Has Duke been "de-coded"?

[davidrosenhp]

Leaving aside some exceptional years when we had some exceptional players, we have run the basic offense and defense for seemingly decades and I think coaches know how to game plan against Duke, even in the tourney. 1. We never feed the post from the wings, so don't fight the post up of the Duke big's; 2) We run screens for 3's so use the defensive bigs ( who don't have to defend the post up) to push people off screens (the NBA chase) and guards press the perimeter; 3) we don't have relatively high - relative to the break-down guards who always beat us - foot speed and so we use overplay to deny the pass and use help defense if we get beat on penetration, so release the free defender (free b/c we help so much) to cut to the hoop for an easy 2. I think there are other examples, but the NFL shows how every measure results in a counter-measure after a few years. Coach K is so good and our talent is generally high we will always be a top 15 team, but we are so predictable, that this de-coding and probably well known among coaches under the chapter entitled "How to Beat Duke"

[Indoor66]

Leaving aside some exceptional years when we had some exceptional players, we have run the basic offense and defense for seemingly decades and I think coaches know how to game plan against Duke, even in the tourney. 1. We never feed the post from the wings, so don't fight the post up of the Duke big's; 2) We run screens for 3's so use the defensive bigs ( who don't have to defend the post up) to push people off screens (the NBA chase) and guards press the perimeter; 3) we don't have relatively high - relative to the break-down guards who always beat us - foot speed and so we use overplay to deny the pass and use help defense if we get beat on penetration, so release the free defender (free b/c we help so much) to cut to the hoop for an easy 2. I think there are other examples, but the NFL shows how every measure results in a counter-measure after a few years. Coach K is so good and our talent is generally high we will always be a top 15 team, but we are so predictable, that this de-coding and probably well known among coaches under the chapter entitled "How to Beat Duke"

It may have been decoded, but your players still have to outplay our players. That is not always easy, whether you know what to expect or not. Also, K has a way of making adjustments and subtle changes that often throw out the plans.

[weezie]

And no matter what, if a team makes even the slightest wobble against Duke, they get slapped hard.

[Lord Ash]

Leaving aside some exceptional years when we had some exceptional players, we have run the basic offense and defense for seemingly decades and I think coaches know how to game plan against Duke, even in the tourney. 1. We never feed the post from the wings, so don't fight the post up of the Duke big's; 2) We run screens for 3's so use the defensive bigs ( who don't have to defend the post up) to push people off screens (the NBA chase) and guards press the perimeter; 3) we don't have relatively high - relative to the break-down guards who always beat us - foot speed and so we use overplay to deny the pass and use help defense if we get beat on penetration, so release the free defender (free b/c we help so much) to cut to the hoop for an easy 2. I think there are other examples, but the NFL shows how every measure results in a counter-measure after a few years. Coach K is so good and our talent is generally high we will always be a top 15 team, but we are so predictable, that this de-coding and probably well known among coaches under the chapter entitled "How to Beat Duke"

How Duke plays is not a "secret." It is the way we will beat you, because that is how we'll beat you best. Good luck trying to stop us.

[shoutingncu]

How Duke plays is not a "secret." It is the way we will beat you, because that is how we'll beat you best. Good luck trying to stop us.

Correct. And even though some of the losses have similar characteristics, something else that is similar is how relatively few of those losses there actually are, year-in and year-out.

If there were a chapter on "How to Beat Duke," then most of the ACC hasn't read it.

[camion]

Duke isn't unusual in this respect. They have been decoded in the same way that every top tier team has been decoded. It's not difficult to describe how to beat Duke, but once you get into a game with Duke, or another top team, it's like trying to drain the swamp when you're up to your ischial tuberosity in alligators.

Easier said than done.

[Dukeface88]

Correct. And even though some of the losses have similar characteristics, something else that is similar is how relatively few of those losses there actually are, year-in and year-out.

If there were a chapter on "How to Beat Duke," then most of the ACC hasn't read it.

Beyond that, most of the chapter apparently consists of "Hope Duke has bad luck recruiting", since that's essentially what most of the points boil down to (other than "Duke likes to play pressure man-to-man"...and even that hasn't been entirely true this season).

[BlueTeuf]

I agree with much you write - and would add that the de-coding of our defense equals or surpasses the de-coding of the offense.

But as responders are pointing out - a quality game-plan, executed at a high level, will keep the wins rolling in.

But you have offered a theory that could help explain why Duke's last loss in recent seasons tends to be an "upset".

[Dukefan4Life]

I agree with everything you wrote. I just wish we would use our talent more. for instance i really would like to see mason,miles,kelly and the others do more and just set picks! i mean they have alot of offense talent and it isnt being used!

[COYS]

I don't know. Duke has actually run a variety of different offenses over the past five years. In 2006 we ran JJ through a ridiculous number of screens to get him open and dumped the ball down to Shelden. In 2007 we played a decidedly half court game as our young guys tried to adjust. In 2008 we played at a very fast pace, pushed the ball down the court, spread the floor, shot threes with reckless abandon, and relied on drives and kicks. In 2009, we tried (with limited consistency, in my opinion) to run motion, while also relying on Henderson's ability to get off his midrange jump shot. This year, we have run motion much better than last year (although we've been very bad at this on the road, as others have noted). Recall that in 2001 we ran a very fast paced offense that relied on Jwill's ability in transition as well as the pressure defense creating easy buckets in transition.

As for defense, the basic principles of K's man to man system are well known and well feared by basically every team in the country. Even then, we've altered it this year to fit our personnel.

So yes, Duke has a style that is well known. But nevertheless, each season has been pretty distinctive. Also, everyone's style is pretty well known. 'Cuse runs the 2-3 zone. Roy runs runs runs. Princeton still runs the offense that bears its name. I don't think it makes it much easier to stop a talented and well coached team like Duke just because you know what they are going to try to do. You still have to stop it.

[Exiled_Devil]

I got to do some work with the coaching staff in the early '00s. One of the points they made about Duke's plays is that it doesn't really matter if the opposition knew what Duke was calling, because each play has 2-3 different options built into it so that someone can get open for a good look.

Of course, that is based upon having the right talent to run each play.

Also, this season, much like last, our offense has changed its look in February. As mentioned in the post-game for GT, we have moved more to a play-less motion offense rather than a series of set plays. We haven't run a real motion in a couple of years IIRC.

[Spret42]

Every team with a coach in the seat for a long time has been decoded. Does he have the horses with the talent to do what he wants done? If the answer is yes, he will have a greater chance of winning.

If you could reach back in time and bring forward Jay Williams and Elton Brand onto this team, they would most likely be winning every game by 20 points. Every team in the country would know exactly what was coming.

UNC was decoded last year, didn't mean anyone could stay in front of Ty Lawson. There was a book on UCLA back in the day. Didn't help anyone who didn't have David Thompson to beat them.

[davidrosenhp]

I appreciate your good points, esp COYS, but I stand by my guns. Everyone does have a book on every large program, it's called scouting and game prep. But ours is bigger and better distributed b/c our talent pool generally doesn't change so our game plan is adjusted but never fully changed: a 3 forced to play 4/5 (Alarie through McRoberts); a 3 point bomber (Collins through the Alaskan Assassin to Reddick); a guard stopper (Billy King through Amaker) and no true center (The Martin Nessly, Greg Zoubeck model) The exceptions brought us championships and had good to great NBA careers - Boozer, Brand, Battier, Laetner, and I think Hurley and Jay Williams would have were it not for their vehicle accidents. Which segues me into the topic of talent, which some posters used to explain away my theory: our talent has become top 20, not top 5. And no high school big men expecting to see Kevin Garnett and Dwight Howard in two years wants to learn the post from Wojo. Get Gminski out from the booth and onto the bench - we need a real center as an assistant. I hope Mason Plumlee proves me wrong on this last account.

[UrinalCake]

Yes, Duke has certain fundamentals that they have employed for years. Yes, the years in which we had elite talent resulted in final four/championship runs. And yes, when we lose a game the natural tendency is to suggest that these fundamentals need to change. I think the general consensus seems to be that these fundamentals have worked, and you can't argue with the results.

I think what you're suggesting in your last post is that we need to change things up in order to attract elite talent again. To which I would say that Coach K designs his system each year to match the talent he has, not vice versa. If an elite center came to Duke, he would get more touches. If the Plumlees start producing, they will get more touches. Perhaps it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, but I don't think Coach K is so rigid that he won't tweak the system to make the best use of whatever players he has.

[COYS]

I appreciate your good points, esp COYS, but I stand by my guns. Everyone does have a book on every large program, it's called scouting and game prep. But ours is bigger and better distributed b/c our talent pool generally doesn't change so our game plan is adjusted but never fully changed: a 3 forced to play 4/5 (Alarie through McRoberts); a 3 point bomber (Collins through the Alaskan Assassin to Reddick); a guard stopper (Billy King through Amaker) and no true center (The Martin Nessly, Greg Zoubeck model) The exceptions brought us championships and had good to great NBA careers - Boozer, Brand, Battier, Laetner, and I think Hurley and Jay Williams would have were it not for their vehicle accidents. Which segues me into the topic of talent, which some posters used to explain away my theory: our talent has become top 20, not top 5. And no high school big men expecting to see Kevin Garnett and Dwight Howard in two years wants to learn the post from Wojo. Get Gminski out from the booth and onto the bench - we need a real center as an assistant. I hope Mason Plumlee proves me wrong on this last account.

The Wojo big man coach comments aren't really worth responding to as that has already been discussed ad naseum on this board. However, you're comment that our championship teams have been exceptions to the general rule is just flat out wrong. The 2001 team, when it played it's healthy starting lineup, had no true center (Boozer, at 6-9, is far from a true center and is even slightly undersized as a PF in the NBA, which is why bigger teams can sometimes frustrate him on offense). Brand isn't a true center, either. The 2001 team also had an NBA 3 playing at the 4 (Battier).

To say our talent pool doesn't change is just plain silly. This years team has almost nothing in common with our team just two years ago, even though some of the players are the same. Both the offensive and defensive schemes we run are significantly different.

As for the overall talent level for Duke, I think that might be a fair argument, but most championship teams manage to have the right mix of recruiting hits and upperclassmen role players to create a team with top five talent, experience, and chemistry . . . if you haven't noticed, this is the exception for EVERY program, not just Duke. Duke has managed to be remarkably consistent, adapting to its personnel to regularly win 25+ games each year (usually more). As UNC (this year), UCONN, Florida, Syracuse, UCLA have all demonstrated over the past few seasons, it is hard to remain consistent as your personnel change. All these teams have or are likely to miss the tourney after making the FF or winning the title. Does this mean that "the book" works on these guys better than it does with Duke? Does it mean that these programs are even more dependent on the right talent than Duke? Where would 'Cuse be without Melo? Florida without Horford/Noah? UCONN without Okafor/Gordon? UNC without Lawson and Felton? All of these teams have had worse down years than Duke has had. Florida hasn't even been back to the tourney after winning back to back titles. It seems to me that you can make all the arguments you make for Duke being dependent on a certain style and talent pool even stronger if you apply them to other top programs.

[oldnavy]

You know basketball is not a very complicated game when you get right down to it. Where Duke stands out is in the caliber of talent we get, and the quality of coaching. We are for the most part better talented and better prepared to execute our game plan than our opponent. There is nothing complicated about it. Besides, even if we did run a different offense every game out, a coach worth his salt would recognize it by the first TV timeout and adjust. Problem isn’t that the scheme is too intricate to understand, the “problem” is the vast majority of the other teams (20 so far this year) don't have the players that “can” stop it.

[BlueTeuf]

I think the general consensus seems to be that these fundamentals have worked, and you can't argue with the results.

I think what you're suggesting in your last post is that we need to change things up in order to attract elite talent again. To which I would say that Coach K designs his system each year to match the talent he has, not vice versa. If an elite center came to Duke, he would get more touches. If the Plumlees start producing, they will get more touches. Perhaps it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, but I don't think Coach K is so rigid that he won't tweak the system to make the best use of whatever players he has.

Interesting take.

I'm going to support davidrosenhp a bit here. And allow me to state up front that I have no "informed" position; these are my opinions - established by watching closely for 30 years


1) I think there is a certain rigidity to Coach K - it's one of his strengths, but has consequences. He is flexible and innovative, especially when faced with adversity. However, his sense of intolerable adversity is on a different scale than much of the fanbase's - i.e. he stays the course long after fans start chomping for change. Lance Thomas's injury may be one of those provocations that yields innovation.


2) Coach K believes in roles for his players - again a strength and a limitation. The great players shrug these roles off (or they are never imposed). Some players "earn" their way out of them over time. Others realize how set such roles are and transfer. Most players attempt to deliver in their roles, and relieved of the burden of all around excellence, deliver at a narrow but high level.
If an elite center came to Duke, he would get more touches. The limitation is that an elite center can arrive - or be built. Duke's build plans place emphasis elsewhere - and the elite guys aren't exactly knocking the door down.


3)
...and you can't argue with the results. I admire and enjoy Duke's consistency. It's remarkable and enviable. I also think with the right players it can deliver another championship. However, and this year is a nice example, in any single game against anybody in the country we have a legitimate shot at victory - but stringing together three to four such victories will be a monumental challenge. We have not developed legitimate options to wait out the inevitable cold-shooting spells. And the lack of options adds to the difficulty of our shooters' task.

The college basketball landscape has changed a lot. Duke basketball has evolved less. I see a program that will continue to compete among the NCAA elite - but will suffer through frequent episodes of court storming and tourney exits at the hands of lesser regarded teams.

Again, I'm a fan and supporter writing my own observations devoid of angst.

BlueTeuf

[davidrosenhp]

My first post, after a 30 year "career" as a Duke grad/fan, and I appreciate the thoughtful responses. I have re-considered some of my positions, but not all. Some of you guys know your stuff. More importantly, as a DC resident, I appreciate the civility of tone - the worse slap was having one of my points being called "silly." In this town, the simplest disagreement produces vitriol It's a pleasure to debate with respect.

[Richard Berg]

I'll decode the Cavaliers: all you have to do is minimize LeBron's impact and you'll probably win. Simple! ;)

A more serious objection: what's the alternative? Presumably, to learn a wider variety of offensive & defensive sets that can be applied on a more case-by-case basis. Sounds good until you remember that there is a limited amount of practice time (by NCAA regulations if not by sheer logistics & fatigue). Any time you spend learning the Flex takes time away from learning this year's signature Motion.

That might work with some players, but has questionable utility when applied to a whole team. For example: Scheyer was able to fit into the flow of the Duke Way(tm) from day one -- and presumably could have done the same anywhere else -- while for his classmate Zoubek, the light bulb didn't really switch on until about 3 months ago. And Z is one of the brightest guys on the team [in terms of academic credentials].

[Mal]

I mostly agree with Richard Berg's take above - you can't run 6 different offenses without sacrificing effectiveness. Also, with 18-21 year-olds who are only there a couple years, you really can't throw out the scheme and replace it every year to suit your recruiting class. These guys aren't professionals. It takes some two or more years to get comfortable in the type of flow you want on the offensive end; that's a lot of sunk cost to just start overhauling all the time.

The NFL analogy also doesn't work for me. The games are too different. For starters, football is different from a schematic/coaching standpoint. The idea is to create space (linemen) and get the ball there (skill players). The room for individual choice and creativity is extremely limited (essentially, QB decisionmaking and open field moves by RBs and receivers after they've caught the ball). In basketball, the goal is to create mismatches and exploitable advantages that individual players can use to improvise off of. Every player touches the ball, and every time they touch it they have to choose between three options of what to do with it. Scheming in basketball is therefore inherently limited. The idea is to get the players in positions of comfort where they know which decision to make instinctively. Repetition of a particular pattern of movement, leading to consistent locations on the floor and instinctive knowledge of where everyone else is going to be, is key to preparing players for that. The decisions they then make (dump it into the post, shoot it, dribble, kick out) are the result of the individual skills and abilities of the players on the court. Repitition throughout a given game increases recognition and decisionmaking comfort as you go along, too. As a former (pretty mediocre) player, I can attest that it takes awhile to settle into a different offensive pattern in the middle of a game.

Also, defense is pretty simple in hoops, really. (1) Stay between your man and the basket with your front to the ball; (2) rotate to stop the ball if someone's beaten; (3) turn and box out the nearest guy when the ball is put up; are the basic precepts and 90% of the content of every man defensive scheme. These are axiomatic, regardless of the offense. No one's designed a defense yet where not doing one of those three things works. We happen to try to force people to drive baseline, overplay lanes and rely on help, but those are simple concepts. Defense is mostly about effort and execution, then throwing in some wrinkles to counteract the offense's comfort level.

Finally, football changes at a more rapid pace, especially in recent years. The reason is specialization. Offenses spread it out, defenses get smaller and faster. Offenses pound it on the ground, defensive lines get huge and linebackers are more important. Offenses move toward passing 70% of the time, premium is put on pass rush. This doesn't happen in basketball because the offense has to play defense, too. You go small on offense, then you give up size on the other end, too. That's unchanging (and one of the great things about basketball, IMHO). The countermeasure to any personnel change is automatic, as soon as you give the ball back.

Consequently, there's no Wildcat formation fad sweeping the nation's basketball courts. The closest we've had in basketball is a gradual movement towards (over)reliance on three point shooting. And you certainly can't argue that Kryzyewski hasn't been an adapter on that issue. I'm not an apologist, K's got his faults and occasionally an apparent stubborness grates on me, too, but I don't think our dropoff in tourney results the last 5 years or so is due to running the same "system" year after year.

[Memphis Devil]

Interesting take.

I'm going to support davidrosenhp a bit here. And allow me to state up front that I have no "informed" position; these are my opinions - established by watching closely for 30 years


1) I think there is a certain rigidity to Coach K - it's one of his strengths, but has consequences. He is flexible and innovative, especially when faced with adversity. However, his sense of intolerable adversity is on a different scale than much of the fanbase's - i.e. he stays the course long after fans start chomping for change. Lance Thomas's injury may be one of those provocations that yields innovation.


2) Coach K believes in roles for his players - again a strength and a limitation. The great players shrug these roles off (or they are never imposed). Some players "earn" their way out of them over time. Others realize how set such roles are and transfer. Most players attempt to deliver in their roles, and relieved of the burden of all around excellence, deliver at a narrow but high level. The limitation is that an elite center can arrive - or be built. Duke's build plans place emphasis elsewhere - and the elite guys aren't exactly knocking the door down.


3) I admire and enjoy Duke's consistency. It's remarkable and enviable. I also think with the right players it can deliver another championship. However, and this year is a nice example, in any single game against anybody in the country we have a legitimate shot at victory - but stringing together three to four such victories will be a monumental challenge. We have not developed legitimate options to wait out the inevitable cold-shooting spells. And the lack of options adds to the difficulty of our shooters' task.

The college basketball landscape has changed a lot. Duke basketball has evolved less. I see a program that will continue to compete among the NCAA elite - but will suffer through frequent episodes of court storming and tourney exits at the hands of lesser regarded teams.

Again, I'm a fan and supporter writing my own observations devoid of angst.

BlueTeuf

Some pretty flawed views in my opinion.

1) Every coach has a style and method of coaching. Each of these coaches is flexible and innovative within said style to the point it creates the best opportunity to win basketball games. Changing anything for the sake of the fanbase is just plain stupid.

2) Every team has role players. Every Duke player (with a few exceptions) starts out as a role player and with time can either expand their role or have their role diminished based on performance. Transfers happen to all schools. If a player tranfers from Duke because they don't like their role/can't perform well enough to expand their role, why is that bad? Has Duke ever had a legitimate player ever transfer because of issues with playing time? If you earn it, you will get it. As far as the talk of elite players, you may want to quantify what you consider to be elite. Is an elite player someone who goes on to be on the best players in the NBA? Is an elite player someone who goes on to have an above average NBA career? Is an elite player someone who gets drafted by the NBA? Is an elite player someone who has a great college career? Is an elite player someone who is rated highly in his position during his senior campaign in high school? And, this talk of elite centers is just plain foolish. Duke doesn't have one because they just aren't out there. Perhaps Miles will develop into a very good center (I think he will).

3) If Duke has proven anything this season, it is that they can still win games when they shoot the ball poorly as long as they still defend. How many other teams can you name that can shoot less than 35% from the field against a top 25 team and still win by double digits? Also, how many legitimate scoring threats do you want? Even NBA teams usually only go 3 deep on real scorers. Everybody else just cleans up the misses.

Duke has adapted (see post above regarding UNC, FLA, Cuse, UCLA, etc.). Duke continues to win at a high level year in and year out. However, you need to come to grips with the fact that as long as they lace 'em up, there will be losses.

[sagegrouse]

Red Auerbach told the story (as recorded in the book about Red by Feinstein) of the play numbers used by the Celtics. He decided that (a) all the teams in the league knew the plays (there were only 12 teams back then), and (b) this was becoming a problem. So he invented new numbers and a system for varying them game to game.

Unhappily, the Celtics players kept forgetting the new numbers, and chaos ensued. So, they went back to the old numbers and did just fine.

This was an extreme case -- we are talking exact plays and not offensive schemes. And while he was coaching the Celtics, nobody ever figured out how to beat them, even when they knew the plays.

The "drhp" post addresses "offensive and defensive schemes " (my terms) and not specific plays. So IMHO (warning: the H is silent) Red's point is even stronger.

last night, Carolina had little success against Duke's defense, and this is not our most talented defensive team, although one of the more experienced. Think Battier, JWill, Carlos and Nate. Or Grant, THill, Hurley (lightning-fast hands) and Laettner.

On offense, the two-man game has been run to perfection at times this year, and the motion offense involving the three S and big guy setting a pick has also been very effective. I share yours and other frustration about the failure to get strong low-post play frrom our bigs, but I am hopeful, ever hopeful.

You raised a really good question. I think I came down on the other side from you and other posters.

sagegrouse
'My calcified opinion that "nothing is new under the sun" in college hoops bears some modification. I think there is "new science" involving zone defenses from the NBA and from overseas. I don't know enough about zone D to tell whether our efforts at the zone are incorporating some of these, but I think it is a fertile area for the evolution of Duke basketball'

[devildownunder]

Consequently, there's no Wildcat formation fad sweeping the nation's basketball courts. The closest we've had in basketball is a gradual movement towards (over)reliance on three point shooting. And you certainly can't argue that Kryzyewski hasn't been an adapter on that issue. I'm not an apologist, K's got his faults and occasionally an apparent stubborness grates on me, too, but I don't think our dropoff in tourney results the last 5 years or so is due to running the same "system" year after year.


I agree. One of the best teams in the country this year is coached by a guy who has coached the same defense for the last 20+ years. And if anything, Boeheim's zone has been better the last five years than the were the first five.

[DevilHorns]

I agree. One of the best teams in the country this year is coached by a guy who has coached the same defense for the last 20+ years. And if anything, Boeheim's zone has been better the last five years than the were the first five.

Boeheim on top of that has done the best coaching job Ive seen in quite a while. He literally has no "big name" high school talent on his team. No MCD AAs. No Wendys AA. Literally all diamonds in the rough. Have any of you watched Syracuse play? They are a team that has bought into his system. I cant help but root for them on the side.

[Acymetric]

Boeheim on top of that has done the best coaching job Ive seen in quite a while. He literally has no "big name" high school talent on his team. No MCD AAs. No Wendys AA. Literally all diamonds in the rough. Have any of you watched Syracuse play? They are a team that has bought into his system. I cant help but root for them on the side.

I've always rooted for Syracuse on the side...especially the year Jerry MacNamera had that amazing performance in the Big East tournament to earn Syracuse a spot in the NCAA tournament. Watching that tourny run was truly amazing.

[davidrosenhp]

If we want to compare Duke with Syracuse than I know we have downsized expectations. Perhaps I was spoiled over 30 years, but Sweet 16's and Elite 8's, if not F4 appearances, were givens for a decade. Coach K is known as being rigid, and guys like Tom Izzo are starting to shoulder K aside as running the year-in and year-out scary program. We are moving from a perennial top 5 to top 20. Ignore the polls, which over-rate Duke every year (I mean how could we have been ranked ahead of G-town after the beat down 5 days earlier). Three other points:

- For those who say defense is simple, listen to Bobby Knight call a game and you'll learn how complicated defense is, down to how many feet towards another man should you be on help, to choosing the way to handle a pick and roll to how to slip your man to box out if your helping. Like John McEnroe calling a tennis game, Knight (jerk though he is) will point out nuances on defense unimaginable to us spectators. Or read Greg Newton's post in another thread, who played for us and talked about how much the Plumlee's need to bend their knees and are not. Defense is complicated
- Boozer may have been 6-7 but he played like a center. Height alone doesn't make a center (Keith Van Horn - 6 11" or Charles Barkley 6 5"- who was better in the post?) Ferry spent his whole NBA career on the perimeter.
- The NBA is a talent indicator when guys leave after 2 years or even 1 - look at Maggette and Luol Deng, one and done and forces in the NBA that they weren't at Duke. Coach K is great and his system will keep us high, but F4 appearances are just not going to be the expectation as they were during the heyday.

[Devilsfan]

No secret. We out work our opponents for 40 minutes. This is truely the American way. Thanks for instilling that terrific work ethic in our team Coach K! Go Devils!

[Dukeface88]

If we want to compare Duke with Syracuse than I know we have downsized expectations. Perhaps I was spoiled over 30 years, but Sweet 16's and Elite 8's, if not F4 appearances, were givens for a decade. Coach K is known as being rigid, and guys like Tom Izzo are starting to shoulder K aside as running the year-in and year-out scary program. We are moving from a perennial top 5 to top 20. Ignore the polls, which over-rate Duke every year (I mean how could we have been ranked ahead of G-town after the beat down 5 days earlier). Three other points:

- For those who say defense is simple, listen to Bobby Knight call a game and you'll learn how complicated defense is, down to how many feet towards another man should you be on help, to choosing the way to handle a pick and roll to how to slip your man to box out if your helping. Like John McEnroe calling a tennis game, Knight (jerk though he is) will point out nuances on defense unimaginable to us spectators. Or read Greg Newton's post in another thread, who played for us and talked about how much the Plumlee's need to bend their knees and are not. Defense is complicated
- Boozer may have been 6-7 but he played like a center. Height alone doesn't make a center (Keith Van Horn - 6 11" or Charles Barkley 6 5"- who was better in the post?) Ferry spent his whole NBA career on the perimeter.
- The NBA is a talent indicator when guys leave after 2 years or even 1 - look at Maggette and Luol Deng, one and done and forces in the NBA that they weren't at Duke. Coach K is great and his system will keep us high, but F4 appearances are just not going to be the expectation as they were during the heyday.

You might not have noticed, but Syracuse is at the top of the standings in what is arguably the best conference this year. And they're doing it with a system that has been unchanged for literally decades (and before you say that's just this year, remember that they won the championship in 2003 and have not had a losing since Boeheim started coaching there- they've been good for a while). Syracuse is the perfect example of how a program with a very static system can have success.

Beyond that, your basic premise is flawed. The Duke system changes to suit the players. We haven't had a dominant post player in a few years, so we've been a perimeter oriented team. And when I say the a few years, I mean very few- we had a 2 decade streak of good big men starting in the mid 80's. The absence of a dominant post player is very much an anomaly for K's tenure (and an anomaly that may end very soon if Mason develops well).

[davidrosenhp]

Not sure I agree. Syracuse dominates about once every ten years. And it's the star (Carmelo, McNamara, Coleman), not the system which has also been de-coded. We have greater expectations than that, or did. And Duke has always been a perimeter oriented team - take away Laettner, Boozer, Brand and Alaa, and it's been swing men, out of position 4's, and guards.

[EKU1969]

You seem to forget Shelden.

[davidrosenhp]

Yes, the Landlord should have been on my list. But 5 centers in 30 years - I think I'm still on firm ground that we have always been perimeter team that rarely runs plays for the post, and shutting down the perimeter always spells trouble, as does when a shooter goes cold.

[theAlaskanBear]

Yes, the Landlord should have been on my list. But 5 centers in 30 years - I think I'm still on firm ground that we have always been perimeter team that rarely runs plays for the post, and shutting down the perimeter always spells trouble, as does when a shooter goes cold.

Ummm, those five centers make that almost 20 out 30 years. I DO agree with your premise, that Duke has consistently been a guard oriented team, but your facts are misleading.

Also, name one school outside of UCONN which has a reputation as a big man school, rather than guard oriented? In college, they don't really exist.There is a reason good centers are so valuable in the NBA.

To get back to your other post, you HAVE been spoiled. Do you realize that Duke has only had one back-to-back 20 win season this decade? We have had five 30 win seasons THIS decade. We've been to the sweet-sixteen (your measure of success) 5 times, and the final four once in the last EIGHT years since out championship. Besides, in 6 of those eight years, we were beaten by teams who made it to the final four or championship game.

I know all Duke fans are hungry for more tournament success, especially in light of Carolina's recent run, but fans need to have patience, and acknowledge that its not just skill that gets you NCAA tourney victories but also circumstance, seeding, and luck.

You seem to have impossibly high standards. Name one other program that has been successful by your standards?

[jv001]

Yes, the Landlord should have been on my list. But 5 centers in 30 years - I think I'm still on firm ground that we have always been perimeter team that rarely runs plays for the post, and shutting down the perimeter always spells trouble, as does when a shooter goes cold.

I disagree with the premise that our failures are mostly due to lack of post play. We have had some good inside players; Shelden, Cherokee, Christian, Ala, Ferry, Elton, Carlos just to name a few. But I think that perimeter players have been the key to making the FFs. I know it does not hurt to have a good big man, but teams with the stud perimeter guys that can shoot from the outside, drive and play good man to man defense are in my opinion the ones best suited for a long run in the NCAA Tournament. Just my opinion. Go Duke!

[MChambers]

I appreciate your good points, esp COYS, but I stand by my guns. Everyone does have a book on every large program, it's called scouting and game prep. But ours is bigger and better distributed b/c our talent pool generally doesn't change so our game plan is adjusted but never fully changed: a 3 forced to play 4/5 (Alarie through McRoberts); a 3 point bomber (Collins through the Alaskan Assassin to Reddick); a guard stopper (Billy King through Amaker) and no true center (The Martin Nessly, Greg Zoubeck model) The exceptions brought us championships and had good to great NBA careers - Boozer, Brand, Battier, Laetner, and I think Hurley and Jay Williams would have were it not for their vehicle accidents. Which segues me into the topic of talent, which some posters used to explain away my theory: our talent has become top 20, not top 5. And no high school big men expecting to see Kevin Garnett and Dwight Howard in two years wants to learn the post from Wojo. Get Gminski out from the booth and onto the bench - we need a real center as an assistant. I hope Mason Plumlee proves me wrong on this last account.
You think Alarie and McRoberts were 3s? On what planet? They didn't even play the 3 in the NBA. Even Alarie with the Wizards played a small 4.

The "real center as an assistant" bit has been addressed many, many times.

Every team has a basic philosophy and approach. I actually think Duke's system is far more flexible than most, on both ends of the floor.

[BobbyFan]

As noted, we've had superstar big men - Laettner, Boozer, Brand - and few programs can boast similar premier talent. But after that, we've been thin in terms of post play. The remaining big men starters and role players over the years have talents largely focused on defense, rebounding and/or versatility, but not so much on post play. I don't think that's by design as much as it's been the way the chips have fallen.

[MChambers]

If we want to compare Duke with Syracuse than I know we have downsized expectations. Perhaps I was spoiled over 30 years, but Sweet 16's and Elite 8's, if not F4 appearances, were givens for a decade. Coach K is known as being rigid, and guys like Tom Izzo are starting to shoulder K aside as running the year-in and year-out scary program. We are moving from a perennial top 5 to top 20. Ignore the polls, which over-rate Duke every year (I mean how could we have been ranked ahead of G-town after the beat down 5 days earlier). Three other points:

- For those who say defense is simple, listen to Bobby Knight call a game and you'll learn how complicated defense is, down to how many feet towards another man should you be on help, to choosing the way to handle a pick and roll to how to slip your man to box out if your helping. Like John McEnroe calling a tennis game, Knight (jerk though he is) will point out nuances on defense unimaginable to us spectators. Or read Greg Newton's post in another thread, who played for us and talked about how much the Plumlee's need to bend their knees and are not. Defense is complicated
- Boozer may have been 6-7 but he played like a center. Height alone doesn't make a center (Keith Van Horn - 6 11" or Charles Barkley 6 5"- who was better in the post?) Ferry spent his whole NBA career on the perimeter.
- The NBA is a talent indicator when guys leave after 2 years or even 1 - look at Maggette and Luol Deng, one and done and forces in the NBA that they weren't at Duke. Coach K is great and his system will keep us high, but F4 appearances are just not going to be the expectation as they were during the heyday.

I know there are people who say that Coach K is rigid. It seems to me that the opposite is true. He seems to try to encourage players to do things that aren't easy for them. I remember reading an article in the early 90s in SI when he was encouraging an unnamed freshman to take more three pointers (I guessed it was one of the Hills). I also remember Tony Kornheiser writing in the Post that if Grant Hill had gone to a Big East school they would have told him to gain 50 pounds and learn how to give a foul.

As far as Final Four expectations go, I don't think anyone has had a run as good as Coach K's late 80s-early 90s run, except for Mr. Wooden. So if you're expecting that, I think the expectations aren't reasonable.

I agree that Duke's recruiting seems to have slipped a little in recent years, but it hasn't slipped much.

Yes, defense is complicated, and players don't come to college with as much understanding of team defense. (Check out the recent RMK-Coach K ESPN video on this point.) I don't know what you do with that. Should Duke go to a simpler defense? I don't think that makes much sense.

[sagegrouse]

I hope you are enjoying your initial posts and thread. And I hope you don't mind if I think you have gotten carried away with some of your ideas. But, it's a teaching experience -- probably for both of us.


If we want to compare Duke with Syracuse than I know we have downsized expectations. Perhaps I was spoiled over 30 years, but Sweet 16's and Elite 8's, if not F4 appearances, were givens for a decade.

The question isn't so much what has happened the last ten years, but how the heck did we go to seven FFs in nine years? No one but UCLA, in a very different era, has ever had this much success. Duke was very fortunate, but K was also the master of the regional finals, forging upset wins over Mark Macon and Temple (1988), Alonzo and Georgetown (1989), and Big Dog and Purdue (1994).

But I agree with you. I liked going to the FF almost every year.


Coach K is known as being rigid, and guys like Tom Izzo are starting to shoulder K aside as running the year-in and year-out scary program. We are moving from a perennial top 5 to top 20. Ignore the polls, which over-rate Duke every year (I mean how could we have been ranked ahead of G-town after the beat down 5 days earlier).

Coach K is known as being rigid only in wanting the game played the right way. Given the flexibility of duke's motion offnse, which has no set lays, calling K "rigid" is a joke.

Duke was a #1 seed almost every year from 1998 through 2006, which I suppose counts as "perennial top five." Although, to be fair, we were #1 in two of those years only because we won the ACC tourney and the other contenders faltered. and BTW, the other question about Duke miracles is how K has put a hex on other teams in the ACC, esp. the tournament, where we have won eight times in 11 years.

"Over-rate Duke:" Duke ranked ahead of GU probably because GU had been blown out at Syracuse earlier that week and had had an awful loss early in the season against ODU, which really knocked them back in the rankings.


- Or read Greg Newton's post in another thread, who played for us and talked about how much the Plumlee's need to bend their knees and are not. Defense is complicated.

I don't believe this poster is THE Greg Newton, although I have learned a lot on this board.



- The NBA is a talent indicator when guys leave after 2 years or even 1 - look at Maggette and Luol Deng, one and done and forces in the NBA that they weren't at Duke. Coach K is great and his system will keep us high, but F4 appearances are just not going to be the expectation as they were during the heyday.

This is total nonsense. Dunleavy was a star in college: CBS sports put him on their first team A-A. He was the key figure in the NC game against Zona. And he took years to get acclimated to the NBA (although having Don Nelson as a coach did not help).

Luong, as a freshman, was the 2nd or 3rd best player on the 1994 FF team (after JJ and maybe Duhon). He would have been NPOY, I believe, if he had stayed at Duke two more years. and he left, not because he was frustrated but because his refugee family in London needed the dough.

There is more, but the UMd game is about to start.

sagegrouse

[Bluedevil114]

We just beat Maryland by 21 points and went to Carolina and beat them on the road. Time to close this thread. Duke is a very good team and they continue to change their gameplan depending on who they play.

[FerryFor50]

We just beat Maryland by 21 points and went to Carolina and beat them on the road. Time to close this thread. Duke is a very good team and they continue to change their gameplan depending on who they play.

Why on earth would the thread need to be closed?

[Bluedevil114]

Why on earth would the thread need to be closed?

A useless thread. Duke has not be de-coded. Their offense looks great at home and they struggle to shoot on the road. They have not been de-coded. They just need to shoot better and keep rebounding.

[FerryFor50]

A useless thread. Duke has not be de-coded. Their offense looks great at home and they struggle to shoot on the road. They have not been de-coded. They just need to shoot better and keep rebounding.

And that is your opinion. Some people think they have been. I, for one, don't think one way or the other. I just think it's silly to close threads for no reason.