PDA

View Full Version : Big Men Play



SCMatt33
01-10-2010, 11:21 PM
I figured I'd start a new thread on this topic, since the GTech post game thread, hasn't been about the GTech game for quite awhile now.

I personally feel that while Zoubek has done a tremendous job in improving himself (especially his hands and his positioning), his lack of mobility ultimately costs him against high level competition. I wrote an article on B/R (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/323349-dukes-bigs-will-be-key-to-march-success) breaking down my more detailed thoughts and the importance of Duke's front court play going forward.

Mrezt
01-11-2010, 12:13 AM
Kind of a question for everyone:

Do you think Zoubek will continue to play pretty well (like he has during the pre-conference part of the season)? I remember last year he did well before ACC started and then he started to do worse once we got into conference play

Indoor66
01-11-2010, 08:09 AM
Kind of a question for everyone:

Do you think Zoubek will continue to play pretty well (like he has during the pre-conference part of the season)? I remember last year he did well before ACC started and then he started to do worse once we got into conference play

Let's watch and see rather than speculate?

slower
01-11-2010, 09:00 AM
Let's watch and see rather than speculate?

Speculation is the life-blood of this board, my friend.

Channing
01-11-2010, 09:05 AM
i mentioned in another thread, I would like to see our guards/wings give our bigs some more chances to show what, if any, back to the basket game they have. While Z isn't a power player, I think he has a fairly deft back to the basket game. In the very small sample size I remember, when he gets his defender on his back he has a nice touch with a baby hook. Miles and Mason are so athletic that I think they can probably at least get fouled making a move on their defender.

Nevertheless, our guards seem very hesitant to feed the post, and the only time our bigs seem to get the ball are on (a) offensive rebounds or (b) drive and dish.

superdave
01-11-2010, 09:30 AM
and the only time our bigs seem to get the ball are on (a) offensive rebounds or (b) drive and dish.

We could use more of both. Could someone please notify the team?

(Actually drive and dish is a great antidote to an off-night shooting the 3-ball.)

LanceChef
01-11-2010, 10:05 AM
Did anyone else get a bit frustrated at Zoubek hesitating for a layup when he got the ball underneath the basket unguarded? After watching him get repeatedly blocked by smaller players in the Iowa State game, this play, at least to me, was a microcosm of problems in the post on offense. He has made great strides on his hands, footwork, rebounding, and even mobility, but the next step is having him go up strong with the ball. When we don't have a consistent threat of strong shot attempts in the post on offense as a primary option (i.e. not a putback after a rebound), physical teams will be able to load up on the perimeter yet still make it back to the post for a potential block. We've seen Zoubek bang and dunk on the offensive side before (Xavier and UNC come to mind), but I'd like to see more of this to free up the perimeter.

And kudos to Lawal, he's a great player.

jv001
01-11-2010, 10:39 AM
Miles, Mason and Brian have pretty good jump hook shots. I would love to see them shoot that shot more. I believe it was Miles that hit a great jump hook bank against GT. Quite impressive. I have noticed that Kyle has had good passing lanes into the post but has not passed the ball. I hope that does not continue. Some inside and back out game might get Kyle going. Go Duke!

BlueintheFace
01-11-2010, 10:41 AM
two words: Florida State

CDu
01-11-2010, 10:49 AM
Nevertheless, our guards seem very hesitant to feed the post, and the only time our bigs seem to get the ball are on (a) offensive rebounds or (b) drive and dish.

It's true. As versatile and as effective as our guards are, they haven't been terribly good at feeding the post. Some of that is that our bigs often struggle to establish and maintain good post position. Another part of it may be that our bigs just aren't that great as a group in terms of post moves. Thomas doesn't really have a post game and the Plumlees are still developing their post scoring skills. Zoubek has the most polished moves but is the most limited physically.

But there have been times this year where our bigs have established okay (but not great) post position but were not thrown the ball. Perhaps the guards/wings are simply not forcing the ball into positions in which the bigs may make mistakes, and are only getting them post touches in the most optimal of circumstances by design?

davekay1971
01-11-2010, 10:49 AM
I'm seeing such encouraging signs from both Plumlees, particularly Mason, that I'm optimistic about where our interior play is going this year. Mason has strung together 5 really strong games, and, even better, has been more impressive in each game than in the one before it. He clearly has a very high ceiling, and should be an impact player by tournament time this year. Miles is not improving by leaps and bounds as his younger brother is, but he is making strides nonetheless. With Lance as a very good post defender and Zoubs at least providing good rebounding, our interior play is moving in the right direction.

I had thought about starting a Mason thread to track his development as the season unfolded, but this thread will undoubtedly cover that ground.

CDu
01-11-2010, 10:55 AM
I'm seeing such encouraging signs from both Plumlees, particularly Mason, that I'm optimistic about where our interior play is going this year. Mason has strung together 5 really strong games, and, even better, has been more impressive in each game than in the one before it. He clearly has a very high ceiling, and should be an impact player by tournament time this year. Miles is not improving by leaps and bounds as his younger brother is, but he is making strides nonetheless. With Lance as a very good post defender and Zoubs at least providing good rebounding, our interior play is moving in the right direction.

I had thought about starting a Mason thread to track his development as the season unfolded, but this thread will undoubtedly cover that ground.

Mason certainly has the most upside of our bigs this year. It's nice to see him developing confidence. I'm not sure I'd quite call his games against LBSU and Clemson "really strong," but he's certainly shown flashes of his potential in the seven games following the SJU game. And hopefully this game against a big and talented frontcourt is a sign of things to come over the next few months.

Steve68
01-11-2010, 11:09 AM
two words: Florida State

I'm not sure what this means but are you saying we will have a problem with the same Florida State that lost to Maryland over the weekend?

CDu
01-11-2010, 11:29 AM
I'm not sure what this means but are you saying we will have a problem with the same Florida State that lost to Maryland over the weekend?

Well, I'm not sure what the previous poster meant, but you do realize that we just lost to a team that had lost to Georgia during the week, right? Using a particular recent bad performance doesn't always serve as a good measuring stick. If we struggle with shooting like we did against Tech, we could very well lose to FSU. Now, I don't think we will, but there are some similarities between the two teams.

Kedsy
01-11-2010, 11:48 AM
Did anyone else get a bit frustrated at Zoubek hesitating for a layup when he got the ball underneath the basket unguarded?

If I'm remembering the same play, Z caught the ball awkwardly -- either he stumbled as he caught it or it was thrown a little behind him. To me it looked like he was worried about getting called for a travel which is why he hesitated and then tossed it up softly without straightening up first. Rather than being frustrated, I was happy he was able to recover, avoid the travel, and put the ball in the basket.

airowe
01-11-2010, 11:52 AM
I'm not sure what this means but are you saying we will have a problem with the same Florida State that lost to Maryland over the weekend?

I think I know BiTFace's posts well enough to say that he was referring to the job Zoubs did guarding Solomon Alabi last year in the ACC Tourney. It's a good point, and one that often gets overlooked WRT Zoubs. If he gets matched with a post-oriented big he generally does well against them. K is very good at playing Zoubs in the right situations.

I'm most impressed by the Plumlees and love the way Lance and Miles play with each other and Z and Mase as well. I wonder how much that rotation will play out as the year goes on. I'm interested to see if that changes to the two Plumlees playing together and Z and Lance together. Regardless, a 4 (or 5) man deep rotation in the paint is something we haven't had in a while. This group hasn't even come close to realizing their full potential yet and we will be a much better team when they do.

Onlyduke
01-11-2010, 11:59 AM
Did anyone else get a bit frustrated at Zoubek hesitating for a layup when he got the ball underneath the basket unguarded?

I agree, but frustrated wouldn't have been the word I would use. It actually looked like the game went into a slow-mo mode ..... truly, it looked like the pace of the action went really s-l-o-w just for that play.

BlueintheFace
01-11-2010, 01:01 PM
I'm not sure what this means but are you saying we will have a problem with the same Florida State that lost to Maryland over the weekend?

Okay, 5 words:

Brian Zoubek, Florida State Stopper

Welcome2DaSlopes
01-11-2010, 01:05 PM
We should also give a lot of props to David for helping us when those games against Florida State.

elvis14
01-11-2010, 02:28 PM
Overall, I'm pretty happy with the play of our bigs and I think it's clever the way K has been pairing MP1 with Lance and MP2 with Z. Foul trouble changes the pairs (or just K mixing it up some) at times but I think it adds to their effectiveness to have a 'partner'. I also like the way we have seen improvements over last year in MP1, Z and Lance and the improvement we've seen from MP2 over the last month. It really gives me hope that we can be really good by the end of the year (note, I'm not saying we aren't good we are but we can continue to get better). I do have concerns that Z and Lance will struggle against better teams (seen it for 4 years) but I'll hope for the best.

As for feeding the post, we need to improve in that area IMHO. There are two times where I see us miss opportunities: Simple situations where guys get good position on the blocks and it seems that the pass is obvious and we send it around the perimeter or dribble around more instead, and on the pick and roll. I've seen our bigs roll to the rim after setting picks time and time again and the pass just doesn't go in. I'd love to see that improve. Having said that, if it's obvious to me, it's more than obvious to K and his coaching staff and they have decided against it, I would assume. Might be one of those places where I disagree with them (like THAT matters :D).

trinity92
01-11-2010, 03:27 PM
First off, I completely agree we need to have a credible low post threat in order to make this Duke season different from every one since Shelden left. However, we can't force players who aren't ready to make reliable post moves make those moves. At least, we can't do it and expect to be successful.

I'm with Elvis-- K is doing a wonderful job rotating our bigs, keeping them rested and generally out of foul trouble. LT and BZ are playing their best ball in a Duke uniform, MP1 has gotten a lot better since last year and has already shown improvement this year and MP2 has given us glimpses of skills we haven't seen in a freshman big man since 1988-- there I said it.

Having said all that, LT and BZ are not very good/verging on terrible at scoring using traditional, back to the basket, low post moves. They are much better at receiving and converting inside passes facing the basket or cleaning up after rebounds than they are when we dump the ball to them in the post and allow (force might be a better word) them to make an array of post moves in the hopes of getting off a shot in the paint.

MP1 and 2 (especially Mason) are the guys who we can run in the low post in the traditional sense, like we used to do with Boozer, Brand, Parks, Laettner, etc. However, both of them are still learning. We need to have patience with them. My reason for excitement this year is that I'm confident both the MPs will become our first credible low-post threats in years. It will be a treat to watch them develop.

CrazieDUMB
01-11-2010, 03:32 PM
Really makes me miss a Patrick Patterson or Greg Monroe. What could have been...

Saratoga2
01-11-2010, 04:08 PM
I thought Zoubek was getting called for fouls just about anytime he defended. The guy gets no break from officials. LT on the other hands still has issues giving too many fouls. Most of those are obvious and will get called. Miles is also having problems with fouls but seems to be improving in that area. To be strong inside, we need to have our bigs be available at least 20 minutes each before fouling out.

Mason has an upside in several areas. The way he helped relieve the pressure from the press was outstanding. He clearly is becoming more of an offensive threat and can pass well. As a freshman, we have to expect some akward moments on defense, but I see him as growing into a starter on this team. I am unsure whether Miles or LT would be preferable to start with him. I suppose the particular matchups are what should determine that.

Kedsy
01-11-2010, 04:34 PM
First off, I completely agree we need to have a credible low post threat in order to make this Duke season different from every one since Shelden left.

Different in what way? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but when most people on these boards say something like that they mean NCAA tournament success, and Shelden only got past the Sweet 16 once, two years before he left.

Also, I don't know if you equate "credible low post threat" with "traditional, back to the basket, low post player" (although the rest of your post suggests that you do), but if that's what you're saying I disagree. We certainly need an ability to diversify and find easy ways to score when our shots aren't dropping and/or the game is on the line, but to me that's very different from demanding a true back-to-the-basket center, of which there are very few in the world these days.



Having said all that, LT and BZ are not very good/verging on terrible at scoring using traditional, back to the basket, low post moves. They are much better at receiving and converting inside passes facing the basket or cleaning up after rebounds than they are when we dump the ball to them in the post and allow (force might be a better word) them to make an array of post moves in the hopes of getting off a shot in the paint.

MP1 and 2 (especially Mason) are the guys who we can run in the low post in the traditional sense, like we used to do with Boozer, Brand, Parks, Laettner, etc. However, both of them are still learning. We need to have patience with them. My reason for excitement this year is that I'm confident both the MPs will become our first credible low-post threats in years. It will be a treat to watch them develop.

I agree that Lance is in no way a back-to-the-basket low-post player. But I totally disagree with the notion that either MP1 or MP2 have showed any competency in that area, or even willingness to play that sort of game. Almost all the inside baskets I've seen from these two have been fast-breaks or pick-and-rolls or back-door alley-oops. MP1 has on rare occasion showed a cut-across-the-lane, pseudo-hook and MP2 sometimes makes a dribble, spin move out of the high post, but I would classify both of these moves as face-the-basket moves rather than back-to-the-basket. If all you're talking about is potential, then I'd say the jury is still out. But personally, despite his exciting high ceiling, I doubt MP2 will ever be that traditional post player.

Right now, in fact, the only big man we have that shows back-to-the-basket tendencies is Z. He rarely dunks, and he may drop the ball or try to put the ball on the floor and get stripped, or he may get blocked, so the result is not always what we want (although his shooting percentage is high so I think he's better at this than people give him credit for), but he has decent footwork and at least he tries to post up. And right now he's the only big man on our team who does.

Steve68
01-11-2010, 04:44 PM
Well, I'm not sure what the previous poster meant, but you do realize that we just lost to a team that had lost to Georgia during the week, right? Using a particular recent bad performance doesn't always serve as a good measuring stick. If we struggle with shooting like we did against Tech, we could very well lose to FSU. Now, I don't think we will, but there are some similarities between the two teams.

Of course I understand that we could lose to Florida State. I was really trying to find out if his two words were a positive or a negative about the play of the big men. His later post seems to indicate it was a positive statement about Zoubek's play against FSU last year.

MChambers
01-11-2010, 05:44 PM
To be strong inside, we need to have our bigs be available at least 20 minutes each before fouling out.

Yes, but the fouling also contributed to our (relatively) poor defensive showing on Saturday, because we were giving Georgia Tech easy points at the free throw line, and putting them in the bonus and double bonus very early. Some of the fouls were, as you suggest, not great calls, but many of them were very avoidable files, including most of Lance's and at least two of Zoubek's.

OldSchool
01-11-2010, 05:54 PM
If all you're talking about is potential, then I'd say the jury is still out. But personally, despite his exciting high ceiling, I doubt MP2 will ever be that traditional post player.

Even if MP2 were to show that kind of back-to-the-basket capability (a la Shelden), I don't think that is how we should develop him. I think he may well have the ability to be a much more versatile big man in the mold of Danny Ferry or Christian Laettner, although admittedly this notion is based a short track record so far.

I expect to see MP2 starting before long, and to see more jump shots and some effective passing from him. He should be the key to inverting Kyle - if MP2 can force his big man defender to defend him on the perimeter, that should allow him to pass into Kyle posting up his man under the basket.

I think we'll see Lance used as a defensive stopper on the opponent's best front court player under 6'10".

And I for one am pleased so far with the play of Z and Miles. Z has been through the conference grind before, and I think he will prove effective against conference competition this year, and Miles seems to be "getting it" this year, and will be even more valuable when he cuts down on useless fouls.

Greg_Newton
01-11-2010, 06:16 PM
It's true. As versatile and as effective as our guards are, they haven't been terribly good at feeding the post. Some of that is that our bigs often struggle to establish and maintain good post position. Another part of it may be that our bigs just aren't that great as a group in terms of post moves. Thomas doesn't really have a post game and the Plumlees are still developing their post scoring skills. Zoubek has the most polished moves but is the most limited physically.

But there have been times this year where our bigs have established okay (but not great) post position but were not thrown the ball. Perhaps the guards/wings are simply not forcing the ball into positions in which the bigs may make mistakes, and are only getting them post touches in the most optimal of circumstances by design?

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I really think a lot of it is due to the fact that Kyle, Nolan and Jon aren't used to looking at the post as a first option. It's like being the fourth option in a football play - you're not going to get a look until the QB checks through his first 3 options.

If you watch one of our sets, a guard will usually come off of a big's screen on the strong-side block, and then the post player will immediately seal off his defender and be open with good position for a second, maybe two. However, the player with the ball with almost always looks to the cutting guard or pulls a dribble move before looking to the post, so we tend to miss our big guys when they do get advantageous position. Then we tend to turn it over when we try to force the ball in to the post after all other options are exhausted and the post player no longer has good position.

The good news is that they are getting better at looking down low early - I noticed several times last game when the ball was delivered just as Mason/Miles/Lance sealed off their defender. Hopefully this will continue to be a point of development.

BTW, it seems like Miles is much better on the right block. He has a really nice touch off the glass on that little 5-foot baby hook.

trinity92
01-11-2010, 06:18 PM
Oldschool-- Both Ferry and Laettner had great back-to-the-basket games, although Laettner's was more developed. As a matter of fact, Laettner only added his outside shooting once he was established as a great inside player, albeit one with a handle that could operate in the high post too. By saying we should develop MP2 to become a player along the lines of Christian, you're agreeing with me.

Kedsey-- At this point, I take it as a virtual given you'll disagree with my opinions. Apparently, you'll do so even if it requires saying in public that Zoubek is a "credible low-post threat." Suffice it to say I agree with me.

OldSchool
01-11-2010, 06:28 PM
Oldschool-- Both Ferry and Laettner had great back-to-the-basket games, although Laettner's was more developed. As a matter of fact, Laettner only added his outside shooting once he was established as a great inside player, albeit one with a handle that could operate in the high post too. By saying we should develop MP2 to become a player along the lines of Christian, you're agreeing with me.


Maybe I am agreeing with you. I actually think MP2 is capable of developing a VERY effective back-to-the-basket game, because he seems to have such good coordination and feet.

But I think he can be so much more than that - for example, I can see him eventually getting up to a Ferry-like 4 assists per game by using his court vision and passing skills effectively.

I guess you could say I am very bullish on MP2.

hq2
01-11-2010, 06:54 PM
Yes, but this year it looks like MP1 is going to be the one who starts contributing low post offense first. He looked much better in the G-T game; it was about the first time I'd seen him use his jump hook effectively against quality comp. Remember, with the Triple Ss, we don't need a huge amount of offense from the Plumlees; I'd say a combined 12 points a game would be enough. We just need enough to take a little of the pressure off the big three, and force the other teams bigs to stay at home on their man to open up the lane a bit. I think that would be enough.

Kedsy
01-11-2010, 08:29 PM
Oldschool-- Both Ferry and Laettner had great back-to-the-basket games, although Laettner's was more developed. As a matter of fact, Laettner only added his outside shooting once he was established as a great inside player, albeit one with a handle that could operate in the high post too. By saying we should develop MP2 to become a player along the lines of Christian, you're agreeing with me.

Kedsey-- At this point, I take it as a virtual given you'll disagree with my opinions. Apparently, you'll do so even if it requires saying in public that Zoubek is a "credible low-post threat." Suffice it to say I agree with me.

Well, I don't recall saying Z was a "credible low-post threat," and a re-reading of my post confirms my opinion. What I said was he plays a back-to-the-basket game, which is true.

And since you expect me to disagree with you, here goes: While it's true Christian Laettner didn't start shooting three-pointers until his junior year, he was always more of a face-up player rather than a back-to-the-basket player.


First off, I completely agree we need to have a credible low post threat in order to make this Duke season different from every one since Shelden left.

I'm still interested in hearing what you mean by the above quote. If you mean that's the last time we had a back-to-the-basket center, then so what? If you mean tourney success, then I don't see how last year was different from Shelden's junior and senior seasons.

gep
01-12-2010, 12:44 AM
And I for one am pleased so far with the play of Z and Miles. Z has been through the conference grind before, and I think he will prove effective against conference competition this year, and Miles seems to be "getting it" this year, and will be even more valuable when he cuts down on useless fouls.

Not only has Brian been through the conference grind before... this year, he's doing it injury-free. So, he can be even more effective. And Miles has at least seen the conference last year... so he'll not be intimidated:rolleyes:

CrazieDUMB
01-12-2010, 08:55 AM
Maybe I am agreeing with you. I actually think MP2 is capable of developing a VERY effective back-to-the-basket game, because he seems to have such good coordination and feet.

But I think he can be so much more than that - for example, I can see him eventually getting up to a Ferry-like 4 assists per game by using his court vision and passing skills effectively.


I have a ton of interest in MP2, but I'm not sure he has the size to really push people around the way a traditional big does. Who knows, he's still really young and could still put on another 20 lbs before his duke days are done.

The player I'd like to see him become is what Josh McRoberts should've been. I totally agree, he has a great touch and once his head speeds up to more the pace of the college game he could be a really dangerous passer from the high or low post. That same length that allows him to reach up on alley-oops could really be used to see the court and pass around defenders, a skill I feel like Josh never got credit for.

Man, why do I feel so dirty complimenting Josh?

Tappan Zee Devil
01-12-2010, 11:56 AM
I have a ton of interest in MP2, but I'm not sure he has the size to really push people around the way a traditional big does. Who knows, he's still really young and could still put on another 20 lbs before his duke days are done.

The player I'd like to see him become is what Josh McRoberts should've been. I totally agree, he has a great touch and once his head speeds up to more the pace of the college game he could be a really dangerous passer from the high or low post. That same length that allows him to reach up on alley-oops could really be used to see the court and pass around defenders, a skill I feel like Josh never got credit for.

Man, why do I feel so dirty complimenting Josh?

That would be great. But I think you could also reasonably mention Christian Laettner as a somewhat higher standard to aspire to. Laettner may be slightly taller, but certainly was not bulkier, particularly while at Duke. And Laettner could certainly hold his own under the basket.

Man - if we could only bottle Laettner's will and attitude and feed it to our young big men ...

trinity92
01-12-2010, 12:33 PM
Well, I don't recall saying Z was a "credible low-post threat," and a re-reading of my post confirms my opinion. What I said was he plays a back-to-the-basket game, which is true.

And since you expect me to disagree with you, here goes: While it's true Christian Laettner didn't start shooting three-pointers until his junior year, he was always more of a face-up player rather than a back-to-the-basket player.

I'm still interested in hearing what you mean by the above quote. If you mean that's the last time we had a back-to-the-basket center, then so what? If you mean tourney success, then I don't see how last year was different from Shelden's junior and senior seasons.

1. I said we need a credible low-post threat, equated that with a back-to-the-basket game and opined MPs 1 & 2 are our players with the best chance of developing that type of game. Rereading your post, you said the MPs don't really have the back-to-the-basket game, but Zoubek does. Since you were responding to my post, I can only conclude you made that point to prove Z has the most chance of our bigs to develop into a low-post threat. I find that ridiculous.

2. Christian was an amazing back to the basket player first and foremost, who supplemented that skill with the ability to drive and later to shoot the three. I was at Duke watching him in Cameron the entire time he was a student and watched virtually every televised game he played in. Perhaps you should watch some film.

3. I was extremely clear what I meant by saying we haven't had a back-to-the basket post player since Shelden. I even gave examples of the players who had the type of game I was referring to. Obviously, I don't think a traditional center, or at least an inside player who has a traditional center's skills, is a "so what," not for the teams we've been fielding the last 5 years, and certainly not for this year's team. You're welcome to think otherwise. We didn't win any championships with Cherokee Parks, yet I think if you dropped him into this year's lineup, we would likely win a championship this year. I'm not saying anyone on our team, even the MPs, are going to or should turn into Cherokee or Shelden, but I am saying we need a similar inside presence at points in the game to make this team special.

Kedsy
01-12-2010, 03:02 PM
3. I was extremely clear what I meant by saying we haven't had a back-to-the basket post player since Shelden. I even gave examples of the players who had the type of game I was referring to. Obviously, I don't think a traditional center, or at least an inside player who has a traditional center's skills, is a "so what," not for the teams we've been fielding the last 5 years, and certainly not for this year's team. You're welcome to think otherwise. We didn't win any championships with Cherokee Parks, yet I think if you dropped him into this year's lineup, we would likely win a championship this year. I'm not saying anyone on our team, even the MPs, are going to or should turn into Cherokee or Shelden, but I am saying we need a similar inside presence at points in the game to make this team special.

Your exact quote was, "we need to have a credible low post threat in order to make this Duke season different from every one since Shelden left." I wanted to know what was different about Shelden's last two seasons.

In Shelden's junior season, we went 27-6, won the ACC tournament, and lost in the Sweet 16. In his senior season, we were 32-4, won the ACC tournament, and lost in the Sweet 16. Last year we were 30-7, won the ACC tournament, and lost in the Sweet 16. If you're suggesting the 2 or 3 extra wins in 2006 were due to having a back-to-the-basket threat on offense, I think it's a hard sell. And I don't see any other differences, as far as results.

If you're talking about differences that don't affect results, then that's what my "so what" was referring to.

Kedsy
01-12-2010, 03:04 PM
Since you were responding to my post, I can only conclude you made that point to prove Z has the most chance of our bigs to develop into a low-post threat. I find that ridiculous.

Your conclusion is incorrect and unsupported by a plain text reading of my post. But I'm happy you find it ridiculous.

Bob Green
01-12-2010, 03:42 PM
Remember, with the Triple Ss, we don't need a huge amount of offense from the Plumlees; I'd say a combined 12 points a game would be enough.

In the loss at Georgia Tech, Mason and Miles Plumlee combined for 18 points in 45 minutes of playing time. For the season, the two are combining for 12.9 points in 33.4 mpg.

I disagree with the notion that a combined 12 points a game from the Plumlees is enough. I'd like to see their combined average at 20-24 points per game.

Going back to the Georgia Tech game, after Tech scored a 3-point basket to open the game, Duke went on a 12-0 run with the Plumlees scoring six of the 12 points:

1. Miles Plumlee dunk off a Scheyer assist (2-3).
2. Miles Plumlee jump hook off a Singler assist (4-3).
3. Scheyer break away layup off a GT turnover (6-3).
4. Scheyer 3-pointer plus 1 free throw (10-3).
5. Mason Plumlee dunk off a Scheyer assist (12-3).

Feeding the ball into the post was a major factor in the 12-0 run. Involving the Plumlees in the offense is a good thing and I expect Duke will continue to look inside as Miles and Mason develop throughout the season.

arnie
01-12-2010, 04:39 PM
In the loss at Georgia Tech, Mason and Miles Plumlee combined for 18 points in 45 minutes of playing time. For the season, the two are combining for 12.9 points in 33.4 mpg.

I disagree with the notion that a combined 12 points a game from the Plumlees is enough. I'd like to see their combined average at 20-24 points per game.

Going back to the Georgia Tech game, after Tech scored a 3-point basket to open the game, Duke went on a 12-0 run with the Plumlees scoring six of the 12 points:

1. Miles Plumlee dunk off a Scheyer assist (2-3).
2. Miles Plumlee jump hook off a Singler assist (4-3).
3. Scheyer break away layup off a GT turnover (6-3).
4. Scheyer 3-pointer plus 1 free throw (10-3).
5. Mason Plumlee dunk off a Scheyer assist (12-3).

Feeding the ball into the post was a major factor in the 12-0 run. Involving the Plumlees in the offense is a good thing and I expect Duke will continue to look inside as Miles and Mason develop throughout the season.

This post is right on! Once the guards and Singler realize that the Plumlees can finish, I think we'll see more production inside. Remember they are accustomed to feeding the post without much to show for it the past couple of years.

hq2
01-12-2010, 07:54 PM
I'm the guy who said 12 points a game would be enough, and it still should be on nights when 2 out of 3 of the Ss are playing well. If you examined the Tech game, even though the Plumlees scored 18, a lot of those were layups and dunks; there were very few back to the basket low post baskets. I don't think they can count on doing that every game. I'd love to see them score more, and I think they will, but I'm not convinced that they're quite capable of doing it consistently, at least not yet.

greybeard
01-12-2010, 11:44 PM
I'm the guy who said 12 points a game would be enough, and it still should be on nights when 2 out of 3 of the Ss are playing well. If you examined the Tech game, even though the Plumlees scored 18, a lot of those were layups and dunks; there were very few back to the basket low post baskets. I don't think they can count on doing that every game. I'd love to see them score more, and I think they will, but I'm not convinced that they're quite capable of doing it consistently, at least not yet.

Seems to me that if K wanted them to get more catches in the middle with their backs to the basket they would. If they went like 5 for 20 it would not be without precedent.

Most people here just don't like the offense and the choices the coach has made. Blaming players for not getting or putting up more shots it seems to me is wrongheaded. The offense produces the type of shots that the coach wants, or he'd change it. Some of you assume that K has chosen not to get these guys more shots because he thinks that they cannot make them, Maybe and maybe not. I tend to think not. Nuff said.

ChicagoCrazy84
01-13-2010, 12:08 AM
Seems to me that if K wanted them to get more catches in the middle with their backs to the basket they would. If they went like 5 for 20 it would not be without precedent.

Most people here just don't like the offense and the choices the coach has made. Blaming players for not getting or putting up more shots it seems to me is wrongheaded. The offense produces the type of shots that the coach wants, or he'd change it. Some of you assume that K has chosen not to get these guys more shots because he thinks that they cannot make them, Maybe and maybe not. I tend to think not. Nuff said.


It's no secret that Coach K bases the offense around The 3 S's. You can't blame him for doing that. I do think however that at some point, you need to try and establish a consistent low post game, and I don't think they've consistently tried. Coach K has wanted a big man for a few years now, and guess what? You have a few. It would make everyone's lives so much easier if Miles and Mason could get some more shots in the post and draw the defense and some fouls. We can't say they're not capable, they just need to get some tries and get their rythm and confidence.

gep
01-13-2010, 12:41 AM
After a few of these posts on getting the post players more involved in the offense... like throwing into the post more often... I wonder if they are actually working on that in practice, but it's not quite there yet. Kinda like limiting Elliot Williams' playing time until he "got it" in practice... and we saw the results when he did get in the game. If so, then maybe we'll see more of this after the team "gets it" in practice...:rolleyes: hopefully sooner than later...

greybeard
01-13-2010, 01:09 AM
I think that this team goes as far as Singler's game permits, which right now is not as far as everyone would like. I think that that is the number I priority. Getting it inside would be nice, but this team needs to find a way for Singler to score with a reasonably high percentage a solid upper teen range to be the contender we all hope for. Perhaps the best way to get there is for Kyle with some help from the coaches but probably on his own to figure it out. That to me is the list.

Me, I'm rooting for Kyle. He's a terrific ball player who is undertaking a whole lot in a short period of time in less than ideal circumstances. Being able to experiement and learn in such an environment is not easy. He is one tough, smart, tenacious, kid, who loves the game. Look forward to the next few months.

Bob Green
01-13-2010, 06:08 AM
I'm the guy who said 12 points a game would be enough, and it still should be on nights when 2 out of 3 of the Ss are playing well. If you examined the Tech game, even though the Plumlees scored 18, a lot of those were layups and dunks; there were very few back to the basket low post baskets.

I'm going to continue to disagree with the premise that 12 points a game from Miles and Mason is sufficient. They are already averaging 12.9 points per game. As far as back to the basket points vis a vis layups and dunks, the Plumlees are going to score the majority of their points via layups and dunks. Moreover, I desire for the Plumlees to score their points via layups and dunks. Layups and dunks are high percentage shots, which is exactly what we need inside.

However, the Kyle Singler feed into the post which resulted in Miles Plumlee scoring two points via a nice jump hook, was an excellent back to the basket play so Miles is definitely capable of scoring with his back to the basket.

hq2
01-13-2010, 09:03 AM
Well, what we're actually asking them to do is provide consistent post play, of one type or another. The 12.9 ppg is misleading because much of that was compiled against second rate comp. If you look at their statistics against the better teams, they aren't that good. The G-T game was the first time I saw them score consistently against a good team.

And as for layups and dunks, I'd just as soon that every basket was a layup or dunk too, but you can't count on it. They usually occur off defensive breakdowns, which are going to happen but can't be counted on. We need reliable, throw-the-ball-to-them-and-score-when-guarded offense, and up till now, it hasn't happened on a consistent basis. Once it does, you'll start seeing both of them in double figures; but I don't think it will happen until then.

NSDukeFan
01-13-2010, 09:04 AM
There have been a few posts (no pun intended) discussing our lack of involving our big guys in the offense. I am always a big fan of this as I have stated many times, and am actually encouraged in this regard. It seems to me at the beginning of the last 3 or 4 games, the team has seemed to make a conscious effort to get the ball in the post and/or have Lance take some jumpers. I agree with the poster who said they may be working on this in practice and are not hugely comfortable with this yet. At this point, when the going gets tough, the big 3 are creating most of the offense; but perhaps as our post offense develops through practise, we will have more ways to score as the year progresses. This is one of my hopes.

Kedsy
01-13-2010, 09:22 AM
I'm going to continue to disagree with the premise that 12 points a game from Miles and Mason is sufficient. They are already averaging 12.9 points per game.

Yes, they are already averaging that, and the team has been doing pretty well under that scenario, don't you think? I wouldn't let the Ga Tech result cloud your memory of how well this team has been playing. The key now is making sure the big men's contributions don't dry up as the competition gets tougher, but if Duke continues to do what it's doing and play well enough to justify their #2 Pomeroy, #3 Sagarin, and #2 RPI rating, we should all be happy, shouldn't we?

In my opinion (to invert a common aphorism) it's not how many, it's how. What we need is a way to convert easy points in a tough game, to take the pressure off the outside shooters. We need the big men to be threat enough to insure the other team guards them or pays for not doing so. We need the players to have confidence when we need a basket in the last minutes of a close game that dumping it down to a big guy is an option. And for these things I think both Plumlees are getting there, no matter how many points they happen to be scoring.

hq2
01-13-2010, 10:59 AM
They're making progress. If they continue progressing at this rate, they'll be a factor come tournament time.

sagegrouse
01-13-2010, 11:24 AM
That's what we are getting from our frontcourt rotation. Don't know what's magical about the MPs averaging 12, in that we give the four bigs relatively equal time.

I would like to see 25PPG, in that it would take some pressure off of S-S-S, preferably with one of the four (Mason!) averaging 10.

sagegrouse

CDu
01-13-2010, 11:43 AM
In my opinion (to invert a common aphorism) it's not how many, it's how. What we need is a way to convert easy points in a tough game, to take the pressure off the outside shooters. We need the big men to be threat enough to insure the other team guards them or pays for not doing so. We need the players to have confidence when we need a basket in the last minutes of a close game that dumping it down to a big guy is an option. And for these things I think both Plumlees are getting there, no matter how many points they happen to be scoring.

I pretty much agree with this. I don't so much mind who does the scoring on any given night. I just want the scoring to be done. What I think people are more concerned with (but unfortunately may be mislabeling as ppg) is exactly what you said - how our big man are able to score rather than how much.

Right now, our big men are limited to scoring almost exclusively when on of our big three basically hands them a basket with a great drive. We get occasional putback buckets, but our big three are doing pretty much all the heavy lifting, both in terms of points scored and creating the points for our post players. What I think people want to see is our post players be capable of consistently creating points for themselves to alleviate the pressure on our big three to completely carry the offense. That way, on the rare occasions in which 2 of the big 3 are off, we can still have ways to get "easy" points.

Now, I still want the big three to do most of the heavy lifting on offense. They're our most advanced and currently our most gifted scorers. But at the same time, I want to see one or two of our big men develop into guys that can consistently create for themselves on the blocks. Mason appears to be making progress with his passing, though his scoring game still seems limited to finishing nice plays by the big three. Basically, it would be nice if the four bigs could just hone their skills so that when/if the big three don't have a great night we can still score. Possibilities:

- Mason shows more assertiveness and consistency on offense (both as a passer and scorer
- Miles develops some consistent post moves
- Thomas becomes more reliable with the 15 foot jumper (he's showing some improvement)
- Zoubek continues to develop his hook shot.

They don't necessarily need to score a bunch in every game. They just need to consistently provide the option to do so on their own, so that when the time comes that they're necessary (and that time will come periodically throughout the year) they are ready.

trinity92
01-13-2010, 12:31 PM
In my opinion (to invert a common aphorism) it's not how many, it's how. What we need is a way to convert easy points in a tough game, to take the pressure off the outside shooters. We need the big men to be threat enough to insure the other team guards them or pays for not doing so. We need the players to have confidence when we need a basket in the last minutes of a close game that dumping it down to a big guy is an option. And for these things I think both Plumlees are getting there, no matter how many points they happen to be scoring.

This is quite the point I made in my original post-- we need easy inside points, although I made the additional comment that it is even better done with players you can dump it inside to who will make traditional low-post moves. I even observed that the Plumlees are on their way to being just those players we need. Apparently, you agree with me, you just don't like to be seen as doing so.

It's exactly this "how," rather than how many, that I hope will be the difference in this year's team and all the others since Shelden left. Not how many wins or losses we have, but how the wins or losses come. Now please don't ask me what I mean for the 4th time.

JDev
01-13-2010, 12:46 PM
I don't think there is any question that Mason is improving and evolving. The ability to generate some easy buckets will be particularly important for this team, because they don't apply the typical Duke defensive pressure that usually creates turnovers that turn into easy points. This Duke team needs to find more easy baskets in the half court, and Mason's continued development is promising in that regard.

Kedsy
01-13-2010, 01:11 PM
This is quite the point I made in my original post-- we need easy inside points, although I made the additional comment that it is even better done with players you can dump it inside to who will make traditional low-post moves. I even observed that the Plumlees are on their way to being just those players we need. Apparently, you agree with me, you just don't like to be seen as doing so.

You flatter yourself. I could not care less whether I am "seen" to agree with you or not. (In fact, when I responded to your first post in this thread I didn't even recognize you as someone I have disagreed with in the past -- sorry.) However, once again I don't happen to agree. I think both Plumlees are getting to where we need them to be, but I don't think either of them will ever be primarily back-to-the-basket players with "traditional low-post moves." Having said that, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, as long as they're threats to score.

CDu
01-13-2010, 01:20 PM
However, once again I don't happen to agree. I think both Plumlees are getting to where we need them to be, but I don't think either of them will ever be primarily back-to-the-basket players with "traditional low-post moves." Having said that, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, as long as they're threats to score.

I don't actually agree completely with this. Or maybe I just don't agree with the wording - it's hard to tell. I do think Mason is getting closer to what we want. And Miles is getting better, but he's far from being able to create offense for himself. Right now, his scoring consists almost exclusively of finishing dunks/layups off of great plays by others, which means that the big three are still doing the heavy lifting for him to score.

I agree that we need necessarily need a guy to average 15ppg from the post. But it would be very helpful to have a couple of guys who can relieve some of the burden to create offense from our big three. It doesn't matter if that's as a face-up big, off the dribble, or as a pure post guy. Right now, I agree that Mason is starting to get there (I want to see him do build upon the GT game), but the rest of the guys just show flashes here and there. None of the other three have shown any sort of consistent ability to create offense.

Kedsy
01-13-2010, 01:30 PM
I don't actually agree completely with this. Or maybe I just don't agree with the wording - it's hard to tell. I do think Mason is getting closer to what we want. And Miles is getting better, but he's far from being able to create offense for himself. Right now, his scoring consists almost exclusively of finishing dunks/layups off of great plays by others, which means that the big three are still doing the heavy lifting for him to score.

I agree that we need necessarily need a guy to average 15ppg from the post. But it would be very helpful to have a couple of guys who can relieve some of the burden to create offense from our big three. It doesn't matter if that's as a face-up big, off the dribble, or as a pure post guy. Right now, I agree that Mason is starting to get there (I want to see him do build upon the GT game), but the rest of the guys just show flashes here and there. None of the other three have shown any sort of consistent ability to create offense.

Yes, I agree with you. Sorry about the clumsy wording. I just meant the Plumlee brothers are both improving and seem to be moving along the path that should lead to them being threats on offense. I don't think they are there yet. My main point in the previous post is I don't think either of them is going to develop into a back-to-the-basket center, but as you say as long as they are a threat it doesn't matter to me how they go about it.

CDu
01-13-2010, 01:36 PM
Yes, I agree with you. Sorry about the clumsy wording. I just meant the Plumlee brothers are both improving and seem to be moving along the path that should lead to them being threats on offense. I don't think they are there yet. My main point in the previous post is I don't think either of them is going to develop into a back-to-the-basket center, but as you say as long as they are a threat it doesn't matter to me how they go about it.

Yeah, I agree. I think Miles could develop a back-to-the-basket game. Actually, I guess both could do so in time. But I think Mason's game for sure will be primarily a face-up game.

I'm more confident that Mason will get where we need him this year than Miles, even though Mason is younger. He just seems to be the more polished player despite being the freshman. Though admittedly by still have a lot of polishing to do.

Bob Green
01-13-2010, 03:18 PM
Yes, they are already averaging that, and the team has been doing pretty well under that scenario, don't you think?

I agree the team is doing pretty well.


I wouldn't let the Ga Tech result cloud your memory of how well this team has been playing. The key now is making sure the big men's contributions don't dry up as the competition gets tougher...

My memory isn't cloudy. The focus of my post was the Plumlees need to be more involved in the offense moving forward as they develop their game. I wasn't lamenting past play or crying in my soup over the Georgia Tech loss. Losing on the road in conference play is going to happen. I expect we haven't seen our last conference road loss for the season.


...but if Duke continues to do what it's doing and play well enough to justify their #2 Pomeroy, #3 Sagarin, and #2 RPI rating, we should all be happy, shouldn't we?

We definitely should all be happy. I'm not sure your question should be directed toward me as I'm one of the most optimistic posters at DBR. I rarely over react and express frustration when things do not go Duke's way, and I wasn't over reacting this time, I simply desire to see the Plumlees fully integrated into the offense. If I have any bad posting habits (and we all do), it is expressing overly optimistic opinions.


We need the players to have confidence when we need a basket in the last minutes of a close game that dumping it down to a big guy is an option. And for these things I think both Plumlees are getting there, no matter how many points they happen to be scoring.

This is an excellent point. The players need to have confidence to feed the ball into the post.

Kedsy
01-13-2010, 04:47 PM
We definitely should all be happy. I'm not sure your question should be directed toward me as I'm one of the most optimistic posters at DBR. I rarely over react and express frustration when things do not go Duke's way, and I wasn't over reacting this time, I simply desire to see the Plumlees fully integrated into the offense. If I have any bad posting habits (and we all do), it is expressing overly optimistic opinions.

I wasn't calling you out at all. I almost always enjoy and agree with your posts. I just thought it was odd to say "they're already doing that" to support your position that it wasn't enough in a season where the team is doing so well. Sorry if I offended in any way.

Bob Green
01-13-2010, 06:37 PM
Sorry if I offended in any way.

You didn't offend me at all. I'm enjoying the back and forth discussion on the Plumlees performance and future role.

greybeard
01-13-2010, 07:35 PM
If K told this team to get X number of shots from the bigs it would. And, if he devoted time to developing the offense towards creating good catches for them with directives that they need to put it up if a good shot is possible they would. With this, I trust that everyone agrees, although from some of what is being said, it appears that some think that Miles or Mason are reluctant to shoot or look for their shot even though they are supposed to. Z is another case: I think that he is disinclined to look for his shot. I have no reason to believe that that is true of Miles, Mason, or Lance.

Do I think that the scoring would improve from inside, with a decent percentage, if that were emphasized as a goal in the offense? I don't know, but my guess is that the answer is yes. Would that make Duke more effective, I'd have to believe not. Why? Because that's what I think K thinks (it is not being emphasized), and he was born knowing more about this game than I ever did.

Why do I think that K has chosen not to emphasize shots from the bigs? "Is there any chance that Lieutenent Kaffee disobeyed your orders?" "Son, this is the marines. People obey orders or people die."

Bob Green
01-13-2010, 10:31 PM
With our 20 point victory over Boston College in the books, I thought it would be nice to keep this conversation flowing. The Plumlees combined for 16 points and 10 rebounds in 39 minutes of action. Zoubek and Thomas contributed eight points and 14 rebounds in 35 minutes. All together, our four big guys put together a 24 points, 24 rebounds performance. The frontcourt accounted for 30 percent of our total points. This is the type of performance, which forces opponents to focus on our inside players, which opens it up for S Cubed on the perimeter.

Zoubek's 11 rebounds and six points in 16 minutes of action was impressive.

NSDukeFan
01-14-2010, 11:03 AM
Zoubek's 11 rebounds and six points in 16 minutes of action was impressive.

What impressed me most about his game was how well he seemed to be moving defensively, especially as a help defender. He still gets caught for some moving screens and some unwise fouls up high on guards, but overall he is moving so much better than in previous years. He looked very confident out there last night. Defensively, I don't think you have to pick match ups with him anymore, though some quicker bigs will give him trouble. I don't necessarily see him getting any more minutes than he is now and he may even lose some to the Plumlees, but defensively he is significantly ahead of them right now. This is not the same Brian as in previous years and I think he will have an impact against every type of opponent from here on out. I also like the way Brian seems to be very aggressive going after rebounds. I notice that Miles has seemed to pick up on this as well and seems very strong pulling down some boards.
It's been very exciting seeing our frontcourt develop this year (in spite of us having a former PG as a big-man coach) :rolleyes:

COYS
01-14-2010, 11:44 AM
With our 20 point victory over Boston College in the books, I thought it would be nice to keep this conversation flowing. The Plumlees combined for 16 points and 10 rebounds in 39 minutes of action. Zoubek and Thomas contributed eight points and 14 rebounds in 35 minutes. All together, our four big guys put together a 24 points, 24 rebounds performance. The frontcourt accounted for 30 percent of our total points. This is the type of performance, which forces opponents to focus on our inside players, which opens it up for S Cubed on the perimeter.

Zoubek's 11 rebounds and six points in 16 minutes of action was impressive.

We got these numbers despite the fact that Mason shot 2-10. As Mason adjusts, his shooting percentage will increase and it will be easier to match these numbers from our front court in games from here on out if Mason is hitting his shots, consistently (especially if he continues to get close to ten FGA per game, as he has recently).

Memphis Devil
01-14-2010, 01:02 PM
We got these numbers despite the fact that Mason shot 2-10. As Mason adjusts, his shooting percentage will increase and it will be easier to match these numbers from our front court in games from here on out if Mason is hitting his shots, consistently (especially if he continues to get close to ten FGA per game, as he has recently).

Agreed. At times, it appeared as though Mason was trying too hard to make a play instead of just reacting instinctively. Miles suffers from the same thing although he has allowed himself to play within the flow of the game more recently. One thing that both need to work out is bringing the ball down when rebounding/receiving a pass in the post. A couple of times last night both Plumlee's received the ball in a scoring position in the post but brought it down effectively making themselves smaller. Coach Knight talked extensively about this during the game.

On a different note, I love the fact that both Mason and Miles seem to want to dunk everything that they get their hands on. I love that aggression!

elvis14
01-14-2010, 01:48 PM
On a different note, I love the fact that both Mason and Miles seem to want to dunk everything that they get their hands on. I love that aggression!

That's what I really like is their aggression and the skill to control it (somewhat). Mason seems like he wants to attack every time he gets the ball. I like that. Especially since he also seems to be willing to make a good pass once he gets stopped.

Hate that Mason was 2 for 10 last night, I still want to see him starting and start eating more minutes.

Greg_Newton
01-14-2010, 03:17 PM
In the grand scheme of things, we're in a pretty nice place right now with our bigs if you think back to our preseason hopes and expectations.

Miles is developing into a solid ACC-level presence at the five, and is very athletic and strong around the rim. Mason is becoming a dangerous and exciting four, and showing real potential to become our 4th best player. And perhaps just as importantly, they have quietly earned more and more minutes - we've gotten to the point where they are both on the floor more than Lance and Z, if you look at the past couple box scores.

Lance and Z have been just as impressive of a tandem, if in different ways - kind of the yin to the Plumlees' yang. Lance has shown he can hit 15-18 footers if left open and absolutely lock down opposing 6'7-6'9 studs, and Z, while still with limitations, is a completely different player in how he moves and sees the game. I loved when he got in Mason's face after he missed a rotation yesterday... kind of reminded me of the storied old Laettner-to-Hill "You're the best player on this team, start playing like it" exchange. Z's head in Mason's body would be unstoppable.

It's important to remember than yesterday's solid frontcourt performance came against a short, likely-bottom-of-the-ACC BC team, but our big 4 post guys are really just where I'd like them to be in mid-January.

CrazieDUMB
01-14-2010, 04:27 PM
Anyone notice during the BC game that Z was doing a really good job of setting a pick and then going straight to the basket? Either the big 3 really don't like giving him possessions down low, or they're terrible at passing down low, or they don't even look to that as an option. Possibly a combination of all 3, but I'd really like to see us work on hitting that pick and roll.

Yes, I know we scored 30+ points in the paint, but as mentioned before, BC has a tiny frontcourt. Let's hope that going forward we can get them more looks to go along with the second-chance points.

jjasper0729
01-14-2010, 04:29 PM
I made the comment last night in the first half (when our offense was right in front of me) that our perimeter seems to have a difficult time of making passes into the post. Even if it's to set screens for the perimeter, most post passes seem to be in the high post at the elbow and not much down on the blocks except for the lob/dunk. I noticed Miles had a couple of good positions in the first half and the ball never came in from the wing (in front of the BC bench)

jv001
01-14-2010, 04:29 PM
Anyone notice during the BC game that Z was doing a really good job of setting a pick and then going straight to the basket? Either the big 3 really don't like giving him possessions down low, or they're terrible at passing down low, or they don't even look to that as an option. Possibly a combination of all 3, but I'd really like to see us work on hitting that pick and roll.

Yes, I know we scored 30+ points in the paint, but as mentioned before, BC has a tiny frontcourt. Let's hope that going forward we can get them more looks to go along with the second-chance points.

I have commented in the past, that I would like to see Kyle and Mason or Miles play a little pick and roll. I don't want Zoubs to have to dribble too much. Go Duke!

jjasper0729
01-14-2010, 04:32 PM
to my point above...

Also in the first half, Miles got a pass from the top of the circle and he was under the basket. It was a simple pass and all he had to do was catch and go up and it was a dunk. He, however, seemed to be afraid of the ball for a moment then started with shot fakes which allowed the defense to collapse and then he didn't have the easy basket.

If he had gone up when he caught the ball, it would have been an easy two points.

CDu
01-14-2010, 05:14 PM
to my point above...

Also in the first half, Miles got a pass from the top of the circle and he was under the basket. It was a simple pass and all he had to do was catch and go up and it was a dunk. He, however, seemed to be afraid of the ball for a moment then started with shot fakes which allowed the defense to collapse and then he didn't have the easy basket.

If he had gone up when he caught the ball, it would have been an easy two points.

I think a big part of why we don't see more passes to the post is that I don't think our bigs are terribly comfortable or confident in their post games yet. As such, dumping it in isn't actually a high-percentage play for us right now. The bigs are getting nearly their buckets off of passes from driving guards, pick-and-rolls, back-cuts, and putbacks.

We have seen them dump it in to Mason a couple of times in the last few games, but the results haven't been great. Perhaps as he develops, we'll see it more. But I tend to believe that the reason we don't see it is less because the guards can't throw good entry passes and more because the team doesn't feel that dumping the ball into the post is the optimal approach for running our offense.

Wander
01-14-2010, 06:20 PM
I'm with Bob. A combined average of 12 points per game at the end of the season would mean that the Plumlees haven't improved at all as scoring threats. This would bode VERY poorly for our Final Four chances. I feel confident that I know how well SSS, Lance, Zoubek, Dawkins, and Kelley will be contributing on offense at the end of the year; the Plumlees are the X-factors.

Fortunately, I also feel very confident that the Plumlees will be over 12 ppg combined, and possibly by a sizable margin.

Kedsy
01-15-2010, 12:17 AM
I have commented in the past, that I would like to see Kyle and Mason or Miles play a little pick and roll. I don't want Zoubs to have to dribble too much. Go Duke!

If he's doing the picking and rolling, he wouldn't have to dribble.

jv001
01-15-2010, 10:32 AM
In some sets Zoubs sets the pick up real high and is open just off the pick. What I don't want is for Kyle or whoever to give him the ball at the free throw lane or higher. Zoubs is not quick enough to get in the paint and receive the ball(after setting the pick) and he sure can't dribble to the basket. Now if it's Mason who is setting the pick, he can receive the ball high because he's a pretty good ball handler. Just my observation. Go Duke!

Taco
01-15-2010, 10:37 AM
I'm a big Mason fan, but Coach needs to yank him out of the game and make him do pushups on the sideline every time he misses a dunk ;)

jjasper0729
01-15-2010, 10:48 AM
I'm a big Mason fan, but Coach needs to yank him out of the game and make him do pushups on the sideline every time he misses a dunk ;)

my high school coach did that (not the pushups). If you missed a dunk, you were on the bench at the next whistle.

Our bigs need to get the roll down so they are there, catch the ball and make the layup/dunk. I noticed against BC too many ball fakes underneath which let the defense collapse rather than go up strong and take the foul if there was one and potentially get the basket.

Brian had a nice lay up off a pick and roll against GT. what bothered me about that play was he is 7'1" and jumped all of 6 inches and didn't dunk it with authority.

What's nice about that with Mason and Miles is that they throw it down and it's an intimidating factor in some ways.

Kedsy
01-15-2010, 10:52 AM
In some sets Zoubs sets the pick up real high and is open just off the pick. What I don't want is for Kyle or whoever to give him the ball at the free throw lane or higher. Zoubs is not quick enough to get in the paint and receive the ball(after setting the pick) and he sure can't dribble to the basket. Now if it's Mason who is setting the pick, he can receive the ball high because he's a pretty good ball handler. Just my observation. Go Duke!

Oh, I agree with that. If Z is setting the pick, the ballhandler has to wait to deliver the ball until Z is ensconced under the basket, with either nobody guarding him or a much smaller player.

Z rolls to the hoop practically every time he sets a pick, and usually has at least a split second when he is wide open near the basket. If the wing players would expect it and look for it as soon as he sets the pick (as opposed to waiting until they're free of their man and then seeing who's open) I think we'd get some easy baskets that way. And, yes, I understand we'd probably also have a couple Z-getting-stripped or Z-foolishly-putting-it-on-the-floor-anyway moments sprinkled in there, but personally I think we'd score most of the time we ran that play. Pick and roll is a great equalizer (you don't need outstanding athleticism to use it), and one of the most unstoppable plays you can run if it's done correctly. Sadly, too few utilize it properly. It's not just Duke.

gofurman
01-15-2010, 11:05 AM
Oh, I agree with that. If Z is setting the pick, the ballhandler has to wait to deliver the ball until Z is ensconced under the basket, with either nobody guarding him or a much smaller player.

Z rolls to the hoop practically every time he sets a pick, and usually has at least a split second when he is wide open near the basket. If the wing players would expect it and look for it as soon as he sets the pick (as opposed to waiting until they're free of their man and then seeing who's open) I think we'd get some easy baskets that way. And, yes, I understand we'd probably also have a couple Z-getting-stripped or Z-foolishly-putting-it-on-the-floor-anyway moments sprinkled in there, but personally I think we'd score most of the time we ran that play. Pick and roll is a great equalizer (you don't need outstanding athleticism to use it), and one of the most unstoppable plays you can run if it's done correctly. Sadly, too few utilize it properly. It's not just Duke.

you are right - think Stockton, Malone. Unstoppable and Stockton was no super-athletic PG. Now Malone could bring it admittedly as a force down low.

greybeard
01-15-2010, 11:05 AM
Z had all kind of trouble with the fifth metatarsal on one of his feet, broke it several times, required surgery. Dunking only increases the chances that such troubles will materialize again. If you can't make a layup, you shouldn't be playing college ball, much less for Duke.

Most college bigs who dunk when not off a catch on the move, shuffle their feet, that is, break the rules, which still to this day are not enforced other than in the exception. Dunks are part of the show, and not integral to the game.

One of the best college centers of all time never dunked the ball in college, not even once. He didn't dunk because it was against the rules. His college coach was in favor of the rule at the time and favors such a rule to this day.

jv001
01-15-2010, 02:25 PM
Oh, I agree with that. If Z is setting the pick, the ballhandler has to wait to deliver the ball until Z is ensconced under the basket, with either nobody guarding him or a much smaller player.

Z rolls to the hoop practically every time he sets a pick, and usually has at least a split second when he is wide open near the basket. If the wing players would expect it and look for it as soon as he sets the pick (as opposed to waiting until they're free of their man and then seeing who's open) I think we'd get some easy baskets that way. And, yes, I understand we'd probably also have a couple Z-getting-stripped or Z-foolishly-putting-it-on-the-floor-anyway moments sprinkled in there, but personally I think we'd score most of the time we ran that play. Pick and roll is a great equalizer (you don't need outstanding athleticism to use it), and one of the most unstoppable plays you can run if it's done correctly. Sadly, too few utilize it properly. It's not just Duke.

I'm not saying don't run the pick and roll with Zoubs. It can work, especially if the wings react to when Brian is picked up by their man. But I had rather see it run by Kyle and Mason. Much better chance of success imho. Go Duke!

OldSchool
01-15-2010, 03:05 PM
Oh, I agree with that. If Z is setting the pick, the ballhandler has to wait to deliver the ball until Z is ensconced under the basket, with either nobody guarding him or a much smaller player.

Z rolls to the hoop practically every time he sets a pick, and usually has at least a split second when he is wide open near the basket. If the wing players would expect it and look for it as soon as he sets the pick (as opposed to waiting until they're free of their man and then seeing who's open) I think we'd get some easy baskets that way. And, yes, I understand we'd probably also have a couple Z-getting-stripped or Z-foolishly-putting-it-on-the-floor-anyway moments sprinkled in there, but personally I think we'd score most of the time we ran that play. Pick and roll is a great equalizer (you don't need outstanding athleticism to use it), and one of the most unstoppable plays you can run if it's done correctly. Sadly, too few utilize it properly. It's not just Duke.

I agree completely.

The pick and roll is all about timing. Z's timing on the cut to the basket is often excellent, better than our other big men, and there is often a brief moment when a perfectly-placed pass would result in an open layup by Z.

Because of his foot problems Z is unable to leap to catch up with an overthrown pass, so when he extends his hand to call for the ball the ball needs to be well thrown just over his head into his extended hand. But it is by no means a difficult pass, especially for a tall guard like Jon.

Why they don't try to capitalize on this opportunity when it is available has repeatedly puzzled me. It must be that it just hasn't worked well in practice.

jv001
01-15-2010, 03:11 PM
I agree completely.

The pick and roll is all about timing. Z's timing on the cut to the basket is often excellent, better than our other big men, and there is often a brief moment when a perfectly-placed pass would result in an open layup by Z.

Because of his foot problems Z is unable to leap to catch up with an overthrown pass, so when he extends his hand to call for the ball the ball needs to be well thrown just over his head into his extended hand. But it is by no means a difficult pass, especially for a tall guard like Jon.

Why they don't try to capitalize on this opportunity when it is available has repeatedly puzzled me. It must be that it just hasn't worked well in practice.

we never seem to pass the ball to the cutter. I don't care who it is. Maybe you are correct it doesn't work well in practice. It that's the case why run it if you are not going to run it properly(score easy basket). Go Duke!

G man
01-17-2010, 10:12 PM
MP1 and MP2 are getting better and better

elvis14
01-17-2010, 11:17 PM
MP1 and MP2 are getting better and better

Yeah, and it's so much fun to watch. I hope we get 3 years of these guys playing together.

Welcome2DaSlopes
01-17-2010, 11:21 PM
Yeah, and it's so much fun to watch. I hope we get 3 years of these guys playing together.

Two years Three from Mason

sagegrouse
01-17-2010, 11:26 PM
I wasn't impressed with the coaching job for Wake this evening. Notice how many offensive rebounds Duke got? Aren't you supposed to put a body on the big guys? And Wake is every bit as tall as duke, when you count the bench.

Good job for Duke on Ish Smith. I didn't see how we could stop him, but he scored only 7 pts. tonight.

sagegrouse

Bob Green
01-18-2010, 04:37 AM
Good job for Duke on Ish Smith. I didn't see how we could stop him, but he scored only 7 pts. tonight.

sagegrouse

Prior to the start of last season, many posters (myself included) were promoting Nolan Smith as a lockdown defender. We were a year early. Nolan Smith did a great job on Ish Smith tonight....he has arrived. I feel smart again (temporarily).

Bob Green
01-18-2010, 04:50 AM
MP1 and MP2 are getting better and better

Miles and Mason combined for 30 points and 21 rebounds in 47 minutes of action. Eleven of the rebounds were offensive. Duke scored 25 second chance points. This was a great performance from the Plumlees as they kept us in the game in the first half when S Cubed struggled. Now I'm anxious for the N.C. State game to tip-off so we can look for Miles and Mason to do it again. It is mid-January, the team is coming together and playing better game after game, I'm excited, let the good times roll.

flyingdutchdevil
01-18-2010, 06:52 AM
What's great about the big men is that their roles are slowly being defined and there shouldn't be any added pressure. With the Plumlees, we have offensive / defensive rebounders who can score. With Thomas, we have a lock-down defender. With Zoubs, we have a defender and rebounder who can be used against 7 footers. With the Plumlees, Zoubs and LT aren't under as much pressure to score.

We have a variety of big men who for a variety of scenarios. This is such a luxury, especially considering the last few years.

arnie
01-18-2010, 08:32 AM
Miles and Mason combined for 30 points and 21 rebounds in 47 minutes of action. Eleven of the rebounds were offensive. Duke scored 25 second chance points. This was a great performance from the Plumlees as they kept us in the game in the first half when S Cubed struggled. Now I'm anxious for the N.C. State game to tip-off so we can look for Miles and Mason to do it again. It is mid-January, the team is coming together and playing better game after game, I'm excited, let the good times roll.

The Plumlees are both a joy to watch - they can catch and shoot (or dunk) fluidly and seem to really understand the game. The upside for this years team keeps growing.

davekay1971
01-18-2010, 09:53 AM
Love that Miles is ticked that Mason got the first reverse dunk.

Catch up to your baby brother, big guy! :D

I'm enjoying this year, and enjoying even more that we probably get to watch these two play together for two more after this one...

CDu
01-18-2010, 09:58 AM
Love that Miles is ticked that Mason got the first reverse dunk.

Catch up to your baby brother, big guy! :D

I'm enjoying this year, and enjoying even more that we probably get to watch these two play together for two more after this one...

He'll just have to settle for having played the better game.

I will say that the dunk was just silly. When I was watching I was thinking "he's going to flip up a reverse layup or he's going to try to windmill this." When he went for the reverse dunk, I was shocked. I jumped out of my chair. Just unbelievable confidence to try that.

RainingThrees
01-18-2010, 10:06 AM
He'll just have to settle for having played the better game.

I will say that the dunk was just silly. When I was watching I was thinking "he's going to flip up a reverse layup or he's going to try to windmill this." When he went for the reverse dunk, I was shocked. I jumped out of my chair. Just unbelievable confidence to try that.

I was thinking how I had not seen a reverse dunk by a big guy at Duke since McRobert's made it his specialty a few years ago.

SupaDave
01-18-2010, 11:27 AM
I'm loving the Plumless but I can't be the only one who is proud to see Lance consistently knocking down the jumper. We dissected Coach K's NBA comment down to the last word but if Lance keeps this up - how is he NOT an NBA prospect? Smart lockdown defender with leadership ability who can knock down the open J (sounds a lot like a certain player playing for the Rockets right now). A second round bargain.

This team has so many growing moving parts. It's a joy to watch.

CDu
01-18-2010, 11:32 AM
I'm loving the Plumless but I can't be the only one who is proud to see Lance consistently knocking down the jumper. We dissected Coach K's NBA comment down to the last word but if Lance keeps this up - how is he NOT an NBA prospect? Smart lockdown defender with leadership ability who can knock down the open J (sounds a lot like a certain player playing for the Rockets right now). A second round bargain.

This team has so many growing moving parts. It's a joy to watch.

He's not an NBA prospect because his offense is still so weak, and he's still not a consistent lockdown defender. He's had a nice run of being an effective defender against college bigs, but he's not likely to be able to defend at the 4 in the NBA. And he still doesn't have the range to be a 3 in the NBA. He's got the shooting range of an NBA 4, and he's not proven he can be a lockdown defender at the 3 position in the NBA.

Let's just enjoy the progress Thomas is making and the contributions he's providing to this year's team rather than hope for NBA prospects that probably aren't there. I'm pleased with the defensive role he's provided this year. But I think his chances of making the NBA are still remote.

SupaDave
01-18-2010, 11:44 AM
He's not an NBA prospect because his offense is still so weak, and he's still not a consistent lockdown defender. He's had a nice run of being an effective defender against college bigs, but he's not likely to be able to defend at the 4 in the NBA. And he still doesn't have the range to be a 3 in the NBA. He's got the shooting range of an NBA 4, and he's not proven he can be a lockdown defender at the 3 position in the NBA.

Let's just enjoy the progress Thomas is making and the contributions he's providing to this year's team rather than hope for NBA prospects that probably aren't there. I'm pleased with the defensive role he's provided this year. But I think his chances of making the NBA are still remote.

Understood but also note that I stated IF he keeps this up. Not to mention, I'm not suggesting he'll be an NBA All-Star or even a regular contributor considering the number of folks he'd have to battle for time at the NBA 3 and he's most certainly on the small side for an NBA 4.

BUT, if you were a shrewd exec - who'd you rather have at the end of the 2nd round? Derek Character - a known problem child or a good energy guy for practice that has shown the ability to be coached? Keep in mind that the NBA is in need of a little character as well.

CDu
01-18-2010, 11:50 AM
Understood but also note that I stated IF he keeps this up. Not to mention, I'm not suggesting he'll be an NBA All-Star or even a regular contributor considering the number of folks he'd have to battle for time at the NBA 3 and he's most certainly on the small side for an NBA 4.

BUT, if you were a shrewd exec - who'd you rather have at the end of the 2nd round? Derek Character - a known problem child or a good energy guy for practice that has shown the ability to be coached? Keep in mind that the NBA is in need of a little character as well.

If he keeps this up, then he still hasn't shown he can defend NBA 3s or the ability to hit the shots that NBA 3s hit.

The comparison to Caracter isn't really apt. Caracter is a 4/5, while Lance is going to have to be a 3. A GM isn't likely to ever be choosing between these two players.

I agree that the NBA certainly needs better characters. But there are plenty of high-character guys with better NBA skillsets than Thomas competing for those jobs. And I try to say this as delicately as possible, because I really do appreciate what Thomas has given this team this year. It's just really hard to land an NBA job at the SG and SF positions in the NBA, and Thomas is just too small and not a good enough rebounder to play PF at the next level.

arnie
01-18-2010, 12:55 PM
If he keeps this up, then he still hasn't shown he can defend NBA 3s or the ability to hit the shots that NBA 3s hit.

The comparison to Caracter isn't really apt. Caracter is a 4/5, while Lance is going to have to be a 3. A GM isn't likely to ever be choosing between these two players.

I agree that the NBA certainly needs better characters. But there are plenty of high-character guys with better NBA skillsets than Thomas competing for those jobs. And I try to say this as delicately as possible, because I really do appreciate what Thomas has given this team this year. It's just really hard to land an NBA job at the SG and SF positions in the NBA, and Thomas is just too small and not a good enough rebounder to play PF at the next level.

Recall that Billy King did not make the NBA either. He was an incredible defender, reasonably good ball handler and had better hands than Thomas.
King outside shooting was nonexistent, but I'm not sure Thomas can get his own shot unless left wide open.

CDu
01-18-2010, 01:24 PM
We're now getting the following from Miles/Zoubek:
35.2 mpg, 13.8 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 1.6 bpg... and 6.7 fpg.

Aside from that last stat (the fouls), they are providing a fairly productive duo. If Miles can continue to develop and can cut down on fouls, the stats will look pretty good from our centers.

We're getting the following from Thomas/Mason:
38.2 mpg, 11.5 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 1.4 bpg... and 5.5 fpg.

Again, the fouls are a concern. But I have a feeling that Mason is going to push these numbers up.

But as a collective, our frontcourt (excluding Kelly) is getting around 25 ppg, 21 rpg, and 3 bpg. That's not awful, especially when considering how big an impact the big three have on the scoring and Singler has on the boards. If the Plumlees keep progressing, we could be averaging 30 points and 25 rebounds per game from our bigs. That would be pretty solid production, in my opinion.

Saratoga2
01-18-2010, 02:15 PM
Maybe Kelly can get stronger as the season progresses and add another legitimate big man to our mix, making us even less likely to suffer from foul problems.

CDu
01-18-2010, 02:22 PM
Maybe Kelly can get stronger as the season progresses and add another legitimate big man to our mix, making us even less likely to suffer from foul problems.

I'll be surprised if Kelly progresses to the point of joining the big man mix. Four big guys is already a really deep rotation. If the Plumlees progress as they've been progressing, I think we'll see the 4-man rotation be fine (especially with Singler able to play ~5 minutes per game at the 4 if necessary).

It would be really nice if Kelly could get up to speed. But I suspect that it won't be until next year that Kelly is ready to contribute. And that's sort of what many anticipated coming into this season.

tele
01-18-2010, 02:37 PM
Aside from that last stat (the fouls), they are providing a fairly productive duo. If Miles can continue to develop and can cut down on fouls, the stats will look pretty good from our centers.

we could be averaging 30 points and 25 rebounds per game from our bigs. That would be pretty solid production, in my opinion.

Good points, I agree. However, I don't mind the fouls so much. I actually thought Zoubek played a really solid game against wake, he gave as good as he got. It was a rough game so it doesn't hurt to have some size and depth so the frontline can play hard the whole game, without worrying unduly about racking up a few fouls.

Zoubek and Thomas have been playing really hard on defense and having an impact on the opposing teams. They've also been keeping other players from having to tangle so often, which helps keep teammates on the floor, like Singler.

CDu
01-18-2010, 03:19 PM
Good points, I agree. However, I don't mind the fouls so much. I actually thought Zoubek played a really solid game against wake, he gave as good as he got. It was a rough game so it doesn't hurt to have some size and depth so the frontline can play hard the whole game, without worrying unduly about racking up a few fouls.

Zoubek and Thomas have been playing really hard on defense and having an impact on the opposing teams. They've also been keeping other players from having to tangle so often, which helps keep teammates on the floor, like Singler.

I certainly like what the guys are giving us, but my hope was that they could do it without fouling so much. For one thing, it can put us in a crunch in terms of available players. For another, it puts the other team in the bonus earlier than necessary.

And the fouls could have been a big problem yesterday. We were very fortunate that Miles was not in any foul trouble at all until the game was nearly decided, because the other three nearly fouled out or did foul out with less than 15 minutes. Had Miles gotten into early foul trouble as well, we'd have been forced to go with Kelly (who looked completely overmatched) AND Dawkins for extended minutes. Fortunately, Miles had the game of his career. But all it took was one more foul by Miles in the first 10-15 minutes, and we'd have been in a very precarious position.

Greg_Newton
01-18-2010, 03:32 PM
Nice article on the Plumlees and Duke's balance: http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blogpost/6831047/

MChambers
01-18-2010, 04:10 PM
Good points, I agree. However, I don't mind the fouls so much.

The fouls really hurt Duke's defensive efficiency, by giving opponent easy points, either immediately, such as when Duke fouls a shooter, or later, by putting the other team in the bonus and double bonus early. See the Georgia Tech game. I think it's fair to say that Duke's propensity to foul was very costly in that game and contributed to the loss (albeit not as much a shooting bricks).

It's not a flaw that is huge, but could keep this team from being an elite team.

mehmattski
01-18-2010, 04:23 PM
I religiously read anything written by Ken Pomeroy and so when he wrote in a post that "the perfect basketball player" would have, among his qualities, "the offensive rebounding of a Brian Zoubek" I admit I was shocked. But, check this out:

http://kenpom.com/leaders.php?c=ORPct

That's the percentage of the time that a player rebounds a missed shot from his own team. Brian Zoubek leads all players who play at least 40% of the time (that's 16 min/40 min game). Sure, some of those are his own missed shots, although he's hit an impressive 65% from the field this year.

At any rate, being #1 offensive rebounder in the country nothing to sneeze at. Go zoooooo!

CDu
01-18-2010, 04:30 PM
I religiously read anything written by Ken Pomeroy and so when he wrote in a post that "the perfect basketball player" would have, among his qualities, "the offensive rebounding of a Brian Zoubek" I admit I was shocked. But, check this out:

http://kenpom.com/leaders.php?c=ORPct

That's the percentage of the time that a player rebounds a missed shot from his own team. Brian Zoubek leads all players who play at least 40% of the time (that's 16 min/40 min game). Sure, some of those are his own missed shots, although he's hit an impressive 65% from the field this year.

At any rate, being #1 offensive rebounder in the country nothing to sneeze at. Go zoooooo!

The guy has been an absolute bear on the boards this year. And yes, his rebound totals are boosted a bit by the Moses Malone approach, but by no means is that where he's getting most of his rebounds. He's missed only 23 shots all season, and he has 58 rebounds. So even if he rebounded ALL of his own misses (which he hasn't, but regardless rebounding your own misses isn't a bad thing), that still wouldn't represent even half of his total offensive rebounds.

The only negative you can say is that he still turns it over a bit too frequently relative to his number of possessions (a problem all of our bigs have) and he fouls way too much. And his FT% as fallen from 83% last year to 48% this year. But aside from that, he's been really productive for us in the limited minutes he's been able to provide.

gep
01-19-2010, 12:38 AM
Maybe Kelly can get stronger as the season progresses and add another legitimate big man to our mix, making us even less likely to suffer from foul problems.

From a "fan" and not a "technical basketall" guy... can Kelly play the "3" when Kyle is at the "4"?

Bob Green
01-19-2010, 12:56 AM
From a "fan" and not a "technical basketall" guy... can Kelly play the "3" when Kyle is at the "4"?

Kelly is too slow to guard small forwards. When Duke first signed Kelly, I was hopeful Kelly would be a 6'10" small forward with 3-point range. I visioned him to be a Dunleavy type player, but it isn't going to happen. Ryan Kelly's future is as a power forward once he gets stronger.

NSDukeFan
01-19-2010, 09:12 AM
From a "fan" and not a "technical basketall" guy... can Kelly play the "3" when Kyle is at the "4"?


Kelly is too slow to guard small forwards. When Duke first signed Kelly, I was hopeful Kelly would be a 6'10" small forward with 3-point range. I visioned him to be a Dunleavy type player, but it isn't going to happen. Ryan Kelly's future is as a power forward once he gets stronger.

I agree with your post Bob, but to gep's post, I would have to say that is an ideal situation for Ryan as he can play on the perimeter on offense, with Kyle guarding the 3 on defense and posting up on offense. I like that K has been getting Ryan minutes every game and hope that he is able to have some solid contributions in his limited minutes, though he hasn't yet been impressive in ACC play.

Greg_Newton
01-19-2010, 05:53 PM
Here's a pretty cool interview between DBP and Mason: http://blog.dukeblueplanet.com/2010/01/mason-enjoying-acc-intensity/

Unrelated to the article - one reason I think it's so important that Mason and Miles are establishing themselves is that they are physically superior athletes for their position.

It's great to have guys like Scheyer, who can play at an A-A level and carry the team with their skill and savvy. But for him, it's kind of like a different battle every night. He's not a J-Will who can just show up and dominate because he's faster and stronger than everyone else.

That's why it's so great to have guys like the Plumlees, as evidenced by Sunday's game. Some nights, for whatever reason - mental fatigue, personal distractions, what have you - Jon's not going to have that one-step-ahead-of-everyone quality that makes him an A-A, and he won't just be able to bull his way to the basket like J-Will could when he was a little off. So while that kind of team has a very high ceiling while clicking, it also has a little more potential a letdown.

However, when you've got guys that really just have to show up and play hard in order to be intimidating and effective, that potential decreases significantly - you don't have to have heroic, focused efforts every night to beat great teams like we generally did from 2007-2009.

Weighing the NCSU game as a potential trap got me thinking about this... I feel much less worried about it after the Plumlees' performance Sunday. If they can just show up and attack the boards and the rim every night half as well as they did against Wake, it takes a TON of pressure off of our skill players.

hq2
01-19-2010, 06:29 PM
Yes, they put pressure on the other team with pure athleticism. Two guys 6-10, 6-11 who can run and jump like that means they're always a threat on either the fast break or the offensive glass. Lack of a back to the basket game
becomes secondary when they can score that many points on put backs. It means the big three can be more aggressive in their shot making, knowing there's someone there to pick it up if they miss.

Jderf
01-19-2010, 08:45 PM
One reason I think it's so important that Mason and Miles are establishing themselves is that they are physically superior athletes for their position.

Not exactly surprised, but I love how all talk from the early season of us being alarmingly unathletic has completely dissipated, giving way to talk of how our superior athleticism in many positions is a huge advantage for us. It's funny how the first-half observations (in the Arizona state game) of one ESPN analyst (Gottlieb) can send an entire community of fans into absolute despair. Good to see that the play of our bigs has not supported those claims.

- jderf

Greg_Newton
01-20-2010, 05:03 PM
Roy skeered!


CHAPEL HILL North Carolina coach Roy Williams said it was both impressive and nerve-racking, watching the big men for Duke and Wake Forest butt heads (and everything else) on television Sunday night.

"I just kept seeing [Chas] McFarland tip it in, and Miles and Mason [Plumlee] and [Kyle] Singler getting back and dunking it in," he said. "It was sort of scary watching that part of it, because we haven't, ourselves, dominated the backboards against another big team."

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/tarheels/story/1191421.html