PDA

View Full Version : When do you have enough scorers?



MarkD83
02-26-2010, 08:44 AM
I usually do not like to pick on anyone but the following quote in the DBR summary of the Tulsa game struck a nerve.

"Toss the Big Three and Zoubek out and the rest of the team was 3-12"

So lets forget about the teams top 4 scorers and what happens. This same sentiment has been stated for many teams and not just Duke by many announcers. I am sure you have heard, "They need a 3rd option...a 4th option...a 5th option...."

So how many scoring options is enough?

Matches
02-26-2010, 09:04 AM
3 is usually enough. Sometimes a team can get by with 2. It's nice to have as many as possible, of course, but really so long as the 4th and 5th options aren't SO BAD that they don't draw a defender, you're okay.

langdonfan
02-26-2010, 09:14 AM
I agree with what you are saying, but just to clarify, the problem is really the lack of balanced scoring. The fact that Smith, Singler, and Scheyer all averaging around 18 ppg isn't a good sign for what would happen if the team were to lose one of them. It's not like this is a team that is averaging 100 ppg. The rest of the team has produced very little offense during the ACC season.

DurhamMatt
02-26-2010, 09:14 AM
We are a dangerous team this year. We have THE bIG 3. Known nationaly as the most awesome trio in the country. Duke haters in the media try to turn this into a flaw somehow, saying we need more scorers. This team has way more scorers than we have had in years. Just remember last year, G gets shut down or has an off night and that was a wrap. I would like to see Zoubs start getting some national credit, but I guess it will take more than 4 games after a dismal 3 years. I know its been said but if he can keep that presence up, OMG. Wow, is all I can say about his play. That semi finger roll to the basket from 4-5 feet was ridiculous. He could not score from under the basket a month ago, it's really astonishing. We are still gaining scorers, guys are still emerging! Miles looked like he is getting it going, and we all know Mason and Dawkins are capable of being scoring threats. It will be March 1st on Monday and we are still getting better, way better. Let the critics keep trying to point out flaws, I like our scorers.

Dukefan4Life
02-26-2010, 09:18 AM
I dont think you can ever have enough scoring. The problem with our team is we do not have enough inside scoring, IMO that has been our problem for a few years now. we just dont use the post or drive to the basekt enough to make sure when our outside shot isnt falling we can rely on an inside game.

Matches
02-26-2010, 09:23 AM
I agree with what you are saying, but just to clarify, the problem is really the lack of balanced scoring. The fact that Smith, Singler, and Scheyer all averaging around 18 ppg isn't a good sign for what would happen if the team were to lose one of them.

Sure, but isn't that true of most teams? How many teams can lose one of their top three players without it being a major hit? I agree we'd be in huge trouble if one of those guys went down, but I think most teams would be as well in similar circumstances.

Heck, look at UNC last year without Lawson. That was a very deep, very balanced team, and all it took was one key guy being out for them to become average.

flyingdutchdevil
02-26-2010, 09:25 AM
IMO, 2004 was the last time that we had this many scorers. Duhon, Ewing, Redick, Deng, and S. Williams could all score to a certain degree. This year isn't bad - 3.5 (still need to see more Z to be considered anywhere near the 3 S's). But 2004 was an absolutely luxury.

Dukefan4Life
02-26-2010, 09:30 AM
This all sounds pretty crazy to me! I think we are damn lucky to have three scorers on our team. How about other teams have guys that average these numbers? but ill say it again its not how many scorers you have.. the "balence" that we need is inside and outside scoring! we need to use our bigs to do more than just set picks for our big three

crote
02-26-2010, 09:35 AM
This team has way more scorers than we have had in years. Just remember last year, G gets shut down or has an off night and that was a wrap.

I disagree. Last year we had a Big Three of Kyle, Jon, and G which averaged only ~5ppg less than is Knolon Schmingler this year, and that's looking at averages over the whole year and probably doesn't give enough weight to how much G's scoring picked up over the last half of the season.

I guess it sort of depends on how you define scorer. If you arbitrarily cut it off at, say, 15 ppg, before this year we haven't had three scorers since Ewing-Redick-Shelden in 04-05. If you use a lower thresh hold of 10 PPG, you could argue we had more balance in '07 and '08, although you'd be hard pressed to argue those were better teams.

ChicagoCrazy84
02-26-2010, 09:42 AM
IMO, 2004 was the last time that we had this many scorers. Duhon, Ewing, Redick, Deng, and S. Williams could all score to a certain degree. This year isn't bad - 3.5 (still need to see more Z to be considered anywhere near the 3 S's). But 2004 was an absolutely luxury.


2004 was a luxury! You also had Shav Randolph who before/after the bout of mono was capable of putting up a decent game. For this year, I tend to look at it from a bench production point of view. I feel that now, we know what we're going to get from Zoubs, he's been aswesome. I want to see someone from the bench come in and put up ~7 points a game. We're getting nothing from the bench so that puts pressure on the 3 and we can't seem to go very long with one of them on the bench. Andre is 1-14 and has 4 points total in his last 6 games. Mason has been a little better with the exception of the last few games. We just need a consistenet effort. It's almost time for Andre to chalk it up as a dissapointing year and start working his butt off for next year when more competition comes in, but I won't give up on the kid.

Mal
02-26-2010, 09:42 AM
I read the quote above in the DBR writeup as part of point about the team shooting poorly. Maybe it was stated awkwardly, but I think it was along the lines of "Tulsa was held to a low shooting percentage, but then again, so was Duke. The three stars shot thusly: ___, ___, ___. Zoubek was the exception to the rule at 4/5. Everyone else was 3-12." It finished the point of saying the team had a bad shooting night.

That said, I don't disagree with the comments on the issue the OP brings up. Sure, I'd like the 4th and 5th guys to be averaging 9 and 8 instead of 6 and 5. But at the same time, it's generally conventional wisdom that you need three legit scorers to make a serious NCAA run. Well, we have three very legit scorers. Part of the trouble, I suppose, is that all three of them are perimeter players, so their nightly output is more dependent on their touch that game, rather than a lowpost guy who's gonna get his 14 minimum if you just feed him enough. So we're maybe more susceptible to a game where two of the three of them are off. Still, I do think it's a bit overblown. Why the fetishistic worry that three guys who get 50+% of the minutes have scored 65% of the points? I guess the press needs a prescripted article about our preordained Sweet 16 loss, so they've floated both unathleticism and now this.

CDu
02-26-2010, 09:42 AM
I usually do not like to pick on anyone but the following quote in the DBR summary of the Tulsa game struck a nerve.

"Toss the Big Three and Zoubek out and the rest of the team was 3-12"

So lets forget about the teams top 4 scorers and what happens. This same sentiment has been stated for many teams and not just Duke by many announcers. I am sure you have heard, "They need a 3rd option...a 4th option...a 5th option...."

So how many scoring options is enough?

I agree that it's silly to overlook the top four scorers in any particular game when those four got 60+ points. It doesn't matter how you distribute the points on any given night. You just need to have X number of points from the on any given night.

The point of discussing having an Xth option is to provide more flexibility and more cushion to withstand an off-night from any particular player or groups of players. If you can get 20+ points every night from three guys, then you probably only need 5-10 points from everybody else to win almost every game. But you aren't going to get 20+ points every night from three guys, so it's nice to have that 4th/5th/6th option.

I don't know what the right number of scoring options is, and the reality is probably that it depends upon whom the scorers are. But more is generally better than less.

Matches
02-26-2010, 09:43 AM
The '09 team was probably more balanced than this year's model, though when Nolan went into his mid-season slump we relied pretty heavily on 3 guys. Even when Nolan was slumping, though, one had the sense that he, Paulus and EWill were realistic scoring options. Until Zoo's recent resurgence I'm not sure we've had that this year.

The '08 team got scoring from Singler, Scheyer, Paulus, Henderson, Nelson, and occasionally Nolan. It was VERY well-balanced but had no standout performer.

superdave
02-26-2010, 09:48 AM
One of the jobs of a point guard is to get easy buckets for the team. Jon Scheyer is simply not a natural point guard, similar to 2005 when Daniel Ewing played point. He's more of a playmaker and he's good at it.

Next year I think Kyrie Irving will be so good at pentrating and drawing an extra defender that our bigs will get more dunks (think Boozer's easy buckets because of JW) and our spot up shooters will get more open looks. Those are easy scoring opprtunities that we just dont get as often we'd liek this year.

unc last year is a good comparison. How much better did Ed Davis, Deon Thompson and Ginyard look because Ty Lawson was feeding them? They were average offensive players playing at a higher level because the point put them in great position to score. They just had to catch and score a lot of the time.

I dont think it's about # of scoring options, but more about better balance than we have. Our lack of balance very well mean an early end to our season if we play the wrong team.

jjasper0729
02-26-2010, 09:58 AM
we have 3 players that are in the top 7 in the conference in points per game. You have to go to #12 to find another team with a second person.


Malcolm Delaney-VT (20.2)
Jon Scheyer-DU (18.8)
Greivis Vasquez-MD (18.7)
Nolan Smith-DU (17.9)
Sylven Landesberg-VA (17.4)
Tracy Smith-ST (17.1)
Kyle Singler-DU (16.9)
Al-Farouq Aminu-WF (16.8)
Trevor Booker-CU (15.3)
Joe Trapani-BC (14.3)
Deon Thompson-NC (14.1)
Dorenzo Hudson-VT (14.0)
Gani Lawal-GT (13.9)
Ed Davis-NC (13.4)
Reggie Jackson-BC (13.2)
Ishmael Smith-WF (13.2)
Landon Milbourne-MD (13.1)
Mike Scott-VA (12.8)
James Dews-UM (12.3)
Dwayne Collins-UM (12.2)


In the top 20 (which the conference lists), the breakdown is as follows:

Duke - 3
BC - 2
MD - 2
Miami - 2
UNC - 2
UVA - 2
VPI - 2
WF - 2
CU - 1
GT - 1
NCSU - 1

I think we have a great luxury and any added points from any other team members (we've seen it happen before this season, why shouldn't we expect to see it again) is gravy on the country fried steak.

DukeUsul
02-26-2010, 10:11 AM
Based on what I've learned reading these boards, if we don't have 5-6 10pt scorers and at lest 8 guys averaging 15 minutes a game, this team is a complete and utter disappointment to me personally and will flame out in the first weekend. Coach K just needs to listen to me.

CDu
02-26-2010, 10:28 AM
The '09 team was probably more balanced than this year's model, though when Nolan went into his mid-season slump we relied pretty heavily on 3 guys. Even when Nolan was slumping, though, one had the sense that he, Paulus and EWill were realistic scoring options. Until Zoo's recent resurgence I'm not sure we've had that this year.

The '08 team got scoring from Singler, Scheyer, Paulus, Henderson, Nelson, and occasionally Nolan. It was VERY well-balanced but had no standout performer.

Right. Which is why I said the answer depends upon whom the scorers are. Obviously, this team (with only three consistent scoring options but maybe developing a fourth) is better than the '08 and '09 teams. The question is whether or not they could also use another option or two (along with the better top-end trio) to push them from a questionable final four team to a legitimate final four threat.

There is clearly some difference of opinion as to whether this team is "final four caliber" or not. Having a consistent 4th or 5th option available would strengthen the case for being final four caliber.

oldnavy
02-26-2010, 10:33 AM
I dont think you can ever have enough scoring. The problem with our team is we do not have enough inside scoring, IMO that has been our problem for a few years now. we just dont use the post or drive to the basekt enough to make sure when our outside shot isnt falling we can rely on an inside game.

I think we tend to over analyze these things. We can look at our team and say we need more scorers inside. Or we can say we have 3 guys scoring 18 ppg, what if one of them is off, or what if one gets hurt, or whatever. Point is that we have 3 guys that can and do routinely put the ball in the bucket.

There is only so much scoring to go around. Would it be better if we had 4 guys averaging 12 ppg? or 5 guys averaging 10 ppg? What if one of them go down? You cannot assume that all of their scoring is lost. Others will pick it up. When SSS are on the floor, they are options 1, 2, and 3 for scoring. Usually one of them will make the bucket, that does not mean that the others cannot score it just means that one of the first three options came through.

It would be great if Zoubs or MP1 or MP2 could pick up a few more points in a game, but most likely they are going to be the last option in the set, unless K calls a play specifically to the post for one of them. He has done this on several occassions to keep defenses honest.

I do not worry that we have 3 guys doing the bulk of the scoring at all.

CDu
02-26-2010, 10:39 AM
I think we tend to over analyze these things. We can look at our team and say we need more scorers inside. Or we can say we have 3 guys scoring 18 ppg, what if one of them is off, or what if one gets hurt, or whatever. Point is that we have 3 guys that can and do routinely put the ball in the bucket.

There is only so much scoring to go around. Would it be better if we had 4 guys averaging 12 ppg? or 5 guys averaging 10 ppg? What if one of them go down? You cannot assume that all of their scoring is lost. Others will pick it up. When SSS are on the floor, they are options 1, 2, and 3 for scoring. Usually one of them will make the bucket, that does not mean that the others cannot score it just means that one of the first three options came through.

It would be great if Zoubs or MP1 or MP2 could pick up a few more points in a game, but most likely they are going to be the last option in the set, unless K calls a play specifically to the post for one of them. He has done this on several occassions to keep defenses honest.

I do not worry that we have 3 guys doing the bulk of the scoring at all.

The issue isn't a redistribution of scoring. The issue is having other guys who can pick it up when one or two of our big three are having an off-night. The reason people talk about having a 4th/5th option is not that they want those guys to take away some of the scoring of the big three, but rather to be able to pick it up if the big three aren't on.

In other words, the bolded statement is the part that is in question. If you assume that others will pick it up, then you are implicitly assuming we have a consistent/ready 4th/5th option. If you don't think we have a consistent/ready 4th/5th option, then the concern is that we don't have someone to pick it up if one or two of the big three are off.

I think there are guys on the team who could become consistent/ready 4th/5th options (Zoubek, Dawkins, the Plumlees). Zoubek is heading in that direction. Dawkins was there earlier in the season, but has fallen off in 2010. The Plumlees have had intermittent moments. We don't need them to average double-figures. They just need to be consistently ready to bring it when needed, and right now I think that's still a question mark.

oldnavy
02-26-2010, 10:46 AM
The issue isn't a redistribution of scoring. The issue is having other guys who can pick it up when one or two of our big three are having an off-night. The reason people talk about having a 4th/5th option is not that they want those guys to take away some of the scoring of the big three, but rather to be able to pick it up if the big three aren't on.

In other words, the bolded statement is the part that is in question. If you assume that others will pick it up, then you are implicitly assuming we have a ready 4th/5th option. If you don't think we have a consistent 4th/5th option, then the concern is that we don't have someone to pick it up if one or two of the big three are off.

I would say then that we do have a 4th or 5th option. Mason did it in the WF game, Zoubs in the MD game, LT has contributed scoring in several games, MP1 has in a few games, AD picked us up in the UW game (albeit a loss, but mainly because we couldn't get a stop on D).

The point I am trying to get across is that with a 24-4 record and three of the top scorers in the ACC on our team, we are spending a lot of thought on "what ifs". Sure, if Nolan, Scheyer, and Singler are slumping we are going to struggle. But, is there a team out there now that you (not picking on you CDu specifically), would trade with for scoring balance? I cannot think of one.

It could always be better, but what we have now is pretty darn good IMO.

ChicagoCrazy84
02-26-2010, 10:56 AM
I think we tend to over analyze these things. We can look at our team and say we need more scorers inside. Or we can say we have 3 guys scoring 18 ppg, what if one of them is off, or what if one gets hurt, or whatever. Point is that we have 3 guys that can and do routinely put the ball in the bucket.

There is only so much scoring to go around. Would it be better if we had 4 guys averaging 12 ppg? or 5 guys averaging 10 ppg? What if one of them go down? You cannot assume that all of their scoring is lost. Others will pick it up. When SSS are on the floor, they are options 1, 2, and 3 for scoring. Usually one of them will make the bucket, that does not mean that the others cannot score it just means that one of the first three options came through.

It would be great if Zoubs or MP1 or MP2 could pick up a few more points in a game, but most likely they are going to be the last option in the set, unless K calls a play specifically to the post for one of them. He has done this on several occassions to keep defenses honest.

I do not worry that we have 3 guys doing the bulk of the scoring at all.


Really, I don't mind either that 3 of our players are doing the bulk of our scoring. What I get worried about is the type of players that are doing the bulk of the scoring and I think that is what concerns others as well and which is why people want MP1 and MP2 to get involved. Smith, Scheyer, and Singler are great players and scorers, but neither one of them are really unstoppable or create mis-matches in every game. We don't have a Derrick Rose or Ty lawsom type player that is virtually unguardable. They have all shown their flaws offensively and have shown they can struggle on any given day and I think that is concerning. That is why teams who don't have a real go-to type player want more balanced scoring.

LSanders
02-26-2010, 11:11 AM
I'm not sure any of this matters ... Not with this team at least.

If you're scouting this team and you look at the VT tape, WHAT do you do? We shot 29% against Tech ... And shellacked them by 12! Tulsa played tough and athletic ... And lost by almost 20! Even if you look at the GTown game ... They were sky high, on national TV, had the Prez in the house ... shot 72% ... And won by 11! Shouldn't a team in that situation win by 30?

This, IMHO, is one of the most interesting teams I've seen in a long time. K must be having the time of his life coaching these guys. This is a dangerous team. 1 - 3 - 5 - 10 scoring options ... Don't matter - not to this team - ESPECIALLY since Z has become a monster. It seems like they just come out in the first half and play ... Check out the other team ... Get a lay of the land. THEN - They explode out of halftime with a defensive and rebounding barrage that buries the other team -- regardless of how we're shooting! I mean, when you hold a team to 29% and LOSE by double digits -- HOW do you beat a team like this?

GTown and State were playing freak ball when we lost. If we played State ten times, we win nine of those handily. With GTown, how many backdoors would they get TODAY with LT and Z playing like they're playing? Without those, what would they score if they were playing like mortals? We put up 77 on 37% shooting. Wisconsin and GT ... TODAY ... I don't think those games would even be close.

I'm not saying we'll be cutting down nets in April, but I will say, I think this team is peaking in a very interesting way considering that March is a few days away ... and it doesn't have squat to do with how many scoring options we have. It also doesn't matter about the infamous "tired legs" issue. The atomic trio will find a way to score even if their jump shots clank off the rim. As long as they are able to bring the same defensive/rebounding energy and intensity to the court ... I'm just glad I don't have to put a game plan together against them.

CDu
02-26-2010, 11:57 AM
I would say then that we do have a 4th or 5th option. Mason did it in the WF game, Zoubs in the MD game, LT has contributed scoring in several games, MP1 has in a few games, AD picked us up in the UW game (albeit a loss, but mainly because we couldn't get a stop on D).

I disagree here. I think these guys have the potential to be 4th/5th options, but they haven't shown the consistent ability to do so. We've been fortunate to get good enough production in most of our games, but we've also faced very few really good teams this year (arguably only one).


The point I am trying to get across is that with a 24-4 record and three of the top scorers in the ACC on our team, we are spending a lot of thought on "what ifs". Sure, if Nolan, Scheyer, and Singler are slumping we are going to struggle. But, is there a team out there now that you (not picking on you CDu specifically), would trade with for scoring balance? I cannot think of one.

Again, I don't care about scoring balance. I care about having guys who are consistently ready to be scoring options in the event that the big three struggle.


It could always be better, but what we have now is pretty darn good IMO.

Obviously what we have now is pretty good. We're a top-5/10 team. This talking about going from pretty good to truly elite. It's a minor quibble for sure, because we're still a REALLY good team. I'm not unhappy at all with this team. But what I'm talking about would push us into a whole other category. And I'm not even sure I necessarily believe we actually need a true 4th/5th option. I'm just clarifying/defending the viewpoint.

DukeUsul
02-26-2010, 12:01 PM
I'm not so concerned about having a fourth or fifth consistent scorer. I'm more concerned about having a fourth or fifth defensive stopper or rebounder. This team is going as far as its defense and rebounding takes it. We're not going to beat a Kentucky or Kansas or a Villanova by outscoring them in a shootout. We're going to beat them by keeping the game under 70.

cptnflash
02-26-2010, 12:03 PM
But, is there a team out there now that you (not picking on you CDu specifically), would trade with for scoring balance? I cannot think of one.



Of course not... we have the best offense in the country on a per possession basis! Why would we trade with anyone?

http://kenpom.com/rate.php?s=AdjOE

Scorp4me
02-26-2010, 12:07 PM
All year long all I heard was Duke was going to go as far as Mason Plumlee would take us. Last night they said the key was Brian Zoubek.

So let's dismiss this whole stupid notion that Duke can't develop big men. Case in point, Brian Zoubek.

Duke lives by the three and dies by the three. Despite leading the ACC in 3pt % they are definitely not a team that lives by the three. Right now I'd have to say we are a team that lives by defense and rebounding.

And the notion that K doesn't use his depth. Last night in the first half he substituted heavily, everyone got some quality minutes. And Tulsa stuck around. Second half with a much tighter rotation and we pulled away. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, just that K seems to know what he is doing.

And finally...I been waiting all year for this but NC State kept screwing it up...finally Duke is at the top of the ACC and Carolina is at the bottom. What a year, never expected it.

DukeUsul
02-26-2010, 12:15 PM
...

Duke lives by the three and dies by the three. Despite leading the ACC in 3pt % they are definitely not a team that lives by the three. Right now I'd have to say we are a team that lives by defense and rebounding.
...


Agreed. 32% of Duke's FG attempts are three-pointers, good for.... 167th highest percentage in the country! And about 29% of our points come from three-pointers, good for 117th in the country. Doesn't sound like a team that lives/dies by the three.

http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Duke

MarkD83
02-26-2010, 12:47 PM
I believe this all ties into the "Duke is weird this year" discussion. I know this team is great and I am enjoying watching it improve over the course of the year. This discussion has helped me understand why I enjoy watching this team ...... defense and rebounding.

All of the "experts" can't seem to figure out how Duke is winning. (As several people pointed out) The theories are "unathletic" yet they beat athletic teams. "Soft" yet they out redound and beat "tough" teams. "Too reliant on outside shots" yet they shoot poorly and beat teams by 20. "Too reliant on 3 scorers" yet there has not been a game when wll three have been shooting well at the same time. "No pressure defense out front to get easy steals and easy baskets" yet they have beaten fast breaking teams.

Defense and rebounding win in March and our big guys don't score that much but they bring the D and the get the rebounds. Lets see what happens and enjoy.

(I just became Christian Laettner...is that a good omen.)

oldnavy
02-26-2010, 01:06 PM
I disagree here. I think these guys have the potential to be 4th/5th options, but they haven't shown the consistent ability to do so. We've been fortunate to get good enough production in most of our games, but we've also faced very few really good teams this year (arguably only one).



Again, I don't care about scoring balance. I care about having guys who are consistently ready to be scoring options in the event that the big three struggle.



Obviously what we have now is pretty good. We're a top-5/10 team. This talking about going from pretty good to truly elite. It's a minor quibble for sure, because we're still a REALLY good team. I'm not unhappy at all with this team. But what I'm talking about would push us into a whole other category. And I'm not even sure I necessarily believe we actually need a true 4th/5th option. I'm just clarifying/defending the viewpoint.

I think I agree with you on these points. The problem in trying to analyze this is that we have had very few if any games where the big three have struggled enough that a 4th option was needed. So, it is hard to say if we have that consistent player who put into that situation could produce. That is not a bad problem to have. Some have show flashes, but I would argue that the opportunity for consistency has not yet presented itself.

I think that a lot of what we are talking about is that we could become almost unstopable with a solid and consistent 4th opition, and I would agree with that statement. But I think with our current makeup, playing the consistent defense we do, rebounding the ball like we do, we can certainly play with any team in the nation and have a very good chance to win.

CDu
02-26-2010, 01:20 PM
I think that a lot of what we are talking about is that we could become almost unstopable with a solid and consistent 4th opition, and I would agree with that statement. But I think with our current makeup, playing the consistent defense we do, rebounding the ball like we do, we can certainly play with any team in the nation and have a very good chance to win.

Yes, this sums it up.

loldevilz
02-26-2010, 01:47 PM
I think I agree with you on these points. The problem in trying to analyze this is that we have had very few if any games where the big three have struggled enough that a 4th option was needed. So, it is hard to say if we have that consistent player who put into that situation could produce. That is not a bad problem to have. Some have show flashes, but I would argue that the opportunity for consistency has not yet presented itself.

I think that a lot of what we are talking about is that we could become almost unstopable with a solid and consistent 4th opition, and I would agree with that statement. But I think with our current makeup, playing the consistent defense we do, rebounding the ball like we do, we can certainly play with any team in the nation and have a very good chance to win.

My major problem I feel is that the S guys sometimes force it too much. They simply try to do more than they are capable. They aren't ty lawson or derrick rose (and super scintillating and sensational is a bit unfair). When they do too much it leads to poor shooting percentages.

Personally I think the S guys should make a concerted effort to give it to Lance Thomas if open or Z inside. Clearly four guys on our team (with zoubs averaging a double-double) are very competent and reliable scorers. A fifth option (specifically Lance Thomas) would make us a much better team. Last game he dramatically picked up his energy level which made me hopeful. He has a decent shot and should use his high-percentage mid-range game.

As for points off the bench. I worry about this less than most of you. Andre Dawkins is getting many open looks per game and is just in a shooting slump that will hopefully end soon. Miles played a very good game yesterday. Mason at least got his defense together which is a nice first step.

moonpie23
02-26-2010, 02:03 PM
how many teams can put 3 top-notch defenders on us? two, maybe, but who gets the weak 3rd? who do you say, "ah, we'll let him have his points"?

balanced scoring is a good thing......and i am such a homer for saying this, but i think someone else will step up when needed.....

dukejunkie
02-26-2010, 02:37 PM
Don't get me wrong, this squad certainly has flaws that can expose them to an early round tourney loss. As far as 3 scorers being enough, I think Ditka might be able to point out an NBA squad that won a few games with such a formula.

Please don't use this as a comparison- just saying 3 is enough.

mgtr
02-26-2010, 03:11 PM
The only time you have enough scorers is right after you have won the national championship!:D

ReformedAggie
02-26-2010, 06:07 PM
The only time you have enough scorers is right after you have won the national championship!:D

a men

shoutingncu
02-26-2010, 06:42 PM
If you can get 20+ points every night from three guys, then you probably only need 5-10 points from everybody else to win almost every game.

I haven't looked into this, but is 70 points a game generally considered enough to win the six in a row come March 18th? That's putting a lot of pressure on the defense (albeit a very good defense).

I think many observers have separated the importance of number of scorers from the balance of scoring.

Last year's unc team isn't a good comparison (except for the importance of a single player) because at full strength, that team had scorers at all five positions with one off the bench. 2005 is a much better case study. The 1, 3 and 5 were college elite. Jackie Manual was the starting 2 and Jawad Williams the 4. Granted, Marvin Williams got a lot of minutes in that role, but at best, we were playing 4 on 5. That's not that much different than Duke's oft concerning 3 on 5 play, except that the scoring was across the board.

Here's my problem with those that simply say that three scorers are enough and don't seem to care about the balance. They point to the trio, someone calling it THE trio because they are the best in the country... and that's true. Numbers don't lie. But where does Duke's entire starting five rank in points per game? Where does the entire Duke team rank in points per game? Where does Duke rank in conference points per game (and not necessarily related to the rest of the conference, but to out-of-conference heavyweights)? I haven't taken the time to look up the answers... they may very well surprise me... but back to my original question: Is 70 points a game enough?

loldevilz
02-26-2010, 06:55 PM
The only time you have enough scorers is right after you have won the national championship!:D

rewatching the villanova vs duke sweet sixteen game last year. The announcer has said multiple times "duke doesn't have a lot of offensive weapons on the floor right now"...just to remind you

patentgeek
02-26-2010, 07:03 PM
I haven't looked into this, but is 70 points a game generally considered enough to win the six in a row come March 18th? That's putting a lot of pressure on the defense (albeit a very good defense).

I think many observers have separated the importance of number of scorers from the balance of scoring.

Last year's unc team isn't a good comparison (except for the importance of a single player) because at full strength, that team had scorers at all five positions with one off the bench. 2005 is a much better case study. The 1, 3 and 5 were college elite. Jackie Manual was the starting 2 and Jawad Williams the 4. Granted, Marvin Williams got a lot of minutes in that role, but at best, we were playing 4 on 5. That's not that much different than Duke's oft concerning 3 on 5 play, except that the scoring was across the board.

Here's my problem with those that simply say that three scorers are enough and don't seem to care about the balance. They point to the trio, someone calling it THE trio because they are the best in the country... and that's true. Numbers don't lie. But where does Duke's entire starting five rank in points per game? Where does the entire Duke team rank in points per game? Where does Duke rank in conference points per game (and not necessarily related to the rest of the conference, but to out-of-conference heavyweights)? I haven't taken the time to look up the answers... they may very well surprise me... but back to my original question: Is 70 points a game enough?

I don't think the question you posed is complete. 70 points per game could be plenty if the pace of the game is slow; it's not if the pace of the game is fast. It really depends on the opponent and how quickly Duke chooses to play.

weezie
02-26-2010, 07:07 PM
Based on what I've learned reading these boards, if we don't have 5-6 10pt scorers and at lest 8 guys averaging 15 minutes a game, this team is a complete and utter disappointment to me personally and will flame out in the first weekend. Coach K just needs to listen to me.

Well done, my friend. Incisively stated. :rolleyes:

DukeUsul
02-26-2010, 07:08 PM
I haven't looked into this, but is 70 points a game generally considered enough to win the six in a row come March 18th? That's putting a lot of pressure on the defense (albeit a very good defense).

I think many observers have separated the importance of number of scorers from the balance of scoring.

Last year's unc team isn't a good comparison (except for the importance of a single player) because at full strength, that team had scorers at all five positions with one off the bench. 2005 is a much better case study. The 1, 3 and 5 were college elite. Jackie Manual was the starting 2 and Jawad Williams the 4. Granted, Marvin Williams got a lot of minutes in that role, but at best, we were playing 4 on 5. That's not that much different than Duke's oft concerning 3 on 5 play, except that the scoring was across the board.

Here's my problem with those that simply say that three scorers are enough and don't seem to care about the balance. They point to the trio, someone calling it THE trio because they are the best in the country... and that's true. Numbers don't lie. But where does Duke's entire starting five rank in points per game? Where does the entire Duke team rank in points per game? Where does Duke rank in conference points per game (and not necessarily related to the rest of the conference, but to out-of-conference heavyweights)? I haven't taken the time to look up the answers... they may very well surprise me... but back to my original question: Is 70 points a game enough?

I think the clear answer to your question is: maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Championship_re cords

the_grad_student
02-26-2010, 07:25 PM
(First post here...seems like people announce that, idk)

In my recent recollection, and being from Illinois, I most clearly remember the 04-05 Illinois team with the three headed monster at guard (Brown, Deron Williams, Head) that truly lead that team all year, almost going undefeated and getting to the NC game. While that team's scoring was somewhat more dispersed, the dynamic was pretty similar. I don't feel that team had someone as dynamic on the perimeter as Singler, but their 4/5 were more of a consistent threat offensively.

In general, I feel that the comment that the prevalence of the 3 S's scoring is a weakness is that none of them plays the 4 or 5, making us vulnerable to a cold shooting night or a new defensive look, such as a zone, can throw us off for enough possessions to influence a game. Zoubek adds a dimension of security, as has been mentioned, to protect against these defensive looks and low FG% games. In other words, if we had 2 solid perimeter guys accompanied by a post guy putting up 17 ppg...I don't think you hear nearly the complaints, IMO.

Lastly (and I'm not sure how to quote yet) I agree with what mgtr said about winning the NC settling the debate. This tends to the be case with the Duke haters #1 (at least in the top 5 right now) rip on our program...peaking too early. How do you differentiate between a team with a go-to formula for success, ready to go into battle in the tournament, versus a team that got lucky with limited options and is exposed under the intensity of higher level competition? Hmm this might be another point for discussion though...

shoutingncu
02-26-2010, 07:44 PM
I don't think the question you posed is complete. 70 points per game could be plenty if the pace of the game is slow; it's not if the pace of the game is fast. It really depends on the opponent and how quickly Duke chooses to play.

Exactly... but will Duke have to depend on four to five slow paced games starting as early as the round of 32? If they're forced to play faster, all the more reason for balance, because the Big 3 look the most vulnerable when they force shots.

I didn't chime in on the "Can Duke win" thread, but my answer to that would be "no." I don't think that Duke can win the national championship this year without help. I feel for Duke to make a run, they need more to happen outside of their control than should be expected. Possible? Of course. But to dictate pace for six straight games against increasingly improved teams (in theory) is a tall order.

Fans everywhere like to point out that "the best team doesn't always win." Were Duke to do so this year, I think that would be an example of such.

pfrduke
02-26-2010, 08:05 PM
Exactly... but will Duke have to depend on four to five slow paced games starting as early as the round of 32? If they're forced to play faster, all the more reason for balance, because the Big 3 look the most vulnerable when they force shots.

I didn't chime in on the "Can Duke win" thread, but my answer to that would be "no." I don't think that Duke can win the national championship this year without help. I feel for Duke to make a run, they need more to happen outside of their control than should be expected. Possible? Of course. But to dictate pace for six straight games against increasingly improved teams (in theory) is a tall order.

Fans everywhere like to point out that "the best team doesn't always win." Were Duke to do so this year, I think that would be an example of such.

I'm not going to discuss your main point, but from a pace standpoint, Duke is about middle of the pack, and not dramatically out of line with the other top teams. Depending on who it gets, both teams may be happy to play relatively low paced.

Of the Big East teams, only Syracuse and Villanova play faster; West Virginia, Georgetown, Pitt, Louisville, etc. all play slower.

Kansas play just about a possession or two faster per game, Kentucky about three.

I guess my point is that Duke is not likely to need to "dictate" pace to its opponents in order to get a game where ~70 points will be enough to win (assuming good defense, etc).

loldevilz
02-26-2010, 09:39 PM
It surprises me that people think that we need more defense instead of more offense. We have held many teams to season scoring lows. I really can't imagine our defense getting much better (maybe holding tulsa to 40?). On the other hand, we are not scoring easily on offense as low shooting percentages suggest, which is worrisome. We got knocked off last year because we shot 30% against Villanova. I don't care how good your defense is you are not going to hold a decent offensive team to 53 points. This game also teaches another lesson...people say how can you shut down three guys...well it happened against Villanova.

One final point: I really don't think there are really any great teams out there that Duke cannot beat. Nor is there any team that deserves a championship more than this Duke team and I hope our players know it.

DukeUsul
02-26-2010, 09:59 PM
It surprises me that people think that we need more defense instead of more offense. We have held many teams to season scoring lows. I really can't imagine our defense getting much better (maybe holding tulsa to 40?). On the other hand, we are not scoring easily on offense as low shooting percentages suggest, which is worrisome. We got knocked off last year because we shot 30% against Villanova. I don't care how good your defense is you are not going to hold a decent offensive team to 53 points. This game also teaches another lesson...people say how can you shut down three guys...well it happened against Villanova.

One final point: I really don't think there are really any great teams out there that Duke cannot beat. Nor is there any team that deserves a championship more than this Duke team and I hope our players know it.

Please don't misinterpret my post, although the way I phrased it was misleading. This team's strength is its defense and rebounding. As long as we keep that up and everyone on the floor is committed to it, we can go far. I don't expect this team to beat a bunch of really good NCAA teams by scoring 80+ for a bunch of games. We're going to beat a bunch of really good NCAA teams by defensively holding them to below 70 points.

The difference between this year's team and last year's, offensively, is that if this year's team shot that poorly against Villanova we'd get a hell of a lot more than 7 offensive rebounds. Our offensive efficiency is so high because, in spite of some off-shooting nights, we have a very high points-per-possession number because of second chance points.

Defense and rebounding, people.

jv001
02-26-2010, 10:28 PM
Please don't misinterpret my post, although the way I phrased it was misleading. This team's strength is its defense and rebounding. As long as we keep that up and everyone on the floor is committed to it, we can go far. I don't expect this team to beat a bunch of really good NCAA teams by scoring 80+ for a bunch of games. We're going to beat a bunch of really good NCAA teams by defensively holding them to below 70 points.

The difference between this year's team and last year's, offensively, is that if this year's team shot that poorly against Villanova we'd get a hell of a lot more than 7 offensive rebounds. Our offensive efficiency is so high because, in spite of some off-shooting nights, we have a very high points-per-possession number because of second chance points.

Defense and rebounding, people.

Man I read all these posts, thinking what about our offensive rebounding this year. And in the last post it's mentioned. Our 3s have been ready to shoot many shots with the knowledge that if they miss, we'll get another shot at the basket. That can be good or it can be bad. Not enough concentration on the jumper and what if we play a team that is as good at rebounding the ball as we are. What I hope happens is we find our shooting eye and begin to hit a good percentage of our shots. Mainly our two pointers. We're shooting the 3 better, but shooting our midrange to point blank shots at a terrible percentage. I hope that changes quickly. The year is getting short. Go Duke!

Kedsy
02-26-2010, 11:37 PM
It surprises me that people think that we need more defense instead of more offense. We have held many teams to season scoring lows. I really can't imagine our defense getting much better (maybe holding tulsa to 40?). On the other hand, we are not scoring easily on offense as low shooting percentages suggest, which is worrisome. We got knocked off last year because we shot 30% against Villanova. I don't care how good your defense is you are not going to hold a decent offensive team to 53 points. This game also teaches another lesson...people say how can you shut down three guys...well it happened against Villanova.

I completely disagree with your statement. In my opinion we got knocked off by Villanova not because of our shooting but instead because we couldn't stop them from scoring, especially in the second half.

As far as this year, in three of our four losses we played terrible defense. If we'd just held State or Georgetown to their season average shooting percentage we'd have won both games. Take out those games and Wisconsin (who shot around their season average but we still looked awful on defense to me) and we'd be 24-1 and we wouldn't need more of anything, offense or defense. Put another way, we don't need our defense to get better, we just can't afford to play significantly worse. And it's pretty much the same for our offense. For some reason people seem to worry more about O than D.

94duke
02-26-2010, 11:39 PM
It surprises me that people think that we need more defense instead of more offense. We have held many teams to season scoring lows. I really can't imagine our defense getting much better (maybe holding tulsa to 40?). On the other hand, we are not scoring easily on offense as low shooting percentages suggest, which is worrisome. We got knocked off last year because we shot 30% against Villanova. I don't care how good your defense is you are not going to hold a decent offensive team to 53 points. This game also teaches another lesson...people say how can you shut down three guys...well it happened against Villanova.

One final point: I really don't think there are really any great teams out there that Duke cannot beat. Nor is there any team that deserves a championship more than this Duke team and I hope our players know it.

Because we are first in the country in offensive efficiency, and the games we lost were (mostly) due to a poor defensive night.
So I guess people think that if we don't lapse defensively and we keep playing offense efficiently (due to low TO's and high O rebounds), then this team has its best shot at winning basketball games.

edit: and what fast-typing Kedsy said right before me. ;)

cptnflash
02-27-2010, 12:49 AM
In my opinion we got knocked off by Villanova not because of our shooting but instead because we couldn't stop them from scoring, especially in the second half.


We got knocked off by Villanova because of our shooting AND because we couldn't stop them from scoring in the second half. When you lose by 23, it's usually because more than one thing went wrong.

We shot 16 for 60 for the game. Bad shooting? Check.

In the second half, when Villanova stretched their lead from 1 to 16 points over a span of about 8 minutes, their shot attempts were as follows: layup, jumper, layup, dunk, layup, layup, tip-in, layup, layup, three, layup, layup, jumper (in paint). Bad defense? Check.

mike88
02-27-2010, 01:12 AM
It surprises me that people think that we need more defense instead of more offense. We have held many teams to season scoring lows. I really can't imagine our defense getting much better (maybe holding tulsa to 40?). On the other hand, we are not scoring easily on offense as low shooting percentages suggest, which is worrisome. We got knocked off last year because we shot 30% against Villanova. I don't care how good your defense is you are not going to hold a decent offensive team to 53 points. This game also teaches another lesson...people say how can you shut down three guys...well it happened against Villanova.

One final point: I really don't think there are really any great teams out there that Duke cannot beat. Nor is there any team that deserves a championship more than this Duke team and I hope our players know it.

We held Maryland to 56 points and Gonzaga to 41!! Maryland has the 9th most efficient offense per KenPom; Gonzaga is 34th. But you are correct that we are unlikely to completely shut down the better (Sweet Sixteen) teams- teams like Georgetown and Wisconsin.

That said, I think the problem is that you are seeing offense as shooting %, while this team has shown you can be very efficient offensively even without shooting a high %- IF you rebound well, don't turn the ball over, and get a little boost (as we have done lately) from 3-point range. We have done so consistently against the toughest defenses in the country, so I don't think you will see a significant difference pre-Elite Eight in the challenges our offense will be facing- we should have a good chance to win the first 3 NCAA games, and a decent chance of advancing to the Final Four. After that, who knows?

Indoor66
02-27-2010, 07:52 AM
Like my daddy always said on the golf course: "It is not how, it is how many." This year we have done real well in the how many category through good, solid defense and efficient (if not beautiful) offense.

If we continue the existing formula into the NCAA's, we will play for three weekends!

davekay1971
02-27-2010, 08:23 AM
Back to the OP, I look at my 3 favorite teams (Duke 91, 92, and 01, of course).

91 had Laettner, Hurley, G Hill, McCaffery, and T Hill. 92 had all the same minus McCaffery, with Hurley, Hill, and Hill much more developed as scorers than they were in 91. 01 had Battier, Williams, Dunleavy, and Boozer.

All three teams, of course, had complementary players (such as BD, Lang, James, Duhon) who could provide solid offense. Thinking about it, all three teams really were spectacular offensive teams.

Looking at my least favorite teams (Carolina 82, 05, and 09), they also had four scorers with solid complementary players.

So the pattern is at least 3 really good scorers, one reliable scorer (guys like McCaffery, T Hill, Black, Green) and decent complementary players. This makes sense, because, defensively, teams need to be able to double down on good interior players, rotate off to help on drivers, and this all creates openings. A team with 3 scorers can be contained with disciplined defense...but add in a fourth scorer (especially if there is a decent inside-outside mix) and any attempt to double down or rotate off is much more likely to leave a scorer open.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. NCSU 83 had Whittenburg and Bailey, with complementary scorers Lowe, Gannon, and Charles. Only Bailey was really an NBA caliber player. Cozell McQueen was at least a Harlem Globetrotters caliber entertainer :). But then, that's why they're still, IMHO, the biggest underdog ever to win the NCAA championship (especially considering that the 1983 version of Houston, UVa, Louisville, and UNC would all be dominant teams this year).

hq2
02-27-2010, 12:10 PM
I've noticed one of the problems with the big three is that none of them is a particularly good drive-and-dish player, including both Scheyer and Nolan. This means that once they get in the lane, they usually shoot it. All of them seem to have a hard time getting the ball to the bigs when the bigs are in scoring position. Singler has been a little better at it, but K and the team need to make a conscious effort to try and do it. Since the defenses are usually concentrating on the big three, all of them should be able to find the other bigs on the floor in good position more often. Until that happens, I don't think we will be seeing more balanced scoring.

Duke4life92
02-27-2010, 12:23 PM
When do you have enough scorers?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I usually do not like to pick on anyone but the following quote in the DBR summary of the Tulsa game struck a nerve.

"Toss the Big Three and Zoubek out and the rest of the team was 3-12"

So lets forget about the teams top 4 scorers and what happens. This same sentiment has been stated for many teams and not just Duke by many announcers. I am sure you have heard, "They need a 3rd option...a 4th option...a 5th option...."

So how many scoring options is enough?


I think as long as we score more than our opponents then we have plenty of scoring options and i don't really care who they are aslong as where winning games.JMHO.:D

Kedsy
02-27-2010, 08:35 PM
We got knocked off by Villanova because of our shooting AND because we couldn't stop them from scoring in the second half. When you lose by 23, it's usually because more than one thing went wrong.

We shot 16 for 60 for the game. Bad shooting? Check.

In the second half, when Villanova stretched their lead from 1 to 16 points over a span of about 8 minutes, their shot attempts were as follows: layup, jumper, layup, dunk, layup, layup, tip-in, layup, layup, three, layup, layup, jumper (in paint). Bad defense? Check.

We shot very poorly in the first half of that game and were only down by a few points and had a legitimate chance to win. Our defense collapsed in the second half and we got blown out. I'm not saying poor defense was the only reason we lost the game, but in my mind it was certainly the primary reason.

Same with all our losses this year, except probably Georgia Tech. You have to remember that in each of the Villanova, State, Georgetown, and Wisconsin games we were down by a bunch in the second half (because of poor defense) and then we resorted to taking low percentage three pointers to attempt to get back in the game. And that will usually hurt your shooting percentage for the game.

MartyClark
02-27-2010, 08:57 PM
I have greatly enjoyed this team. I think they have maximized their talent and played beyond any reasonable expectation. For most of the season, we have had two reliable guards, Scheyer and Smith. I think Dawkins will eventually be a good player for Duke but he has not contributed to any significant degree this year.

Three scorers are enough when the shots are falling. I don't think this team has the horsepower to advance in the tournament. The "what if" is not productive. Nevertheless, I can't prevent myself from thinking how much better this team would be if Elliot Williams was playing.

Let's go Duke! Let's enjoy this season. I am happy to be proven wrong but I just don't think we have enough balance in the scoring to go beyond the second roound.

mike88
02-27-2010, 10:11 PM
Not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but if we are able to advance to the Sweet Sixteen, we will likely be playing a team that is between the 8th and 16th best (most highly seeded) teams. Teams in that range right now often have a good offense or a good defense, but not both. Considering we have done well against this caliber of teams this season, we should have a very good chance to win and advance to the Elite Eight - after that, I don't have any strong expectations - we will need some good fortune and unexpected contributions to advance . . .

Kedsy
02-27-2010, 11:05 PM
Let's go Duke! Let's enjoy this season. I am happy to be proven wrong but I just don't think we have enough balance in the scoring to go beyond the second roound.

Second round? Are you serious? Our three highest scorers make up 67.1% of our total points. That's a lot, but in 1986 our three highest scorers made up 64.6% our total points (the 4th leading scorer was Jay Bilas at 6.8 ppg). And I understand 64.6 is less than 67.1, but it can't be less enough to explain the difference between going to the championship game and not making it past the second round, can it? The top three scorers on the 2001 team made up 60.4% of their team's total points, again less than 67.1, but if balanced scoring was the deciding factor I doubt that team would have won the championship.

Anyway, I apologize if I'm overreacting to your post. While I don't in any way agree that a team that has balanced scoring and totals 80 points is better off than a team that has non-balanced scoring and also totals 80, I recognize why some people think that it is. It's your declaration that our lack of balance means we have little hope of beating a 7 or 8 seed that got me riled up.

Spam Filter
02-27-2010, 11:13 PM
And in 1986 we lost to a team that we're better than, because it was a night when our jump shots didn't fall.

I agree with a previous poster, that the real concern isn't that we only have 3 scorers, it's that our 3 scorers are all perimeter players. If one of the three were a low post threat like a Boozer, most of us would feel a lot better about being dependent on 3 scorers.

If Brian Zoubek can become a guy who can give us 8-10 pts a game, that would also go a long way.

-bdbd
02-28-2010, 12:49 AM
When do you have enough scorers?

Answer: When you win the National Championship.

Richard Berg
02-28-2010, 07:11 AM
But where does Duke's entire starting five rank in points per game? Where does the entire Duke team rank in points per game? Where does Duke rank in conference points per game (and not necessarily related to the rest of the conference, but to out-of-conference heavyweights)? I haven't taken the time to look up the answers...
Answer: #1 in the country, at least according to KenPom.


I've noticed one of the problems with the big three is that none of them is a particularly good drive-and-dish player, including both Scheyer and Nolan. This means that once they get in the lane, they usually shoot it. All of them seem to have a hard time getting the ball to the bigs when the bigs are in scoring position.
You've gotta be kidding me. Zoubek and Lance have both had double-figure games recently; well over half of their buckets are assisted by the Big 3.


I am happy to be proven wrong but I just don't think we have enough balance in the scoring to go beyond the second roound.
LOL

edit: ooh, Christian Laettner

Daniel tosh
02-28-2010, 08:58 AM
With Seth Curry playing next year,how many players do you guys think we can have in double figures?We will hopefully have Singler,Smith back so that is two.Then you add Kyrie,do you think Curry,Mason and Miles can also avg double figures?Also Andre is a Wild card here with shooting.

CDu
02-28-2010, 09:33 AM
With Seth Curry playing next year,how many players do you guys think we can have in double figures?We will hopefully have Singler,Smith back so that is two.Then you add Kyrie,do you think Curry,Mason and Miles can also avg double figures?Also Andre is a Wild card here with shooting.

How many players will we have that CAN score in double figures? Plenty. Basically, all of the guys you listed could score in double figures in the right situation. But minutes distribution and shot distribution will keep them from all doing it. How many WILL score in double figures? Maybe five? It's very difficult for any more than that to reach double figures.

The point though is not how many players we have scoring in double figures, but how many players are capable of giving us big games when called upon. And with another year of development, I think the Plumlees, Dawkins, and Kelly will be in much better position to do so next year. And Irving and Curry will also add offensive weapons.