Allow me to introduce myself... with an interview with Andy Glockner

[scottdude8]

Hey DBR,

This is my first post on the site after lurking around for a bit to get recruiting info. I'm currently a Cameron Crazie (Class of 2010) and also work for the Sports Section at The Chronicle, so I'll try to post periodically with any insight I have from those two avenues (and also try to drive some traffic to some of my articles, haha).

Anyways, a couple of nights ago I was able to get a hold of SI.com's Andy Glockner, who does their weekly Bracket Watch, and ask him a couple of Duke and ACC specific Tournament questions. The Q&A will be up tomorrow morning on The Chronicle's Sports Blog (sports.chronicleblogs.com) so please feel free to check it out and comment on it, either here or there. (So begins the self-promotion necessary for an aspiring journalist, haha.)

Additionally, I'll be covering the N.C. State game tomorrow in Raleigh, so I'll let you guys know how things look from press row after the game.

Excited to finally be a member of DBR!

[CameronBornAndBred]

Welcome. I hope you Chronicle sports guys have been serving up plate fulls of crow to Joe Drews for suggesting K bench Singler.

[scottdude8]

Welcome. I hope you Chronicle sports guys have been serving up plate fulls of crow to Joe Drews for suggesting K bench Singler.

At risk of reopening that can of worms, let me say this: I definitely don't think Singler should ever be taken out of the starting lineup, but I agreed with Joe that, given Kyle's struggles at that point in time, it might have helped him and the team to maybe start playing him 30 minutes a game instead of 37... between Andre and Ryan, the two should've been able to take those extra 5 or so minutes a game, especially against a lesser opponent like BC, and in turn give Singler a breather and allow him to get back in the swing of things.

But regardless, that ship has sailed, and obviously it looks like Kyle is finally getting his shot back after his performance (especially his clutch 3 point shooting) against Wake.

[trinity92]

This should be fun. Gird thyself.

[Newton_14]

At risk of reopening that can of worms, let me say this: I definitely don't think Singler should ever be taken out of the starting lineup, but I agreed with Joe that, given Kyle's struggles at that point in time, it might have helped him and the team to maybe start playing him 30 minutes a game instead of 37... between Andre and Ryan, the two should've been able to take those extra 5 or so minutes a game, especially against a lesser opponent like BC, and in turn give Singler a breather and allow him to get back in the swing of things.

But regardless, that ship has sailed, and obviously it looks like Kyle is finally getting his shot back after his performance (especially his clutch 3 point shooting) against Wake.

But here is the issue. Drews totally missed the boat on Kyle's "struggles". Kyle was struggling with his shot, with shot selection, and with driving to the hoop from the wing. That's it.

Meanwhile, he was continuing to be a rebounding machine and great defender and was helping the team in numerous ways (Ball Handling/Breaking Presses/Passing/Leadership/etc).

Trying to pin the one loss on his shoulders when the entire team was off that day was an injustice to Kyle and the article was ridiculous to put it politely.

Kyle is a warrior and is also one of the most fundamentally complete players to wear the uniform in years. Benching him or playing him 5 less minutes a game would do nothing to get him out of his shooting slump and driving woes. If anything it would have hurt his progression more than helping not to mention hurting the team. But as our good pal CB&B pointed out, I think everyone got the message Kyle sent Sunday night loud and clear.

[SilkyJ]

but I agreed with Joe that, given Kyle's struggles at that point in time, it might have helped him and the team to maybe start playing him 30 minutes a game instead of 37... between Andre and Ryan, the two should've been able to take those extra 5 or so minutes a game, especially against a lesser opponent like BC, and in turn give Singler a breather and allow him to get back in the swing of things.


Welcome, Scott.

The main issue I have with this statement/that article is presuming that a reduction in Singler's minutes (or a benching or whatever) was going to be what "helped him" or allowed him to "get back in the swing of things." Maybe just the opposite is true. Kyle is getting used to playing a new position with new people around him, so maybe he needs MORE time to adjust to his new role?

Either way, I always like to revert to a very simple saying: In K we trust.

[scottdude8]

Welcome, Scott.

The main issue I have with this statement/that article is presuming that a reduction in Singler's minutes (or a benching or whatever) was going to be what "helped him" or allowed him to "get back in the swing of things." Maybe just the opposite is true. Kyle is getting used to playing a new position with new people around him, so maybe he needs MORE time to adjust to his new role?

Either way, I always like to revert to a very simple saying: In K we trust.

Maybe the way I phrased my statement wasn't exactly what I meant to say. I definitely agree with all of you that Joe's article probably overreacted to Kyle's struggles... but the general principle that when you are struggling you should play less should still hold, in my mind. Should Kyle have only played 20 minutes at BC? Absolutely not. But, when he is forcing a few ugly shots and missing open 3's he usually makes (like he did against Ga. Tech, and in a few other games), maybe a couple extra minutes of Dre and Kelly than normal might've been a better option, if only for that game, and if only Kyle had continued to struggle. And maybe, as Joe suggested, that might've sent a message to Kyle that he didn't have to force those shots as often, b/c we have other options that can help.

But again, the point seems moot now, b/c whatever K did worked and Kyle seems to be coming back, and I still think Kyle, when on, is one of the best players in the country.

On another point, though, I think there is a larger problem with the way Kyle has struggled (relatively speaking) this season... and that is he isn't recognizing the mismatches he has. Last year when he was matched up against 4's, he was so much faster than his defender that he could pull them out to the wing, blow buy, and put up an easy floater to score. This year, though, he's continued to try a similar move, and at points (ie Wisconsin) he was able to be successful, but against faster defenders the move hasn't worked, and Kyle hasn't seemed to adjust. I would LOVE to see him go into the post occasionally to take advantage of the mismatch he causes against 3's who are guarding him, which is how much bigger and stronger Kyle is. That is what makes him such a special player... he's faster than 4's but stronger/bigger than 3's. I think the next step for him is starting to realize which one of his talents/skills to use when...

[roywhite]

Uh, Scott, this isn't going well.

Stop digging and don't presume to know more than you do.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Ahh i see you like Sean Carter.

[scottdude8]

Uh, Scott, this isn't going well.

Stop digging and don't presume to know more than you do.

Umm... not quite sure what you mean by that, but OK. If you're going to take a shot at what I'm saying thats fine (this is supposed to be a discussion, after all) but at least give me an explanation. I may very well be wrong, but I'm just putting my thoughts out there. And regardless of what any of us say, it really doesn't matter because it is just discussion for discussion's sake that certainly won't change K's mind. This is why I was tentative about reopening what I previously saw was a heated debate.

So glad to be welcomed to DBR, haha.

[ricks68]

Ah, to be so young again.;)

ricks

[scottdude8]

So to get back to the reason I originally made this thread... here is my interview with Andy Glockner (http://sports.chronicleblogs.com/2010/01/20/qa-with-andy-glockner/), now up on the Chronicle's Sports Blog. He has a few interesting things to say about Duke's chances at a No. 1 seed, and about the ACC in general...

[Memphis Devil]

"It’s not easy to make the Final Four, especially when you don’t have elite talent. Duke is very good, but the roster still has some limitations."


I might be taking this the wrong way, but this seems like a slight against the quality of talent on the Duke team. My next question to Mr. Glockner would be, "How many future NBA players need to be on a team in order for the talent to be considered elite?" There are certainly 3 and quite possibly 6 future NBA players on the current roster. Elite talent? I think so.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

A belated welcome to you!

You've joined an interesting group here. The ranges of ages and life experiences can often lead to unexpected learning from others.

[cbnaylor]

In regards to all this discussions about Kyle, I believe Kyle said it best.

After the Wake game Kyle said that he had to let the shots come to him.

I don't care how big of a slump Kyle gets into, you don't bench a 1st team all-american. You have to play through your struggles to get where you need to be.

[Kedsy]

"It’s not easy to make the Final Four, especially when you don’t have elite talent. Duke is very good, but the roster still has some limitations."


I might be taking this the wrong way, but this seems like a slight against the quality of talent on the Duke team. My next question to Mr. Glockner would be, "How many future NBA players need to be on a team in order for the talent to be considered elite?" There are certainly 3 and quite possibly 6 future NBA players on the current roster. Elite talent? I think so.

I don't think you're wrong in your perceptions. What I believe Mr. Glockner is saying is he is yet another person who thinks we're "alarmingly unathletic," and are thus not capable of beating a team with "elite" talent like Kansas, Texas, or Kentucky. Unfortunately there's no point in arguing with someone like that.

Nice interview, scottdude. Well done.

[KShip21]

"The biggest issues right now are that they’re 0-2 in true road games and don’t have any truly great wins."


No good wins? How about a 30+ point beatdown of current #10 Gonzaga, or a 19 pt win over #16 Clemson, or a win over #21 Uconn (even though they are going the wrong direction). They use UK's wins over Uconn and UNC as "quality" wins, and honestly, that's the only one they have. 2 teams that are indentical at this point of the season, in that they are going backwards. And KU. Their best opponent, rank wise, was Tenn. Which they lost....... Yes KU has a Big 12 schedule, but UK an SEC schedule? Please! Their ranking is purely based on talent and potential. "No truly great wins" is not something you can say about Duke.

[CDu]

In regards to all this discussions about Kyle, I believe Kyle said it best.

After the Wake game Kyle said that he had to let the shots come to him.

I don't care how big of a slump Kyle gets into, you don't bench a 1st team all-american. You have to play through your struggles to get where you need to be.

At this pace, I think it's unlikely that Singler is a 1st team All American. There are just too many guys having great seasons that I'd have to put ahead of him. But I agree with your overall point - obviously he should not be benched, and I don't think that playing Dawkins or Kelly for more minutes makes the team better at that time - even with Singler's slumping offense he provides more to the team than those two.

You can debate the merits of giving the kids more playing time to help develop confidence, but that's a separate debate. In terms of on-court impact, Kelly and Dawkins aren't giving more positive benefit to the team than Singler.

[Greg_Newton]

"The biggest issues right now are that they’re 0-2 in true road games and don’t have any truly great wins."


No good wins? How about a 30+ point beatdown of current #10 Gonzaga, or a 19 pt win over #16 Clemson, or a win over #21 Uconn (even though they are going the wrong direction). They use UK's wins over Uconn and UNC as "quality" wins, and honestly, that's the only one they have. 2 teams that are indentical at this point of the season, in that they are going backwards. And KU. Their best opponent, rank wise, was Tenn. Which they lost....... Yes KU has a Big 12 schedule, but UK an SEC schedule? Please! Their ranking is purely based on talent and potential. "No truly great wins" is not something you can say about Duke.

To be fair, he said "truly great wins", not "good wins". We have handily beaten several very good teams, but we haven't beaten any elite teams... and we likely won't have the chance to before the tournament.

I made this point in an earlier thread - perhaps Gonzaga will linger around the top 10 (although they're 15 in the other poll), but the ACC doesn't offer the opportunities it usually does to beat top 10 teams. Last year, for example, we had 7 games against the top 10, and won 3 of them (Xavier, Purdue, Wake). This year, we'll likely have zero, unless Georgetown sneaks higher and avoids another conference collapse or GT goes on a huge tear.

Don't get me wrong, UK's schedule is worse... but they're unbeaten, so it doesn't matter as much. Like it or not, "marquee wins" against top tier teams is something the committee considers, and it may hurt us (slightly) when it comes to seeding. Fair point, I think.

[natedog4ever]

I'll just echo Coach K's sentiments - Wow, unbelievable. Happy New Year.

[YourLandlord]

A belated welcome to you!

You've joined an interesting group here. The ranges of ages and life experiences can often lead to unexpected learning from others.

Did you just tack on a fortune cookie message at the end of your post? ;)

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Did you just tack on a fortune cookie message at the end of your post? ;)

Not really. Just chalk up a wise observation as a product of my Duke education...... and a career in the public schools.

[BD80]

So to get back to the reason I originally made this thread... here is my interview with Andy Glockner (http://sports.chronicleblogs.com/2010/01/20/qa-with-andy-glockner/), now up on the Chronicle's Sports Blog. He has a few interesting things to say about Duke's chances at a No. 1 seed, and about the ACC in general...

Really good questions, nice job. Sounds like it wasn't a live interview, but submitted questions, so you didn't get to follow up on some of his answers. Having the #2 team in the ACC at a #5 seed (barely top 20) is ludicrous. The ACC's parity and lack of bottom dwellers really hurts the conference in seeding, which hurts in tourney performance.

Please note the difference between an interview and an opinion piece. Publishing an "expert's" opinion has merit, even if it is negative. Joe's hatchet job on Kyle is at best a blog entry that the Chronicle blessed with the masthead of Duke's student newspaper.

Rather than state his opiniion, Joe could have investigated trends with respect to shooting and minutes played, or interviewed coaches and players at any level and asked their opinion if shuffling the lineup or rotations could benefit Kyle. Instead, Joe just vented his opinion, an extremely flawed opinion. The Chronicle dropped the ball in allowing such opinionated crap be published just to titillate and to drive web site hits. It hurts Duke to have it appear that its student newspaper does not support the team or its players. Joe is not a journalist (or even one in the making), he is an attention hound, and a bad one.