PDA

View Full Version : Duke's Lack of Size



oldnavy
03-23-2010, 11:42 AM
Interestingly, Jeff Goodman lists Duke's "lack of size" as a reason that we may not win the tourney. Of all the things to list as a weakness, he picks size?
http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/Why-every-team-has-a-shot

KyDevilinIL
03-23-2010, 11:51 AM
He's wrong, but I sort of get where he's going if he's talking about low-post scoring only.

In any event, yet another piece of evidence to suggest Duke might be the most misunderstood team remaining in the tournament.

ncexnyc
03-23-2010, 11:56 AM
I really can't fault what the writer had to say. If you go through the threads leading up to the first weekend, the majority of people on this board felt we could count on Brian and Lance to provide defense and rebounding, but some scoring would be nice. It was also mentioned that Mason and Miles needed to make consistent contributions. While all four players have done exactly what was hoped for in the first two games, does anyone really believe those two teams we beat presented much of a challenge to those four players.

The play of our bigs will continue to be a major question mark for this team until they show they can perform against a solid frontcourt on a routine basis.

CDu
03-23-2010, 11:57 AM
Interestingly, Jeff Goodman lists Duke's "lack of size" as a reason that we may not win the tourney. Of all the things to list as a weakness, he picks size?
http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/Why-every-team-has-a-shot

It's poorly worded, but what I think he means (based on his next sentence) is lack of effective size - specifically with regard to post offense. He even references the four big guys that we regularly play, so clearly he is aware that we have size. But what he means is the lack of a consistent post presence offensively.

Right or wrong, that's at least a reasonable opinion that can be discussed. I don't think he literally meant size.

rotogod00
03-23-2010, 12:14 PM
It's poorly worded, but what I think he means (based on his next sentence) is lack of effective size - specifically with regard to post offense. He even references the four big guys that we regularly play, so clearly he is aware that we have size. But what he means is the lack of a consistent post presence offensively.

Right or wrong, that's at least a reasonable opinion that can be discussed. I don't think he literally meant size.

agree with this entirely. we may not need it to win a championship, but we certainly lack consistent post scoring (and zoubek's 2 early jumphooks against a guy a half-a-foot shorter than him doesn't really count).

NYDukie
03-23-2010, 12:16 PM
It's poorly worded, but what I think he means (based on his next sentence) is lack of effective size - specifically with regard to post offense. He even references the four big guys that we regularly play, so clearly he is aware that we have size. But what he means is the lack of a consistent post presence offensively.

Right or wrong, that's at least a reasonable opinion that can be discussed. I don't think he literally meant size.

I understand what you are saying but my two issues with the article is this:

1. As a fairly prominent college basketball writer, you would think Goodman would know that there is actually a big difference between "lack of size" and "lack of post presence". For example, DeJuan Blair lacks size (in this example, height) but had post presence while the majority of our bigs have size but lace post presence (you can argue Z has a bit of post presence). It just seems that many writers, talkheads and TV guys have twisted Duke's lack of post presence into a lack of size issue on many occasions this year and it has gotten a bit annoying as a fan seeing this so oftern.

2. This team is one of the better rebounding teams in the country due to its size and aggressiveness on the boards.

I like Goodman and his articles normally, but I just personally thought this made him look a bit silly.

oldnavy
03-23-2010, 12:42 PM
I really can't fault what the writer had to say. If you go through the threads leading up to the first weekend, the majority of people on this board felt we could count on Brian and Lance to provide defense and rebounding, but some scoring would be nice. It was also mentioned that Mason and Miles needed to make consistent contributions. While all four players have done exactly what was hoped for in the first two games, does anyone really believe those two teams we beat presented much of a challenge to those four players.

The play of our bigs will continue to be a major question mark for this team until they show they can perform against a solid frontcourt on a routine basis.

I think the BIGS have proven themselves. They are far from being a liability. They competed against some of the best frontlines in the nation this year and held their own. Is there a dominate big man, not really, although one might argue that Zoubs has shown flashes. But as a collective, they are certainly not a weakness. No one in their right mind would argue that our frontline is our strength, obviously S/S/S form the strength of the team, but Zoubs, Thomas and MP1/MP2 are not “weaknesses” in the sense that they can be easily exploited. IMO, I would think it is far more likely that a defensive breakdown coupled with a poor overall offensive performance like we saw against NCSU or Georgetown would be a reason we may not make it all the way.

flyingdutchdevil
03-23-2010, 12:46 PM
I think the BIGS have proven themselves. They are far from being a liability. They competed against some of the best frontlines in the nation this year and held their own. Is there a dominate big man, not really, although one might argue that Zoubs has shown flashes. But as a collective, they are certainly not a weakness. No one in their right mind would argue that our frontline is our strength, obviously S/S/S form the strength of the team, but Zoubs, Thomas and MP1/MP2 are not “weaknesses” in the sense that they can be easily exploited.

The fact that Goodman choose "Lack of Size" as our main weakness is a strength. It means that he may have had difficulty choosing a weakness to begin with! What else was we supposed to choose? (I would have chosen lack of easy baskets, but that's tough to spin) EVERY team in that column had a "Win it all" and "Lose it all" section.

Sadly, as Duke fans, we'll always disagree with negative comments from a national writer, even if they are correct (which in this case, I do disagree a little with Goodman but understand where he is coming from). Are we that different from all the Duke haters, I dare ask?

DUKIECB
03-23-2010, 12:59 PM
The fact that Goodman choose "Lack of Size" as our main weakness is a strength. It means that he may have had difficulty choosing a weakness to begin with! What else was we supposed to choose? (I would have chosen lack of easy baskets, but that's tough to spin) EVERY team in that column had a "Win it all" and "Lose it all" section.

I was thinking the exact same thing. What would you list as our week points? We may not have a dominant player at every position but we are at the very least solid at every position.

Classof06
03-23-2010, 01:04 PM
Interestingly, Jeff Goodman lists Duke's "lack of size" as a reason that we may not win the tourney. Of all the things to list as a weakness, he picks size?
http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/Why-every-team-has-a-shot

The funny part? Goodman isn't even the only one. It just reinforces my point that 90% of fans and media regurgitate the wrong information.

Anyone who lists "lack of size" as Duke's weakness clearly hasn't been watching them play; they have 5 players 6-8 or taller and are one of the best offensive rebounding teams in the country.

Kedsy
03-23-2010, 01:07 PM
What would you list as our week points?

Spelling? ;)

roywhite
03-23-2010, 01:16 PM
Observation and a question:

One of the things I've noticed over the past month or 6 weeks is that when Lance or Zoubs get a rebound, they are more likely to kick it out than to try and finish themselves. There are occasional putbacks, but it seems a pass to the perimeter is the preferred option. Frankly, I think it has been helpful; Lance and Zoubs are not getting blocked on their putback shots as often, and the shooters are getting good looks off the passes.

Is this an accurate observation? Do you think it is a conscious point of emphasis/ change in strategy for the coaches and team to do this?

DUKIECB
03-23-2010, 01:28 PM
Spelling? ;)

Sory aboute thate.

JohnGalt
03-23-2010, 01:36 PM
Observation and a question:

One of the things I've noticed over the past month or 6 weeks is that when Lance or Zoubs get a rebound, they are more likely to kick it out than to try and finish themselves. There are occasional putbacks, but it seems a pass to the perimeter is the preferred option. Frankly, I think it has been helpful; Lance and Zoubs are not getting blocked on their putback shots as often, and the shooters are getting good looks off the passes.

Is this an accurate observation? Do you think it is a conscious point of emphasis/ change in strategy for the coaches and team to do this?

I've noticed this too and I think it's absolutely a realization by Zoubs and Lance that they provide a certain element/dimension to the team that - for the most part - doesn't involve high offensive output.

And IMO, they have excelled, as a result.

SMO
03-23-2010, 01:44 PM
I've noticed this too and I think it's absolutely a realization by Zoubs and Lance that they provide a certain element/dimension to the team that - for the most part - doesn't involve high offensive output.

And IMO, they have excelled, as a result.

I agree and another contributing factor is that Duke has been in the lead a lot and has run a half court offense well, so kicking it out for a reset of the offense has been the smart thing to do.

johnb
03-23-2010, 01:55 PM
I'd quibble with his assertions about size and that "you don't know what you're going to get" night-to-night.

Lance was all conference defense, Zoubs has been dominating for a month or two, and the Plumlees have been solid with a side order of flash. As has been said, they aren't high scorers on this team, but all 4 look for their shots a couple times a game, score what seems available, are rugged, and rebound effectively. I'd say they're pretty predictable--in a good way.

Less predictable is the outside shooting of Singler and Scheyer (I'm less concerned about Nolan, who is the best able to get his own layups and short jumpers). We could lose at any point if both are off their offensive game and the other team is playing well. If the S's are operating on all cylinders (and that's a big if against this level of competition under the bright lights), I don't think we'd be seriously stressed until next weekend (which is when we'd start seeing lottery picks and could lose even if everyone has a good game).

RelativeWays
03-23-2010, 02:04 PM
Lack of size and lack of a consistent post scoring option are not the same thing. The Blue Devils do not lack size given on how well they rebound, block shots and defend the post quite well. What they don't have is a reliable 4th scoring option, which honestly doesn't have to come from the post, but given our personel, that would be the most likely option, unless Andre suddenly gets on track.

Dukeface88
03-23-2010, 02:09 PM
I was thinking the exact same thing. What would you list as our week points? We may not have a dominant player at every position but we are at the very least solid at every position.

Lack of transition points maybe? Simillar to the earlier "no easy basketas" idea, but easier to make a headline out of. But yeah, anyone listing size as a weakness is either copy-pastiing from last year or is not expressing what they actually mean.

jv001
03-23-2010, 02:19 PM
Observation and a question:

One of the things I've noticed over the past month or 6 weeks is that when Lance or Zoubs get a rebound, they are more likely to kick it out than to try and finish themselves. There are occasional putbacks, but it seems a pass to the perimeter is the preferred option. Frankly, I think it has been helpful; Lance and Zoubs are not getting blocked on their putback shots as often, and the shooters are getting good looks off the passes.

Is this an accurate observation? Do you think it is a conscious point of emphasis/ change in strategy for the coaches and team to do this?

Agree that most of the time LT and Zoubs kick out when they get the ball under the basket. When Kyle made a couple of passes to the Plumlees and they converted. I thought to myself I'm glad those passes were to them and not Lance. He would have shot faked and shot faked until he was blocked or fouled on the play. I love Lance, but he needs to go up stronger with the ball. Even Zoubs converts those passes more times than not. Go Duke!

davekay1971
03-23-2010, 02:26 PM
Post presence is much more than the scoring by our post players. One of the big reasons we've been leading the nation in offensive efficiency all year is the offensive rebounding those guys have been giving us. Similarly, their defensive rebounding (preventing other teams from having second chance looks) helps our defensive efficiency. In fact, the offensive rebounds and kick-outs for open perimeter looks is a huge part of our offense. So, when Lance gets an offensive board and immediately turns to kick it out to Jon for an open 3, he's being more offensively productive than if he tried to put it pack up for a contested 2. His offensive production is simply not reflected in his point total. My observation is that Duke actually has a very good post presence on offense this year...it's just not the traditional low post scorer you're used to seeing.

OZZIE4DUKE
03-23-2010, 02:27 PM
I'd put our lack of size right up there with the "alarming lack of athleticism" comment earlier in the year... :p:p:p

As far as the bigs kicking out rebounds to the perimeter, that has been by design and coaches instruction all year. Our 3-point shooting has been more reliable than our bigs' ability to put back rebounds, at least until recently. You may have noticed that Zoubs had a tip in and a put-back or two in our last game, plus Jon's well documented shooting woe's mean you try plan B. Hopefully both Jon's shooting will return on Friday and Zoub's will continue to make his put backs! :cool:

CDu
03-23-2010, 03:02 PM
As far as the bigs kicking out rebounds to the perimeter, that has been by design and coaches instruction all year. Our 3-point shooting has been more reliable than our bigs' ability to put back rebounds, at least until recently. You may have noticed that Zoubs had a tip in and a put-back or two in our last game, plus Jon's well documented shooting woe's mean you try plan B. Hopefully both Jon's shooting will return on Friday and Zoub's will continue to make his put backs! :cool:

I think the plan is and has been: if you get the rebound near the rim, take it back up; if you get the rebound several feet from the basket on a long rebound (especially if you're moving away from the basket to get the rebound), reset the offense.

MChambers
03-23-2010, 03:08 PM
I think the plan is and has been: if you get the rebound near the rim, take it back up; if you get the rebound several feet from the basket on a long rebound (especially if you're moving away from the basket to get the rebound), reset the offense.

Duke has long realized that one of the best ways to score is a three of an offensive rebound. The defense is out of position and the shooter catches the pass coming from under the basket. It's an easy shot. It also can demoralize the other team. You think you've got a stop, and suddenly you give up a three.

CDu
03-23-2010, 03:17 PM
Duke has long realized that one of the best ways to score is a three of an offensive rebound. The defense is out of position and the shooter catches the pass coming from under the basket. It's an easy shot. It also can demoralize the other team. You think you've got a stop, and suddenly you give up a three.

True. "Reset the offense" was a bad choice of words. I should have said "kick it out to the perimeter guys" in the long rebound scenario.

MChambers
03-23-2010, 03:24 PM
Just wanted to point out that this isn't a new strategy for Duke.

oldnavy
03-23-2010, 03:37 PM
I was thinking the exact same thing. What would you list as our week points? We may not have a dominant player at every position but we are at the very least solid at every position.

I am not sure we have a weak point to be honest. Are we unbeatable? Of course not. We have proven that we can play badly and lose games, but defining a "weakness" is hard to do with this team.

If I were Goodman, I guess I would have said that the lack of backcourt depth could be a downfall. If Nolan and/or Jon get into foul trouble that could cause major problems (although, they both seem to be crafty and smart enough to prevent that). Not sure Dre is ready to assume either of their roles just yet.

GoingFor#5
03-23-2010, 06:00 PM
We may not have a post-up big, but if you plan on ignoring Z and P^2 when they get the ball in the post, you're going to be in trouble. They may not be the next coming of Hakeem Olajuwon, but they do know how to use their size to get close to the basket and are excellent passers. I think the point of an inside presence is to free up your shooters and I'm confident our guys do that.