PDA

View Full Version : Josh Hairston Snubbed By McDonald's



westwall
02-15-2010, 03:26 PM
Generally the McDonalds selections this year rank in the top 6 or 7 at their positions per the ESPNU 100. The odd selection is Jayvaughn Pinkston, ranked #84 overall and 25th at his PF position. Josh Hairston currently ranks #18 overall, and roughly 20 PF positions higher than Pinkston!
What gives?? :confused:

airowe
02-15-2010, 03:39 PM
Josh Hairston eats at Burger King. Or he is tremendously underrated and undervalued and is one of, if not THE biggest steal of this class.

westwall
02-16-2010, 09:10 AM
Airowe,

I like your take on this, but am surprised at the lack of comment by others. Perhaps I should have titled the thread as above.

blazindw
02-16-2010, 09:15 AM
Airowe,

I like your take on this, but am surprised at the lack of comment by others. Perhaps I should have titled the thread as above.

Thread titled altered.

DukeFanSince1990
02-16-2010, 09:22 AM
I think it may be a good thing. Almost like a secret weapon. Shhh, dont tell anybody about Josh.

Lord Ash
02-16-2010, 09:25 AM
I know nothing about Pinkston... is there a business aspect of this (shoes or something) that we don't know about?

jv001
02-16-2010, 09:28 AM
Josh was a unc recruit, he would be on the Mickeyddddd team. He's getting shafted. Maybe this will give Josh some added incentive when he begins his Duke career. Go Josh and Go Duke!

BlueDevilCorvette!
02-16-2010, 09:34 AM
I think it may be a good thing. Almost like a secret weapon. Shhh, dont tell anybody about Josh.

You know I was thinking the same thing. This snub may cause Josh to play with an "extra" chip on his shoulder, especially when playing against other burger boys during his tenure at Duke.

Osiagledknarf
02-16-2010, 09:53 AM
I am really baffled at this as well. Hariston has better stats across the board then Pinkston, and is higher ranked then him in the ESPN, Rivals and Scout top 150. Really puzzling to me as well.

This really doesn't matter anyway. Some school having multiple Mcdonald's All Americans doesn't mean they will fail at the college level or beyond.

Maybe this does though give Josh some more incentive for next season. I think he will be one of the Dark Horses to come out of this class, and the only reason he isn't being mentioned is because of Kyrie coming.

For all the talk about Kendall Marshall, he is higher ranked then him as well.

Doesn't matter in the long run however.

uh_no
02-16-2010, 10:38 AM
You know I was thinking the same thing. This snub may cause Josh to play with an "extra" chip on his shoulder, especially when playing against other burger boys during his tenure at Duke.

If josh shows up at campus next year and plays with any sembelance of the thought of 'boy I should have been a mcdonalds all american' then there are serious issues.....

DeBlueDevil
02-16-2010, 10:48 AM
Yea this suprised me as well. I thought Josh would make the squad and give us atleast two Dukies in the game. But this also happened with the USA team as well. UNC has all three of their recruits making it....and everywhere I read that no one has really been that impressed with Marshall...i saw one site even say they think he has taken a step back from his junior year. Ohh well I agree that this doesn't mean much at all. Kyrie is sure to represent anyways!

flyingdutchdevil
02-16-2010, 10:48 AM
This may be an unpopular post, but I don't think we can say that if Josh went to UNC, he would have been a McD AA. There have been countless times in the past when I was a little shocked a Duke recruit was an AA: Boateng, Taylor King, Michael Thompson - are they that much more expected than Bullock or Marshall? Great schools, like Duke and UNC, will get more than expected numbers of McD AAs because of the school that they're going to. It's not just UNC...

Secondly, while I understand that the McD AA is an honor, why do we really care? It doesn't seem that they didn't have an accomplished high school - it merely means that a couple of fat dudes in a back room choose who they think are the most "exciting" players.

Lastly, if Josh explodes, then people can say, "Wow! Where did this guy come from? He wasn't a McD AA and he developed into All-ACC material. Coach K is an amazing recruiter!" Sometimes, not being chosen as a McD AA can be a good thing.

Lord Ash
02-16-2010, 11:30 AM
Got to agree; UNC does not have any sort of history with upping guys McD status any more than Duke does. Let's not be silly.

jimsumner
02-16-2010, 12:02 PM
I thought Hairston had a legitimate shot. But he was nowhere near a sure thing and I suspect the term "snubbed" is a bit hyperbolic. Hairston is the consensus #27 recruit, fwiw, Pinkston #44. But Ryan Harrow is #23 and he didn't get it either. Based on recruiting rankings, it's difficult for me to see this as a great injustice.

If it makes you feel better, he should make the Parade team announced next month.

Nine months from now it will matter not one whit.

oldnavy
02-16-2010, 12:02 PM
The McD AA is a nice honor the the kids selected, but it is not such a great predictor of college success. Their have been numerous examples of kids that made the AA team that had very unremarkable college careers, and vice versa. I hardly pay attention to the title anymore...

Starter
02-16-2010, 12:10 PM
Word at the Primetime Shootout was that Hairston -- and his coach -- were not happy about the snub AT ALL. I think that'd be great and not a problem in the least if he played with a chip on his shoulder because of it. Worked for Paul Pierce after getting picked 10th.

jafarr1
02-16-2010, 12:45 PM
We're getting the same player either way. In fact, it's possible we're getting a better player, if he uses the "snub" as motivation.

whereinthehellami
02-16-2010, 12:57 PM
People need to temper their expectations with Josh IMO. I don't see him getting a ton of minutes next year. He is more of a finesse player and the ACC will be an adjustment for him. He could suprise and get a lot of minutes but I wouldn't get in that mindset. I see him getting Ryan Kelly minutes.

Osiagledknarf
02-16-2010, 02:01 PM
People need to temper their expectations with Josh IMO. I don't see him getting a ton of minutes next year. He is more of a finesse player and the ACC will be an adjustment for him. He could suprise and get a lot of minutes but I wouldn't get in that mindset. I see him getting Ryan Kelly minutes.

I disagree with you on this.

Ryan Kelly was a kid who came in and showed he couldn't play affective defense and wasn't tough inside, which is why he hasn't seen much playing time. It's the same reason why Dawkins isn't getting much playing time.

Hairston is a tougher player then Kelly, can defend, and has a superior mid range game. We will have a lack of depth with bigs next season with Lance Thomas and Brian Zoubek leaving, so we will be in need of playing more guys at the PF and Center positions.

Do I think he will get a boat load of minutes? No, but I think he will be a contributor off the bench for this team. We currently have the Plumlee's and Kelly as our 3 bigs going into next season, which means you will see guys like Kelly and Hairston get more playing time.

I don't have expectations on him, but he will get more minutes then Kelly did this season.

whereinthehellami
02-16-2010, 03:54 PM
I disagree with you on this.

Ryan Kelly was a kid who came in and showed he couldn't play affective defense and wasn't tough inside, which is why he hasn't seen much playing time. It's the same reason why Dawkins isn't getting much playing time.

Hairston is a tougher player then Kelly, can defend, and has a superior mid range game. We will have a lack of depth with bigs next season with Lance Thomas and Brian Zoubek leaving, so we will be in need of playing more guys at the PF and Center positions.

Do I think he will get a boat load of minutes? No, but I think he will be a contributor off the bench for this team. We currently have the Plumlee's and Kelly as our 3 bigs going into next season, which means you will see guys like Kelly and Hairston get more playing time.

I don't have expectations on him, but he will get more minutes then Kelly did this season.

I'd love for Hairston to get more minutes next year. I've seen Hairston play twice and I wouldn't call him a tougher player than Kelly. He does have a good mid range game but Josh will be bothered by the speed and the toughness of the ACC.

-bdbd
02-16-2010, 04:05 PM
I disagree with you on this.

Ryan Kelly was a kid who came in and showed he couldn't play affective defense and wasn't tough inside, which is why he hasn't seen much playing time. It's the same reason why Dawkins isn't getting much playing time.

Hairston is a tougher player then Kelly, can defend, and has a superior mid range game. We will have a lack of depth with bigs next season with Lance Thomas and Brian Zoubek leaving, so we will be in need of playing more guys at the PF and Center positions.
Do I think he will get a boat load of minutes? No, but I think he will be a contributor off the bench for this team. We currently have the Plumlee's and Kelly as our 3 bigs going into next season, which means you will see guys like Kelly and Hairston get more playing time.

I don't have expectations on him, but he will get more minutes then Kelly did this season.

Gotta agree with Osiagledknarf. We are losing Zoubs and Lance, and Josh is the only "big" coming in. Especially if Kyle goes pro, then we will be very thin up front -- leaving only Mason and Miles as interior players. So, if only based on team needs, Josh could get better than normal frosh minutes. Its not like he doesn't have a load of talent (even if seasoning always helps). Think about who we'd play if match-ups disctated playing three "bigs" simultaneously (or if Miles and Mason get fouls quickly, like this year...).


:cool:

JasonEvans
02-16-2010, 04:35 PM
Gotta agree with Osiagledknarf. We are losing Zoubs and Lance, and Josh is the only "big" coming in. Especially if Kyle goes pro, then we will be very thin up front -- leaving only Mason and Miles as interior players. So, if only based on team needs, Josh could get better than normal frosh minutes. Its not like he doesn't have a load of talent (even if seasoning always helps). Think about who we'd play if match-ups disctated playing three "bigs" simultaneously (or if Miles and Mason get fouls quickly, like this year...).

I think the odds of Kyle going pro are almost gone at this point.

It is very possible that Singler will see more time at the PF position next year, especially with the glut of backcourt players we add (minus Scheyer, plus Curry, Irving, Thonton, and maybe Felix). Of course, we might add another big man in 7-1, 245 center Aziz N'Diaye too and I suspect we will see Kelly playing a lot more "4" next year.

Anyway, while I am sure Hairston will make his presence known, I would not be so sure to call Duke's front line "thin" next season.

-Jason "we've got a wealth of options, it would seem" Evans

weezie
02-16-2010, 04:48 PM
But most likely Kyle will test the waters without an agent?
I swear I can't figure out the NBA-union contract now ripped up thing at all.

Tim1515
02-16-2010, 05:00 PM
I've said this on other boards but i'm worried some fans are getting too hyped about Josh's impact next year.

Hairston won't be as raw as LT was...but he's also not nearly as ready to contribute as Singler was as a freshman. If Kyle returns i'm comfortable putting Josh's minutes in the 8-10 mpg range. Singler will likely play a good amount of PF leaving Miles and Mason to alternate at center because of our lack of size + experience.

Kelly, IMO, will be pretty far ahead of Josh on the playing time scale. He has great offensive skills and more importantly has a year of the Duke system under his belt which is huge.

Hairston is a great kid and will be a nice player at Duke...i just wouldn't get too hyped about his freshman year or people will start blaming K for not playing freshman or consider him a bust.

Osiagledknarf
02-16-2010, 06:18 PM
Yes but who will play the 3 under this logic? You will have Singler playing at the 4 certain times, but who at the 3? Currently no one on the roster can play the SF position. If we were to acquire Carrick Felix yes, I could see this possibly happen.

I agree with you about the notion that not to overhype Hariston. However, I disagree with you that he won't see minutes next season. I think he will get minutes, more minutes then Kelly did due to the lack of bigs on this team unless we do get N'Diaye. He is a very talented player who is ranked highly and could be a nice player off the bench next season and a contributor down the line.

jimsumner
02-16-2010, 06:39 PM
I suspect Hairston is one of these kids who's just going to get better and better over the course of four seasons.

Small forward next year? With Smith, Irving, Curry and Thornton aboard at the two guard spots, Duke might find it profitiable to employ Mr. Dawkins there on occasion. Smaller, less athletic players, have played that position for Duke in the not to distant past. With some success.

Kedsy
02-16-2010, 07:06 PM
Yes but who will play the 3 under this logic? You will have Singler playing at the 4 certain times, but who at the 3? Currently no one on the roster can play the SF position.

Andre Dawkins.

JDev
02-16-2010, 07:28 PM
I suspect Hairston is one of these kids who's just going to get better and better over the course of four seasons.

Small forward next year? With Smith, Irving, Curry and Thornton aboard at the two guard spots, Duke might find it profitiable to employ Mr. Dawkins there on occasion. Smaller, less athletic players, have played that position for Duke in the not to distant past. With some success.

It seems that with the personnel Duke will have next season, the "three guard" look will be employed frequently. The look would be like that of Duke's most recent Final Four team, which started Duhon, Redick, and Ewing.

Osiagledknarf
02-16-2010, 07:31 PM
Andre Dawkins.

Have you see him play this season? He gets beat off the dribble way too much, and has been rather poor defensively, which is why he hasn't been playing consistently. I agree, he is a great athlete and a great shooter, but is a lot better suited at the 2 then the 3.


In a pinch; maybe, but not for a long period of time. I see him as our 6th or 7th guy off the bench regardless if Nolan returns or not. He is just too small and skinny to play it for long stretch of time.

jimsumner
02-16-2010, 07:57 PM
"He is just too small and skinny to play it for long stretch of time. "

And, of course, there's nothing he can do about that over the next nine months. If only Duke had some of those weight-machine thingees.

Just for comparison purposes, how ripped were Ewing and Redick when they started at the 2/3 in 2003 and 2004? Or Scheyer, when he started at the 3 much of the 2007 season?

I just think it's silly to pigeonhole forever a freshman based on what he is now. Give Dawkins a year of maturity and weight training and you're looking at a player who definitely projects as an ACC 3. And an ACC 2.

whereinthehellami
02-17-2010, 07:56 AM
Have you see him play this season? He gets beat off the dribble way too much, and has been rather poor defensively, which is why he hasn't been playing consistently. I agree, he is a great athlete and a great shooter, but is a lot better suited at the 2 then the 3.


In a pinch; maybe, but not for a long period of time. I see him as our 6th or 7th guy off the bench regardless if Nolan returns or not. He is just too small and skinny to play it for long stretch of time.

History has shown us two trends regarding freshman at Duke. First the ACC is a huge adjustment coming from high school in terms of opponent size, athletiscm, strength, and speed. It not only takes a special player, but that player needs to be physically and mentally mature to be able to step in as freshman and get significant time.

Secondly history has shown that Coach K will opt to shorten his bench before playing a player (freshman included) who does not have the mental and physical discipline to play his system of basketball. In other words just because Josh could provide depth in the frontcourt doesn't mean he will. K could play small ball using more tested and mature players, which he will have in Curry and Dawkins.

CDu
02-17-2010, 08:47 AM
Yes but who will play the 3 under this logic? You will have Singler playing at the 4 certain times, but who at the 3? Currently no one on the roster can play the SF position. If we were to acquire Carrick Felix yes, I could see this possibly happen.

I think Singler and Dawkins will split time at the 3. I think Singler, Mason, and Kelly will split time at the 4. I think the Plumlees will split time at the 5. Hairston may or may not get time at the 4, depending upon where he is in development compared to Kelly. But I don't think we're going to be thin at the 4/5 spots unless Kelly still isn't ready or unless Singler leaves.


I agree with you about the notion that not to overhype Hariston. However, I disagree with you that he won't see minutes next season. I think he will get minutes, more minutes then Kelly did due to the lack of bigs on this team unless we do get N'Diaye. He is a very talented player who is ranked highly and could be a nice player off the bench next season and a contributor down the line.

Again, I don't think there is going to be a lack of bigs next year. If anything, with the influx of guards/wings pushing Singler back to the 4 for some minutes and improvements by the Plumlees and Kelly, we'll be as deep or deeper at the 4/5 spot next year (deeper if N'Diaye somehow comes).

If Hairston is really good and really ready, he may get more minutes than Kelly did this year. But he won't likely be forced into more minutes due to depth issues. He's going to have to beat out people to get on the floor next year.

CDu
02-17-2010, 08:52 AM
Have you see him play this season? He gets beat off the dribble way too much, and has been rather poor defensively, which is why he hasn't been playing consistently. I agree, he is a great athlete and a great shooter, but is a lot better suited at the 2 then the 3.

These would be arguments as to why you'd play him at the 3, and not the 2. The 32 spot is where you want to put the guy who is less likely to be beaten off the dribble.


In a pinch; maybe, but not for a long period of time. I see him as our 6th or 7th guy off the bench regardless if Nolan returns or not. He is just too small and skinny to play it for long stretch of time.

I think you're making a mistake in assessing where he'll be next year entirely based on where he is now. He's going to be stronger next year physically, and he'll have had the luxury of a summer to work on his college game (which he did not have this year) and another year in the Duke system. I think he'll fit nicely in the classic 2/3 wing role next year (mostly at the 3, because we will likely have a nice 3-guard rotation in Smith/Curry/Irving at the 1/2 spots.

flyingdutchdevil
02-17-2010, 08:52 AM
In the hypothetical (and realistic) scenario that Singler and Smith stay, we are going to have one of the deepest teams in not only the country, but also in the history of Coach K at Duke. We have two of everything, and a really good two of everything. Regardless if Hairston plays a lot his first year, we are absolutely stacked (although unrealistic, I am assuming that one player only plays one position. I know, I know, Singler can play the 3 and the 4, etc):

1 - Irving, Thorton
2 - Nolan, Curry
3 - Singler, Dawkins
4 - Kelly, Hairston
5 - Plumlee x2

That makes me smile.

CDu
02-17-2010, 08:55 AM
In the hypothetical (and realistic) scenario that Singler and Smith stay, we are going to have one of the deepest teams in not only the country, but also in the history of Coach K at Duke. We have two of everything, and a really good two of everything. Regardless if Hairston plays a lot his first year, we are absolutely stacked (although unrealistic, I am assuming that one player only plays one position. I know, I know, Singler can play the 3 and the 4, etc):

1 - Irving, Thorton
2 - Nolan, Curry
3 - Singler, Dawkins
4 - Kelly, Hairston
5 - Plumlee x2

That makes me smile.

I think it would look more like this:
1. Irving/Smith/Thornton
2. Smith/Curry/Dawkins
3. Singler/Dawkins
4. Plumlee/Kelly/Singler/Hairston
5. Plumlee/Plumlee

This depends of course on the development of Kelly, the readiness of the freshmen, and the returns of Singler/Smith. And it could be altered further by any more additions to the team.

flyingdutchdevil
02-17-2010, 08:59 AM
I think it would look more like this:
1. Irving/Smith/Thornton
2. Smith/Curry/Dawkins
3. Singler/Dawkins
4. Plumlee/Kelly/Singler/Hairston
5. Plumlee/Plumlee

This depends of course on the development of Kelly, the readiness of the freshmen, and the returns of Singler/Smith. And it could be altered further by any more additions to the team.

The point that I was trying to make is how we have double at nearly ever position (as per my original statement). I understand that players will play multiple positions, but it distracts from understand how many players we actually have. If were to give you this:

1 - Scheyer / Nolan
2 - Nolan / Singler / Dawkins
3 - Singler / Dawkins / Kelly
4 - Lance / Mason
5 - Mason / Miles / Zoubs

This makes it seem like we have incredible depth, when depth isn't our friend this year.

Osiagledknarf
02-17-2010, 09:44 AM
I think Singler and Dawkins will split time at the 3. I think Singler, Mason, and Kelly will split time at the 4. I think the Plumlees will split time at the 5. Hairston may or may not get time at the 4, depending upon where he is in development compared to Kelly. But I don't think we're going to be thin at the 4/5 spots unless Kelly still isn't ready or unless Singler leaves.



Again, I don't think there is going to be a lack of bigs next year. If anything, with the influx of guards/wings pushing Singler back to the 4 for some minutes and improvements by the Plumlees and Kelly, we'll be as deep or deeper at the 4/5 spot next year (deeper if N'Diaye somehow comes).

If Hairston is really good and really ready, he may get more minutes than Kelly did this year. But he won't likely be forced into more minutes due to depth issues. He's going to have to beat out people to get on the floor next year.

How are we going to be deeper with big's when we our losing Thomas and Zoubek?

Here are our bigs next season currently on the roster: The Plumlee's, Kelly and Hairston. I really don't like Singler as the 4 for a long period of time. He just doesn't have the bulk or frame to play the 4 for an extended period of time, I just really don't. I think he is great in the 3 position but not the 4.

He may not be able to play much of the 4 due to the lack of depth at the 3 next season as well.


Like I said before; I don't think Hairston will get a #### load of playing time though I think he will get more then Kelly did this season.

MChambers
02-17-2010, 09:59 AM
I actually think it's fine that Josh is not a McDonald's All-American. As others have observed, he's borderline to make it, based on evaluations, and anyway it won't matter this time next year.

Plus, this means that Duke will have no more than 5 McDonald's players on the roster next year, so we won't have to hear about that, while UNC may have as many as 10. I think our talent will be about the same as UNC's, but without all the hype. Isn't that a good thing?

flyingdutchdevil
02-17-2010, 10:02 AM
I actually think it's fine that Josh is not a McDonald's All-American. As others have observed, he's borderline to make it, based on evaluations, and anyway it won't matter this time next year.

Plus, this means that Duke will have no more than 5 McDonald's players on the roster next year, so we won't have to hear about that, while UNC may have as many as 10. I think our talent will be about the same as UNC's, but without all the hype. Isn't that a good thing?

Think that's a great thing. Do more with "less" talent, if you can call it that. McD AA, IMO, is kind of a joke. Is there anyone who actually takes it seriously? I mean, congrats to Kyrie, but I couldn't care less if he wasn't a McD AA

airowe
02-17-2010, 10:03 AM
How are we going to be deeper with big's when we our losing Thomas and Zoubek?

Here are our bigs next season currently on the roster: The Plumlee's, Kelly and Hairston. I really don't like Singler as the 4 for a long period of time. He just doesn't have the bulk or frame to play the 4 for an extended period of time, I just really don't. I think he is great in the 3 position but not the 4.

He may not be able to play much of the 4 due to the lack of depth at the 3 next season as well.


Like I said before; I don't think Hairston will get a #### load of playing time though I think he will get more then Kelly did this season.

CDu never said wed be deeper in the post, he said we wouldn't be thin and I agree with him. You're replacing Thomas and Zoubek with Kelly and Hairston, minutes-wise. You're losing a lot of rebounding and defense, but upgrading the ability to stretch the defense.

I have to disagree with your evaluation of Singler being better at the 3 than the 4. He mau be better next year but he certainly hasn't shown it thus far this year.

CDu
02-17-2010, 10:25 AM
How are we going to be deeper with big's when we our losing Thomas and Zoubek?

Here are our bigs next season currently on the roster: The Plumlee's, Kelly and Hairston. I really don't like Singler as the 4 for a long period of time. He just doesn't have the bulk or frame to play the 4 for an extended period of time, I just really don't. I think he is great in the 3 position but not the 4.

He may not be able to play much of the 4 due to the lack of depth at the 3 next season as well.

First, I said we MAY be deeper. And I think the problem with your logic is that you're writing off Dawkins as a 3. If you shed yourself of that misconception, the rest falls into place:

We lose Thomas and Zoubek, but we add Hairston and (potentially, though I am certainly not counting on it) N'Diaye. And we get improvements from the Plumlees and Kelly, and Singler will play more at the 4 next year than he did this year. Thus, we're replacing 2 bodies with 2-3 bodies. Hence, we're as deep. We may not or may not be as good (that depends on the readiness of Hairston and the development of the Plumlees and Kelly), but we may very well be as deep.

Based on what I said above, I think Singler will absolutely play more at the 4. And I think he's better at the 4 than he is at the 3.


Like I said before; I don't think Hairston will get a #### load of playing time though I think he will get more then Kelly did this season.

And as I said (assuming Singler and Smith stay), I think Hairston will only get more minutes than Kelly is getting this year if he's more ready than Kelly next year.

jimsumner
02-17-2010, 10:25 AM
"I really don't like Singler as the 4 for a long period of time. He just doesn't have the bulk or frame to play the 4 for an extended period of time, I just really don't. I think he is great in the 3 position but not the 4. "

There is some evidence that suggests otherwise.

BlueDevilCorvette!
02-17-2010, 10:35 AM
"He is just too small and skinny to play it for long stretch of time. "

And, of course, there's nothing he can do about that over the next nine months. If only Duke had some of those weight-machine thingees.

Just for comparison purposes, how ripped were Ewing and Redick when they started at the 2/3 in 2003 and 2004? Or Scheyer, when he started at the 3 much of the 2007 season?

I just think it's silly to pigeonhole forever a freshman based on what he is now. Give Dawkins a year of maturity and weight training and you're looking at a player who definitely projects as an ACC 3. And an ACC 2.

Yep, I agree...

flyingdutchdevil
02-17-2010, 10:45 AM
is Dawkins not that big? I thought he was strong as hell. Or does he have a little bit of "Taylor King" in him? I don't think he's scrawny / thin at all, but maybe he just doesn't have that much muscle. I'm not sure, just wondering...

jimsumner
02-17-2010, 10:49 AM
We're spending a lot of time thinking about Dawkins for next year but little time thinking about the role Kelly will play.

I think that most of us agree that Kelly has a high basketball IQ and a pretty good skill set. But he's a bit of a 'tweener, not quite quick enough to guard elite ACC wings on the perimeter, not quite strong enough to guard elite ACC bigs in the post.

So. Do you try to increase his quickness and turn him into a Dunleavy-style 3? Or do you bulk him up and try to turn him into Laettner-style post? Note that I'm talking style here not comparing Ryan Kelly to Christian Laettner.

Kelly's not exactly muscle-bound, so I'm not sure how much quicker he can become. Maybe enough to be more effective at the 3. Maybe not.

But he should be able to hit the weights and put on enough bulk and strength to hold his own inside.

I'm not suggesting that Kelly is ever going to channel his inner-Elton Brand. But I do think he could evolve into an effective, face-the-basket inside player, able to use his mobility, passing and shooting against bigger, less mobile opponents.

It should also be noted that Kelly is a team-first player, with an exceptional work ethic. A summer of hard work should help turn him into a force to be reckoned with.

airowe
02-17-2010, 10:49 AM
is Dawkins not that big? I thought he was strong as hell. Or does he have a little bit of "Taylor King" in him? I don't think he's scrawny / thin at all, but maybe he just doesn't have that much muscle. I'm not sure, just wondering...

If by "Taylor King" you mean baby fat, then yes I agree. If by "Taylor King" you mean anything else, then I disagree ;)

Dawkins certainly has enough size to play the 3 position at 6'4" and I'll bet money he has a ton more definition on him by the start of next season. It's still way too early to write Dawkins off as he was robbed of his Summer conditioning and defensive orientation.

airowe
02-17-2010, 10:53 AM
We're spending a lot of time thinking about Dawkins for next year but little time thinking about the role Kelly will play.

I think that most of us agree that Kelly has a high basketball IQ and a pretty good skill set. But he's a bit of a 'tweener, not quite quick enough to guard elite ACC wings on the perimeter, not quite strong enough to guard elite ACC bigs in the post.

So. Do you try to increase his quickness and turn him into a Dunleavy-style 3? Or do you bulk him up and try to turn him into Laettner-style post? Note that I'm talking style here not comparing Ryan Kelly to Christian Laettner.

Kelly's not exactly muscle-bound, so I'm not sure how much quicker he can become. Maybe enough to be more effective at the 3. Maybe not.

But he should be able to hit the weights and put on enough bulk and strength to hold his own inside.

I'm not suggesting that Kelly is ever going to channel his inner-Elton Brand. But I do think he could evolve into an effective, face-the-basket inside player, able to use his mobility, passing and shooting against bigger, less mobile opponents.

It should also be noted that Kelly is a team-first player, with an exceptional work ethic. A summer of hard work should help turn him into a force to be reckoned with.

I think Ryan will be a post player who can draw the defense out to the perimeter. The type of player who has absolutely killed us this year.

Much has been made of Ryan's inability to put on enough bulk and muscle to satisfy both the coaches' expectations and to make him physical enough to bang around down low, but don't forget that Ryan also lost considerable time this Summer with an illness that forced him to lose 10 - 20 lbs. It's no coincidence that his playing time has increased as his time in the weight room has paid dividends.

whereinthehellami
02-17-2010, 11:00 AM
We're spending a lot of time thinking about Dawkins for next year but little time thinking about the role Kelly will play.

I think that most of us agree that Kelly has a high basketball IQ and a pretty good skill set. But he's a bit of a 'tweener, not quite quick enough to guard elite ACC wings on the perimeter, not quite strong enough to guard elite ACC bigs in the post.

So. Do you try to increase his quickness and turn him into a Dunleavy-style 3? Or do you bulk him up and try to turn him into Laettner-style post? Note that I'm talking style here not comparing Ryan Kelly to Christian Laettner.

Kelly's not exactly muscle-bound, so I'm not sure how much quicker he can become. Maybe enough to be more effective at the 3. Maybe not.

But he should be able to hit the weights and put on enough bulk and strength to hold his own inside.

I'm not suggesting that Kelly is ever going to channel his inner-Elton Brand. But I do think he could evolve into an effective, face-the-basket inside player, able to use his mobility, passing and shooting against bigger, less mobile opponents.

It should also be noted that Kelly is a team-first player, with an exceptional work ethic. A summer of hard work should help turn him into a force to be reckoned with.

Kelly has definately shown some tantalizing flashes this year. And i agree he has a high basketball IQ. Something that Hairston has in common with him. I also agree that Kelly can present quite the mismatch on the offensive side of the ball but the question is can he minimize his defensive liabilities (quickness, strength)?

flyingdutchdevil
02-17-2010, 11:04 AM
If by "Taylor King" you mean baby fat, then yes I agree. If by "Taylor King" you mean anything else, then I disagree ;)

Dawkins certainly has enough size to play the 3 position at 6'4" and I'll bet money he has a ton more definition on him by the start of next season. It's still way too early to write Dawkins off as he was robbed of his Summer conditioning and defensive orientation.

Definitely meant the fat :). I hadn't realized that at all - I thought the kid was absolutely ripped. Clothes are definitely deceiving...

CDu
02-17-2010, 11:09 AM
I think Ryan will be a post player who can draw the defense out to the perimeter. The type of player who has absolutely killed us this year.

I agree. He's a face-up big man who is just not strong enough yet. I've never understood the comparisons people wanted to make to Dunleavy.

Dunleavy was a high school guard who just kept growing. He was recruited as a guard, but simply grew to 6'8" or 6'9" when he got to Duke. He eventually moved up to the 4 spot only because we had a ton of skill players at the guard/wing spots and a lack of ready post players.

Kelly is a guy who played the 4/5 in high school and was recruited as a 4/5. He's a lot more of a Shav Randolph type of player (big man with shooting touch and some perimeter skills). He just needs to get stronger and get used to the speed and strength of the college game. He's only playing the 3 occasionally out of necessity because we have a dearth of wing players this year.

Next year, I think we'll see a bigger, stronger, more post-ready Kelly, and he'll play almost exclusively at the 4 spot (with some time maybe at the 5 if the Plumlees are in foul trouble).

Kedsy
02-17-2010, 11:10 AM
We're spending a lot of time thinking about Dawkins for next year but little time thinking about the role Kelly will play.

I think that most of us agree that Kelly has a high basketball IQ and a pretty good skill set. But he's a bit of a 'tweener, not quite quick enough to guard elite ACC wings on the perimeter, not quite strong enough to guard elite ACC bigs in the post.

So. Do you try to increase his quickness and turn him into a Dunleavy-style 3? Or do you bulk him up and try to turn him into Laettner-style post? Note that I'm talking style here not comparing Ryan Kelly to Christian Laettner.

Kelly's not exactly muscle-bound, so I'm not sure how much quicker he can become. Maybe enough to be more effective at the 3. Maybe not.

But he should be able to hit the weights and put on enough bulk and strength to hold his own inside.

I'm not suggesting that Kelly is ever going to channel his inner-Elton Brand. But I do think he could evolve into an effective, face-the-basket inside player, able to use his mobility, passing and shooting against bigger, less mobile opponents.

It should also be noted that Kelly is a team-first player, with an exceptional work ethic. A summer of hard work should help turn him into a force to be reckoned with.

I completely agree with this. He just has to be strong enough to defend interior players, he doesn't need to be able to bull his way through behemoths to put the ball in the basket.

It may not be the perfect comparison, but I see a lot of Tom Gugliotta in Ryan.

CDu
02-17-2010, 11:11 AM
It may not be the perfect comparison, but I see a lot of Tom Gugliotta in Ryan.

I like this comparison a lot. I've been using Shavlik Randolph as a comparison of style, but that unfortunately has too many negative connotations because of his struggles. I like the Googs comp better.

jimsumner
02-17-2010, 11:38 AM
Tom Gugliotta may have had the greatest freshmen-senior improvement in ACC history. And then he became an NBA All-Star. I suspect Duke would take that kind of career arc for Kelly, no questions asked.

tbyers11
02-17-2010, 12:09 PM
We're spending a lot of time thinking about Dawkins for next year but little time thinking about the role Kelly will play.

I think that most of us agree that Kelly has a high basketball IQ and a pretty good skill set. But he's a bit of a 'tweener, not quite quick enough to guard elite ACC wings on the perimeter, not quite strong enough to guard elite ACC bigs in the post.

So. Do you try to increase his quickness and turn him into a Dunleavy-style 3? Or do you bulk him up and try to turn him into Laettner-style post? Note that I'm talking style here not comparing Ryan Kelly to Christian Laettner.

Kelly's not exactly muscle-bound, so I'm not sure how much quicker he can become. Maybe enough to be more effective at the 3. Maybe not.

But he should be able to hit the weights and put on enough bulk and strength to hold his own inside.

I'm not suggesting that Kelly is ever going to channel his inner-Elton Brand. But I do think he could evolve into an effective, face-the-basket inside player, able to use his mobility, passing and shooting against bigger, less mobile opponents.

It should also be noted that Kelly is a team-first player, with an exceptional work ethic. A summer of hard work should help turn him into a force to be reckoned with.

Another more recent comparison of a player whose game that I think Ryan Kelly's is similar to is Jon Leuer at Wisconsin. Leuer was having a pretty good season (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/players/72808) before breaking his wrist.

Leuer was a perimeter player until growing about 6 inches his last year or so of high school and has taken some time adjusting to his height (he played very little his freshman year). I'd obviously take Ryan Kelly following the Googs career path, but a career similar to Leuer's (to date) would be pretty good too.

airowe
02-17-2010, 12:16 PM
Another more recent comparison of a player whose game that I think Ryan Kelly's is similar to is Jon Leuer at Wisconsin. Leuer was having a pretty good season (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/players/72808) before breaking his wrist.

Leuer was a perimeter player until growing about 6 inches his last year or so of high school and has taken some time adjusting to his height (he played very little his freshman year). I'd obviously take Ryan Kelly following the Googs career path, but a career similar to Leuer's (to date) would be pretty good too.

I agree and I would love to watch Ryan progress like Leuer. As I said above, that is the kind of mismatch that has just been killing us this year. I'd love to see us be able to create that kind of mismatch with ryan for the next few years.

Back to the OP, two things Josh has been working on since commiting to Duke have been his jumpshot and handle. He's said in recent interviews that Coach K plans to utilize his versatility and use Josh like a Battier or Singler. He's also grown an inch and bulked up to 225. He's about 15 pounds light of where K wants him to be next year.

Troublemaker
02-17-2010, 01:30 PM
I like Hairston a lot. He's a very quick leaper and seems agile and mechanically sound with his shot. I don't think he'll play much as a freshman but he should be a very good college player in time. He'll be better than Lance, imo.

I agree that Singler, if he stays, will split time at the 3 and 4 next season and Duke's depth will be just fine in the post with him alongside the Plumlees and Kelly. We just won't have a big thumper like a Zoubek on the roster but we should be fine.