PDA

View Full Version : Small-ball and a short bench



Jumbo
05-17-2007, 08:18 PM
Ah, two of the favorite recurring topics on DBR. I just thought it was worth noting that last night, the Phoenix Suns played a six-man rotation over 48 minutes. For significant stretches of the game, they played Shawn Marion, a 6'7" SF-turned-PF at center, James Jones, a swingman, at the 4, and three guards. And this was in the NBA, where everyone is big, where veterans like Jalen Rose are locked to the bench, and the opponent has Tim Duncan in the middle, and plenty of size and depth in other spots.
Now, Phoenix ended up losing, and did seem to wear down physically. (Well, I think as much of anything, Phoenix ran out of options). But, to take a team a strong as the Spurs down to the wire playing six men of 48 minutes while using a small lineup should show you something: A lot of our preconceptions about basketball are wrong.
Duke might not have a Steve Nash running the point or someone as freakishly athletic to play a hybrid forward spot like Shawn Marion. But, then again, Duke's not facing many Tim Duncans either. The point is, there are many ways to skin a cat in basketball. And if Duke's lacking a bit of size next year, beyond Zoubek and maybe Thomas, that's not such a big deal.
Might Duke have trouble guarding an occasional post player one-on-one? Sure. Might Duke lack a back-to-the-basket scorer at times? Perhaps. But on the other hand, how much do you think teams would enjoy trying to match up defensively against a lineup that featured, say, Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler, at times next year?
K's got plenty of talent to work with next year. He's got enough athletes to keep Duke competitive on the boards. He's got enough midsized players like Thomas, McClure and Singler, to battle against post players. As long as Duke develops more cohesiveness on the defensive end than last year, no one's going to overpower the team at the end. And then it's up to K to make the most out of a team with some potentially scary offensive weapons, and force teams to match up to Duke, rather than the other way around.
The bottom line is there are only a handful of games where Duke's going to go against some sort of an awesome post presence. And as long as Duke counters that with other strengths, it shouldn't matter.

mgtr
05-17-2007, 09:11 PM
I agree 100%. Coach K did not get this far by giving up. Zoubek has a lot of potential, and others can run in and out of the post without a problem. We also have a lot of firepower from 10 feet out, which will cause other teams problems matching up with us. Most teams forget about the 10-15 foot jump shot, but I see us having that as a major weapon.
Well, time will tell, but you can count me as one of the most optimistic posters on this board. I see much improved results over this past year.

Bob Green
05-17-2007, 09:23 PM
As usual, I agree with Jumbo. I am not concerned about our lack of a true big man. Zoubek will show improvement this year and contribute valuable minutes, but I believe he will not be ready to be a starter until his Junior season. Paulus should be healthy and solid, though not spectacular, at the point. We are stocked with talent at the 2, 3, & 4. I understand we do not have assigned positions. Next year's team will be solid. I expect Nolan Smith to solve our inability to stop dribble penetration and for Kyle Singler to make us forget McRoberts. Lance Thomas needs to play more minutes so he will have to resolve his foul problem issue. Nelson, Scheyer, Henderson, McClure, & Pocius are very talented players. Taylor King can create matchup problems by playing inside on defense and outside on offense. Therefore, I do believe Coach K will play a deep bench. I'm looking for 8 or 9 players to play double digit minutes like the teams of 87-91. Coach K will have the talent available to place a big team on the court, a speed team on the court, or a combo of skills on the court.

Is it Novemeber yet?

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

throatybeard
05-17-2007, 09:24 PM
I think we should play more zone.

Buckeye Devil
05-17-2007, 09:30 PM
I think that Jumbo is basically saying that basketball is frequently about match-ups and which team uses them best to its advantage. Duke will indeed present some match-up problems next year and who am I to question Coach K on taking advantage of those match-up issues? He will capitalize on them without a doubt as this team meshes and progresses. I would still feel a little better if they had another 6'10" player in the mix to back up Zoubek and in case of foul trouble, but I am optimistic for next year and beyond.

The only thing that I have to say about the Spurs/Suns is that it was only one game. Could the same result be produced long term?

Forrest
05-17-2007, 09:42 PM
The bottom line is there are only a handful of games where Duke's going to go against some sort of an awesome post presence. And as long as Duke counters that with other strengths, it shouldn't matter.
Unfortunately, at least two of those games will be against the Tar Heels and Tyler Hansborough, who punishes smaller, less physical players. So while Duke may do well in lots of games where the matchups break Duke's way, or at least not the other team's way, I think there are a couple of games that *do* matter in which the Blue Devils will really struggle.

Boy, I hope I'm wrong.

Forrest

phaedrus
05-17-2007, 10:23 PM
The only thing that I have to say about the Spurs/Suns is that it was only one game. Could the same result be produced long term?

well, the suns won 60+ games this year and about 54 last year even without amare stoudemire.

cspan37421
05-17-2007, 10:53 PM
Do you ever feel like recruiting sometimes goes the way of the draft, where you get the best players you can get regardless of what you need? Problem is you can't trade when you have a surplus of shooting guards/SFs and a dearth of big men.

ACCBBallFan
05-17-2007, 10:58 PM
Agree with everything you are saying Jumbo but would add Taylor King as a guy who can bury the 3 and provide 5 fouls guarding the 5, rather than rotting on the bench.

Taylor is as big and strong as Lance or Kyle and I would suspect not as good an open floor defender.

Duke does not use numbers but King would be a 2-5 a second SG on Offense in the style offense of W VA Pittsnogggle without the tatoos and defend the center since he is less a defensive liability there than defending his fellow SG, SF or even PF.

Duke needs to work on how Zoubek and Lance hedge anyway so just add Taylor King into the instruction.

kydevil
05-17-2007, 11:26 PM
Playing Zone a lot next year would be nice..... we can all dream eh?

mepanchin
05-17-2007, 11:31 PM
I'm not sure zone would be a good idea. We are already facing the possibility of having a bad DOR%, but if we play a lot of zone, that number will likely be very high. Maybe we'd stop some shots we wouldn't have playing man, but we'd give up many more offensive rebounds which could turn very easily into quick buckets.

I liked what the Suns did to the Spurs the other day without Amare. Whenever Duncan got the ball, they doubled and forced them to hit jumpshots. Whenever we face a team that actually has a really powerful big, we can take advantage of that kind of strategy using man defense and still be decent on the defensive glass. I'd much rather smother and bother Ellington, lay off Lawson and double on Hansbrough and force Lawson to hit outside shots or force Green/Thompson to beat us. It's a reasonable strategy.

Zone is not the only answer.

That being said... throwing a zone in every so often has its advantages just to throw offenses out of rhythm, force them to adjust, then switch again back to man. We won't be an underdog in most of our games, but in the games where we are, we need to prudently use risky strategies to our advantage to overcome deficiencies on paper.

Jumbo
05-17-2007, 11:44 PM
Unfortunately, at least two of those games will be against the Tar Heels and Tyler Hansborough, who punishes smaller, less physical players. So while Duke may do well in lots of games where the matchups break Duke's way, or at least not the other team's way, I think there are a couple of games that *do* matter in which the Blue Devils will really struggle.

Boy, I hope I'm wrong.

Forrest

A) There are plenty of ways to defend a low-post scorer without having someone who matches up well with him one-on-one.
B) Hansbrough is only 6'8" -- McClure did a good job on him in spurts this year.
C) Defense is a team concept, not a series of one-on-one battles. Duke collapsed in this area down the stretch and must make great strides before next season.
D) I hate to be trite, but sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

throatybeard
05-18-2007, 12:22 AM
I was joking about zone.

JBDuke
05-18-2007, 01:15 AM
I'm not sure zone would be a good idea. We are already facing the possibility of having a bad DOR%, but if we play a lot of zone, that number will likely be very high. Maybe we'd stop some shots we wouldn't have playing man, but we'd give up many more offensive rebounds which could turn very easily into quick buckets.

I liked what the Suns did to the Spurs the other day without Amare. Whenever Duncan got the ball, they doubled and forced them to hit jumpshots. Whenever we face a team that actually has a really powerful big, we can take advantage of that kind of strategy using man defense and still be decent on the defensive glass. I'd much rather smother and bother Ellington, lay off Lawson and double on Hansbrough and force Lawson to hit outside shots or force Green/Thompson to beat us. It's a reasonable strategy.

Zone is not the only answer.

That being said... throwing a zone in every so often has its advantages just to throw offenses out of rhythm, force them to adjust, then switch again back to man. We won't be an underdog in most of our games, but in the games where we are, we need to prudently use risky strategies to our advantage to overcome deficiencies on paper.

When K goes to the all-switching man D, it's a lot like a zone, anyway. Having lots of good athletes on the team that can guard a variety of types of opponents makes that defense possible, and we used it to our advantage some last year. Don't be surprised to see it plenty more in 2007-2008.

JBDuke
05-18-2007, 01:17 AM
I was joking about zone.

You trouble maker, you! :)

mepanchin
05-18-2007, 01:36 AM
I was joking about zone.

Someone else suggested it too!

mgtr
05-18-2007, 06:57 AM
Maybe it was Watzone.

Indoor66
05-18-2007, 08:00 AM
Ah, a devoté 'till the end - with tongue firmly entrenched in cheek? :D

kydevil
05-18-2007, 08:53 AM
Do you think that if Lance Thomas has bulked up enough that he could guard Big men in the post efficiently?

CMS2478
05-18-2007, 08:59 AM
I was joking about zone.

I don't want to hear that out of your mouth again young man. Zone is no joking matter, it causes lots of arguments around here. ;)

ScreechTDX
05-18-2007, 09:15 AM
According to Katz's article it appears that they are looking to give Zoubek pleanty of minutes next year (Coach Collins).

I hope they do, if for nothing else than for him to get lots of experience. He could be very effective his Junior/Senior year.

throatybeard
05-18-2007, 09:21 AM
I don't want to hear that out of your mouth again young man. Zone is no joking matter, it causes lots of arguments around here. ;)

It's the fourth leading cause of divorce in Duke marriages, right after playing time issues (3), when to replace Cameron (2), and marrying Tar Heels (1).

ScreechTDX
05-18-2007, 09:29 AM
It's the fourth leading cause of divorce in Duke marriages, right after playing time issues (3), when to replace Cameron (2), and marrying Tar Heels (1).

Nice.:p :p

em0526
05-18-2007, 10:05 AM
Given the quickness and athleticism of the 2007-2008 team, I envision Coach K implementing a style of play similar to the 2001 championship team (post-Boozer injury). Coach K loved that team's ability to push the ball and shoot the 3. He also implemented more traps in the 1/2 court to pick up the pace.

thebur
05-18-2007, 10:23 AM
It was nice to see in the Katz article that the coaches are openly expecting Zoubek to do some nice things this year.

It was also interesting to compare the Devils to UK and UF next year, though I think we are going to be better than both of them this year.

Classof06
05-18-2007, 10:24 AM
When K goes to the all-switching man D, it's a lot like a zone, anyway. Having lots of good athletes on the team that can guard a variety of types of opponents makes that defense possible, and we used it to our advantage some last year. Don't be surprised to see it plenty more in 2007-2008.

Great point. With the amount of guys we have at the 2-4, I think Duke will be able to switch almost all perimeter screens because we have so many kids that can guard the outside. I'm talking Smith, Pocius, Nelson, Henderson, Scheyer, McClure, even Thomas can guard the perimeter effectively for his size. And from what I hear, even though he might not be agile enough to guard on the perimeter, ESPN says Singler's cerebral approach to the game gives him instincts good enough to guard smaller players, so thats one big advantage Duke will have defensively.

I also think that playing Zoubek early and often is by far the best choice. He needs to play through his mistakes, something he wasn't able to do with McRoberts carrying the bulk of the minutes. I'm encouraged by the fact that the coaches openly said Zoubek is their big man, and that can only help him as he develops his game and confidence over the summer. I think the consensus on Zoubek is that he's a project, and he will take time, but I really do see a lot of potential in this kid. He's no Carl Lewis, but he can get up and down the floor very well for his size, which can only be conducive to the style we're probably going to play this year. I think that by the time the ACC and NCAA tourneys come around, he will be a solid contributor to this team. By that time of the year, he's really no longer a sophomore, anyway...

Dukerati
05-18-2007, 10:31 AM
I count myself as one of the eternally-optimistic-always-think-we-are-going-to-win-the-national-championship duke fans and I almost always agree with Jumbo but I have a couple comments about his initial points.

1) Sure the Suns were largely successful playing small ball and having a short bench, but there was still a large sense of inevitability about that game where you could see the Suns wearing down as San Antonio's depth and size forced the Suns to work much harder. I was rooting for the Suns to win but never really believed they were going to do so at any point during the game. The end result is that they lost. This does not bode well for Duke. If we play small ball AND use a short bench, we will most likely be forced to play a frenetic pace and I could easily see us losing gas as the season drags on.

2) Anyone taken a look at the college landscape lately? UNC has had a lot of recent success against us due to the play of the "bigs" inside with Hansborough and May before him. Florida just won back-to-back championships with a potent inside game. Ohio St? Greg Oden. Georgetown? Rob Hibbert and Jeff Green. I know teams like UCLA have been successful without a dominant big man but it appears to me that the teams with inside games have a much safer (and therefore, much more probable) route to the title.

dw0827
05-18-2007, 10:45 AM
When I think about "small ball" as being our preferred styled next year, I wonder. Small ball implies IMO a team built primarily upon speed, transition, outside shooting, flashing to the post, etc. etc.

I don't know if there's another Florida out there for next year . . . but there are teams that are fast and athletic and BIGGER than us. I mean, small ball is ok, but with the athleticism these days, big guys can run like deer, too (see Florida or KU). Seems to negate the advantage of a team playing small ball out of necessity.

I hope BZ LT KS et al progress next year to the point where we CAN play with a strong post presence . . . and play small ball when we want to but not out of necessity.

Flexibility, IMO, is the key.

prefan21
05-18-2007, 11:02 AM
It's the fourth leading cause of divorce in Duke marriages, right after playing time issues (3), when to replace Cameron (2), and marrying Tar Heels (1).

Personally, my ex-wife and I divorced over stall ball.

ikiru36
05-18-2007, 01:14 PM
When I think about "small ball" as being our preferred styled next year, I wonder. Small ball implies IMO a team built primarily upon speed, transition, outside shooting, flashing to the post, etc. etc.

I don't know if there's another Florida out there for next year . . . but there are teams that are fast and athletic and BIGGER than us. I mean, small ball is ok, but with the athleticism these days, big guys can run like deer, too (see Florida or KU). Seems to negate the advantage of a team playing small ball out of necessity.

I hope BZ LT KS et al progress next year to the point where we CAN play with a strong post presence . . . and play small ball when we want to but not out of necessity.

Flexibility, IMO, is the key.

General agreement, and I'd certainly prefer that our "small ball" lineup not be out of necessity, but rather a choice to create matchup difficulties for our opponent.

Re: Duke's version of small ball, while there will be some teams out there as big and athletic as we'd be, next year's team promises to be loads better than this year's team as regards mid-range and outside shooting. Even this year, Duke would have been vastly more difficult to match-up with if Josh had demonstrated himself as a serious mid-range threat (which prior to this past year one would have expected him to be capable of-I genuinely hope he regains it). Singler is likely to remedy that, while Gerald is likely to improve his range, Nelson and Scheyer have solid potential from outside, and our other new additions King and Smith both can hit the 3 (and for King it's pretty much his specialty).

We are still a relatively young team, but I am really, really excited about all of the potential ways this group could develop. There're likely to be bumps along the way (integrating 3 important Freshman, who's gonna be the leader?), but there's not a single kid on this deep roster whose attitude and demeanor I don't like. It's gonna be fun to root 'em on and see what happens!!!!

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Udaman
05-18-2007, 01:36 PM
So a quick look at our roster next year shows that we should be a team that runs and guns its way to tiring out other teams. We have Paulus and Scheyer at the guards. We have Nelson, Henderson and Singler in the post.

Then we have Zoubek, Pocius, McClure and Thomas all returning. Add in Nolan Smith and Taylor King as freshmen with talent. That's 11 players. What I wouldn't give to see 8 of them average at least 10 minutes a game and at least 2 more 5-7 minutes a game.

Will it happen? We shall see, but history has not been kind to predictions of using what appears to be strong talent on a deep Duke bench (at least not recent history). I predict that come February we are basically a 6 man team, with weekly threads opening up about why Pocius, Thomas, Zoubek, Smith and King almost never play, and asking what Roy Williams would have done with this team and this many talented players.

Here's hoping I'm wrong.

Duvall
05-18-2007, 01:49 PM
I predict that come February we are basically a 6 man team, with weekly threads opening up about why Pocius, Thomas, Zoubek, Smith and King almost never play, and asking what Roy Williams would have done with this team and this many talented players.

Well, since we're seeing threads complaining about this now, in May, before the freshmen even graduate from high school, I would say that's a fairly safe prediction.

dwater
05-18-2007, 01:52 PM
We'll be the team that we develop into during practice. If that is a team that consistently plays ten players or a team that plays seven players is yet to be determined. You can't just look at the roster and decide who should play what minutes.

Lord Ash
05-18-2007, 02:13 PM
From the sound of it King will be a REAL deadly weapon.

However, I too wonder; every year I feel like we thrill over our upcoming depth, and every year we are left wondering why a few players didnt get more time. Time will tell, I suppose.

freedevil
05-18-2007, 02:16 PM
I would love for the most minutes logged (on average) for a player next year not exceed 30. God it would make me happy.

Indoor66
05-18-2007, 02:17 PM
I would like to see the minutes logged be determined by the quality of play and the contribution to success.

RepoMan
05-18-2007, 03:44 PM
Personally, my ex-wife and I divorced over stall ball.

Was dribble penetration an issue?

gw67
05-18-2007, 03:45 PM
I expect the Devils to play a lot of small ball next year with Paulus, Nelson, Scheyer, Henderson and Singler being the core of the team and each playing starter-like minutes, say 25+ per game. IMO, Zoubek, McClure, Thomas, Smith and King will fill complementary roles. Last year, seven players averaged at least 15 mpg and it would not surprise me if eight or nine players averaged 10 mpg. A lot will depend on how well different combinations play together.

Three of last year’s freshmen, Henderson, Zoubek and Thomas, need to improve and show that they are ACC-quality players. The incoming freshmen are not only talented but they are “mature” as well. Singler and King turned 19 during their senior years and Smith turns 19 this summer. Hopefully, they will be able to make the adjustment to top level play very quickly and will provide quality play.

gw67

ACCBBallFan
05-18-2007, 04:23 PM
From the sound of it King will be a REAL deadly weapon.

However, I too wonder; every year I feel like we thrill over our upcoming depth, and every year we are left wondering why a few players didnt get more time. Time will tell, I suppose.
In the HS all star games it appeared Taylor King would have initial defender challenges as Poicus where his defense vis a vis other Duke defenders on the perimeter keeps him on the bench.

But that was when Taylor King was trying to guard fellow SGs who were quicker. If King can defend in the post as well as Singler did against the Ohio State 7-footer, he really is not in the same bench position as Marty since without Josh and Patterson Duke really does not have anyone else who can defend the post any better.

It may actually solve a problem K might otherwise have had if Patterson came on board how to give Taylor King minutes to capitalize on his Offensive firepower without giving up a better alternative on Defense.

And it also forces K to do something he would not have done, play Zoubek so he improves for the next two years which is where Duke's best prospects for big time success in a season are. It doesn't solve the what to do with Marty problem but does solve the King and Zoubek problem which in a way helps Marty since he would not have to also beat King for PT. Good problems to have BTW.

Not the plan but you gotta play with the cards as dealt now.

So if you can break even on defense and have King's explosive scoiring ability on Offense why not give him a shot when the lone center Zoubek is either resting or in foul trouble?

dw0827
05-18-2007, 04:45 PM
I expect the Devils to play a lot of small ball next year with Paulus, Nelson, Scheyer, Henderson and Singler being the core of the team and each playing starter-like minutes, say 25+ per game. IMO, Zoubek, McClure, Thomas, Smith and King will fill complementary roles.

gw67

If that happens, I suspect that we will not get far. Thats 4 guards and skinny tall guy. We will get creamed. With no inside presence of any consequence, opponents will guard the 3 point line like stink on a dog. Don't expect alot of 3's from us consistently enough to win regularly.

IMO the key to the year is whether or not Zoubek and/or Thomas can provide some consistent inside scoring. Without it, there's no balance. Hard to win with 3's when the other team knows thats what you have to do to win.

mepanchin
05-18-2007, 04:55 PM
I hope our "small ball" lineup is Paulus, Nelson, Henderson, Singler and Thomas with McClure, Scheyer, Smith and King getting additional minutes (in the small-ball context).

Against bigger teams we can probably expect more of a Paulus, Nelson, Henderson, Singler, Zoubek lineup with Thomas, Scheyer, McClure, Smith and King all contributing off the bench.

The smallball lineup I mentioned, I think, can play good defense against most teams and can rebound defensively well enough to get out on a break. We will be successful if we can average 72 or 73 possessions a game efficiently (last year, we averaged 66).

ACCBBallFan
05-18-2007, 05:07 PM
If that happens, I suspect that we will not get far. Thats 4 guards and skinny tall guy. We will get creamed. With no inside presence of any consequence, opponents will guard the 3 point line like stink on a dog. Don't expect alot of 3's from us consistently enough to win regularly.

IMO the key to the year is whether or not Zoubek and/or Thomas can provide some consistent inside scoring. Without it, there's no balance. Hard to win with 3's when the other team knows thats what you have to do to win.I agree with you except not from a short term one year perspective. Duke is a long shot this year but if they develop Zoubek and Thomas and King and so many others by spreading out PT, Duke will be a true contender the following two years if all they lose is Nelson (I know possibly Henderson and posssibly Singler).

Duke fans in general, not this poster, gotta get over this have to win every year mentality as in the process lose the core group and some of the sitters transfer, and groom a core that can again win big a couple years in a row. Zoubek and Lance and King and Smith and McClure and Pocius also have to be an integral pArt of the team, not just practice players.

dw0827
05-18-2007, 05:19 PM
I agree with you except not from a short term one year perspective. Duke is a long shot this year but if they develop Zoubek and Thomas and King and so many others by spreading out PT, Duke will be a true contender the following two years if all they lose is Nelson (I know possibly Henderson and posssibly Singler).

True. This coming year, I suspect that we will be good not but great. But the following several years could rival the Laettner Hurley Hill years. Of course, injuries and the NBA could foil that.

It seems that Duke's best teams have had a strong inside scorer; ie, Brand, Shel, Laettner. Of course, Laettner scored from everywhere and was, incidentially, a skinny tall guy. If Singler (a skinny tall guy) ends up as good as Laettner, then we are in good shape. Unless he goes NBA soon.

I wonder if Laettner would have stayed all four years . . .

Jumbo
05-18-2007, 05:33 PM
A lot of you are missing my general point. The bottom line is that there are a lot of ways to play effective. People need to get this traditional view of basketball out of their heads. Is a big man nice? Sure. Is it necessary? Not at all. Is rest nice? Sure. Is it necessary? No.
I posted during the Tournament how many teams played seven guys are fewer and reached the Sweet 16. I just showed you how small and shallow the Suns went in a 48-minute game at the professional level, where there's far less room to manipulate the game through coaching, because everyone is very talented.

Duke has a number of really good players next year. As long as they learn to play as a team, at both ends of the floor, Duke will be fine. You can compensate for a lack of size or a lack of speed or a lack of some other inherent biological quality in plenty of ways. Duke has more than enough players with the skills to do just that, so long as the team plays as one. That was a problem last year, and must improve next year. And it's on the coaching staff. So I don't care if Duke is playing small or big, deep or shallow, as long as Duke finds a style that plays to its strengths and involves everyone playing as a team.

Finally, just a repeated side note to the people who are already whining about depth again. Duke will have 11 recruited players next year, which is the most the program's had since 2002-03. That year, Duke went anywhere from 9-11 deep, depending on the game. Prior to that, the last time Duke had so many players was 1997-98. That team had nine players average 12.6 mpg or more, plus Taymon Domzalski and Ricky Price. (Nate James got hurt and only played six games). I've said this a thousand times, and maybe I should make it my signature, but in general, when K has had close to a full group of scholarship players, he's gone with what most people would call a "deep" bench. The only times he hasn't has been when there's a major cut-off between, say, players #7 and #8.
Next year, Duke will -- without a doubt -- play at least seven guys regularly (Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, Henderson, Zoubek, Thomas and Singler). Unless something really weird happens, and there's major separatin between Thomas and McClure, Dave will be in the rotation too. That's a definite eight. After that, Smith, King and Pocius have to prove that they are close to on par with the other eight guys. If they are, they'll play. If not, Duke will still have depth, because they'll be available, regardless. Now stop worrying about this stuff, already.

unexpected
05-18-2007, 05:35 PM
If Singler is as good as Laettner, we'll be in good shape? Comparisons on both being a skinny white guy? Well, duh.

Every year we're wayyy over-optimistic in our expectations. I remember last year, I basically said that Zoubek was going to be a non-entity, and posters were ready to commit me (he's going to be the next Gminski!). get real.

Remember when Pocius was supposed to be ACC freshman of the year?

Taylor King wins my "player most likely to be hyped up pre-season that ends up totally underwhelming next year" award.

I think Zoubek will play more, but I don't think he will start. I think him and McClure will rotate for "first big off the bench" responsibilities.

My lineup:

Paulus, Nelson, Henderson, Singler, Thomas

Nelson, Henderson will start, but Scheyer will get the same amount of minutes as both these two (maybe slightly less).

Singler, Thomas, ZouClure will take care of big man duties. I think McClure is first one to come off the bench for the big men, unless matchup dictates otherwise (opposing team has center 6'10"+).

I think Pocius gets the shaft this year, again. We have too many good guards, and I'd rather see Nelson/Henderson/Scheyer on the floor at any point that Pocius.

Smith will get the opportunity to play PG early in the season, but I think his minutes will be pared down as we hit heart of ACC schedule. Paulus will be playing massive minutes, Scheyer will back him up. If Smith turns out to be competent as the backup PG, I think he takes away further from Pocius's minutes.

I just don't see a place for TK with the guys we have. He's going to have a hard time getting off the bench, especially with Singler. We like to play the 3 guard lineup, and I don't see TK playing SF. Singler basically has his position right now.

While he could be Singler's primary backup, I don't think he's strong enough defensively to handle the tasks, especially with us being undersized. Team defense is going to be very important next year, and TK, not known for being a strong defender, is going to to be the odd man out. His strength is shooting, but we have that in spades.

mgtr
05-18-2007, 05:36 PM
I agree with the sense of many other posters that we cannot predict very well the success or failure of incoming freshmen. We cannot even predict very well how the rising sophomores will improve. We do have a reasonable handle on the other players, who are not likely to change too much (possible exception Pocius -- for the better).
Given all that uncertainty, we do have two terrific classes (frosh and soph), a reasonable (but not great) nucleus of upperclassmen, and a fantastic head coach and coaching staff.
Its enough to make me yearn for the season to start!

dw0827
05-18-2007, 06:01 PM
If Singler is as good as Laettner, we'll be in good shape? Comparisons on both being a skinny white guy? Well, duh.



I shoulda used the sarcasm indicator. No way will Singler be another Laettner at Duke. Thats really my point. He'll be long gone if he begin to show that kind of talent. So basically we're left with no inside presence with the "small ball" lineups people here are talking about.

I understand what Jumbo is saying. If they play team ball, then it matters less whether they are tall, short, skinny, or fat. Up to a point. They can be very good . . . but not elite. Not great. For that, they need the inside presence, both offensively and defensively. Thats why I see the progress of Zoubek and Thomas as being the key next year if we are really going to challenge. Singler, IMO, will not stand up well to the ACC pounding he'd take as a 4 or 5. Its really really tough for a freshman.

ACCBBallFan
05-18-2007, 09:58 PM
Morrison even as a diabetic stood up well to the pounding, and I am confident Kyle Singler will too.

Point is unless Duke uses this year to develop the 4-year guys like Zoubek instead of throwing Singler in the center slot like they did Josh last year, Duke will never have the horses to choose whether to play a traditional game and will always have to revert to the lineups being proposed, which Jumbo does not want referred to as small ball.

If instead Duke kept Singler and Lance at their natural position and used Zoubek at his natural position, then Zoubek would get better and recruiting guys who want to primarily be Singler's replacement but occasionally back up Zoubek would be easier.

The only gimmick needed would to play Taylor King in his not so natural position on defense (where he would probably be more effective) but keep him beyond the 3 line on Offense. Instead of a Josh point- forward, Taylor King would be a wing-center.

Chances are guys like Singler and Monroe will only stay two years, give or take one. So if Duke wants to cover its bases, win a couple less games this year by playing Zoubek and King, and it will pay dividends in the years Duke is even stronger and has a bona fide experienced center and the current nucleaus plus a Monroe to go all the way.

ACC is weak this year and Duke will still have a good W-L % and make the tournament. Regardless of which lineup Duke plays, it will need some luck in the NCAA tourney on matchups, 3's falling etc. but will have more choices to match up well against any opponent with a productive 7 footer and a long range threat like King who has actually played during the season.

I also agree with the posters who are saying Taylor King will probably sit because he is not as adept at defending perimeter guys. However Duke could leverage Taylor's offensive prowess if he proves as adept as Lance, Singler, and certainly McClure defending the opposing center.

I lke Marty but don't think he get s whole lot more minutes since he has so many talented guys ahead of him. He can't play PG and he can't defend the center which are the two areas Duke is lightest in. King may be able to do the latter and get some PT.

Once Duke qualifies for the NCAAs albeit possibly with a slightly lower seed if record suffers a few games to develop Zoubek and others, then K can shorten his bench, go with his best 6 as Jumbo started this thread with etc. but at least the other guys are ready when needed in NCAAs and next couple of years.

Either way, Duke probably ends up about the same place when all is said and done in NCAA tourney but one way produces better probability of success in future years and in recruiting.

Jumbo
05-18-2007, 10:32 PM
ACCBballFan,
I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. Basketball is about getting your best players on the court as often as possible. Duke's best players next year, almost surely, will be Singler, Scheyer, Henderson, Nelson and Paulus. It is ridiculous to be too tied to the notion of "position" at the expense of putting quality players on the court and making the other team adjust.

Now, I'm not saying Duke shouldn't play Zoubek. Duke should, because I think he'll make enough strides to warrant playing time. But that also doesn't mean Duke should be afraid to play Thomas or Singler in the middle. Thomas is a 6'8" forward. How many teams are playing guys significantly taller or stronger in the middle? There's absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be able to guard any of them, particularly if Duke is playing good team D. And offensively, what's his role? It's not like he's a great ball-handler and shooter -- he'll be far more effective developing some post skills and a face-up jumper that he can hit off high screens or kick-outs.

And I'm not sure if you've seen Singler play, but he's got plenty of offensive skills on the low block. Meanwhile, he'd be a monster taking bigger players away from the hoop. And, on D, he is solid enough to guard most college post players. It's rare that he'll be up against skilled seven-footers with low-post skills. He can certainly hold his own defensively down low, depending on the matchups. He'd have trouble guarding a wide-body alone on the block, but that's why you send double teams.

Also, I never said Duke should, or will, play six guys. I pointed out that Phoenix played a short bench and a small lineup because that's a common complaint around here. But I'm absolutely positive Duke will play at least eight guys in close games, am sure that in early season games, at least nine guys will get significant action. I think Pocius will struggle to find minutes, given the logjam of guards, and I think King has too many guys his size ahead of him to be a factor, unless certain situations call for a shooting specialist.

But, the bottom line is that Duke has a lot of options. And while one of those options -- certainly -- is for Zoubek to develop into a low-post threat in the middle, Duke cna be effective playing other ways too.

duketaylor
05-18-2007, 11:55 PM
I think a lot of folks here don't realize the type of player Nolan Smith is; he will play lots of minutes and many at the PG position, I think. He, like, Singler, is just too talented to keep off the court. I look forward to attending K's coaches camp to see them, although I may be on campus a whole lot by mid-summer and be able to watch pick-up games and stuff;) Nolan's quickness and overall game will land him 20+ minutes/game, IMO.
I also completely agree with Jumbo about how many ways one can skin a cat. Even without Josh, we're more athletic now. I really think it's gonna be interesting how K will use the talent on this team as he can really go for speed/athleticism or go big/bulky or anywhere in between. Looking forward to how we use what we have and who's improved enough to get more time.
GO DEVILS!!
duke "Coach" taylor sounds pretty nice

Indoor66
05-19-2007, 08:09 AM
The scenario of constant "rebuilding" and acceptance of losing many games to "develop" for next year is repugnant to me. Basketball requires 5 players + 1, 2 or 3 substitutes. We recruit top notch talent. There is no reason to believe that we cannot win a substantial portion of our games nearly every year.

We get hit by the transfers and the early entries and occasional chemistry issues. That is reality. We also bring in talent. There are going to be years like '06-'07 with a greater number of loses than our recent norm. I see that year as an aberration and not a trend or beginning of a pattern. Look only back to the mid-nineties for a comparable example.

As a generalization and not a pointed comment, I sometimes sense that some are a lot more impatient than others. I also sense an approach that more is more when sometimes more is less. I guess passing years temper expectations and acceptance moderates anger.

The more I learn the less I know. :eek:

SilkyJ
05-19-2007, 10:12 AM
So if Duke wants to cover its bases, win a couple less games this year by playing Zoubek and King, and it will pay dividends in the years Duke is even stronger and has a bona fide experienced center and the current nucleaus plus a Monroe to go all the way.

......

Either way, Duke probably ends up about the same place when all is said and done in NCAA tourney but one way produces better probability of success in future years and in recruiting.

I certainly understand what you are saying, and possibly even agree, but I can tell you this: it won't happen, at least not for the reasons you are giving.

This year will be a development year for Zou, so why not get some of those players (like king) more playing time so the next year they can really contribute. I like the argument, but that is not Krzyzewski's philosophy, and it will not happen (and I realize you are just saying that you would like to see it happen, and are not predicting it). If K had this philosophy he would have played Zou a lot more last year because he KNEW McBob was leaving and that Zou would have to play major minutes this year. K's focus is on doing whatever is best for the team during the CURRENT year.

Indoor66
05-19-2007, 10:26 AM
Too rational for most. Your post would believable if the sky was falling - as it must be in their world!

Thanks for the good sense, perspective and chiding of the doom, gloom and boom boys.

ACCBBallFan
05-19-2007, 01:16 PM
I think a lot of folks here don't realize the type of player Nolan Smith is; he will play lots of minutes and many at the PG position, I think. He, like, Singler, is just too talented to keep off the court. I look forward to attending K's coaches camp to see them, although I may be on campus a whole lot by mid-summer and be able to watch pick-up games and stuff;) Nolan's quickness and overall game will land him 20+ minutes/game, IMO.
I also completely agree with Jumbo about how many ways one can skin a cat. Even without Josh, we're more athletic now. I really think it's gonna be interesting how K will use the talent on this team as he can really go for speed/athleticism or go big/bulky or anywhere in between. Looking forward to how we use what we have and who's improved enough to get more time.
GO DEVILS!!
duke "Coach" taylor sounds pretty niceLooking forward to your clinic and pickup game reports, Chuck.

kydevil
05-19-2007, 02:38 PM
I certainly understand what you are saying, and possibly even agree, but I can tell you this: it won't happen, at least not for the reasons you are giving.

This year will be a development year for Zou, so why not get some of those players (like king) more playing time so the next year they can really contribute. I like the argument, but that is not Krzyzewski's philosophy, and it will not happen (and I realize you are just saying that you would like to see it happen, and are not predicting it). If K had this philosophy he would have played Zou a lot more last year because he KNEW McBob was leaving and that Zou would have to play major minutes this year. K's focus is on doing whatever is best for the team during the CURRENT year.

He did try to play Zou some, it's just he obvious he wasn't ready i.e. traveling almost everytime he tried a low post move. K just couldn't throw him out there to the dogs, he knew he wasn't ready and that he needed at least another year to be ready to go!

pless55
05-19-2007, 08:59 PM
We should score alot more points than last year. I think we will make it to the Sweet Sixteen.:cool:

gw67
05-20-2007, 08:45 AM
If that happens, I suspect that we will not get far. Thats 4 guards and skinny tall guy. We will get creamed. With no inside presence of any consequence, opponents will guard the 3 point line like stink on a dog. Don't expect alot of 3's from us consistently enough to win regularly.

IMO the key to the year is whether or not Zoubek and/or Thomas can provide some consistent inside scoring. Without it, there's no balance. Hard to win with 3's when the other team knows thats what you have to do to win.

The five best players on the team, IMO, will be Paulus, Nelson, Scheyer, Henderson and Singler. I expect Coach K to start four of these youngsters and to have 2-3 of them on the court at all times during close games. Either Henderson or Scheyer can play the Ginobili role off the bench and Zoubek/Thomas/McClure/King will complement the core players in the frontcourt, adding some size and different skill sets, while Smith/Pocious will complement the core players on the backcourt. A lot depends on the development of the sophs and the readiness of the freshmen but I foresee some small ball next year where the Devils play four guards/wings and a "big" man.

gw67

SilkyJ
05-20-2007, 01:41 PM
He did try to play Zou some, it's just he obvious he wasn't ready i.e. traveling almost everytime he tried a low post move. K just couldn't throw him out there to the dogs, he knew he wasn't ready and that he needed at least another year to be ready to go!

My point exactly. When it was clear Zou wasn't completely ready he played him less and less b/c that gave the team the best chance for winning THAT year. Krzyzewski will do whatever he thinks gives the current team the best chance of winning come March, not come next march, which is what ACCBballfan would like to see if the current team doesnt have a chance at winning the title.

Kind of like how in the NFL owners will start pressing the coach to play the rookie QB once all chances of making the playoffs are gone. "This season is shot so let's develop for next year" mentality.

I don't really know where I stand personally, I just let Coach K do his thing and don't question it.

ACCBBallFan
05-20-2007, 04:36 PM
ACCBballFan,
I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. Basketball is about getting your best players on the court as often as possible. Duke's best players next year, almost surely, will be Singler, Scheyer, Henderson, Nelson and Paulus. It is ridiculous to be too tied to the notion of "position" at the expense of putting quality players on the court and making the other team adjust.

Now, I'm not saying Duke shouldn't play Zoubek. Duke should, because I think he'll make enough strides to warrant playing time. But that also doesn't mean Duke should be afraid to play Thomas or Singler in the middle. Thomas is a 6'8" forward. How many teams are playing guys significantly taller or stronger in the middle? There's absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be able to guard any of them, particularly if Duke is playing good team D. And offensively, what's his role? It's not like he's a great ball-handler and shooter -- he'll be far more effective developing some post skills and a face-up jumper that he can hit off high screens or kick-outs.

...

But, the bottom line is that Duke has a lot of options. And while one of those options -- certainly -- is for Zoubek to develop into a low-post threat in the middle, Duke cna be effective playing other ways too.

Jumbo - I understand what you are saying and I agree with you that coach K will probably play his best 5, who are Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, Henderson and Singler.

But on your point about Lance should have enough size to defend ...

I have seen various heights and weights listed for Taylor King and Kyle Singler.

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiting/tracker/player?recruitId=42937

Taylor King SF 6’ 7” 225 ESPN 150 Rank #17
Kyle Singler SF 6’8” 215 ESPN 150 rank #4

http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncb/roster?collegeId=150

#42 Lance Thomas F 6’8” 215 (same size as Singler, 10 pounds lighter than King)
#14 David McClure F 6’6” 200 pounds (25 lighter than King).
#15 Gerald Henderson g-F 6'4" 215 pounds (surprisingly as heavy as Lance and Singler)

So size-wise, King is as equipped as Lance or Singler to defend the post, and probably a worse perimeter defender.

So I was just suggesting a way to leverage Taylor King’s 3 ball threat about 10 minutes a game to go with Zoubek's 15 and Lance's 15 to scrounge out 40 minutes or one full time equivalent "big", or Jumbo if you prefer.

Just concerned that Singler may be too valuable to risk having him defend a center. While Zoubek/Lance/King can be good in part of their game, none are as complete a player as Singler who could be backed up by Lance and McClure at the power forward, as well as Henderson.

You make a good point though that playing Henderson at the so-called 4 and Singler at the 5, does alleviate the over supply situation of wing players.

What you are saying for Lance/Singler is what I was saying for King, but just as a 10 minute change of pace to throw at the other team, not all in one stretch but 2 or 3 times during the game totaling about 10 minutes.

So Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, Henderson and Singler get the bulk of the minutes. Then the question of minutes for players 6-11 is subjective.

Zoubek and Lance may get the next most minutes since Duke is short on big men. I don’t expect this to be more than about 15 minutes each as both are foul prone.

Duke Taylor may be right that Nolan Smith ends up being the guy that subs in for Paulus when Duke’s foe has too many penetrating guards.

McClure has most years in the Duke system, does the little things, is an energy guy, etc.

Marty looks great in international competition and seems like he would have gotten more PT last year if not for the ankle injury. Not sure he will though since he usually subbed in for Nelson when he was tired on in foul trouble. This year, Nolan may be the defensive stopper when Demarcus is out, rather than Marty being the offensive spark at expense of defense, though he has gotten better.

I actually like so-called small ball since as you say it forces the other team to react, and quickens the pace of the game. Just trying to find a way to squeeze 10 or so productive minutes on Offense out of Taylor King, wherever he will be the least liability on defense.

The only problem with starting your best 5 is that there will then be a dropoff when you sub which reinforces K's reluctance to sub. If instead there was a center by committee except at crunch time, then the best 5 could be spread across the other 4 positions, not 80% of the time each, but a lot with Smith, Pocius and McClure getting some minutes there also.

So if Zoubek/Lance King log 40 as centers by committee with vastly different styles on offense but same responsibility on defense, that leaves 160 with the top 5 perhaps getting 130 or more of those to average 26 and the other 3 subs split the other 30 minutes or less to average 10 minutes or less.

I fully realize that 11 guys will not all average 10 minutes or more. Just an initial target in early season that will diminish in close games, ACC play and NCAA tourney.

unexpected
05-21-2007, 12:34 AM
I just don't see Nolan getting a lot of minutes. My head keeps reminding me of Dockery sitting on the bench his frosh year. I mean didn't Dockery average 30+ points a game his senior year in high school, and was the 3rd best point guard in the class?

Jumbo, do you think Smith is going to get a lot of PT next year?

Bob Green
05-21-2007, 04:45 AM
Your question wasn't directed toward me, but I'm going to pipe up and offer my opinion anyway. Nolan Smith will average double digit minutes as a Freshman because of two factors: first, we need his on-the-ball defense to prevent dribble penetration by our opponents point guard, and second we need another offensive player who can penetrate and create offense. In regard to defense, last year against Carolina, DeMarcus Nelson defended Ty Lawson. I see Nolan Smith filling that role in 2007. On offense, Nolan can create offense with penetration. At least that is what he did in the all-star games. Coach K will experiment with a variety of line ups and I am excited about the prospect of seeing D. Nelson, G. Henderson, L. Thomas, K. Singler and N. Smith on the court at the same time.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

CDu
05-21-2007, 09:40 AM
Ah, two of the favorite recurring topics on DBR. I just thought it was worth noting that last night, the Phoenix Suns played a six-man rotation over 48 minutes. For significant stretches of the game, they played Shawn Marion, a 6'7" SF-turned-PF at center, James Jones, a swingman, at the 4, and three guards. And this was in the NBA, where everyone is big, where veterans like Jalen Rose are locked to the bench, and the opponent has Tim Duncan in the middle, and plenty of size and depth in other spots.
Now, Phoenix ended up losing, and did seem to wear down physically. (Well, I think as much of anything, Phoenix ran out of options). But, to take a team a strong as the Spurs down to the wire playing six men of 48 minutes while using a small lineup should show you something: A lot of our preconceptions about basketball are wrong.
Duke might not have a Steve Nash running the point or someone as freakishly athletic to play a hybrid forward spot like Shawn Marion. But, then again, Duke's not facing many Tim Duncans either. The point is, there are many ways to skin a cat in basketball. And if Duke's lacking a bit of size next year, beyond Zoubek and maybe Thomas, that's not such a big deal.
Might Duke have trouble guarding an occasional post player one-on-one? Sure. Might Duke lack a back-to-the-basket scorer at times? Perhaps. But on the other hand, how much do you think teams would enjoy trying to match up defensively against a lineup that featured, say, Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler, at times next year?
K's got plenty of talent to work with next year. He's got enough athletes to keep Duke competitive on the boards. He's got enough midsized players like Thomas, McClure and Singler, to battle against post players. As long as Duke develops more cohesiveness on the defensive end than last year, no one's going to overpower the team at the end. And then it's up to K to make the most out of a team with some potentially scary offensive weapons, and force teams to match up to Duke, rather than the other way around.
The bottom line is there are only a handful of games where Duke's going to go against some sort of an awesome post presence. And as long as Duke counters that with other strengths, it shouldn't matter.

To play devil's advocate, I'll say these things:

1) We don't have a point guard like Steve Nash. I think this is a huge part of why things work for Phoenix.
2) We don't have nearly the depth of athletes surrounding said fantastic point guard like Barbosa, Bell, Jones, and Marion.
3) It was one game that they eventually lost due to fatigue. And if they'd tried it again, I suspect San Antonio would have further exploited their matchup advantages. Doing it for one game is one thing, but repeating it over and over will not be successful.
4) With regard to the "we won't face a Tim Duncan," my response is that the difference between the better NCAA big men and Duncan is less drastic than the difference between our team and the Suns.
5) Small ball will be sufficient to beat weaker teams, but we'd probably win those games with Thomas/Zoubek on the floor anyway. It's against the more elite teams that we'll need some size.

Devil's advocacy aside, I don't think we're going to HAVE to play extended small ball minutes. I think that Thomas and Zoubek are going to make solid improvement this year. And if they can give us 35-40 minutes of solid post play, we'll be fine. I think small ball is best suited for limited use, as with any quirky strategy. Overuse will result in the strategy being exploited by better teams. But in short spurts, it can be a very effective weapon for us. And if Zoubek and Thomas can give us 35-40 minutes, that could leave us with about 10 minutes or so of small ball to wreak havoc on the opposition.

jawk24
05-21-2007, 02:28 PM
Great counter points listed above. We don't have the bench or athletes for the last couple of years to play like that. Coach K has to pick up recruiting athletes and quality post players.

dw0827
05-21-2007, 02:45 PM
Devil's advocacy aside, I don't think we're going to HAVE to play extended small ball minutes. I think that Thomas and Zoubek are going to make solid improvement this year. And if they can give us 35-40 minutes of solid post play, we'll be fine. I think small ball is best suited for limited use, as with any quirky strategy. Overuse will result in the strategy being exploited by better teams. But in short spurts, it can be a very effective weapon for us. And if Zoubek and Thomas can give us 35-40 minutes, that could leave us with about 10 minutes or so of small ball to wreak havoc on the opposition.

I agree wholeheartedly. I hope we can play small ball when Coach K thinks it gains us a competitive advantage . . . and not because we have no other reasonable alternatives.

Remember that we went 4-6 winding down the ACC, out in the first round in ACC tournament, and out in the first round of the NCAA tournament. Yet people tout Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Nelson-Singler as being an optimal lineup. Small ball. Excuse me, but whats different from the team that went 4-8 at the end of last year? At either end of the court?

Well, they are older and more experienced. True, but is that enough? Roberts out and Singler in. I've gotta defer judgment here because Singler hasn't played a single game yet. I'm hopeful but . . .

I worry about small ball.

This is I'm hoping for:

1) BZ and/or LT make significant strides offensively. They don't have to be world-beaters but opponents have to respect their inside game.

2) SOMEONE needs to be willing to step forward and be the man. When its crunch time, someone has to be able to and be willing to demand the damned ball and get it done. We didn't have that last year. Next year, I'm hoping that Henderson steps up. He's certainly got the talent but does he have the desire. I hope so and I think so. And if Singler comes in and shows that he's got the competitive fire to do it, all the better.

3) B'ball is a team sport and I agree completely with Jumbo's central point that a team that plays well together is going to be hard to beat irrespective of the make-up of the individual parts. But this is a funny deal here. How does that happen? Last year's team didn't have it . . . I have some guesses as to why but they are irrelevant. How do we regain it? I personally have no clue but I am hopeful, and confident, that Coach K does.

So for me, I nay say small ball. I want balance . . . a respectable (not great) interior game, I want a go-to guy, and I want teamwork.

Classof06
05-21-2007, 03:08 PM
Your question wasn't directed toward me, but I'm going to pipe up and offer my opinion anyway. Nolan Smith will average double digit minutes as a Freshman because of two factors: first, we need his on-the-ball defense to prevent dribble penetration by our opponents point guard, and second we need another offensive player who can penetrate and create offense. In regard to defense, last year against Carolina, DeMarcus Nelson defended Ty Lawson. I see Nolan Smith filling that role in 2007. On offense, Nolan can create offense with penetration. At least that is what he did in the all-star games. Coach K will experiment with a variety of line ups and I am excited about the prospect of seeing D. Nelson, G. Henderson, L. Thomas, K. Singler and N. Smith on the court at the same time.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan


Thank you Bob!!! I think Nolan Smith has to see time as a freshman, and I really think he can bring a lot which has been missing to this team. With a hobbled Paulus and a sometimes tentative Scheyer, I don't think Duke had the necessary athleticism at the guard spots to compete against the Carolinas, the UVAs with Reynolds and Singletary, and the Eric Maynors of VCU. Many times, this inevitably fell on Demarcus, who would be justifiably gassed at the end of games.

I think Smith's arrival will take a huge burden off of Nelson and help spread some of the defensive responsibilities. On offense, he's someone who is able to create and get to the rim with consistency, something Paulus and Scheyer cannot do, and something even Demarcus struggles with from time to time.

The lineup Bob mentioned with Smith, Nelson, Henderson, Singler, and Thomas/Zoubek is a very exciting prospect. Though I imagine Paulus will probably start (though not guaranteed), this is the lineup I personally think Duke should go with. The athleticism of this personnel, the ablility to create offensively combined with the ability to deny dribble pentration make this a lineup I think Duke has to take a look at. This would be as athletic a lineup as Duke has had in a few years. Plus, bringing Paulus, Scheyer, King, McClure, and Zoubek or Thomas off the bench is a luxury any coach in the ACC would take in a second. I know this is different from what most people have, but a lineup like this would make Duke about as tough an out as they can be, IMHO.

Jumbo
05-21-2007, 05:20 PM
To play devil's advocate, I'll say these things:

1) We don't have a point guard like Steve Nash. I think this is a huge part of why things work for Phoenix.
2) We don't have nearly the depth of athletes surrounding said fantastic point guard like Barbosa, Bell, Jones, and Marion.
3) It was one game that they eventually lost due to fatigue. And if they'd tried it again, I suspect San Antonio would have further exploited their matchup advantages. Doing it for one game is one thing, but repeating it over and over will not be successful.
4) With regard to the "we won't face a Tim Duncan," my response is that the difference between the better NCAA big men and Duncan is less drastic than the difference between our team and the Suns.
5) Small ball will be sufficient to beat weaker teams, but we'd probably win those games with Thomas/Zoubek on the floor anyway. It's against the more elite teams that we'll need some size.

Devil's advocacy aside, I don't think we're going to HAVE to play extended small ball minutes. I think that Thomas and Zoubek are going to make solid improvement this year. And if they can give us 35-40 minutes of solid post play, we'll be fine. I think small ball is best suited for limited use, as with any quirky strategy. Overuse will result in the strategy being exploited by better teams. But in short spurts, it can be a very effective weapon for us. And if Zoubek and Thomas can give us 35-40 minutes, that could leave us with about 10 minutes or so of small ball to wreak havoc on the opposition.

No college team has anything close to what the Suns or Spurs have. My point is that if an NBA team can win or play well going small (and the Suns made the Western Conference Finals last year with Boris Diaw at center), it can certainly work in college, where only a handful of teams have bigs with skills.

I am, by no means, suggesting Duke play small-ball for extended minutes (although, to be honest, any lineup without Zoubek will be pretty small by some standards). I believe Zoubek will get a legit chance to play at least half the game. But, I am saying that Duke has the option to go small, and can do so effectively. Butler was tiny, and had a great season. If you look around the country, plenty of other teams succeeded without traditional size.

The other argument, about depth, again was not to suggest that Duke should play six or seven guys, just that NBA teams somehow seem to do it, and do it well, in a game that's eight minutes longer (and a season that's 50 games longer). I posted something during the tournament showing how many of the Sweet 16 teams played seven guys or fewer (I believe it was 11 of the 16).

The point? That people continue to have Duke tunnel vision, and they don't realize what's working elsewhere in the basketball world.

Jumbo
05-21-2007, 05:21 PM
Great counter points listed above. We don't have the bench or athletes for the last couple of years to play like that. Coach K has to pick up recruiting athletes and quality post players.

Duke doesn't have the "bench" or "athletes" to play like what?

Jumbo
05-21-2007, 05:30 PM
Remember that we went 4-6 winding down the ACC, out in the first round in ACC tournament, and out in the first round of the NCAA tournament. Yet people tout Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Nelson-Singler as being an optimal lineup. Small ball. Excuse me, but whats different from the team that went 4-8 at the end of last year? At either end of the court?

Well, they are older and more experienced. True, but is that enough? Roberts out and Singler in. I've gotta defer judgment here because Singler hasn't played a single game yet. I'm hopeful but . . .
First, who is "Roberts?"
Second, no one is touting that as the optimal lineup. I mentioned it as an alternative that shouldn't be dismissed, and which could be very effective in spurts.
Third, how will those guys be different than next year? Let's see, Paulus won't have a broken foot. Scheyer and Henderson will have a year of experience under their belts. Scheyer should be a lot physically stronger. Four of them will have had a ton of experience playing together. So, they'll be a year older, stronger, better and more mature, and half the guys who sent them on that 4-8 streak won't even be playing college hoops anymore. So, that's just a little of what will be different.
Fourth, Singler is a totally different animal offensively than McRoberts. He can shoot. He has real post moves. He has great footwork. In fact, they really don't have much in common at all.

natedog4ever
05-21-2007, 05:45 PM
The lineup Bob mentioned with Smith, Nelson, Henderson, Singler, and Thomas/Zoubek is a very exciting prospect.

Going out on a limb here - we will average less than 2 minutes per game where neither Paulus or Scheyer are on the floor. I like like the thought of athleticism too, but it's not gonna happen.

ACCBBallFan
05-21-2007, 06:01 PM
Thank you Bob!!! I think Nolan Smith has to see time as a freshman, and I really think he can bring a lot which has been missing to this team. With a hobbled Paulus and a sometimes tentative Scheyer, I don't think Duke had the necessary athleticism at the guard spots to compete against the Carolinas, the UVAs with Reynolds and Singletary, and the Eric Maynors of VCU. Many times, this inevitably fell on Demarcus, who would be justifiably gassed at the end of games.

I think Smith's arrival will take a huge burden off of Nelson and help spread some of the defensive responsibilities. On offense, he's someone who is able to create and get to the rim with consistency, something Paulus and Scheyer cannot do, and something even Demarcus struggles with from time to time.

The lineup Bob mentioned with Smith, Nelson, Henderson, Singler, and Thomas/Zoubek is a very exciting prospect. Though I imagine Paulus will probably start (though not guaranteed), this is the lineup I personally think Duke should go with. The athleticism of this personnel, the ablility to create offensively combined with the ability to deny dribble pentration make this a lineup I think Duke has to take a look at. This would be as athletic a lineup as Duke has had in a few years. Plus, bringing Paulus, Scheyer, King, McClure, and Zoubek or Thomas off the bench is a luxury any coach in the ACC would take in a second. I know this is different from what most people have, but a lineup like this would make Duke about as tough an out as they can be, IMHO.Agree with everything you are saying,and you could add Marquette to list of teams that gave Duke trouble for same reason when Nelson wore down, despite his Navy Seal training.

Duke almost always got a lead, just had trouble maintaining it to the end.

Nolan could be a big plus on both defense and Offense. even if Greg starts,when Nolan subs in you have the combination in place.

And you can also add in Marty to the ten you listed as a player coach K could potentially use more in areas Nelson sometimes struggles in (though I am not predicting it, and defense would suffer though Marty has improved in this area) in certain situations to make Duke tough to defend its speed and athleticism.

Lots of possibilities as long as Duke hits free throws, limits turnovers, secures a fair share of the defensive rebounds, and rests its top 5 occasionally, (not all at once unless K wants to throw in a wrinkle for a minute or two, or send a message to team about effort, which is not usually a problem for Duke).

Jumbo
05-21-2007, 06:05 PM
Thank you Bob!!! I think Nolan Smith has to see time as a freshman, and I really think he can bring a lot which has been missing to this team. With a hobbled Paulus and a sometimes tentative Scheyer, I don't think Duke had the necessary athleticism at the guard spots to compete against the Carolinas, the UVAs with Reynolds and Singletary, and the Eric Maynors of VCU. Many times, this inevitably fell on Demarcus, who would be justifiably gassed at the end of games.

I think Smith's arrival will take a huge burden off of Nelson and help spread some of the defensive responsibilities. On offense, he's someone who is able to create and get to the rim with consistency, something Paulus and Scheyer cannot do, and something even Demarcus struggles with from time to time.

The lineup Bob mentioned with Smith, Nelson, Henderson, Singler, and Thomas/Zoubek is a very exciting prospect. Though I imagine Paulus will probably start (though not guaranteed), this is the lineup I personally think Duke should go with. The athleticism of this personnel, the ablility to create offensively combined with the ability to deny dribble pentration make this a lineup I think Duke has to take a look at. This would be as athletic a lineup as Duke has had in a few years. Plus, bringing Paulus, Scheyer, King, McClure, and Zoubek or Thomas off the bench is a luxury any coach in the ACC would take in a second. I know this is different from what most people have, but a lineup like this would make Duke about as tough an out as they can be, IMHO.

Out of curiosity, how many times have you seen Nolan Smith actually defend Reynolds, Singletary, Maynor, etc.? On what basis do you believe he'll be particularly adept at stopping dribble penetration.
I also love the continued misperception that Scheyer is somehow not athletic -- it's really amazing.

dw0827
05-21-2007, 06:15 PM
Jumbo,

I think you overestimate the gains these guys will make from one year to the next. I agree about Paulus' foot although how much did it bother him late in the year? I, for one, don't know. Singler? Hasn't played a single college game yet so I'll defer on the sweeping optimism you espouse. I hope you're right but I want to see it before I believe it.

As for the others, Henderson, Scheyer, Nelson, etc etc and the fact that they will be a year older, with another year of experience, and stronger, now faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound . . . well, thats great. I again think you are overstating reality. Yes, they will be better. But vastly better? Enough to turn around what was, in the end, a very very mediocre basketball team? I hope so.

ACCBBallFan
05-21-2007, 06:17 PM
Out of curiosity, how many times have you seen Nolan Smith actually defend Reynolds, Singletary, Maynor, etc.? On what basis do you believe he'll be particularly adept at stopping dribble penetration.
I also love the continued misperception that Scheyer is somehow not athletic -- it's really amazing.The good news for Duke, not for college basketball is that Duke will be facing a much weaker ACC this year.

Exploiting their PG and SG speed, and C weaknesses is clearly the way to beat Duke. I'm just not sure how many ACC teams besides UNC have enough returning talent to pull that off, or if their in-bound frosh are enough to make the differnece without

Atsur/Gordon/Dowdell/Strawberry/Singletary/ JR Reynolds/Crittenden/Sean Marshall experience and talent. GA Tech losing Mario West but getting Lewis Clinch back is a wash but they will miss Crittenden and Young and FSU has no Al Thornton, BC no Jared Dudley, MD also loses Ibekwe, Mike Jones and their 7 footer, but still has Gist and two freshmen PGs returning, Wake loses Visser and Drum, etc.

ACC in general is pretty weak in PGs where Duke is not that strong overall but has heck of a shooting guard in that position, but neither are very many ACC teams besides UNC. Lawson should run away with first team ACC PG though voting is not necessarily by position.

Ditto for Tyler . Duke is weakest at his position, but after NC State McCauley/Costner and GA Tech Ra'Sean Dickey who burned them last year (but won't have Crittenden to get him the ball and play away where GA Tech usually loses), not that many high impact post guys in ACC. If May returns combined with Booker, Clemson could be tough for Duke.

One good post player can be double and triple teamed. It's the combos that can also hit from mid-range that are hard to defend, but not many of those tandems. Similarly it is not the one fast guard but the pair of them that is most problematic.

Let's not turn this into a UNC vs Duke player by player analysis. That is Duke's last ACC game in early February more than eight months from now, and there will be plenty of those threads. Let's at least wait until some of these guys have played a few college basketball games which thankfully is in November. Duke actually matches up pretty well with Ellington/Frasor; Green/Ginyard, and Thompson/Stevenson just need to find a way to neutralize Tyler and Lawson, and anything can happen in rivalry games.

Maui field will be an early test, and maybe Wisconsin but they lost a lot too and game is not @ Wisc,

but then a lot of home games and a lot of mostly weaker ACC teams pretty well assure talk of Duke demise are opposing fan base's hopes and exaggerations, not reality.

Let the games begin.

Jumbo
05-21-2007, 06:48 PM
Jumbo,

I think you overestimate the gains these guys will make from one year to the next. I agree about Paulus' foot although how much did it bother him late in the year? I, for one, don't know. Singler? Hasn't played a single college game yet so I'll defer on the sweeping optimism you espouse. I hope you're right but I want to see it before I believe it.

As for the others, Henderson, Scheyer, Nelson, etc etc and the fact that they will be a year older, with another year of experience, and stronger, now faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound . . . well, thats great. I again think you are overstating reality. Yes, they will be better. But vastly better? Enough to turn around what was, in the end, a very very mediocre basketball team? I hope so.

You're right. When have we ever seen guards improve with added experience and stength? Oh, that's right -- UVA last year. Whoops.

CDu
05-21-2007, 09:50 PM
No college team has anything close to what the Suns or Spurs have. My point is that if an NBA team can win or play well going small (and the Suns made the Western Conference Finals last year with Boris Diaw at center), it can certainly work in college, where only a handful of teams have bigs with skills.

I am, by no means, suggesting Duke play small-ball for extended minutes (although, to be honest, any lineup without Zoubek will be pretty small by some standards). I believe Zoubek will get a legit chance to play at least half the game. But, I am saying that Duke has the option to go small, and can do so effectively. Butler was tiny, and had a great season. If you look around the country, plenty of other teams succeeded without traditional size.

The other argument, about depth, again was not to suggest that Duke should play six or seven guys, just that NBA teams somehow seem to do it, and do it well, in a game that's eight minutes longer (and a season that's 50 games longer). I posted something during the tournament showing how many of the Sweet 16 teams played seven guys or fewer (I believe it was 11 of the 16).

The point? That people continue to have Duke tunnel vision, and they don't realize what's working elsewhere in the basketball world.

I think this debate (although I'm not really sure we're disagreeing, so it's barely a debate) is covering two different questions. Can we win many of our games with extended small ball? Absolutely. Can we occasionally surprise really good teams with extended small ball? No doubt. But I don't think we can compete at the top level with extended small ball minutes.

And to be honest, none of the examples of teams succeeding with small ball have succeeded at an elite level. The only team that did was UCLA, and I'd argue we aren't in their category defensively or at guard. I'd also say they really didn't play small ball (just had shorter big men).

And there aren't really any NBA success stories of teams playing only 6 players and succeeding. Phoenix was forced to do it, and they ran out of gas and lost. And that was only for one game. It can be argued that the 6-man lineup wore them out for the next game, when they were eliminated. Of course, this is topic is a largely irrelevant debate to me. I think it's clearly established that there's nothing wrong with a 7-8 man rotation in college basketball. UF won it with that approach.

Can we be a top-25 team playing small ball? Sure. Can we be a top-5 team playing small ball? I doubt it. I think we could sneak up and occasionally beat the elites, but wouldn't be able to win 4 in a row against elite competition (like the last 2 weeks of the tourney) that way. But luckily, I don't think we'll be doing that. It sounds like we agree that our bigs will get time and our small ball will be used in small doses.

dw0827
05-21-2007, 11:15 PM
You're right. When have we ever seen guards improve with added experience and stength? Oh, that's right -- UVA last year. Whoops.

Wow! UVA. 21-11 and knocked out in the first round of the ACC tournament and knocked out in the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament.

Now thats certainly something to look forward to. Whoops. Not.

phaedrus
05-22-2007, 12:04 AM
good call. you know, because basketball is really a 2-man sport.

Jumbo
05-22-2007, 02:01 AM
Wow! UVA. 21-11 and knocked out in the first round of the ACC tournament and knocked out in the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament.

Now thats certainly something to look forward to. Whoops. Not.

Well, that has to be one of the more ridiculous things written around here in a while. Are you actually debating whether Reynolds and Singletary were excellent players this season? Maybe there were other reasons why UVA wasn't, say, a national title contender. Or, I guess Kevin Durant isn't very good either. His team lost in the second round too.

dw0827
05-22-2007, 09:16 AM
Its a team game, Jumbo.

And its really a shame that you have such difficulty with people disagreeing with you. Its makes you shrill and condescending. Very ugly.

RepoMan
05-22-2007, 10:32 AM
Its a team game, Jumbo.

And its really a shame that you have such difficulty with people disagreeing with you. Its makes you shrill and condescending. Very ugly.

No, he is simply making you look foolish. Jumbo's initial observation was that, just as UVA's guards improved dramatically over the offseason, so might Duke's. Your response that the UVA team was knocked out in the first round of the tournament is non-sensical and irrelevant to the point he made. Whether the UVA team over or underachieved last season is not at issue, what is at issue is the developments of individual players from season to season.

I suggest pausing for a few minutes and thinking before posting. Give it a try.

ACCBBallFan
05-22-2007, 10:48 AM
Off topic but Singletary and Reynolds were pretty good players all thru their 3 and 4 years respectively at UVA. The problem for UVA was on front line where Cain could rebound but no one else except occasionally Diane (another kudo for small ball) scored.

The difference in UVA this year were it had a very favorable ACC unbalanced schedule that made their record better than they really were, relative to other teams like Clemson who had the short end of the ACC unbalanced schedule.

Neither was more than a marginal team that if they got into the NCAA dance at all, was not going far, but could win a few NIT games.

Dave Leitao is also a pretty good coach and will have to be this year if Singletary does not return with JR Reynolds and Jason Cain having already used up their eligibility.

gw67
05-22-2007, 11:19 AM
I agree with Repo. Jumbo initially pointed out that Henderson and Scheyer should be stronger and better this year (I agree). This was met with the comment "the fact that they will be a year older, with another year of experience, and stronger, now faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound . . . well, thats great. I again think you are overstating reality. Yes, they will be better. But vastly better? Enough to turn around what was, in the end, a very very mediocre basketball team?"

We can all disagree but from my point of view, that was an immature response. Jumbo then used the Virginia example (personally, I would have used others but so be it.) to make his point about players improving from year to year. This was met with another response about a mediocre team. I've taken the time to read this thread and I agree with most of Jumbo's points.

gw67

dw0827
05-22-2007, 02:00 PM
Let me try this again . . . without any references to our moderator.

My opinion: the wheels fell off late last year. A mediocre team . . . not one able to challenge for a title (any title).

This thread is about small ball. My opinion is that small ball isn't the answer.

Several posters are enamored with a Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler lineup as being the mainstay of the small ball attack. I don't think thats going to work. These guys were available last year (but McRoberts out, Singler in). And Coach K made no tangible strategic commitment to small ball. They may have played together upon occasion but that wasn't his preferred lineup.

But small ball (with essentially this same group) will turn us around next year? I think its legitimate to ask "Why? Whats different? What will these same guys offer next year that will take us from a mediocre team (sorry, but they were mediocre by our standards) to a team that will compete for titles?"

It was suggested that Singler has skills that McRoberts lacked. Could be. I've only seen him play in high school all-star games against other high school players. I am reluctant to believe that he will be the savior . . . the piece that changes a mediocre team to a really good team. I hope so, I really do. But I worry about placing high expectations on freshmen.

It was also suggested that (the guys) "they'll be a year older, stronger, better and more mature." And I agree with that. Guys typically do improve from year to year. But to go from being mediocre to a really good team will require substantial improvement IMO not just the evolutionary improvement that typically occurs. What evidence is there to suggest (other than blind faith, hope and prayer) that it will actually happen? How do we KNOW that Scheyer will be stronger? (Actually, I like him the way he is . . . kinda wiry and scrappy).

As evidence that guys can improve dramatically, UVA guards are suggested. Lots of possible explanations . . . the system . . . coach . . . they were already good . . . but thats just arguing, so I'll concede the point.

But will that be enough to change a mediocre team to a really good one? If it even happens? Do we know our guys will be substantially better? Or are we just hoping? My point was that it certainly didn't at Virginia. The weren't a really good team. And it won't happen here.

So, IMO, small ball is not the answer. Even with Singler instead of McRoberts. Even with the normal evolutionary improvements with the guys. Now, and here's where I sounded snarky, if someone turns into superman, then who knows. But we realistically can't count on it.

I've posted what I think we need in order to be a good team next year: an inside threat so that there is balance in the offense (I don't care who provides it but I suggest BZ or LT), a go-to guy (I don't care who it is but I suggest Henderson), and teamwork/chemistry.

Then we can compete for titles.

gw67
05-22-2007, 03:30 PM
dw,

Good post. I understand your position and I believe that we agree on many points. Some of my thoughts:

• I may be mistaken (I refuse to read all the posts again) but I don’t believe that many posters are proposing a Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler lineup as our mainstay lineup. Many, like myself, see those five players as Duke’s best players and the core to next year’s team. I expect four of them to start along with whichever big man steps up and for them to be the team leaders in minutes played.
• I am not a big fan of small ball but the Devils only have one true post man and six guards/wings not counting Singler. I suspect that there will be many occasions next year where Coach K will play four guards/wings in order to get the best players on the floor at the same time. This, by my definition, is small ball no matter who is playing the post.
• Of course, no one knows how much returning players will improve or whether the freshmen will contribute. Those of us who are optimistic about next year’s team are basing much of our optimism on some facts: (1) the Devils are returning six players, including four starters, who played significant minutes last year - this compares with two starters and three returning experienced players last year; (2) freshmen become familiar with the rigors and expectations of playing college basketball and although there is no guarantee, they often make larger contributions as sophs; and (3) the three incoming frosh are a mature group.
• I agree with you that we need Zoubek/Thomas/King to provide some size. We also need to significantly improve our ballhandling and passing as well as our foul shooting. I don’t see the need for one go-to guy as long as we have 4-5 guys in double figures. If Singler or Henderson step forward as top scorers that is fine but I think that we would be better off with balanced scoring. As you point out, a key will be for Coach K to find the right combinations of players. Another reason for our optimism is that for years Coach K has been outstanding at motivating the players and getting them to play as a team.

gw67

dw0827
05-22-2007, 03:56 PM
Personally, I'm stuck on what I'd like to see in next year's line-up. I want to start 6 guys.

Paulus, Nelson, Scheyer, Henderson, Singler, and Thomas. Somewhere in that group is my starting five . . . and crunch time team except LT may be gone with fouls.

You are right, though . . . it isn't a huge team.

I would remove Nelson from that list but I feel that he's too good defensively . . . so he starts in my book. I hate to remove Henderson since I'm hopeful he'll have a breakout (superman?) year. I love Scheyer's game. We need a big so I go with LT with BZ backing up. Paulus is starting so no reason to talk about it. And we've gotta see what Singler can do.

So I'm starting 6.

dw0827
05-22-2007, 04:05 PM
Gw, you mentioned ball handling.

That was the most frustrating thing about watching last year. Drove me nuts. My mother could make better passes and decisions than that. Do we need a ball handling thread? Name your good handle team.

Classof06
05-22-2007, 05:49 PM
Out of curiosity, how many times have you seen Nolan Smith actually defend Reynolds, Singletary, Maynor, etc.? On what basis do you believe he'll be particularly adept at stopping dribble penetration.
I also love the continued misperception that Scheyer is somehow not athletic -- it's really amazing.

I've never seen him guard these players, but I've seen him enough (4-5 times) to see that he is undoubtedly a better on-the-ball defender than either Greg or Jon. And I saw him enough to see that he will bring a lot of things to the table for Duke. He might not have played on the college level yet, but I ain't blind, Jumbo.

I never said Scheyer wasn't athletic but he certainly lacked the necessary athleticism/agility to keep up with some of the guards he was matched up against, likewise it's the same reason he can't yet create his own shot; I think he made that pretty evident this year. This is not to bash either Paulus or Scheyer, I think we all know how valuable they are to this team. But denying dribble penetration was a big problem for this team last year and Paulus and Scheyer were the main culprits. Enter, Nolan.


I've seen him, but don't take my word for it, this is what ESPN had to say about him. Read it and then tell me if this sounds like Greg Paulus or Jon Scheyer:

He gets after it at the defensive end of the floor and guards the best player on the other team all the time. Smith was the most complete (though his jump shot was a bit off) guard at the event. He has a polished skill package as well as a great feel for the game. He's a very smooth player who rarely forces the action and can breakdown defenders at will off the dribble. He had a number of spectacular plays (including some Dwayne Wade-like finishes) throughout the both games he participated in, as well as a tremendous block on a Chace Stanback (UCLA signee) dunk. Physically, Smith has a tremendous frame, not to mention great speed and quickness, and should have no problem transitioning into the college game (Duke signee). Although I feel his best position is the two-spot, I'm sure Mike Krzyzewski will find ample time for him at the point because of his savvy, not to mention the inadequate play of starting point guard Greg Paulus.

phaedrus
05-22-2007, 05:59 PM
good posts dw. I'm glad you've clarified your views.

One thing I take issue with: throughout this season posters have been clamoring for a go-to guy. I'm curious who people think our go-to guy was for our Final Four team in '04. We had 2 guys at ~15 ppg, two more at ~13, and Duhon at 10 ppg. It certainly isn't a stretch to see Nelson, Paulus, Singler, Scheyer, and Henderson all scoring 12-15 points per game next year.

I think the desire for a "go-to guy" is a relic of TV broadcasting that emphasizes star power over team play.

ikiru36
05-22-2007, 06:13 PM
I think/hope that we can all agree that having Nolan will be a welcome luxury on offense and defense for next year's team.

Some clearly think that Scheyer's D is vastly under-rated and that Paulus' defensive struggles at times (which can't really be denied) were significantly injury related. I'm not 100% convinced, but given Scheyer's having only been a freshman (often playing against talented upperclassmen) and Paulus' injury and former reputation, I'm glad to play optimist and give 'em the benefit of the doubt.

Whichever side is correct about Scheyer/Paulus and their defensive/athletic abilities, I'm excited to add a quick, strong, long backcourt defender (and potential penetrator on offense) who also has a reputation for maturity. I like last year's starting backcourt, especially healthy and with another year's development, and if Nolan Smith can earn significant minutes despite the talents of the former, well that'd be great too!

Go Jon, Greg and Nolan!!!!!!!! Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jumbo
05-23-2007, 02:03 AM
I never said Scheyer wasn't athletic but he certainly lacked the necessary athleticism/agility to keep up with some of the guards he was matched up against, likewise it's the same reason he can't yet create his own shot; I think he made that pretty evident this year. This is not to bash either Paulus or Scheyer, I think we all know how valuable they are to this team. But denying dribble penetration was a big problem for this team last year and Paulus and Scheyer were the main culprits. Enter, Nolan.

I will, once again, disagree on Scheyer. I think for large portions of the season he was an excellent defender. He clearly had the athleticism/agility to keep up with most of the guards he faced. And, he clearly showed that he could create his own shot. I think the area where he struggled most was strength. He got overpowered at times, both in the lane on offense and against stronger players on D. I have no doubt that will improve.

I think Paulus was hampered by his foot injury, but, that said, I don't think he's a particularly adept defender even when healthy. The same cannot be said about Scheyer -- he's an excellent defender. Talk to any coach in the ACC and they'll tell you the same thing.

dw0827
05-23-2007, 09:39 AM
good posts dw. I'm glad you've clarified your views.

One thing I take issue with: throughout this season posters have been clamoring for a go-to guy. I'm curious who people think our go-to guy was for our Final Four team in '04. We had 2 guys at ~15 ppg, two more at ~13, and Duhon at 10 ppg. It certainly isn't a stretch to see Nelson, Paulus, Singler, Scheyer, and Henderson all scoring 12-15 points per game next year.

I think the desire for a "go-to guy" is a relic of TV broadcasting that emphasizes star power over team play.

Good point. I'm not sure there was one. Maybe JJ.

But that doesn't mean that we wouldn't have been better off WITH one.

I guess what I mean when I say "go-to guy" is someone who has the competitive fire to WANT to take the important shot. A leader. Its an attitude, a mind-set.

And yes, I firmly believe that a team is better off with one.

gw67
05-23-2007, 11:41 AM
Gw, you mentioned ball handling.

That was the most frustrating thing about watching last year. Drove me nuts. My mother could make better passes and decisions than that. Do we need a ball handling thread? Name your good handle team.

Ball handling is sort of related to small ball because teams that play small are usually expected to be good ballhandling teams (see Butler last year).

Ball handling was very poor at times last year. Based on season stats from theacc.com, the Devils ranked in the lower third of the ACC in assists per game, assist to turnover ratio and turnover margin. Not to rub salt in our wounds but UNC lead the league in assists per game and assist to turnover ratio (A/TO). The Heels had fewer turnovers per game even though they ran an uptempo offense.

Only three players on the team had positive A/TO ratios last year, McRoberts, Paulus and Scheyer. Only two point guards in the league had fewer apg than Paulus and all had better A/TO ratios. This is clearly an area where Paulus needs to improve but he is not the only one. Nelson and Henderson both had A/TO ratios less than 1.0. Each of these perimeter players needs to improve their ballhandling/passing this coming season. I would hope that Nelson in his senior year would have a year comparable to Strawberry’s senior year – a top scorer, good on defense, contributes with rebounds and steals, and has a positive A/TO. All the Duke perimeter players should be expected to value the ball and make good passes.

Paulus needs to significantly improve his ballhandling and decision making so that his A/TO ratio approaches 2.0. I recall a televised game a few years ago between Maryland and another ACC team. Bobby Cremins was doing the color and Tim Brandt was doing the play-by-play. Brandt made some comment about Blake after he had made a couple of turnovers in a short space of time. Cremins pointed out that good point guards will make ballhandling/passing mistakes now and then but that Gary Williams wasn’t upset as long as Blake was pushing the ball, got the team in their offense and got enough assists to balance out the turnovers. Blake averaged about 3 turnovers a game for his career but offset this with 7 assists per game. Bobby Hurley also averaged over 3 turnovers a game but averaged over 7 apg. Chris Duhon didn’t average 7 apg but he had a career A/TO of over 2.0.

With at least three guards/wings likely to be in the game at all times next year, the Devils need to take advantage of the skills of these players and reduce their number of turnovers. I’m optimistic that the rising freshmen will improve and hope that Paulus will at least get back to his freshman ballhandling stats. The unknowns are Nelson and the incoming freshmen.

gw67

dw0827
05-23-2007, 12:06 PM
I agree with Cremin's perspective. I'm not all that worried about the turnover that happens when guys are pushing it or Paulus hits a guy in the chest with a pass he wasn't expecting or Nelson dribbles it off his foot driving for the basket. But what I saw last year was something I haven't often seen in a Duke team: lazy passes and thoughtless passes.

Tennis has a good statistical system. Forced and unforced errors. I'd love to know how many "forced" turnovers we had last year and how many "unforced" turnovers there were. I'd bet that the "unforced" turnovers would be unusually high for Duke.

How will we reduce the turnovers next year? Well, this is an area where the guys having a year of experience and maturity and playing together will really help. I hope.

ACCBBallFan
05-23-2007, 02:07 PM
With the new recruits and improvements of the returnees, perhaps Scheyer can pick a few things to excel at, rather than being forced to be great at everything immediately, as a frosh.

If he continues to be reluctant to hoist his shot and get if off more quickly, then Greg and Taylor can pick up that slack, while Jon concentrates on being a steady ball handler and tireless defender.

With both Nolan and Demarcus as teammates, Jon could also do just the opposite and do good but not great ballhandling and defense while maximizing his scoring, with someone else assigned the duty of stopping the fast break.

Best of both worlds, if he knows he does not have to pace himself now with complimentary players that can do some of these too, Jon Scheyer can improve in all areas, but be able to be subbed for periodically to keep him fresh in the game and at the end of the season.

In a lot of ways, Scheyer reminds me of fellow Chicagoan Bobby Frasor someone everybody would be glad he was on their team, either as a starter in the mold of his coach, or as a very capable sub.

The last guy who could do everything people are expecting of Scheyer, or many other Duke and UNC players for that matter, was hung on a cross. These are college kids. Give them a chance to grow better at their trade.

Indoor66
05-23-2007, 04:37 PM
I like your perspective. These are kids learning, not pros performing.