?? They were lights out. Meanwhile, Duke was 9 for 14.

Certainly not a cause to panic and the sky is not falling. A big positive too in seeing Mason continue to improve. It's great to have "potential" and it's great to hear "when Mason starts playing the way we know he can" but it's another to actually have it transpire. He has made great strides in the last couple of games. He has shown an ability to score in a variety of ways, make plays off the dribble to set up others for scores, while also improving on defense. If he keeps playing like this and improves even more, our offense becomes a lot more dangerous. We know Andre will get better and I for one am still a believer that Kelly will improve enough before year's end to contribute to this team. I think the ceiling of this Duke team is significantly better than our friends up the road.

Miles has also gotten better over the last few games on both sides of the ball. He is still a victim of bad foul calls. The foul in the loose ball scrum against Iowa St, combined with the 1st and 3rd foul calls on him today were incredibly weak IMO.

In spite of all the things that went wrong today, we were right there at the end with a chance to pull it out against the 17th ranked team in the country on their floor. You have to give credit to Tech as well. Lawal played well, and they hit shots they have not been making all year.

Not to whine about refs, but I thought it odd that in a game that physical, one team was able to be really physical without fouling. It was late in the 1st half before Duke got into the 1 and 1 and I don't believe they ever got into the 1 an 1 in the 2nd half.

BD80
01-09-2010, 09:04 PM
The first possesion of the next game should be a triple pick for Kyle curling after cutting along the baseline. He should shoot that shot about a million times in practice before the next game. We NEED to get him back in rythym. It may be as simple as having a couple of shots go in.

Ryan and Dre are not earning playing time. Ryan looked like he was having a seisure on defense. I kept hoping someone would hold his toungue down with a spoon. Dre is much closer, but still makes too many mistakes. Launching that three immediately after we had gathered an offensive rebound (and the shot clock reset) was but an example.

Mason had a breakout game in my mind. He has got "it." I think he will be a "go to" guy by the post season. Having four talented weapons, one a post player, will serve us well in March and April.

Anyone else notice that Mason is slow getting back on D? Even Z gets back faster. That cost us at least two points tonight.

mo.st.dukie
01-09-2010, 09:05 PM
The only thing this loss exposed was the same thing everyone already knew. If one of 3S struggles to score, Duke can have a hard time winning tough games. Today both Smith and Singler struggled and we lose by four. Thats a problem, because it truly exacerbates the problem Duke has had for the past 3-5 years. the 3's stop falling, the wins stop coming.

Duke didn't really shoot very well against Uconn or Gonzaga and yet won those games.

I think if only one of our big 3 struggles then Duke can win tough games. If Nolan has a typical double-digit scoring output Duke probably wins even with Kyle sucking it up. But if two are struggling then Duke will struggle and yet still have many opportunities to win. That's where the difference is between this Duke team and the past two years, they can still battle for the win if they shoot poorly or if a couple of major contributors are having off games because they are bigger, more physical, and more defensive-oriented than the last two years.

People are so focused on the 3-point shooting today that they are ignoring the fact that we lost by 4 and we were 9-14 from the FT line. Make two of those FT's and make two layups that were missed then Duke goes home with a win. It's not just about the 3-point shooting.

geraldsneighbor
01-09-2010, 09:06 PM
Mister Gottlieb on the upset:

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/1570/gottlieb-on-gts-upset-of-duke

Haha, why does it matter that Scheyer is jewish...? Doug reaching a bit to fill out a blog post.

Bob Green
01-09-2010, 09:06 PM
Someone needs to inform Mason that he's not a guard and should limit his dribbling.

I completely disagree with this post. Mason's agressiveness against the press is one of the bright spots from this game. Mason can run the court, pass with precision, and handle the ball, so instead of "limiting his dribbling" we should be looking to exploit his talents.

Waynne
01-09-2010, 09:08 PM
Frustrating loss because we could have won, but overall I thought we played fairly well. Gtech's defense was the best we've seen all year; our offense was never able to get into rhythm because of it. Nonetheless we had some open looks on 3s that would have won the game if they dropped. I think our defense was pretty good; it was encouraging to see the Plumlees become more adept at switching and covering.

Hardly a devastating loss because we were playing a good team on the road after playing 5 games in 12 days. As K said, they did wear us down, especially in the second half when they started getting a lot of rebounds and loose balls. The game didn't reveal any fundamental weakness in our team. Should be a teachable moment because the game will tell our guys they had better get used to seeing big, skilled players and physical D in ACC play. I wouldn't want to be BC Wednesday night in Cameron.

YourLandlord
01-09-2010, 09:13 PM
Haha, why does it matter that Scheyer is jewish...? Doug reaching a bit to fill out a blog post.

Because there is a limit as to the number of foreign players that can play on one team. If he doesn't count against that foreign player cap, then he's a huge huge asset to a team. Doug is assuming he won't have an NBA career.

Duke4life92
01-09-2010, 09:13 PM
I actually feel pretty good coming out of this loss. I don't think we lost because of any fundamental problem with this team. Tech didn't expose any kind of huge weakness that we will likely have all season. Additionally, I am really focused on two things until the 1st Carolina game. Plumlee development and the use of Kyle Singler. This game was great for the Plumlees. There was a lot to like. They were a good team that got some bounces, hit threes they normally miss, and benefitted from the way the game was reffed and our inability to hit open shots.

I feel okay.

Same here,never ok with a loss but this one does'nt sting quite as bad as some of the losses in the past(think clemson last yr).Can't quite understand the mugging we took with no calls but touch fouls went against us so easily and quick but i guess that happens to duke on the road eh.If we just hit a 1/4of the 3's we missed(make say another 4-5 of the 22 missed) and shoot our normal % we win going away,i think.I'm not 2nd guessing anything we did today,singler is just in a slump and needs to break out of it.Love the plumlee's on the court together,i see real good things in the future from this team.

lpd1982
01-09-2010, 09:20 PM
Haha, why does it matter that Scheyer is jewish...? Doug reaching a bit to fill out a blog post.

Doug inserting his foot in his mouth again. He will spend the next week 'white boarding' how great Duke is, just like after his 'amazingly unathletic' comment. Nothing wrong if Jon wants to play outside US, but that comment was truly Gottliebesque.

dukemsu
01-09-2010, 09:34 PM
wow, quite the gamut of response. My 2 cents:

1. Mason was an absolute bear. Strong all over the floor, except those moments where he's 15-20 feet out and appears to want to dribble. Even his fouls are usually strong.

2. The team punched back. Tech is an imposing group playing at home, and the team played physical and tough despite inconsistent officiating and the resultant foul trouble.

3. Singler was bad shooting the ball, obviously, but had some good plays in other areas. Kyle appears uncomfortable doing much offensively other than deep shots or other step-back jumpers.

4. Missing shots isn't necessarily solely a function of being tired, for those saying we're worn down on January 9. I know K said that was part of it, and I'm sure it was. But sometimes you just miss.

I don't see that many alarm bells on this loss. Tech's a talented bunch, and they were lying in wait.

As far as trends that we struggle against athletic, big front lines, well, don't most teams if those players play well? And Favors didn't play well, either.

LGD.

dukemsu

concrete
01-09-2010, 09:56 PM
2 reasons we lost

1. Singler's play was a negative on both sides of the court.

a. I thought Nolan played an average game, looked at the boxscore 4-10, and played great defense on the guards.

2. Our 4 big guys did not hustle and got out manned by lawal. I shouldn't say 4. Lance Thomas I thought played great in the first half against Lawal. Our other big guys are just slow and methodical right now. The Plumlees are great leapers but they aren't quick on the floor. Alot of balls they should have had, were either smacked out their hands or they were just beat to it.

It's a shame but I think next year our bigs will be a force...you can see it slowly happening this year but I don't think they will be heady enough to overcome their lack of quickness right now.

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 10:12 PM
I've read a lot about the 5 games in 12 days, and I just don't buy it. If there was a problem with being tired, I think it is more from playing a game in Durham against Clemson, then within a week traveling to Chicago, back to Durham, and then to Atlanta. That is a pretty tough travel schedule. Just as a reference point, if Duke makes the ACC title game (not unlikely) the second round will be our 5th game in 9 or 10 days, and the elite 8 would be our fourth game in 9-12 days, depending on pod and region. I think that it was more just a bad night and a good effort from GTech that we weren't ready for. Hopefully this wasn't a result of fatigue from the number of games, because that would be a bad sign for later, but I don't think that it was.

Newton_14
01-09-2010, 10:20 PM
I've read a lot about the 5 games in 12 days, and I just don't buy it. If there was a problem with being tired, I think it is more from playing a game in Durham against Clemson, then within a week traveling to Chicago, back to Durham, and then to Atlanta. That is a pretty tough travel schedule. Just as a reference point, if Duke makes the ACC title game (not unlikely) the second round will be our 5th game in 9 or 10 days, and the elite 8 would be our fourth game in 9-12 days, depending on pod and region. I think that it was more just a bad night and a good effort from GTech that we weren't ready for. Hopefully this wasn't a result of fatigue from the number of games, because that would be a bad sign for later, but I don't think that it was.

I agree. I think the fatigue was all about the travel and other parts of their schedule this week. They just looked a half a step slow a lot today. It happens. On a neutral court with proper rest Duke likely wins going away. I certainly do not think game minutes led to fatigue.

I also thought we missed a good opportunity to take Tech out early. When we got up 12 to 3 it looked like we relaxed a bit and lost a bit of focus. If we had stepped on the gas and took it up to 15 or 16 Tech may well have panicked and turned into a turnover machine.

Rudy
01-09-2010, 10:23 PM
Well, that game should put a stop to all the talk about this team being as good as 05-06 or Kyle being NPOY, at least for awhile.

Seriously, GT is a good team and both teams fought hard. Mason and Miles continue to improve and I expect Andre will continue to improve and I expect Kyle will find a way to contribute more offensively.

SCMatt33
01-09-2010, 10:25 PM
Well, that game should put a stop to all the talk about this team being as good as 05-06 or Kyle being NPOY, at least for awhile.

Seriously, GT is a good team and both teams fought hard. Mason and Miles continue to improve and I expect Andre will continue to improve and I expect Kyle will find a way to contribute more offensively.

...but should continue to ignite talks of Scheyer as NPOY or at least 1st team AA.

ice-9
01-09-2010, 10:53 PM
For the Phase III thread I have been tracking three pointers. I counted 8 of 28 threes as "not open" and that included last minute threes.

8/28 is pretty bad.

The stat should be 0/28.

If you have time on the clock, there's no worse shot in basketball than the contested three.

YourLandlord
01-09-2010, 11:01 PM
8/28 is pretty bad.

The stat should be 0/28.



Or 0/20.

Kedsy
01-09-2010, 11:20 PM
Unfortunately, neither Singler or Smith had stong offensive games and seemed to have difficulty dealing with the pressure applied. Both wound up turning the ball over too often, giving Tech extra opportunities.

According to the box score, Nolan turned it over once in today's game. Granted, you may think once is too often, but that's a hard view to maintain logically.

FerryFor50
01-09-2010, 11:22 PM
This was what is known as a "good loss." Duke played a team that looked very much like the Clemson team that destroyed Duke last season - physical, athletic, driven and determined - and still had a chance to win it at the end of the game. A shot or two falls for Duke, GT misses one or two, and we're talking about a hard-fought, impressive Duke win. Instead, it was a tough ACC loss on the road. Poor shooting, uncharacteristically bad FT shooting, foul trouble (which as another poster pointed out, strange that as physical as the game was, GT had no bigs in foul trouble), some poor shot selection. Things happen. I'd much rather lose to GT on the road than to a team like Clemson at Cameron.

Exiled_Devil
01-09-2010, 11:24 PM
I totally agree. I just don't think that you should expect non-second chance points to be one of those things.

Did you watch the Clemson game? Lance has developed a consistent 15 ft jumpshot that he scored with on 2 of the first 6 times down the court.

Creating points against ACC talent - that pretty much undermines the "can't do anything offensive in conference games"

ice-9
01-09-2010, 11:27 PM
Alright -- finally read through all the responses on this thread. I'm disappointed we didn't win, but I'm not overly concerned by the loss. Two reasons:

1. Back-to-back road games are tough. Just ask G Tech who went on the road twice and lost to Georgia in the second game. But this is a teachable moment for our Devils who will need to learn how to pull it out in the second game of a weekend in the NCAA tournament.

2. There were no fundamental flaws exposed in this game; we just didn't take many good shots and we missed most of the good ones. The former can be corrected and the latter will regress to the mean -- and keep in mind we have a very high one. If we had shot normally we would've blown Tech out of the building. Instead, we lost a game that wasn't decided until the final possession.

My only real concern is Singler. He's been playing OK all season long so far but we need him to be at his usual high standards for us to reach our true potential. Perhaps draw up a few plays designed to get him started?

I've posted this before, but I would also like to see the post get more touches. Our post players don't necessarily need to shoot it all the time, but I think we are a better team when the ball moves inside as well as outside. Plus our bigs shot 11-14 today.

Kedsy
01-09-2010, 11:28 PM
The announcers criticized Scheyer for taking a shot from around the top of the key with 3 defenders on him and with time running down. Perhaps he was thinking that with 3 on him there might be a very good chance for our bigs to get the rebound for an easy putback. It didn't happen as we got beat to the rebound. I think he probably considered the situation before taking the shot.

It looked to me like he was trying to get fouled.

Coastal Devil
01-10-2010, 12:07 AM
Hey we'll be Ok. There will be more improvement with this team. I couldn't agree more with Bilas about Mason this game. He is coming along nicely. We didn't shoot the ball well. Congrats to GT they played very well and were very physical. I don't know the stats but I think we were dominated on the boards today. Let's strap em up and get after BC!!

Go Duke!!

roywhite
01-10-2010, 12:07 AM
Tech shot 17-18 from the free throw line in the second half (highly unusual, esp. for an average shooting team). Tech out-rebounded Duke and seemed to get more loose balls.

Duke didn't shoot well.

Next game.

Kedsy
01-10-2010, 12:11 AM
I don't know the stats but I think we were dominated on the boards today.

We were outrebounded 38 to 32, which doesn't say "dominated" to me.

gofurman
01-10-2010, 12:14 AM
At 60-60 I thought, this would have been a lot more entertaining if it was 80-80.

Most of it has been said, but let me add the following

- I was sad to see Kyle not attack the basket until very late (which led to shooting FTs)

- Zoubek only need breathe on someone to get called for a foul. And in general, I felt we got called for tiny bumps from behind whereas GT could smother someone in a double team with all kind of slaps on the arm and not get called.

- that one foul Nolan committed on the endline - where he forearmed a guy in the front? I think he was expecting a lot more resistance. The guy flopped - after a bit of contact - and it worked.

- With all the bigs we have, we really should develop a repertoire of plays for them. We shot too many 3s today, and if it is true that we haven't generally relied on the 3 too much THIS season, I would suggest our re-embracing it didn't work.

- is Wojo sick? His cheeks looked really puffy, and he was still in excellent shape last summer.

- I like how the Bros. Plumlee worked together.

- I like Mason's straight-up blocking style.

- I like how our bigs aren't afraid to dribble a little bit when wide open.

- Jon's shooting percentage wasn't great today, but he brought the effort.

- I didn't like how we failed to adjust after halftime. Even with a small lead, it clearly wasn't going well offensively. We did not adjust - or if we did, we got out-adjusted.

- Break the press! Every team that can is going to press us aggressively and dare the refs to call fouls. That's been the book on us for a very long time.

- Fastbreak points? We didn't get steals from ball pressure. Of our steals, 3 of 4 were from guys named Plumlee. This is a team that turned it over 19 times to UT-Chatt; they only turned it over 15 times today. So I'm not convinced our defense was really so great.

Hopefully the boys are just tired, but hey, deep bench, why so tired? (another thread).

You got that right - from Clemson last year to GT today we rarely ATTACK when we beat the press and get 3 on 2 or 2 on 1. Yes, we beat Clemson this year but I felt that was more due ot excellent D by Duke preventing them from making baskets and setting up a press.... not so much that we beat their press down the court. I fear going to Littlejohn

Chicago 1995
01-10-2010, 12:32 AM
I agree by and large with Jumbo's first post in the thread. This is game that gives us a lot of teachable moments and lots of things upon which we can build and improve. Assuming we do learn from today, it was a really productive loss. Tech's a good, talented team and we were in their place. Not a gimme and as poorly as we played offensively, we still had a chance to win. And there's lots to build on after today.

Loved the defensive effort today. Even though GA Tech was so physical and so tough on the glass, we made Tech take a lot of bad shots, forced a lot of turnovers, and defended a good, athletic team well enough to win.

Offensively, we've got to have more balance. We've got to be a better post passing team, and we need to be less perimeter oriented in our offense. A large part of whatever upside this team has is continuing to get more out of the Plumlees. That means our big three needs to look to involve them more as the season goes on.

I was a bit concerned that we settled for jumpers as much as we did today. Hopefully, it's a one game aberation, and not the recurrence of the problems of past teams shying from physical, athletic teams and just settling for jumpers. Open or not, the triples weren't falling today. Would have been nice to see is work harder to get a something inside later in the second half, rather than settling.

Count me in the column of those who want to see us invert Kyle. He's got too much talent to just try to be a jumpshooter.

I would take issue with Jumbo's comment that a couple of game minutes a week don't add to cumulative fatigue over the season. There's a thread at TDD where a physical therapist has posted about studies proving they do. That also backs up what you see in the NBA anecdotally, with the 'rookie wall' and players like Shaq being saved for the playoffs. Reducing Jon's minutes by on average 5 minutes a night over the course of a 35 game season is almost three games total. There *has* to be some marginal improvement in his fitness at the end of the season if you reduce his PT by three games. It might be one shot, but seasons come down to one shot.

Spam Filter
01-10-2010, 01:04 AM
We were outrebounded 38 to 32, which doesn't say "dominated" to me.

We out rebounded Tech 20 to 12 in the first half, that means in the 2nd half they out rebounded us 26 to 12, that's domination.

gumbomoop
01-10-2010, 03:59 AM
Well, nope, for we like our Devils more than we like each other, because we get mighty irritated when other posters fail to appreciate our respective insights.

This understandably irritated thread - we fanatics do tend to take every loss pretty hard - has some distinct themes: (1) whether the GaTech game represents a telling example of one or more troubling "trends," specifically whether (2) KS has slumped irretrievably, owing either (a) to his being misdiagnosed as a perimeter player, or (b) to his being [already!] tired; this latter issue related to (3) the interminable debate over whether K has "regressed" [already!] to his preferred 7-man rotation; (4) whether Duke can't beat good teams on the road; (5) whether the guys revert to the 3-pt-emphasis too readily, because (6) despite the potential down low, hidden but real doubts haunt us re the collective O of the Bigs; .... OR, contrary to #1-6, whether (7) this loss represents absolutely no meaningful trends, because sometimes the shots don't fall, the other good team makes a good play or 2, we could just as easily by gushing about a gutsy win, etc.

As among the most enthusiastic of the loony optimist contingent re this year's Devils, I tend to support #7, but I discount none of the concerns as wacky or unworthy. [I'm confident you question-raisers are relieved to be judged neither wacky nor unworthy by the likes of a loony.] KS is certainly in a bit of a slump, so we're all likely to be edgy Wed eve v. BC, and really we'll be nervous until KS regains his form for several games in a row, say the next 4, through Clemson in 2 weeks. I"m guessing that we mostly agree, too, that even if circumstances just don't favor KS's return to "the 4," we'd hope maybe he and MP2 can invert [?] occasionally, to take advantage of MP2's size and skill as a passer into the post and of KS's moves down low. No one, I trust, wants KS to depend too heavily on jacking up 3's, so we hope for some variety there, thinking, too, that that's likely to factor into his un-slump.

As the OP of the recent "8/9-man rotation" thread, I'd obviously prefer a bit more development-PT for DD and RK, but several posters [or is it mostly the kind and gentle Jumbo?] assert pretty persuasively that RK's the #5 Big, and that is what it is.

Hoping not to blather interminably, suffice it for me to acknowledge that those who see in this loss ?-marks are raising legitimate issues. But IMO they go a bit too far in drawing ominous conclusions from this one game. I myself am dismayed that Duke, solidly better in the first half, was outplayed in the second. But this still looks like a 13-3 ACC team, and I'm not persuaded just now that the Devils will inevitably flame out in the NCAAT unless they're 15-1 on March 7.

roywhite
01-10-2010, 06:37 AM
We out rebounded Tech 20 to 12 in the first half, that means in the 2nd half they out rebounded us 26 to 12, that's domination.

http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-tech-sports/2010/01/09/digesting-the-duke-win/?cxntfid=blogs_georgia_tech_sports

Yeah, from the Atlanta paper (one of the DBR links)


But it didn’t matter, because Tech out-Duked Duke. The Yellow Jackets were 5-for-14 from 3-point range while Duke went only 6-for-28. Tech got to the free throw line twice as much as the Blue Devils, taking 28 free throws to Duke’s 14, and Tech went 17-of-18 from the line in the second half.

Tech outrebounded Duke 26-12 in the second half, including 11 offensive rebounds.

And this very important statistic for the Yellow Jackets – they committed only three turnovers in the second half.



Pretty strong second half by Tech.

Indoor66
01-10-2010, 08:28 AM
We out rebounded Tech 20 to 12 in the first half, that means in the 2nd half they out rebounded us 26 to 12, that's domination.

Check your math....;)

davekay1971
01-10-2010, 08:44 AM
We lost to a top 20 conference opponent in their arena when they played their best game (by far) this season and we, well, didn't. That happens. The sky is not falling.

HB TAYLOR
01-10-2010, 09:10 AM
Its a different season but the look of the same teams we have the past 4 or 5 years, with the exception of Mason Plumlee. Taking way too many 3 pt shots (live by the 3 you die by the 3) and the inability of defending the high pick and roll with their bigs. First half we did, imo, a fantastic job defending the post but GT was not utilizing the pick and roll. On a positive note, Mason Plumlee is going to be a beast! And with Singler playing so poorly we still had a chance in the end.

Faison1
01-10-2010, 09:20 AM
Man, that's a long thread to read through before posting.....gotta admit that I skipped a few bank and forths between Jumbo and whoever else.

I was happy to see the toughness we displayed yesterday. I thought our bigs held their own against some NBA talent types between Lawal, Favors and Peacock. And overall, I like the style of play we are employing this year. The Plumlees have so much potential, and I am really psyched to see them develop. I'm not too worried about this loss, and if the team takes the right attitude, it may help Duke down the road.

I did find the following things troubling:

- in our two true road games so far, only 1 of our top 3 players has played well.
- I am not totally sure if Kyle is suited for the 3....he doesn't seem to have that first step required of a 3....but I'm hoping he proves me wrong
- Lance's stat line: 0-1 0-0 0-0 1 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 14
He played some outstanding D, but man, I wish he could give some more on the O side.
- 28 3 attempts seems like a lot.....additionally, it seems to be a trend when our offense isn't working

Like I said, I'm not too worried. I will be worried if these same problems come up in the second half of the ACC.

Saratoga2
01-10-2010, 09:39 AM
Singler is having trouble taking his man off the dribble. I believe Jumbo first suggested that we develop some screen plays to allow Singler to get open looks closer to the basket. I didn't see that happen last night. On the other hand, our ball handlers were getting a lot of pressure bring the ball up and a lot of time was being taken off the clock just getting into our sets.

Coach K defintely has the duty of bringing the ball up shared between Scheyer and Smith. Even Siingler took on that role at times during the game, but he is probably the least secure of the 3 at it. He still is our next best option with the ball. Dawkins is still a little green to deal with that pressure. At times we were using Mason as a safety valve with Jon to break the defensive pressure brining the ball up. That shows that coach K has a lot of confidence in Mason's game.

I didn't think we moved the ball around the perimeter as efficiently as in prior games and didn't get aa many open shots, although still quite a few open 3's. I think that was a function of the GT defense.

Dawkins is still adapting to having a defender in his face when he takes the 3. The level of play in the ACC and in the major NCAA ranks in high and he hasn't had the experienced dealing with it. His offense is likely to get back on track soon.

The Gottlieb comment on Scheyer not being an NBA prospect seems to fly in the face of the evidence. GT is supposed to have 3 or 4 pro prospects. Scheyer went for 25 against them with 6 assists and one turnover against them. That turnover was caused by a mauling. I would think Scheyer has a real chance if he wants to go in that direction.

grossbus
01-10-2010, 09:40 AM
gumbomoop!

great post!!! :D

Devilsfan
01-10-2010, 09:45 AM
Gottleib? High integrity Gottleib? I don't think he's the new spokesperson for Visa or Mastercharge.

AtlDuke72
01-10-2010, 10:07 AM
disagree. they out hustled us plain and simple. and pushed us around on the boards.

ya the ball bounced their way a lot today, but thats no excuse


I was at the game courtside. No way you could say Duke was "outhustled". Tech has some monsters on the boards and the ball did seem to bounce Tech's way a lot. Duke missed a ton of free throws and wide open shots they usually make and lost by 4 points. Do you really think this was caused by "lack of effort"?

AtlDuke72
01-10-2010, 10:31 AM
The Tech fans are really down on Hewitt for a host of reasons. Does it strike anyone else as odd that Lawal only played 23 minutes and only got 9 shots? He is by far Tech's best player and they do nothing to get him the ball. Hewitt has a senseless substitution pattern that just rotates players in willy nilly whether they seem to be playing well or not. Look for Tech to have a few more big wins because of the talent level, but they will crash and burn at the end of the year.

FerryFor50
01-10-2010, 10:42 AM
I was at the game courtside. No way you could say Duke was "outhustled". Tech has some monsters on the boards and the ball did seem to bounce Tech's way a lot. Duke missed a ton of free throws and wide open shots they usually make and lost by 4 points. Do you really think this was caused by "lack of effort"?

Being outhustled doesn't mean you didn't work hard - Tech just worked harder. They had fresher legs and were at home. There's no shame in it - it happens.

Getting loose ball after loose ball is only partly luck - hustling and being in position has a lot to do with it, too.

Hermy-own
01-10-2010, 11:00 AM
I am one of those who takes the more optimistic viewpoint. Basically, we had a game where 2 of the big 3 were playing below average, especially Kyle. We were playing a highly talented team, ranked #17 in the country. We had a lot of tough calls and tough bounces. And we only lost by 4 points. That says to me that we were doing a lot of things right. I only have two complaints:

Our defense seems a bit softer than it did earlier in the season. Against some of the weaker competition we were playing earlier, our height really destroyed their shooting percentages, but it isn't anymore. Hopefully we can tighten up our defense and our rebounding.

In the last 5 minutes our offense desintigrated - and our shooting wasn't really that bad. We just moving it around the perimeter until we found a semi-open 3 ball. Very weak offense. It would be nice to move it inside more - I saw some opportunities to get Mason the ball down low, but he was passed up.

jaimedun34
01-10-2010, 11:01 AM
The only thing this loss exposed was the same thing everyone already knew. If one of 3S struggles to score, Duke can have a hard time winning tough games.

I pretty much agree. That's not to say that we can't get some more production from the other guys, but generally if they struggle, we aren't going to be too close. We knew that coming into the season, so it's not like we were 'exposed' or anything.




1. Mason was an absolute bear. Strong all over the floor, except those moments where he's 15-20 feet out and appears to want to dribble. Even his fouls are usually strong.

I've said this over on the scout boards, but Mason is not what I expected - in a good way! He's slower than I thought he would be, but he's thicker, stronger, and a better/more willing rebounder and defender.

TampaDuke
01-10-2010, 11:06 AM
I realize we were deliberately trying to control the pace of the game, but I would have liked to see us selectively force the issue offensively on a few more possessions. To me, it seemed as if not doing so allowed GT a free pass on the full court press. I think we need to come up with something to make pressing teams think twice, or at least get a few points off of the defensive liability that a broken press usually permits to an opportunistic offense.

I did like the adjustment in the second half to have Mason as an outlet to assist with getting the ball up court. Unlike a lot of big guys, he seemed comfortable handling the ball in the open court.

hq2
01-10-2010, 11:37 AM
As losses go, I don't think this was all that bad. When you're playing a ranked team on the road, you're looking at even money at best to win, and the game was close down the stretch. A few obvious points.

1. This was the first time I saw MP1 show consistent post play against quality comp. This is a big development, and should not be underestimated. This is sorely needed, and will be a huge asset in the future. Mason is getting better too, but isn't quite ready to be a post up option yet. He is best used in run-the-floor mode.

2. This business about expecting Kyle to play entirely on the perimeter is a bad idea. He needs a good mixture of shots, and more plays designed to get him to the basket. The guy is 6-8 after all, and a pretty good driver, and this side of his game should not be wasted.

3. Right now, I think we can't win big games unless at least 2 out of 3 of the Triple S's are playing well. One wasn't enough yesterday.

4. Our inside D is pretty good. This was a very tough, strong team, and we held our own down low. We'll be O.K. against the tough teams.

mayrer
01-10-2010, 11:39 AM
The Ga Tech game confirmed what other games have indicated. Duke has more firepower inside than in recent years and is playing aggressive effective defense. It helps to have shotblockers near the rim. The problem is simple - the limited amount of perimeter quickness from the Duke team is a weakness. Duke is susceptible to the press, and a team playing aggressive halfcourt defense will take Duke out of its offense too. Scheyer handles and protects the ball well and occasionally gets to the basket. Nolan Smith is quick, but isn't the best ballhandler. From what we've seen to date, we can't tell much about Andre Dawkins' quickness or ballhandling.

The disadvantage in quickness can lead to rushed shots when the opposing defense is aggressive (Duke did this to Gonzaga; Ga Tech did it to Duke - and so did Villanova last year).

Kyle Singler's been one of my favorite players, but he has had a lot of trouble beating opponents off the dribble when he's playing the three spot. If he's not ill or injured, maybe he's not quick enough to be effective in that spot.

Duke will see some good wins, and it's great to see the team play so aggressively and effectively on defense. Duke will remain vulnerable against a quick team that plays aggressive perimeter defense.

ncexnyc
01-10-2010, 01:08 PM
I tend to be a, "The glass is half empty", type, but after yesterday's loss I'm not sure why so many are voicing concerns.
Two of our top players were lousy and we were still in it down to the wire.

As I said earlier in the week, Tech would be a tough game for us, as they would be fired-up after loosing to Georgia. The fact that they were playing at home was something else that gave me concern.

As Jumbo and others have already said, the defense was there. Lance doesn't get near enough credit for the job he's done the past 3 games. Is it any coincidence that once he fouled out, both Favors and Lawal seemed to become more of a factor in the game?

To many 3's?, Sorry, but for the most part they were wide open shots taken within the flow of the offense.

Good teams do drop a few games during the course of a season it's all part of the game. I don't believe now is the time for soulsearching, however should we drop several games within a short span of time, then it woud be legitimate to discuss trends and faults.

arnie
01-10-2010, 01:37 PM
Sorry, I didn't realize this was the first Duke game you have seen this season. I'll send you the game tape of Z and LT from the first 14 games. No worries.

Wow - nice insult directed to someone who has watched 99% of Duke basketball games in the past 40 years. If you believe Z and Lance are solid offensive basketball players (on a high caliber NCAA Division 1 level), so be it. I doubt anyone can change your mind. I'm just hoping for better play at that position and feel the Plumlees can provide it. I strongly disagree with you that Z and Thomas should get most of the minutes at the two power positions.

_Gary
01-10-2010, 02:23 PM
Wow - nice insult directed to someone who has watched 99% of Duke basketball games in the past 40 years. If you believe Z and Lance are solid offensive basketball players (on a high caliber NCAA Division 1 level), so be it. I doubt anyone can change your mind. I'm just hoping for better play at that position and feel the Plumlees can provide it. I strongly disagree with you that Z and Thomas should get most of the minutes at the two power positions.


I haven't weighed in on this particular issue (and I know all of you are anxiously awaiting my thoughts - :p) so here goes. At present I'm not sure the minutes issue as it concerns tandems of Z/T vs. P/P is something I'd feel compelled to say has to be heavily weighted one way or the other. I will say at this point I do think the youngsters are making headway and probably have the most upside for the remainder of the season. I expect we will continue to see more of the Miles/Mason tandem as the year moves forward. I kinda think Zoubs, God bless his heart, has reached his ceiling. Lance is still valuable on the defensive end, but overall if I was forced to choose between the two sets of big men, I'd have to go with the Plumlees getting a bit more time at this point.

Gary

BlueintheFace
01-10-2010, 02:45 PM
Wow - nice insult directed to someone who has watched 99% of Duke basketball games in the past 40 years. If you believe Z and Lance are solid offensive basketball players (on a high caliber NCAA Division 1 level), so be it. I doubt anyone can change your mind. I'm just hoping for better play at that position and feel the Plumlees can provide it. I strongly disagree with you that Z and Thomas should get most of the minutes at the two power positions.

This was your post (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=349600&postcount=102). The one in which you implied that we can't win in March with Lance and Zoubs playing significant minutes, despite their defensive value. Specifically, that we can't win because of their lack of offensive ability.

1) If you want to ignore defensive value, fine. I would like a player that has time and again shut down NBA-level low post threats this season on the floor. That's just me.

2) LT starts and plays 23.4 mpg. He scores 5.7 ppg. Zoubek comes off the bench and plays 17 mpg and scores 5.9 ppg. When they are on the floor, they are pretty undeniably (at least I haven't seen it denied) our best post defenders, but our 5th options offensively.

We can't win with those two seniors on the floor because of lack of offensive value? Here are the PPG for a few 5th options receiving significant minutes on recent championship teams.

Russel Robinson: 7.3ppg
Jackie Manuel: 5.5ppg
Taliek Brown: 6.3 ppg
Chris Duhon: 7.2 ppg

...and some of those guys started over higher-scoring teammates.

dukestheheat
01-10-2010, 02:57 PM
Bottom line is that we just got outplayed going down the stretch and our three-ball shots weren't falling (hit about 21%). Putting those two together for ANY team out there spells one four letter word: loss.

dth.

superdave
01-10-2010, 03:08 PM
We can't win with those two seniors on the floor because of lack of offensive value? Here are the PPG for a few 5th options receiving significant minutes on recent championship teams.

Russel Robinson: 7.3ppg
Jackie Manuel: 5.5ppg
Taliek Brown: 6.3 ppg
Chris Duhon: 7.2 ppg

...and some of those guys started over higher-scoring teammates.

Z has developed into a reliable scorer, in my estimation. You can count on him to get a couple of stick-backs each game. He has made a significant jump from last year. And when he starts doing it against better competition, we'll be be tough in March. I do believe this!

LT has had a few strong games this year - ISU (nice first half) and UConn - on the offensive end. But he is far more a of a defensive stopper than anything. Anyone doubt Lawal goes off if LT was still in the game? Me neither.

Their minutes add up to 40, and they average a combined 11 points. Works for me.

Duke Parent 06
01-10-2010, 03:28 PM
Z has developed into a reliable scorer, in my estimation. You can count on him to get a couple of stick-backs each game. He has made a significant jump from last year. And when he starts doing it against better competition, we'll be be tough in March. I do believe this!

LT has had a few strong games this year - ISU (nice first half) and UConn - on the offensive end. But he is far more a of a defensive stopper than anything. Anyone doubt Lawal goes off if LT was still in the game? Me neither.

Their minutes add up to 40, and they average a combined 11 points. Works for me.

Yeah, when LT fouled out I thought "uh-oh here comes Lawal."

jimhaughton
01-10-2010, 03:38 PM
One of Singler's worst games ever.

Glad to see Plumlee have a great game, but he really needs to be playing at the same time as his brother, in other words, both Plumlees need to start, and the sooner the better. Zoubek and Thomas are solid role players, but Mason and Miles are substantially more talented and the future of this program. Really hope to see Mason in the starting lineup immediately.

This loss was disheartening because once again, Duke owns the pre-conference schedule and as soon as the competition improves on the road, Duke loses. I hope Duke improves, but this looks like a broken record right now.

Until today, I haven't been impressed by winning all of our games thus far while Coach K fails to develop Dawkins and Kelly, and running Scheyer and Singler into the ground with heavy minutes in blowouts. Dawkins and Kelly need to get more time going forward so that we aren't so reliant on the three S's, and so that those two talented kids get acclimated to ACC games and DEVELOP. As we saw today, when two or more of our top 3 scorers have bad games, and we have foul trouble, we need quality depth to help win games. Today was a bad omen for ther rest of the conference slate, but if K realizes that he needs to develop his bench (not holding my breath), we'll won't see Duke realize it's fullest potential.

You're on the money. No player should be out there for 38 minutes, particularly the way Singler's playing. Let him sit for a spell and give Kelly some meaningful playing time. Same for Nolan. Dawkins' playing time keeps diminishing. he's a shooter, let him play. Use a 3-man rotation with the guards to give both Scheyer and Smith a rest.. Know I'm beating a dead horse but K will never use his bench a la 'ol Roy!!

Jumbo
01-10-2010, 03:40 PM
You're on the money. No player should be out there for 38 minutes, particularly the way Singler's playing. Let him sit for a spell and give Kelly some meaningful playing time. Same for Nolan. Dawkins' playing time keeps diminishing. he's a shooter, let him play. Use a 3-man rotation with the guards to give both Scheyer and Smith a rest.. Know I'm beating a dead horse but K will never use his bench a la 'ol Roy!!

Who handles the ball when Nolan, Kyle or Jon is out of the game? Kelly is a power forward.

jimhaughton
01-10-2010, 03:42 PM
You're on the money. But as you say, "I'm not holding my breath" re:K's playing Kelly and Dawkins.

Jumbo
01-10-2010, 03:48 PM
You're on the money. But as you say, "I'm not holding my breath" re:K's playing Kelly and Dawkins.

I don't understand what you're saying. How does playing Kelly help Scheyer, Singler or Smith? What would be the point in playing him more? And then, the question becomes whether you believe Andre Dawkins is a good enough ball-handler to put any of our primary ball-handlers on the bench for significant minutes, especially against a pressing team.

MChambers
01-10-2010, 04:22 PM
I don't understand what you're saying. How does playing Kelly help Scheyer, Singler or Smith? What would be the point in playing him more? And then, the question becomes whether you believe Andre Dawkins is a good enough ball-handler to put any of our primary ball-handlers on the bench for significant minutes, especially against a pressing team.

Saturday at least, Andre did not seem to feel comfortable handling the ball very much, and certainly did not try to attack the press. (Jumbo, I'm agreeing with you.)

FerryFor50
01-10-2010, 04:25 PM
This was your post (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=349600&postcount=102). The one in which you implied that we can't win in March with Lance and Zoubs playing significant minutes, despite their defensive value. Specifically, that we can't win because of their lack of offensive ability.

1) If you want to ignore defensive value, fine. I would like a player that has time and again shut down NBA-level low post threats this season on the floor. That's just me.

2) LT starts and plays 23.4 mpg. He scores 5.7 ppg. Zoubek comes off the bench and plays 17 mpg and scores 5.9 ppg. When they are on the floor, they are pretty undeniably (at least I haven't seen it denied) our best post defenders, but our 5th options offensively.

We can't win with those two seniors on the floor because of lack of offensive value? Here are the PPG for a few 5th options receiving significant minutes on recent championship teams.

Russel Robinson: 7.3ppg
Jackie Manuel: 5.5ppg
Taliek Brown: 6.3 ppg
Chris Duhon: 7.2 ppg

...and some of those guys started over higher-scoring teammates.

I don't get why so many people think basketball is just offense. Sure it's nice to have players who can do it all, but you work with what you have. Every team needs "glue guys" and defensive specialists like Lance Thomas (and David McClure last year). And it's real nice to have a 7 footer who gets offensive rebounds at a top 5 national rate. And the bonus is, when those two inevitably get into foul trouble, you have three 6'10" bundles of energy coming off the bench for re-enforcements. And who needs your 5th guy to score regularly when the other 4 can score just fine?

Kedsy
01-10-2010, 04:39 PM
The only thing this loss exposed was the same thing everyone already knew. If one of 3S struggles to score, Duke can have a hard time winning tough games.

I think what this game (and also the Wisconsin game) showed is if two of 3S struggle to score, we may be trouble. If only one is off, I think we're fine.


I pretty much agree. That's not to say that we can't get some more production from the other guys, but generally if they struggle, we aren't going to be too close.

Actually, I thought we were pretty close (4 points), just as we were close against Wisconsin. It seems to me if we're in it until the last few possessions on the road on a day where two of our top three scorers can't seem to score, that's not so terrible. To me, what stands out in most of our losses (over the past few years) is we seem to lose defensive focus while we're trying to make the frantic comeback at the end, which makes us more reliant on taking 3-pointers with a hand in our face because that's the only way to gain ground if the other team scores on most of their trips. That said, it was by no means a bad loss and I'm not at all worried about the team's 2010 prospects.

cwaugh
01-10-2010, 04:45 PM
Here is a good article following the Georgia Tech game talking about this years team. It seems to agree with what others have posted here recently.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/207/story/1171190.html

Greg_Newton
01-10-2010, 04:46 PM
IMO, this is the problem right here (http://www.goduke.com/PhotoAlbum.dbml?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&PALBID=360487) - look at photo number 6 on the page.

This is just not a good way to move with the ball. Not only is his head down, his weight is so far forward he's almost horizontal. Good luck reacting to the defender or pulling up from there, or using his size advantage in any discernible way.

Kyle is just not quite the athlete or ballhandler he would need to be to head full steam into traffic like that. Lebron James can do this (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/ian_thomsen/05/30/magic.cavs/p1.lebron-james11.getty.jpg), because he is a 260-lb point guard who can jump over a help defender's head. Larry Bird, on the other hand, always stayed balanced and in control (http://www.celevs.com/l/larry-bird/larry-bird3.jpg) when driving because his strengths lied in his ability to pull up and read smaller defenders, not bulling through and finishing over/through the entire defense.

I think Singler's problem is mainly a mental one - he needs to stop trying to be faster than his defender and just keep his head up and take what he's given. Easier said than done, and utilizing him in a more diverse array of setups would also help his effectiveness, but the root issue might just be simple as realizing this.

cameroncrazy3104
01-10-2010, 04:50 PM
#1 reason why we lose when to teams we shouldn't....is the resons why its risky to build teams so built off the three

I wouldn't say that Georgia Tech is a team we were not supposed to loose to. First off they were #17 in the nation and they are incredibly athletic. If it was not supposed to be a good game, ESPN would not have broadcast it. Second, playing on the road in the ACC is one of the hardest things to do. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we lost 2 more ACC games on the road.

Poincaré
01-10-2010, 04:52 PM
Kyle has been pretty unspectacular this year. It seems that he can't beat anyone off the dribble. The fact that Zoubek sets terrible screens isn't helping. Zoubek always rolls to the basket too soon, letting Kyle run straight into the defender.

By the way, has anyone thought about how much damage our bigs are doing to the team by putting the other team into the bonus early in almost every single game? This so-called post depth has been a mixed blessing in that regard. Having extra bodies with five fouls each is good. Having each of them use those five fouls every game is not so good. Whatever defensive advantages they provide might be negated by this factor. Also, Zoubek's offensive rebounds are also overrated, given that he can't finish at the rim after grabbing those boards. These are weaknesses hidden in our strengths.

There were some definite positives as well though. Miles and Mason are showing that they can play against ACC competition.

RoyalBlue08
01-10-2010, 05:12 PM
IMO, this is the problem right here (http://www.goduke.com/PhotoAlbum.dbml?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&PALBID=360487) - look at photo number 6 on the page.

This is just not a good way to move with the ball. Not only is his head down, his weight is so far forward he's almost horizontal. Good luck reacting to the defender or pulling up from there, or using his size advantage in any discernible way.

Kyle is just not quite the athlete or ballhandler he would need to be to head full steam into traffic like that. Lebron James can do this (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/ian_thomsen/05/30/magic.cavs/p1.lebron-james11.getty.jpg), because he is a 260-lb point guard who can jump over a help defender's head. Larry Bird, on the other hand, always stayed balanced and in control (http://www.celevs.com/l/larry-bird/larry-bird3.jpg) when driving because his strengths lied in his ability to pull up and read smaller defenders, not bulling through and finishing over/through the entire defense.

I think Singler's problem is mainly a mental one - he needs to stop trying to be faster than his defender and just keep his head up and take what he's given. Easier said than done, and utilizing him in a more diverse array of setups would also help his effectiveness, but the root issue might just be simple as realizing this.

I've noticed the same thing many times this year and think this is a great point. For an example of how to drive under control and take what the defense gives you, KS doesn't need to be watching tape of anybody from the 80s however, he needs to look no further than the point guard on his own team.

weezie
01-10-2010, 05:29 PM
Good catch, very succinctly sums up the game and the situation at this point.

Thanks!

BD80
01-10-2010, 06:09 PM
... The fact that Zoubek sets terrible screens isn't helping. Zoubek always rolls to the basket too soon, letting Kyle run straight into the defender. ...

I completely disagree. Z sets the best screens on the team. I would bet that any coach we have faced would say he is the best his team has faced. I was noticing how many of our outside shots were due to Z screens. Our guys could get better at cutting off of his off ball screens, as Z tends to move into the cutter's defender. If our guys would rub against Z when cutting, they would create space from their defenders. Z is really aware of where he is supposed to be on the floor as well as where his teammates should be.

Which defender does Kyle run into? That would be Kyle's issue, because the man setting the pick is supposed to roll once he has created space, causing the defenders to chose how to react to the two offensive threats. Z is not the most effective post man in receiving a pass and scoring when rolling to the basket, but then you shouldn't expect a Clydesdale to win the Kentucky Derby anytime soon.

Greg_Newton
01-10-2010, 06:32 PM
I've noticed the same thing many times this year and think this is a great point. For an example of how to drive under control and take what the defense gives you, KS doesn't need to be watching tape of anybody from the 80s however, he needs to look no further than the point guard on his own team.

Agree 100%, Jon is as good as you'll get at that. I just used Larry as an example because he's a similar sized player. There's a tendency for taller guys to lean forward and shield the ball a little more when driving (even if they're good ballhandlers), just because there's a larger distance between their hand and the floor when they dribble. Given his size, Larry was very good at just trusting his handle and focusing on what was being given to him... and I think Kyle would benefit greatly by doing that a little more.

Lulu
01-10-2010, 06:45 PM
Well, I'm not reading through 12 pages of comments. All I have to say is that if you can walk out of a Georgia Tech game without any injuries that's almost as good as a win - maybe better.

mayrer
01-10-2010, 07:01 PM
"Z has developed into a reliable scorer, in my estimation."


While Zoubek has shown further improvement this year, it's hard to say that a guy who has scored 0, 0 and 4 points in the past three games is a "reliable scorer." The Plumlees both are more skilled and obviously have more time to improve while at Duke

Regardless, speed kills. When Duke faces a quicker foe, shots get rushed, the team gets out of shooting rhythm, it's harder to get to the hoop, etc.

The D can help much of that, but Duke's in trouble when it's outrebounded on the D boards, like the second half - no easy baskets then, and the jump shots are rushed!

Hermy-own
01-10-2010, 07:47 PM
"Singler said the Blue Devils can sometimes be guilty of relying on Scheyer to do too much. They can't put the load on him, Singler said."

Exactly right. If Duke keeps expecting Scheyer to be the star every game, this is going to be a long season. Now, I hope Singler isn't thinking that he has to take over the game either. Ideally, the big 3 would all give solid contributions without feeling pressured to take over the game. Possibly this game was an abberation, but I think that their attempts to do too much are reflected in their recent 3 point percentage. But the reason I don't want to put too much laod on Scheyer is that his strength is taking what the defense gives him - if he is pulled out of that mindset, it could be trouble.

Kedsy
01-10-2010, 08:04 PM
Also, Zoubek's offensive rebounds are also overrated, given that he can't finish at the rim after grabbing those boards. These are weaknesses hidden in our strengths.

Z shot 2 for 3 against Ga Tech and is shooting 64.4% for the year. Who in your mind finishes at a higher percentage?

BlueintheFace
01-10-2010, 08:06 PM
Z shot 2 for 3 against Ga Tech and is shooting 64.4% for the year. Who in your mind finishes at a higher percentage?

I love facts.

Happy Camper
01-10-2010, 08:29 PM
It wasn't just the GT game; he's been really off his game most of the year. Right now he sure doesn't look like he's ready for The League! The good news is if he keeps playing like this, he may be around for his senior year!

Lord Ash
01-10-2010, 08:30 PM
I am sorry, but anyone who cites Brian's stats (offensive rebounds per 40, or whatever) as proof that he is a really good basketball player I think is not being 100 percent honest... while he does have some strengths, he also has some major shortcomings as a basketball player.

Channing
01-10-2010, 08:30 PM
Z shot 2 for 3 against Ga Tech and is shooting 64.4% for the year. Who in your mind finishes at a higher percentage?

Z has been very ineffective finishing with any resistance. His scores tend to come on wide open layups. Case and point, the Clemson game, when he got rejected time and time again because he refuses to finish strong around the rim.

on a side note, I have noticed that when Z gets the ball in the post he actually has a fairly good looking back to the basket game. However, our guards really do not feed the post. I noticed in the GT game several times Mason had his man posted up, and the feeds just didnt come in.

Poincaré
01-10-2010, 08:57 PM
Z shot 2 for 3 against Ga Tech and is shooting 64.4% for the year. Who in your mind finishes at a higher percentage?

Statistics can be deceiving without proper context. If you shoot very few shots a game, and those shots are point blank. 64.4% is no big deal. Now, let's see what Zoubek shot against major conference (BCS) competition + Gonzaga. It's 11 out of 23 or 47.8%. Things don't look so great for Zoubek when you take out all the early season patsies out of the picture. If we take out St. Johns, who played a 4-guard lineup most of the game, it's 7 of 18 or 38%. Now, consider that he often cannot finish shots when he is touched at all, often leading to two foul shots instead of a three-point play. More than 60% of his field goal attempts on the year came against really poor competition. As a post scorer, Z leaves a lot to be desired.

Poincaré
01-10-2010, 09:00 PM
I completely disagree. Z sets the best screens on the team. I would bet that any coach we have faced would say he is the best his team has faced. I was noticing how many of our outside shots were due to Z screens. Our guys could get better at cutting off of his off ball screens, as Z tends to move into the cutter's defender. If our guys would rub against Z when cutting, they would create space from their defenders. Z is really aware of where he is supposed to be on the floor as well as where his teammates should be.

Which defender does Kyle run into? That would be Kyle's issue, because the man setting the pick is supposed to roll once he has created space, causing the defenders to chose how to react to the two offensive threats. Z is not the most effective post man in receiving a pass and scoring when rolling to the basket, but then you shouldn't expect a Clydesdale to win the Kentucky Derby anytime soon.

This is interesting. I never thought of it this way. Kyle often runs into his own defender, who slips between him and Z as Z rolls to the basket. Maybe he turns too widely. I don't know.

BlueintheFace
01-10-2010, 09:01 PM
More than 60% of his field goal attempts on the year came against really poor competition. As a post scorer, Z leaves a lot to be desired.

Same can be said against most of the other big men in the country at this point. His percentage is the same. Your point is moot.