Routs and championships

[Olympic Fan]

Trying to come to grips with the Georgetown loss -- although it will go on the books as a 12-point loss, anybody who saw it knows the game was a rout. Duke was never in the game down the stretch. Didn't we score the last seven points in the final minute to make the game look closer than it was (I'm not sure, by that point I was in a daze)?

Okay, my thought before the game was that this was a Sweet 16/Elite Eight team ... with a little luck in seedings and matchups, a Final Four is not farfetched.

Does losing a game like that change that?

I was trying to figure is any of Duke's successful postseason teams had ever suffered such a terrible defeat ... and if they had, had any of them been routed this late in the season?

The most encouraging example I can find is the 1991 national champs ... they lost to No. 7 ranked UNC 96-74 -- and the game was every bit as lopsided as the score -- in the ACC title game ... then went on to win six straight in the NCAA Tournament.

The 1990 Final Four team (which lost at UNC by 19 in late January) also made an embarrassing exit from the ACC Tournament -- that was the game where Phil Henderson called his teammates "a bunch of babies".

The 1989 Final Four team has a horrible stretch in late January, losing by 20 to UNC in Cameron, losing a close one at Wake, then losing 88-73 to State in Raleigh.

Of course, we can always look at last year. Duke lost 74-47 at Clemson on Feb. 4, barely beat Miami at home, lost by 14 to UNC at home (despite the margin, the game was actually closer and more competitive than yesterday's loss to Georgetown) then lost a fairly close game at Boston College.

That's when K changed the lineup (inserting Elliot Williams and moving Scheyer to the point) and Duke ran off 10 solid wins in 11 games before ending with an embarrassing rout against Villanova in the Sweet 16.

I can't say I see a similar overhaul possible with this team -- but then I didn't see the Williams move last year either.

What's baffling about this team is that normally, it's a very good defensive team. But now twice in the last two weeks -- against N.C. State and Georgetown -- that defense has totally disappeared. Saturday's game may have been the worst defensive performance I've seen in the K era.

I'm not sure whether that performance changed my expectations for this team. When I look at see a team that dominated UConn on a night when Duke shot 27.6 percent from the floor, I'm encouraged. When I see a team that beat current top 10 Gonzaga by 35 points, I'm encouraged.

When I see Duke's defense shredded by N.C. State and Georgetown (at least the Hoyas are a legit top 20 team), I'm discouraged.

Anyway, I guess my point is that yesterday's loss was horrific ... but several successful Duke teams have bounced back from similar losses. If there is a silver lining, it's that Duke could be in first place in the ACC standings by this evening -- if Maryland loses at Clemson today, Duke's atop the league.

[CDu]

Georgetown doesn't play the same way that Wisconsin does, nor do they play the same way that NC State does (nor do NC State and Wisconsin play the same way), but the three all have some things in common. They all spread you out and attack from the perimeter. They also had good big men either comfortable shooting or handling the ball on the perimeter (or both), and guards who like to attack off the dribble. Arizona State gave us some trouble with a spread approach, but they didn't have the gifted/versatile big man to make it work (Boateng just isn't in the same category as Leuer, Smith, or Monroe). These characteristics, combined with a good and well-executed gameplan, can illustrate the weaknesses of our defense. For the most part, we're not terribly quick. Smith and Thomas are very quick for their positions, and Scheyer is quick enough and crafty enough as long as he's not trying to guard super-quick guards. But Singler is not quick for a 3, Mason is not quick for a 4, and Zoubek is not quick.

The strength of our defense is our rotations and help defense. We like to bump and play physically defensively, and we do better against teams that crowd the lane. But when you spread us out, you make it much more difficult for our bigs to provide help defense, and you get a lot more one-on-one isolations. That's not the strength of our defense, and it showed in these games. It also didn't help that each of these teams shot pretty well (State and Georgetown shot very well), but even if they didn't shoot that well they still got too many easy baskets.

Against teams that don't spread us out, we do pretty well, because our bigs are pretty good at clogging the lane, providing help defense, and getting defensive rebounds. Thus, we've generally dominated against the teams that play two guys in the paint (because we are still a pretty good team) but struggled against good teams that spread the floor (because we do have weaknesses).

I'm not sure how to fix this, but I do think it will continue to be a problem against such teams. It doesn't mean we can't make a deep NCAA run. If we're fortunate in our matchups and avoid the teams that can exploit our matchup problems, then we certainly have the talent to make it to the Final-4. But if we run across a few teams that spread us out in the second weekend, I think we're likely to there. And if we have a really unfortunate bracket, we could lose in the second round.

I caveat this with a big "if." If the Plumlees can become consistent contributors, we may be able to offset our disadvantage on defense with an advantage on offense. They (especially Mason) can provide a different dimension to the offense that could mean we aren't running essentially the same 3-on-5 offense that we ran last year (just with taller personnel).

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

I'm not sure whether that performance changed my expectations for this team. When I look at see a team that dominated UConn on a night when Duke shot 27.6 percent from the floor, I'm encouraged. When I see a team that beat current top 10 Gonzaga by 35 points, I'm encouraged.


UConn certainly has not proved itself to be a good team this year. Of course, the absence of Calhoun may be a reason for that (remember what happened to Duke in 1995).

And Gonzaga lost last night (in overtime) to U of San Francisco, a weak team (losing record) in their weak conference.

[Wander]

Looking at other teams, Michigan State got killed by UNC last year, and still made they Final Four (where they got killed by UNC again, but whatever).

So you certainly can get routed and still do well on the season. But don't fool yourself into thinking margin of victory doesn't matter - it does, and the recent defeats to Georgetown and NC State have to decrease the chances of Duke making it past the Sweet 16 in everyone's minds (not that it's impossible).

Like CDu I believe our hopes for developing into a legitimate Final Four type team lie in the Plumlees becoming more of a consistent presence on the floor.

[duke98]

I always like to look at (non-ACC) losses in season as an opportunity for Coach K to figure out what we're doing wrong/not well enough and tweak things around to make us better. The lineup change mentioned in the original post is a good example, even if it didn't give us a deep tourney run.

I always think back to '98-'99 and the "unbeatable" team that lost to UConn in the finals...I often wonder if losing a game or two more during the regular season would have helped us identify our weaknesses before UConn did.

And besides, even late season losses can be galvanizing to both a team *and* a fanbase. Anyone remember 2001? (I try to remember it as often as I can.)

[MChambers]

Georgetown doesn't play the same way that Wisconsin does, nor do they play the same way that NC State does (nor do NC State and Wisconsin play the same way), but the three all have some things in common. They all spread you out and attack from the perimeter. They also had good big men either comfortable shooting or handling the ball on the perimeter (or both), and guards who like to attack off the dribble. Arizona State gave us some trouble with a spread approach, but they didn't have the gifted/versatile big man to make it work (Boateng just isn't in the same category as Leuer, Smith, or Monroe). These characteristics, combined with a good and well-executed gameplan, can illustrate the weaknesses of our defense. For the most part, we're not terribly quick. Smith and Thomas are very quick for their positions, and Scheyer is quick enough and crafty enough as long as he's not trying to guard super-quick guards. But Singler is not quick for a 3, Mason is not quick for a 4, and Zoubek is not quick.

The strength of our defense is our rotations and help defense. We like to bump and play physically defensively, and we do better against teams that crowd the lane. But when you spread us out, you make it much more difficult for our bigs to provide help defense, and you get a lot more one-on-one isolations. That's not the strength of our defense, and it showed in these games. It also didn't help that each of these teams shot pretty well (State and Georgetown shot very well), but even if they didn't shoot that well they still got too many easy baskets.

Against teams that don't spread us out, we do pretty well, because our bigs are pretty good at clogging the lane, providing help defense, and getting defensive rebounds. Thus, we've generally dominated against the teams that play two guys in the paint (because we are still a pretty good team) but struggled against good teams that spread the floor (because we do have weaknesses).

I'm not sure how to fix this, but I do think it will continue to be a problem against such teams. It doesn't mean we can't make a deep NCAA run. If we're fortunate in our matchups and avoid the teams that can exploit our matchup problems, then we certainly have the talent to make it to the Final-4. But if we run across a few teams that spread us out in the second weekend, I think we're likely to there. And if we have a really unfortunate bracket, we could lose in the second round.

I caveat this with a big "if." If the Plumlees can become consistent contributors, we may be able to offset our disadvantage on defense with an advantage on offense. They (especially Mason) can provide a different dimension to the offense that could mean we aren't running essentially the same 3-on-5 offense that we ran last year (just with taller personnel).

The Princeton offense is always going to be tough for a Coach K team to defend, I fear. I remember some mediocre NC State teams coached by Sendek that gave Duke tough games (and won at least once).

Spreading the floor is always good against Duke, because there's more ground for the help defender to cover.

I'm still very troubled by how one-sided the game yesterday was, however, especially in light of the recent NC State loss. Duke's defense looked pretty good until then, but now I'm thinking it really isn't that good, and that my fears before the season about a general lack of quickness were well-founded.

[CDu]

I'm still very troubled by how one-sided the game yesterday was, however, especially in light of the recent NC State loss. Duke's defense looked pretty good until then, but now I'm thinking it really isn't that good, and that my fears before the season about a general lack of quickness were well-founded.

Well, we're not a quick team. This should have been clear coming in. Singler is quick for a 4, but not for a 3. The Plumlees are great leapers and fast, but not very quick laterally (and certainly not when they're required to play the 4). Zoubek tries hard, but he's not remotely quick. Scheyer is not overly quick for a guard (not slow, but not quick either).

I don't think it's fair to say that our defense isn't good. In the right matchups, it's very good. It's just not very versatile, and can be exposed by teams that spread the floor. We match up really well against big teams that crowd the lane, but can struggle against teams that spread the floor.

[MChambers]

Well, we're not a quick team. This should have been clear coming in. Singler is quick for a 4, but not for a 3. The Plumlees are great leapers and fast, but not very quick laterally (and certainly not when they're required to play the 4). Zoubek tries hard, but he's not remotely quick. Scheyer is not overly quick for a guard (not slow, but not quick either).

I don't think it's fair to say that our defense isn't good. In the right matchups, it's very good. It's just not very versatile, and can be exposed by teams that spread the floor. We match up really well against big teams that crowd the lane, but can struggle against teams that spread the floor.

I should have written in my earlier message that I was worried about the implications for our defense, given our lack of quickness. I knew we weren't quick coming in, and I thought that posed a real challenge for Coach K.

You're right that our defense is quite good for the right matchup, but very good Duke defenses have been able to take on all types of offenses.

I still like this team a lot, but am thinking that I let our early season success fool me a little in thinking it had a chance to be an elite team, one of the best four or five in the country, and I really don't think that now. But Coach K is the best coach in the country. If anyone can make the necessary adjustments, it's him. But with this roster, his options are limited.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

But Coach K is the best coach in the country. If anyone can make the necessary adjustments, it's him. But with this roster, his options are limited.

You make it sound like someone other than Coach K is responsible for this "limited" roster. Unlike some NBA coaches, K doesn't have a general manager who secures players and hands the team over to the coach. One of the major duties of a college coach is to put together the roster through recruiting. Whether someone is the "best coach in the country" must include his/her successes in recruiting, building and coaching a championship team. If Coach K's options with this team are limited, it's largely a result of his own efforts in recruiting. Coach K has been a great coach for many years, but is he still the best in the country?

[dukelifer]

You make it sound like someone other than Coach K is responsible for this "limited" roster. Unlike some NBA coaches, K doesn't have a general manager who secures players and hands the team over to the coach. One of the major duties of a college coach is to put together the roster through recruiting. Whether someone is the "best coach in the country" must include his/her successes in recruiting, building and coaching a championship team. If Coach K's options with this team are limited, it's largely a result of his own efforts in recruiting. Coach K has been a great coach for many years, but is he still the best in the country?

Well in a sense he does- the athletes need to go to school at Duke and that is not what every kid wants. So K is not in full control here- the kid has to qualify at whatever standard is used and he has to want to go to school at Duke. If not, the kid may go elsewhere. K can't get every kid he wants because not every kid wants to go to school at Duke for whatever reasons they may have -location, size, ability to take classes in a certain major- you name it.

[NYDukie]

Okay, my thought before the game was that this was a Sweet 16/Elite Eight team ... with a little luck in seedings and matchups, a Final Four is not farfetched.

Does losing a game like that change that?


I've been all over the map with this team myself the past few weeks. One minute I see a team capable of a Final 4 and the next one that can be upset in the 2nd round. This team is neither as bad as it has looked against NC State or G'Town nor as good as they looked against Gonzaga or early on in the season. The reality of it is this. They are somewhere in between, a more realistic Sweet 16 team capable of getting to the Final 4 based on matchups/some luck or bounced in the 2nd round due to the same circumstances. The past few teams are not the juggernauts we have became use to or spoiled by and we have to understand that. We can debate the reasons why but the current situation is that we need to get past what was and deal with what is. Can they get back to what was? Yes they can but it will take some work. And I include myself in this as I've been coming to grips with this more the past two seasons. Does this mean they can't win a championship? No it doesn't but the cards are a bit stacked against them when you look at the past champions and what they brought to the table compared to what this team brings. Maybe this is the year when the champions doesn't have the usual pedigree indegrediants and it happens to be us. We will see but it will a hard fight for them to do so.

[NYDukie]

I always like to look at (non-ACC) losses in season as an opportunity for Coach K to figure out what we're doing wrong/not well enough and tweak things around to make us better. The lineup change mentioned in the original post is a good example, even if it didn't give us a deep tourney run.

I always think back to '98-'99 and the "unbeatable" team that lost to UConn in the finals...I often wonder if losing a game or two more during the regular season would have helped us identify our weaknesses before UConn did.

And besides, even late season losses can be galvanizing to both a team *and* a fanbase. Anyone remember 2001? (I try to remember it as often as I can.)

I can appreciate the "bright side" thoughts when comparing tough losses between this team and 2001's. However, there is one problem! Battier, Boozer, JWill, Dunleavy or Duhon aren't coming through those doors. That team had lottery picks, All-Stars and All NBA Defensive players on it. I don't see this team having any of that unfortunately. Are they talented? Yes but not quite at that level.

[Duvall]

I don't think it's fair to say that our defense isn't good. In the right matchups, it's very good. It's just not very versatile, and can be exposed by teams that spread the floor. We match up really well against big teams that crowd the lane, but can struggle against teams that spread the floor.

Well, that leads to the next question - is there anyone from the latter category left on Duke's schedule?

[Wander]

Well, that leads to the next question - is there anyone from the latter category left on Duke's schedule?

Maryland.

[CDu]

Well, that leads to the next question - is there anyone from the latter category left on Duke's schedule?

In our regular season schedule? Maryland certainly does with Milbourne playing a perimeter 4. Virginia does as well, but I don't think they have the horses to beat us. Same with Miami, though they often go with two bigs.

In the ACC, we should do quite well. I'm less concerned about our ability to win an ACC title than I am about our chances in the NCAA tourney. There are a lot of teams that can spread us out at the national level.

[MChambers]

You make it sound like someone other than Coach K is responsible for this "limited" roster. Unlike some NBA coaches, K doesn't have a general manager who secures players and hands the team over to the coach. One of the major duties of a college coach is to put together the roster through recruiting. Whether someone is the "best coach in the country" must include his/her successes in recruiting, building and coaching a championship team. If Coach K's options with this team are limited, it's largely a result of his own efforts in recruiting. Coach K has been a great coach for many years, but is he still the best in the country?

Yes. No question.

[Duvall]

In our regular season schedule? Maryland certainly does with Milbourne playing a perimeter 4. Virginia does as well, but I don't think they have the horses to beat us. Same with Miami, though they often go with two bigs.

In the ACC, we should do quite well. I'm less concerned about our ability to win an ACC title than I am about our chances in the NCAA tourney. There are a lot of teams that can spread us out at the national level.

Virginia's horses look okay tonight.

I'm not really worried about the rest of the country; there will be plenty of time to worry about the teams Duke will face once the bracket is set, assuming that Duke gets in.