The Case for Lance?

[Jderf]

I've noticed a lot of support for LT lately and it leaves me wondering. I know I don't have a trained eye, but I have watched a lot of basketball in my day and it seems to me that Lance just should not be earning starter minutes over Mason. Certainly not 35 minutes a game. He's undersized for his position. His offense is non-existent. He's not a great dribbler. His footwork needs practice (he gets caught traveling a lot). When he does get the ball on offense, it typically ends in embarrassment. Even on defense (his supposed specialty) I catch him out of position occasionally. And like all our bigs, he fouls a lot. I'm not saying Lance should never see the floor; that's just not true. I just think Mason, though still raw, deserves those minutes more than Lance. Especially considering that by tourney time Mason could easily be far superior (if he sees enough playing time).

I feel like Coach K views Lance as "this years McClure" (and I definitely trust his basketball judgement over mine), but I still can't see it. However, I am open-minded, so I wanted to see if someone could give me a convincing, detailed argument as to why Lance should earn minutes to the detriment of Mason.

[Jderf]

Maybe I have been a little unfair (at least, that's what I want to be shown). He has shown an improved knack for the occasional three-point play down low. But I still think Mason deserves (in terms of skill) and needs (in terms of development) those minutes more. Hopefully someone can prove me wrong.

[nyr484]

Defense.

Lance can defend all 5 positions.

[Acymetric]

Defense.

Lance can defend all 5 positions.

Fouls. Lance, who is occasionally be a bit foul prone himself, is capable of playing more minutes because he doesn't get himself in foul trouble as often (and as quickly) as Mason frequently does. As Mason learns to play without fouling, he will almost certainly start to earn more minutes.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Defense.

Lance can defend all 5 positions.

The Magic Johnson of Defense, do you say? ;)

[CDu]

Defense.

Yes. Thomas gets playing time because he's the best post defender on our team by a good margin. As long as he's out of foul trouble, he's going to get 20-25 minutes per game. The Clemson game was an anomaly in terms of minutes because (1) he was having an exceptionally good, disciplined game, (2) Mason was making a lot of mistakes, and (3) Clemson's press dictated playing the guys who were disciplined. Normally speaking, Thomas's 20-25 minute per game average seems about right for a player with his defensive prowess but limitations offensively.


Lance can defend all 5 positions.

I don't really agree with this. Thomas is a very good defender at the 4 spot, and is at times a very capable defender at the 5 spot. But he hasn't shown me any consistent ability to defend perimeter players. He is, however, the most capable of guarding multiple positions of any of our big guys.

[94duke]

1. Defense
2. Defense
3. Defense

:)

[soccerstud2210]

1. Defense
2. Defense
3. Defense

:)

who was he defending in the clemson game?

[loran16]

Seriously, the Lance Thomas Defense routine has been a myth for a long time. People talked themselves into him being a shutdown defender BEFORE THE SEASON EVEN STARTED...and somehow believe that, despite some opponents going off.

Lance's D is valuable for 2 reasons only.
1. He's fast enough to guard the 2 or 3 if he has to.
2. He gives our big men an extra 5 fouls.

This is a worthwhile thing against some opponents. I can't deny that. But he's not a great defender in the mold of recent players like Dockery or McClure. He's just.....not.

So really, I (in my opinion) don't think he should be starting right now. Against smaller teams, he might be worth a good deal of playing time, but the Plumlees both look to be improving game by game and should be getting more minutes than him. Lance has reached his potential. It's not where we hoped, but we ain't getting anything else at this point.

[MulletMan]

\ But he hasn't shown me any consistent ability to defend perimeter players.

You're kidding, right? Lance is the only "big" on our team (and I'm leaving out Singler) who defends switches on the perimeter. Furthermore, on many occasions this season he has been assigned to the opposing team's PG on a given possession. See: Wake Forest game, re: Ish Smith.

[CDu]

You're kidding, right? Lance is the only "big" on our team (and I'm leaving out Singler) who defends switches on the perimeter. Furthermore, on many occasions this season he has been assigned to the opposing team's PG on a given possession. See: Wake Forest game, re: Ish Smith.

No, I'm not kidding. Yes, Thomas has at times shown the ability to defend on the perimeter. He's also shown the ability to commit silly/overzealous fouls while trying to stay with smaller players away from the basket. And he's not shown the ability to defend consistently out there.

[Houston]

I thought Lance had one of his best games in a Duke uniform on Saturday. He contributed mightily at both ends of the court and played a crucial role in the press break. I find it hard to believe people are complaining after a great win. Duke is a top 10 team. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

If we have to make a case for Lance, should there be another thread to make a case for Brian? I believe coach has put both in a situation where they can contribute to the team

[91_92_01_10_15]

Lance's D is valuable for 2 reasons only.
1. He's fast enough to guard the 2 or 3 if he has to.
2. He gives our big men an extra 5 fouls.

This is a worthwhile thing against some opponents. I can't deny that. But he's not a great defender in the mold of recent players like Dockery or McClure. He's just.....not.



With all due respect. You're just.....wrong. Dockery was a better on-the-ball defender than Lance. McClure was arguably a better post defender than Lance, but neither offered the flexibility in switching that Lance does. Nor does anyone else on the current roster. Lance can switch and cover any player on any team at least adequately, and usually very well.

For that reason, IMO, Lance should continue to start and play as many minutes as possible.

[jv001]

Lance Thomas:
13 pts, 5/9fgs, 7 rebs, 1 asst, 1 to, 1 stl in 35 mins banging with Trevor Booker. What is not shown is the way he helped beat the press. That in it's self should get some praise. I have been critical of LT myself over his career, but Saturday was not one of those days. Go Duke!

[DukieInBrasil]

I might have agreed with the premise of this post until the last two games. LT has played very good basketball while Mason, and Miles, have been ghosts. the Plumlees continue to tantalize with their potential but are still wildly inconsistent. LT is also prone to bouts of wild inconsistency, but defensive effort is never lacking. I am also not sold on LT defending all 5 positions. He is moderately acceptable option defending the 5 and 2, and a solid option defending the 3 and 4. I don't want him defending the PG very often, though he can do a decent job depending on the match-up for short periods.
If Mason can show more consistent production he might deserve the starting spot, however, at the moment LT is showing quite well that he deserves it.

[CrazieDUMB]

the Plumlees continue to tantalize with their potential but are still wildly inconsistent. LT is also prone to bouts of wild inconsistency, but defensive effort is never lacking.

I think this is what we've seen and what we're going to continue to see. One day it's unbelievable that MP1 and MP2 dont get 30 min each, then the next day it will be imperative that Lance gets 30 min/game.

All four of our inside guys are inconsistent, they bring different things. Their playing time (as it has all season) will depend on the type of team we're playing against, as well as who's been producing in practice the week leading up to each game.

I for one think it's kind of fun that we have so many options, we get to try so many different things in those two frontcourt spots. That said, I do wish all our guys could be a little more consistent, but you cant have everything.

[InSpades]

I'm reasonably amazed this post comes up after that Clemson game. Did the OP actually watch that game? Is Lance a shutdown defender? No. Is he our best defender among big men? Yes. So defense? Check.

He's not our best big man ball handler (that would be Mason as he can actually dribble) but he is very intelligent with the ball. He knows he's not the best dribbler so he passes the ball instead. He was *great* against the press on saturday. So... ball handling? Check.

Offensive game? He's got the best jump shot of all of our bigs (not 3-point range like Mason seems to think he has but still from 12 feet I'll take Lance over the other 3). Around the basket he's not nearly as explosive as either Plumlee but he finishes more often than not (which is a lot more than we can say for Zoubek). So offense? Check.

His biggest weakness compared with the other bigs is probably rebounding. However we have a small forward who is excellent at that so it's not such a negative.

I'm not sure how much more you want out of Lance. He has stepped his game up considerably since last year when he played a lot of minutes. I love Mason and think he will be a great player but in the short-term if we want to win more games we should play Lance more than Mason. Saturday was a game we needed Lance. I'm sure going forward Mason will see more time and Lance will see less which is only natural.

[allenmurray]

I'm reasonably amazed this post comes up after that Clemson game. Did the OP actually watch that game?

It would seem not.



Lance Thomas:
13 pts, 5/9fgs, 7 rebs, 1 asst, 1 to, 1 stl in 35 mins banging with Trevor Booker. What is not shown is the way he helped beat the press. That in it's self should get some praise. I have been critical of LT myself over his career, but Saturday was not one of those days. Go Duke!

QFT

[greybeard]

K has his way of bringing teams and players along, and I wouldn't second guess here. Mason is a freshman at one of the premier universities in the world playing in one of the premier college programs. Everything has its costs and benefits.

Lance has served this program extraordinarily well and complements John extremely well as a senior leader on the floor. Mason seems to be adjusting and growing. I wouldn't be worrying about minutes.

[duke4life32182]

If he plays like he did Saturday night then he would be a big help to this team. He was in the backcourt a lot in the press having to get the ball in and he got pressed once he got it back from the initial passer. He did well against the press. He has always showed those glimpses of an ability to score. I wish he would do it more consistently. Mason and Miles should be getting consistent minutes too with their ability, but they are up and down players as well. I thought after the Wake Forest game they both were going to take off, but they have taken a step back. They are still young though and will get better. LT does deserve his 20-25 minutes though.

[CDu]

He's not our best big man ball handler (that would be Mason as he can actually dribble) but he is very intelligent with the ball. He knows he's not the best dribbler so he passes the ball instead. He was *great* against the press on saturday. So... ball handling? Check

I completely agree with your take on Thomas's defense, his rebounding limitations, and how those rebounding limitations aren't that big a deal given our frontcourt's (and Singler's) rebounding prowess overall. I'd also note that he's managed 12 and 7 rebounds in the last two games, so it's not like he is completely incapable of rebounding.

However, I have to disagree a bit with the assessment of Thomas's offense. With the exception of the Clemson game, I'd say ballhandling and decisionmaking have been a particular weakness for Thomas. He has historically been weak with the ball around the basket and fairly turnover prone given his limited touches offensively.

That's what makes the Clemson game such an amazing effort from him. He played 35 minutes and consistently (1) made great decisions with the ball and (2) finished strong around the basket. It was a truly outstanding effort. However, I wouldn't say that that game is typical of Thomas's offensive game throughout his career. Hopefully it becomes more typical for Thomas the rest of the year, though.

[loran16]

My last post on this discussion, so i don't yell at you all for being well....i'll stop there.

The Plumlees are inconsistent. But so are Lance and Zoo. And the Plumlees are basically in their first year each (Miles didn't really play last year).

So who's more likely to improve and become consistant? The first year players with lots of talent? Or the guys who have shown that this is the best we can hope for.

Just unbelievable that we have games like the NC State game where the Plumlees aren't allowed in the game by K.

[DUKIE V(A)]

I think this is what we've seen and what we're going to continue to see. One day it's unbelievable that MP1 and MP2 dont get 30 min each, then the next day it will be imperative that Lance gets 30 min/game.

All four of our inside guys are inconsistent, they bring different things. Their playing time (as it has all season) will depend on the type of team we're playing against, as well as who's been producing in practice the week leading up to each game.

I for one think it's kind of fun that we have so many options, we get to try so many different things in those two frontcourt spots. That said, I do wish all our guys could be a little more consistent, but you cant have everything.

Well put...

I think everyone including Lance would love to see Mason develop into the consistently dominant player we all think he can be. I am hopeful it will happen this season as Mason's development is key in us making a deep tourney run. However, even if this occurs and like it or not, LT will be a vital component to our success. I just don't get the LT (and Zoubs) bashing. My hope is that this is more about the potential we see in the Plumlees than not recognizing the value of LT and Zoubs. However, sadly I think people actually believe that LT and Zoubs are not very good.

[91_92_01_10_15]

My last post on this discussion, so i don't yell at you all for being well....i'll stop there.

The Plumlees are inconsistent. But so are Lance and Zoo. And the Plumlees are basically in their first year each (Miles didn't really play last year).

So who's more likely to improve and become consistant? The first year players with lots of talent? Or the guys who have shown that this is the best we can hope for.

Just unbelievable that we have games like the NC State game where the Plumlees aren't allowed in the game by K.

Perhaps Coach K is playing the players that he thinks have the best chance of helping us win now. Not so unbelievable, IMO.

[BlueDevilCorvette!]

Props to Lance. His experience is so valuable. More times than not in big time games, Lance comes through especially on the defensive end. He is a team player who apparently has earned his time on the floor in Coach K's eyes, hence that's good enough for me. Mason has plenty of time to shine in the future.

[InSpades]

However, I have to disagree a bit with the assessment of Thomas's offense. With the exception of the Clemson game, I'd say ballhandling and decisionmaking have been a particular weakness for Thomas. He has historically been weak with the ball around the basket and fairly turnover prone given his limited touches offensively.


I guess it's all relative. I wouldn't say he's good offensively but he's not exactly being compared to great offensive players either. I think the only reason he scores less than Miles and Brian is that he doesn't get as many offensive rebounds (and when he does he's not as likely to put it right back up). He gets less easy baskets so in some ways I think his offense is more valuable. Maybe he just isn't as good as the others at putting himself in position for easy baskets.

[Kedsy]

My last post on this discussion, so i don't yell at you all for being well....i'll stop there.

The Plumlees are inconsistent. But so are Lance and Zoo. And the Plumlees are basically in their first year each (Miles didn't really play last year).

So who's more likely to improve and become consistant? The first year players with lots of talent? Or the guys who have shown that this is the best we can hope for.

Just unbelievable that we have games like the NC State game where the Plumlees aren't allowed in the game by K.

On the one hand we have two players with great potential who are clearly performing nowhere near that potential. On the other hand we have two players who have less potential but who have reached it and are performing at a higher level than the first two.

If we were 3-16, it might be worth a roll of the dice to see if the high-potential guys could more quickly ratchet up their games, but since we're 16-3, your suggestion that potential will win more games than performance makes no sense to me.

[allenmurray]

If we were 3-16, it might be worth a roll of the dice to see if the high-potential guys could more quickly ratchet up their games, but since we're 16-3, your suggestion that potential will win more games than performance makes no sense to me.

You were expecting posts on a bbs to make sense? :confused: I suggest you give up on that elusive dream or you will forever be disappointed. ;)

[Exiled_Devil]

My last post on this discussion, so i don't yell at you all for being well....i'll stop there.

For all being so right? For all putting data to the argument?

Really, if you want to explore this idea, keep coming. There are lot of people here who watch the games and can give you insight. In this case, you are missing a lot of what is involved in being a good defender, and people are pointing that out.

Sometimes I wish DBR had the capability to post and annotate video.

[dukeblue225]

Defense, leadership, and experience. He knows the Duke system and can defend.

[Highlander]

Just unbelievable that we have games like the NC State game where the Plumlees aren't allowed in the game by K.

Miles' man (Tracy Smith) scored 6 points in the first 4 minutes of the game, and forced K rotated Thomas onto him because Miles couldn't cover him. Mason came into the game at 13:36 and promptly picked up 2 fouls in ~30 seconds trying to defend State's bigs, and Zoubek had 2 fouls by 13:30 as well.

The truth is that Thomas was the only big we had capable of playing effective minutes against Smith (and even then, he still scored 17 more before the end of the game). Therefore, Lance got the lion's share of the minutes. Brian, Mason, and Miles essentially split the minutes at the other PF/C spot.

Nobody had a great game against State, but I'd hardly say playing 10+ minutes a game is not a significant enough period of time to contribute.

[BlueintheFace]

My last post on this discussion, so i don't yell at you all for being well....i'll stop there.

The Plumlees are inconsistent. But so are Lance and Zoo. And the Plumlees are basically in their first year each (Miles didn't really play last year).

So who's more likely to improve and become consistant? The first year players with lots of talent? Or the guys who have shown that this is the best we can hope for.

Just unbelievable that we have games like the NC State game where the Plumlees aren't allowed in the game by K.

Most improvement in a freshman comes in their 1st summer....just sayin

[Jumbo]

Seriously, the Lance Thomas Defense routine has been a myth for a long time. People talked themselves into him being a shutdown defender BEFORE THE SEASON EVEN STARTED...and somehow believe that, despite some opponents going off.

Lance's D is valuable for 2 reasons only.
1. He's fast enough to guard the 2 or 3 if he has to.
2. He gives our big men an extra 5 fouls.

This is a worthwhile thing against some opponents. I can't deny that. But he's not a great defender in the mold of recent players like Dockery or McClure. He's just.....not.

So really, I (in my opinion) don't think he should be starting right now. Against smaller teams, he might be worth a good deal of playing time, but the Plumlees both look to be improving game by game and should be getting more minutes than him. Lance has reached his potential. It's not where we hoped, but we ain't getting anything else at this point.

I'm shocked -- SHOCKED -- that you've chimed in this way. I mean, after 3-plus years of bashing him, I couldn't expect you to have changed your tune, right? Lance's D is not a myth. D isn't about steals and blocks. it's about working within a framework devised by a coach and executing exactly what you're told to do. Lance is doing that at an advanced level this year.

He is constantly in the right position in a team-oriented scheme. That can't be stressed enough. Against a ton of opposing 4s with inside-out skills (from Brackins to Booker to Elias Harris), he has moved his feet exceptionally well, maintained position and denied them the ball where they wanted it. And he's done this while being isolated without help, and while still maintaining his team responsibilities (switching and hedging on screens, rotating to open shooters/drivers, etc.). His defense is terrific, and I disagree with CDu -- he has shown more than enough ability to be counted on to shut down a perimeter player; Duke has just needed him guarding 4s more this season.

I was a huge, huge supporter of Mason Plumlee before the season, based on everything I'd heard. But right now, he's not ready to play more than LT. He fouls far too often -- including really silly reach-ins after he misses a layup or something. He's out of position too often on D. He makes too many poor passes. He's taking strange-looking shots in the post that don't get above the front of the rim. Lance, in addition to his role as the team's top defender, has consistently knocked down that midrange jump shot this year, has improved as a passer, sets good screens, etc. There's more to basketball than stats. Lance Thomas is a vital asset for this team.

[Wander]

The truth is that you could make a case for or against starting any of our main big guys. Coach K has obviously chosen to start Lance and Miles. A different basketball coach might choose to start Mason and Zoubek. It's a case where intelligent people can have differing opinions.

Personally, I'd choose to go the "full house" lineup and start the two Plumlees, because I think they give us the best chance at getting to the Final Four. They need to be more disciplined, though.

[Classof06]

My main question with Lance is whether or not he can consistently hit that 15-foot jumper. When he does (ie: Iowa State), he adds a whole 'nother dimension to Duke's offense. I don't think he should start, but there's no doubt that Lance needs to be on the floor a lot because he can legitimately guard at least 4 of 5 positions. I also think having Lance come off the bench would better help him control the foul trouble in which he continues to find himself (3+ fouls in 12 of 19 games).

Like Wander, I would start the Plumlees every game. Maybe not when Mason first returned to action, but I would do it at this point; in fact, I think after the Wake game was the perfect time for Krzyzewski to make that change.

Ultimately, Duke is only going to go as far as its big men can offensively supplement the backcourt. Based on what I've seen, the Plumlees are our two best scoring options in the frontcourt and it's not like Krzyzewski didn't tab Mason as a starter in the preseason, before his injury.

[InSpades]

My main question with Lance is whether or not he can consistently hit that 15-foot jumper. When he does (ie: Iowa State), he adds a whole 'nother dimension to Duke's offense. I don't think he should start, but there's no doubt that Lance needs to be on the floor a lot because he can legitimately guard at least 4 of 5 positions. I also think having Lance come off the bench would better help him control the foul trouble in which he continues to find himself (3+ fouls in 12 of 19 games).

Like Wander, I would start the Plumlees every game. Maybe not when Mason first returned to action, but I would do it at this point; in fact, I think after the Wake game was the perfect time for Krzyzewski to make that change.

Ultimately, Duke is only going to go as far as its big men can offensively supplement the backcourt. Based on what I've seen, the Plumlees are our two best scoring options in the frontcourt and it's not like Krzyzewski didn't tab Mason as a starter in the preseason, before his injury.


Lance's foul trouble? You do realize he fouls significantly less than every other big man we put on the floor (on a per minute basis). Lance is the only one who commits less than 5 fouls per 40 minutes. The #s are something like:
Miles 6.27
Lance 4.93
Zoubs 8.74
Mason 6.67

There's a lot more to the game than just offense. We get more point production out of our top 3 players than any other team in the country. Offense is not our issue.

[hq2]

It sort of depends on matchups. Lance gives you frontcourt quickness on defense. No other Duke player (including Singler) has that. With certain players,
if the Plumlees are playing them away from the basket, they'll either shoot over them if they play off them, or drive around them if they play up. Lance can play up on them, and still get back on the drive, with hopefully at least one MP or Zoubs back to help. For that reason alone, he has to play in specific situations.
His offense has been kind of a tease; one game he shows a nice jumper, the next he gets put backs, and the next he drives baseline. Unfortunately, he's never been able to do it all consistently, so when he goes out to play, you never what you'll get, if anything. And for that reason, he never gets more than 25 minutes.

[Troublemaker]

If Mason could actually put the ball in the basket, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But, his awkward leaners in the lane just haven't been falling this season and probably won't fall until after he's spent an offseason building strength throughout his body so he can finish through contact. At this point in his career, Mason is not much of an offensive threat, and he's not going to out-defend Lance, who really is excellent in Duke's help scheme. Lance wasn't always excellent, btw, certainly not his freshman year. It just takes time to learn Duke's defense and Mason will probably get there eventually. He's still getting a lot of burn, much more than his brother did last year, and we can expect a corresponding jump in level of play next season for Mason that we've seen this year for Miles after hitting the weight room.

[loldevilz]

I'm really suprised that this thread is coming after the clemson game. That game proved to me that the real hope for this team moving forward is Mr. Lance Thomas...not Zoubs. Lance showed a spark last game that I haven't seen from him in a long time. He tried his mid-range shot, he beat the press, and he even tried to dunk it (unsuccessfully). Unlike the others he doesn't commit stupid fouls and turnovers that hurt the team. His defense is at worst adequate and at best superb. I still think that other than Miles he has the best offense of the bigs. Mason is not quite ready for Duke hoops. Zoubs plays better off the bench. Miles and LT should definitely be our starters.

[Classof06]

Lance's foul trouble? You do realize he fouls significantly less than every other big man we put on the floor (on a per minute basis). Lance is the only one who commits less than 5 fouls per 40 minutes. The #s are something like:
Miles 6.27
Lance 4.93
Zoubs 8.74
Mason 6.67

There's a lot more to the game than just offense. We get more point production out of our top 3 players than any other team in the country. Offense is not our issue.

Lance fouling less per 40 minutes is great, but he's never going to play anywhere near that amount of minutes, anyway, so that stat is moot. He still shows the propensity to pick up meaningless fouls early in the game, like clockwork.

There is a lot more to the game than offense but Duke's never really lacked on defense. 2 of this team's 3 losses have the opponent barely breaking 70 points; they've lost these games because they couldn't put enough points on the board (save the NC State game).

Simply put, offense (or lack thereof) is what is probably going to be this team's downfall. The fact that we rely on 3 players for the bulk of our scoring is an issue; Lance doesn't do much to change that issue, which is why I wouldn't start him.

[jv001]

Lance fouling less per 40 minutes is great, but he's never going to play anywhere near that amount of minutes, anyway, so that stat is moot. He still shows the propensity to pick up meaningless fouls early in the game, like clockwork.

There is a lot more to the game than offense but Duke's never really lacked on defense. 2 of this team's 3 losses have the opponent barely breaking 70 points; they've lost these games because they couldn't put enough points on the board (save the NC State game).

Simply put, offense (or lack thereof) is what is probably going to be this team's downfall. The fact that we rely on 3 players for the bulk of our scoring is an issue; Lance doesn't do much to change that issue, which is why I wouldn't start him.

Would you start and why? Mason has shown to be more inconsisent than Lance, Dre has been injured and not played near as well as predicted, Zoubs..no way, not together with Miles, Kelly..not strong enough. When Mason gets it, Duke will then have another weapon both offensively and defensively. But right now, Lance is the 4th/5th starter. It really doesn't make too much difference who starts, but who gets the most minutes anyway. Go Duke!

[Kedsy]

There is a lot more to the game than offense but Duke's never really lacked on defense. 2 of this team's 3 losses have the opponent barely breaking 70 points; they've lost these games because they couldn't put enough points on the board (save the NC State game).

Simply put, offense (or lack thereof) is what is probably going to be this team's downfall. The fact that we rely on 3 players for the bulk of our scoring is an issue; Lance doesn't do much to change that issue, which is why I wouldn't start him.

I completely disagree with this. We lost the Wisconsin game because our defense was atrocious in the first half and we couldn't turn them over in the second half. The game was low scoring because Wisconsin runs a deliberate half-court offense, not because our defense was good. We lost the Georgia Tech game because we couldn't get enough stops at the end of the game. And clearly the culprit against NC State was the defense.

We do rely on our top three scorers for most of our offense, but on the other hand they are the highest scoring trio in the nation. According to Pomeroy we have the most efficient offense of all Division I. I just don't see how offense is an "issue."

[94duke]

I completely disagree with this. We lost the Wisconsin game because our defense was atrocious in the first half and we couldn't turn them over in the second half. The game was low scoring because Wisconsin runs a deliberate half-court offense, not because our defense was good. We lost the Georgia Tech game because we couldn't get enough stops at the end of the game. And clearly the culprit against NC State was the defense.

We do rely on our top three scorers for most of our offense, but on the other hand they are the highest scoring trio in the nation. According to Pomeroy we have the most efficient offense of all Division I. I just don't see how offense is an "issue."

I have to agree with Kedsy. Our losses were from sub-par defense, not offense. We have been able to win games with bad offense, because our defense stepped up. See the game vs UConn.

[Jumbo]

Lance fouling less per 40 minutes is great, but he's never going to play anywhere near that amount of minutes, anyway, so that stat is moot. He still shows the propensity to pick up meaningless fouls early in the game, like clockwork.

There is a lot more to the game than offense but Duke's never really lacked on defense. 2 of this team's 3 losses have the opponent barely breaking 70 points; they've lost these games because they couldn't put enough points on the board (save the NC State game).

Simply put, offense (or lack thereof) is what is probably going to be this team's downfall. The fact that we rely on 3 players for the bulk of our scoring is an issue; Lance doesn't do much to change that issue, which is why I wouldn't start him.

Uh, really? You understand that since he's fouling less often than the other guys per 40 minutes, he's also fouling less per 20 minutes, right? And 15 minutes. And 2 minutes. If he has a propensity for picking up bad fouls, then the other guys are even worse in that area.

I think Mason can be terrific, but right now, he has not earned a starting role or more minutes over Thomas. And, again, why does it matter who starts the game? See who is playing well, give that guy more minutes. "It's not who starts, it's who finishes" has become a cliche because it's true.