The turning point in the season

[Jumbo]

I apologize if this has been posted elsewhere, but I haven't seen it. I've been thinking about this for a while, and it's clear to me that the turning point in the season happened in an entirely unexpected way. All year, at the beginning of every "Phase" post, I preached the importance of Duke staying healthy. Yet now, I'd argue that it was an injury that provided the final piece to the championship puzzle. Lance Thomas' bone bruise against North Carolina actually spurred this team to a title.

Remember what that night was like? Most of us were convinced he'd be gone for a significant amount of time, if not the entire season. Even after we'd learned the injury wasn't as severe as we originally feared, we figured it would change the team. Turned out it did -- just not in the way we expected. Duke was coming off the win at UNC, in which Mason Plumlee played extremely well, and we assumed Thomas' injury would be the influence needed to get Mason increased minutes and force him to play the way we all expected before the season.

But that's not what happened. Instead, with Thomas' status iffy for the Maryland game, Coach K prepared the team to play without him. And he realized if Lance weren't able to go, he'd still need a veteran leader to anchor the back of the defense -- another loud, experienced voice. So, he inserted Brian Zoubek into the starting lineup. Granted, Miles Plumlee wasn't playing great basketball at that point of the year, and it's possible that Zoubs might have replaced him anyway. But I tend to believe K would have stayed with the same group if not for the injury. The rest, as they say, is history. Lance ended up starting that game against Maryland, but it was Zoubs' coming out party with 16 points and 17 rebounds. He never left the starting lineup and just kept getting better. He averaged 6.6 ppg and 10.1 rpg the rest of the way. He became the best offensive rebounder in the country. He cut down on his fouling and began to move better. He rounded out a veteran starting five that played better than the sum of its parts, largely due to maturity, experience and communication. And Duke went 15-1 the rest of the way.

Zoubs was contributing before Lance's injury, but not like that. And, if Lance had not gotten hurt, I'm not sure things would have gone quite the same way for Zoubs. Also, if you really think about it, one other injury had a surprising impact -- Mason Plumlee's broken wrist. If that hadn't happened, he would have been a starter and Lance would have come off the bench at the beginning of the season. This team would have been different and might not have fully embraced the defense/rebounding identity that carried it through tough game after tough game.

So as we think back on so many different high points, so many big shots and bigger wins, it's interesting to recall what felt like the lowest point -- the moment we feared Lance Thomas was done for the year -- and realize it might have been the most important thing to happen to the team all season.

[JBDuke]

While I will not dispute the wisdom of the irascible but cuddly, I'd like to offer another turning point in the season that I think had a profound effect.

I think it's fair to say that if you asked most knowledgeable Duke fans at the beginning of the year who they thought would be the #1 option on offense this season, they would have answered Kyle Singler. However, the Kyle we saw for the first half of the season was not the Kyle we were expecting. Whether it was difficulties in adjusting to a new, perimeter-oriented role in Duke's offense, or other factors, there is no doubt that Kyle, while still a key contributor, was struggling to find his offensive flow. Through the Georgetown game, he was shooting just over 40% on all FGs, and just 33% on 3's. He was scoring only 16 points a game and averaging almost 2.3 turnovers per contest. This is despite facing several cupcakes in the early season and holiday season schedules.

After the debacle at the Phone Booth, Coach K decided to tweak the offense to install more traditional motion principles and get Kyle more open opportunities, and the results were pretty dramatic.

Over the last 19 games after Georgetown, Kyle's shooting only climbed a couple of percent (to 42.2%), but his 3-point shooting shot up to 46%. His FT% even climbed 5 points to 82.4%, averaging almost one more FTA per game. His ppg jumped to 19.4, and his turnovers dropped to 1.6 per game. In short, he became much the player we expected to see at the beginning of the year, and this was against conference and tournament competition.

Certainly, as Jumbo pointed out, Lance's injury, which led to Brian's insertion in the starting lineup, was a key turning point. But I would contend that the offensive changes installed by Coach K after the Georgetown loss, which led to Kyle's improved offense, was a key factor in Duke's winning 18 of its last 19 games this year.

[Troublemaker]

Well stated, Jumbo. When you have a season as special as this one was, you have to get lucky throughout the season. In this case, a bone bruise that wasn't worse caused a Zoubeard monster to be inserted into the starting lineup.

I was pleasantly surprised when Z stepped up his game beginning with Maryland, locking up his starting job, and continuing to dominate opponents on the boards for the rest of the season. In hindsight, it shouldn't have been such a great surprise since Z's offensive effiency numbers were great even when coming off the bench. He just needed to stay out of foul trouble, which he did a better job of, to stay on the court and put those #1 offensive rebounding skills to good use, complementing all our shooters who sometimes went through games missing lots of shots.

[Bob Green]

This really isn't a turning point per se, but Zoubek's offensive execution was a key to our success down the stretch. His ability to dominate the offensive glass and consistently kick the ball out to wide open teammates for spot up 3-pointers is what I will remember about Big Z's performance this year.

[Troublemaker]

Without a doubt, JB, you mention another great turning point. Z caught me by surprise but Kyle's ascension I felt more on top of. I knew he was really struggling to shoot the ball around midseason. But having heard that he and K were spending extra time together to fix his shot, I knew these two successful men collaborating would eventually get it done. Kyle started to put up silky jumpshots while taking advantage of more post opportunities and different screenings actions within the motion to get himself free. And Duke never again, for the rest of the season, resorted to a drive-and-kick spread offense like we did in the terrible, horrible second half of the Georgetown game. Our players can't score out of that. They needed Z and LT to set physical screens to free our shooters. Kyle himself would join the action by setting some physical backpicks and popping out from those. It was beautiful to watch.

[calvindog]

This really isn't a turning point per se, but Zoubek's offensive execution was a key to our success down the stretch. His ability to dominate the offensive glass and consistently kick the ball out to wide open teammates for spot up 3-pointers is what I will remember about Big Z's performance this year.

When I look back on this year, those are the plays that stick out the most: Z's offensive boards, kicking it out to the perimeter and then another devastating 3 dropping through the net.

[moonpie23]

i have been thinking a lot about how different it would be had gerald and elliott had stayed.....at first blush, one might think they would have been even better as a team, but the total chemistry that evolved and won the title might never have been the same.....

it's interesting to think about the house of cards.....ONE SINGLE card removed or replaced and the out come could be totally different...

[Indoor66]

i have been thinking a lot about how different it would be had gerald and elliott had stayed.....at first blush, one might think they would have been even better as a team, but the total chemistry that evolved and won the title might never have been the same.....

it's interesting to think about the house of cards.....ONE SINGLE card removed or replaced and the out come could be totally different...

We would have been different! IMO we would not have been better. I always saw Henderson as a black hole. He was somewhat single dimensional. He was not a good passer and tended to cause the rest of the team to become stagnant.

Elliot, IMO, had a high desire for the flash, slash and spectacular. That trait would have hurt this year's team.

IMO we were better off without them both. As it turned out, I was correct.

[RelativeWays]

i have been thinking a lot about how different it would be had gerald and elliott had stayed.....at first blush, one might think they would have been even better as a team, but the total chemistry that evolved and won the title might never have been the same.....

it's interesting to think about the house of cards.....ONE SINGLE card removed or replaced and the out come could be totally different...

I think Elliot would have been great because if Duke has him, they have a more reliable 4th option, another good penetrator and we don't have to get Andre early since Andre was essentially taking Elliot's spot on the roster. I think Andre definetly helped the team at the end of the year, particularly improving on D, but Elliot seemed to mature with Memphis this year as a scorer, I think he could help this Duke team.

The entire dynamic of this team would have been different with G, he would have been the number one scoring option so the offense may have been designed around him. However since this was more of a half court physical team, I'm not sure how his style would have meshed with this team.

[davekay1971]

As far as the OP, I tend to agree that the decision to insert Zoubs into the starting lineup was the single most important decision of the season. It solidified the character of the team as being rough, tough, bruising, half-court basketball. On the offensive end, we weren't pretty, but we could bang, get second chances, and be brutally efficient. On the defensive end, we were always good, but we became great, and rarely gave opponents second looks. Again, brutally effecient.

I understand the thinking that having G and/or E may have led us down a different road that didn't end in a national championship. This is certainly possible. But, at the same time, if there's one thing that defines Coach K's greatness, it's his ability to adjust his strategy to the available personnel. Let's assume G stays and E-Will doesn't have the family situation which led him to transfer. Probably Andre doesn't come early. That gives us a perimeter of Scheyer, Smith, Henderson, and EWill, along with Kyle, and an interior of Plumlee, Plumlee, Zoubs, and Thomas. That's a deep, athletic, talented team. It would have been a different year, and may not have turned out the same. As we know, it certainly couldn't have turned out better...but it would have still been a great year of Duke hoops.

[Wander]

In the early to middle part of the season, I didn't think we had a realistic shot at the national title unless Mason Plumlee started "getting it" and asserted himself as the fourth best player on the team. Just thought we were too dependent on the Big Three - not with minutes played or tired legs or anything like that, but from the "3 on 5" standpoint that was talked about after Villanova last year.

Obviously I was completely wrong - I didn't see Zoubek contributing the way that he did at all. And I had always thought comments like "he sets a good screen" were lame excuses that someone who's grasping for something positive to say about a role player would say, but, well, damn, he sets a good screen. The way K used Zoubek and Lance as "offensive linemen" was brilliant. I never thought I'd see a team that was THIS reliant on only three guys to score win the title, but we figured out a way to play 5 on 5 offense in other ways.

[sagegrouse]

The way K used Zoubek and Lance as "offensive linemen" was brilliant. I never thought I'd see a team that was THIS reliant on only three guys to score win the title, but we figured out a way to play 5 on 5 offense in other ways.

Bob Ryan had a brilliant observation in a column following the WVa rout, which others have quoted:


It is amazingly balanced, but not in the normal way. Duke balance has nothing to do with getting five men in double figures.

Duke’s balance lies in the fact that the Blue Devils have in its standard seven-man rotation three players whom the Brazilians would label “piano players’’ and four large fellows whom they would label “piano movers,’’ all between 6 feet 8 inches and 7-1.

The key is that the piano movers don’t mind doing all the heavy lifting, nor do they mind when the piano players take 45 of the team’s 55 shots.
Gee, I wish I had thought of that....

sagegrouse

[Zeke]

I'm interested in what it was that triggered Brian's change. It seemed that all of a sudden he started playing like a man possessed and all of his former problems dissapeared (except the tendency to foul which pretty much stopped in the final four). Was it just the fact that Coach K expressed confidence in him by starting him - or in other ways? Did he get some extra coaching that he hadn't gotten in the first 3 1/2 yrs? It certainly was impressive though. Anyone have an opinion?

[Duke76]

to the basket and hit those beautiful running teardrop shots to me was very important as well. Game after game he was a consistent scorer off the dribble and that opened it up for others. If we don't have a guard that can break down the defense we don't win, imo. Bobby Hurley, Jason Williams and now Nolan. The other point is that those guys were able to shut down key opposing guards on their title runs.

[Newton_14]

I'm interested in what it was that triggered Brian's change. It seemed that all of a sudden he started playing like a man possessed and all of his former problems dissapeared (except the tendency to foul which pretty much stopped in the final four). Was it just the fact that Coach K expressed confidence in him by starting him - or in other ways? Did he get some extra coaching that he hadn't gotten in the first 3 1/2 yrs? It certainly was impressive though. Anyone have an opinion?

It was a combination of things actually. First and foremost, he finally got thru an entire off-season and season injury free. Then there was a ton of hard work that per Brian himself was driven by Wojo. Next, he found a way to conquer the foul demons. Part of that was actually the ref's getting off his back and not calling so many ticky-tack fouls. In the first half of this year he played really well, but the fouling kept his minutes limited to about 15 per game. His per-40 stats, though, were great. Once he became a starter, he stopped fouling enough to allow him to get 30+ minutes a game which was mind-boggling. (In both FF games he had zero fouls at half-time despite playing 12 to 15 minutes in each)

And finally, (and this is from K), his mind-set changed and he developed an ego. He changed his demeanor to that of a dominant player. And he did dominate the glass from that point on. The rest as they say is history!

Side Note: In the WVU game, when he grabbed the offensive rebound and kicked it to Nolan for the 3, the look on the faces of the WVU guys was priceless. The guy behind Zoubs on the play, went up and swung wildly to block a shot attempt that never came. As he was doing that Zoubs was turning and firing the pass to Nolan. That was funny as heck.

[dukestheheat]

Certainly will have to agree that Zoubek's game against Maryland, scoring and rebounding like he did, set the tone for Duke for the rest of the season and helped Duke step it up a notch! Man oh man, what a great coach we have in K (aka, Superman)!

dth.

[Cockabeau]

Also I would like to point out that around the Maryland game for some reason the Refs started to let Z play. For his whole career up to around this point, Z would always get called for the cheap BS foul.

[Truth]

Also I would like to point out that around the Maryland game for some reason the Refs started to let Z play. For his whole career up to around this point, Z would always get called for the cheap BS foul.

Eh, I certainly wouldn't credit the refs for calling things differently. Up until the Maryland game you reference, Zoubek averaged 3.2 fouls per game. From the Maryland game onwards, it was 3.6.

So while Zoubek actually committed MORE fouls per game later in the season, his fouls per minute did decrease from 0.25 prior to MD to 0.16 afterwards.

Essentially, Zoubek still picked up fouls, but it took him longer to do so later in the season so he was able to contribute more.

[fgb]

Eh, I certainly wouldn't credit the refs for calling things differently. Up until the Maryland game you reference, Zoubek averaged 3.2 fouls per game. From the Maryland game onwards, it was 3.6.

So while Zoubek actually committed MORE fouls per game later in the season, his fouls per minute did decrease from 0.25 prior to MD to 0.16 afterwards.

Essentially, Zoubek still picked up fouls, but it took him longer to do so later in the season so he was able to contribute more.

you are arguing against yourself here.

[fgb]

We would have been different! IMO we would not have been better. I always saw Henderson as a black hole. He was somewhat single dimensional. He was not a good passer and tended to cause the rest of the team to become stagnant.

Elliot, IMO, had a high desire for the flash, slash and spectacular. That trait would have hurt this year's team.

IMO we were better off without them both. As it turned out, I was correct.

hindsight is 20/20; absolutely, we won, and i wouldn't change a thing. that said, would i ever in the future tell a player like g: thanks, but no thanks, we'll be better off without you?

one year ago, not knowing what we all know now, hell yes, i'd want g and elliot back. i thought they cwould have been great additions to this year's team. and, truth be told, i'm not sure that isn't true.

fast forward to right now: you want to tell someone like austin rivers that, as good as he may be, we might be better off as a team without him? not me; i'd rather have the guy on board, and trust k to make it work one more time.

[Truth]

you are arguing against yourself here.

If you say so, but I think my point that Zoubek's improved performance is attributable to a lower rate of fouling, not to less overall fouling (and therefore playing less in foul trouble since he was actually in more trouble MORE post-Maryland) is pretty lucid.

[fgb]

that is what i mean: a lower rate of fouling and less overall fouling are essentially the same thing.

which is not to say you are not on to something. clearly either z finally figured something out and was fouling less, or the refs finally began to see him in perspective, and began to think a little more before they whistled. probably a combination of both.

[superdave]

The game slowed down for Brian Zoubek. That's the easiest way to describe his change in performance. Everything from screening without moving, offensive rebounding without going over the back, defending the post without reaching - they all improved just enough for Zoubek to stay on the court longer while increasing his productivity.

[fgb]

sort of the second stage, maybe, of his former traveling problem (remember that?). he did used to travel quite a bit; however, i also thought that he was whistled for traveling a lot more than he actually traveled. sort of a toxic combination of officials anticipating his walking based on his play at that time, combined with the "optical illusion" created by the amount of space he is able to cover without lifting his pivot foot.

[dukeimac]

Actually, I think it all turned around when Coach started listening to the smart fans and cut players time. The fact that he benched them more and played the bench was critical. Because the starters were so fresh for the tourney was key.

Tongue in check, where are those smart fans anyway.:D

[roywhite]

I recall reading a prediction 4 years ago by one of the board's more astute posters, stickdog, I think, that Brian Zoubek would be a very productive player by his junior year. His injuries slowed that time table down, but he saved the best for the last half of his senior season.

Zoub's play made a huge difference for this team.

[fgb]

The game slowed down for Brian Zoubek. That's the easiest way to describe his change in performance. Everything from screening without moving, offensive rebounding without going over the back, defending the post without reaching - they all improved just enough for Zoubek to stay on the court longer while increasing his productivity.

TOTALLY agree with you; we all just saw him suddenly "get it". that eureka moment is one of the most amazing things to witness in terms of player development, and we were incredibly lucky to see it happen when it did. (though not as lucky as zoubs, who could very well parlay that moment into an nba contract.)

good lord, how i wish the guy had redshirted one of his injury years. but i will not dwell on that; i will not.

(but could anyone imagine?)

[hq2]

Obviously, both the Maryland and Georgetown games were both turning points. It's easy to say Maryland was more important because Zoubs started stepping up, but I think Georgetown was equally important. It was important because K and everyone realized that no way was this going to be an NCAA tournament team playing the way they did in that game; they were going to have to completely redesign the offense to get better shots and more drives. It was kind of what happened when Boozer got hurt in 2001; it forced K to start Casey, and made the team run more to use Casey's foot speed against bigger players, which resulted in Duke winning the ACC and making the final four without Boozer. The redesigned motion offense this year was much, much better, and resulted in many more good shots than Duke got before. That was a huge turning point.

[devildownunder]

Zoubek's emergence is unquestionably what made this team a real contender. The other parts of the puzzle were factors that were there last year -- more or less -- and just needed to be tweaked or refined somewhat. For example, Kyle was a big-time scorer last year, we just had to find a way for him to be able to do the same thing this time around. Nolan taking his offense to another level in the tournament was also played a big part in what put the team over the top.

But when I think of moments that were turning points for the team, I think of the second half of the Purdue game and the five minutes or so of game time immediately after Baylor made its late-first half run in the regional finals. That means Andre Dawkins, even with all he went through this season, still made a critical contribution to the team's great success.

[Jumbo]

Obviously, both the Maryland and Georgetown games were both turning points. It's easy to say Maryland was more important because Zoubs started stepping up, but I think Georgetown was equally important. It was important because K and everyone realized that no way was this going to be an NCAA tournament team playing the way they did in that game; they were going to have to completely redesign the offense to get better shots and more drives. It was kind of what happened when Boozer got hurt in 2001; it forced K to start Casey, and made the team run more to use Casey's foot speed against bigger players, which resulted in Duke winning the ACC and making the final four without Boozer. The redesigned motion offense this year was much, much better, and resulted in many more good shots than Duke got before. That was a huge turning point.

But I'm not really saying it was the Maryland game or the Georgetown game. I'm not saying it was a game at all. I'm saying Lance Thomas' injury forced changes that might not have occurred, but proved critical.

I also quibble with the idea of K "completely redesigning the offense." Did he tweak it? Yes. Completely redesign it? Not at all.

[slower]

hindsight is 20/20; absolutely, we won, and i wouldn't change a thing. that said, would i ever in the future tell a player like g: thanks, but no thanks, we'll be better off without you?

one year ago, not knowing what we all know now, hell yes, i'd want g and elliot back. i thought they cwould have been great additions to this year's team. and, truth be told, i'm not sure that isn't true.

fast forward to right now: you want to tell someone like austin rivers that, as good as he may be, we might be better off as a team without him? not me; i'd rather have the guy on board, and trust k to make it work one more time.

Why are you trying to compare these two issues? Nobody "told" G or Elliott anything about being "better off" without them.

This has NOTHING to do with the recruitment of Austin Rivers.

[wilson]

...Lance Thomas' injury forced changes that might not have occurred, but proved critical.I think it's absolutely true that the season's turning point happened between the first carolina game and the first Maryland game. But I read in one of the post-championship articles a quote from Chris Collins where he said that after the Dean Dome, the coaches conferred and determined that the team had reached a plateau of sorts, and would not improve any further without some adjustments. I think that, combined with Lance's injury, prompted the lineup change for Zoubs' breakout against the twerps.
I wish I could find the link for the article where I read the quote, but Lord knows I've read dozens of post-championship pieces.:o

[Olympic Fan]

Has anbody else noticed that this is the second year in a row that Coach K and his staff have revamped the lineup in early February.

A year ago, it was a radical re-design after Nolan melted down at PG and Paulus couldn't step up when he was briefly inserted into the starting role. Did any of use say, "Hmm, the answer is to move Jon to point and bring Elliot off the end of the bench and have him apply the on-the-ball pressure than Jon can't do"?

That revamp turned the '08-09 season around. Duke had lost four of six games before the lineup switch ... they won 10 of 12 down the stretch with Jon at point.

Flash forward to this year. The change was less desperate -- Duke was 7-3 in the previous 10 games, although it should be noted that the team was sputtering a bit, clawing out close road wins against two bad teams (BC and UNC). K's response was equally unexpected -- be honest, how many of you thought the answer was "Move Zoubek into the starting lineup."? A 15-1 finish followed.

It reminds me of our last national title in 2001. Before Carlos Boozer broke his foot in the next-to-last regular season game, Duke was supposed to be too small and too thin to win it all. Then you take away the team's best big man (who averaged 33 minutes a game). There was a lot of debate as to whether K would respond by merely plugging in soph Casey Sanders in the middle or whether he'd go small by replacing Boozer with sixth-man freshman guard Chris Duhon.

NOBODY suspected that he would do both -- Sanders started at center (getting surprising help from Reggie Love) and Duhon started in place of fifth-year senior Nate James (who took over Duhon's sixth man role). It transformed the team -- leading the Boozer-less Devils to a victory at UNC in the regular season title, three wins in the ACC Tournament in Atlanta and four straight NCAA wins before Boozer returned to play a major role in the Final Four.

I admit that I am in awe of Coach K's ability to re-tool his team on the fly -- in unexpected ways. For all the second-guessing he gets from the experts on this (and other) message boards and in the media, maybe we should realize that he knows a little more about basketball than we do. I'm not saying he can't be wrong, but he's right a lot more often than any of us are.

[MChambers]

For all the second-guessing he gets from the experts on this (and other) message boards and in the media, maybe we should realize that he knows a little more about basketball than we do. I'm not saying he can't be wrong, but he's right a lot more often than any of us are.
But what would we do with our time if we couldn't second guess every decision?;)

[UrinalCake]

Associated with the insertion of Zoubek into the starting lineup was a firming up of the rotation - Z and Thomas started, and the Plumlee brothers would come in at around the 15-16 minute mark. The second "shift" would play together for 3-4 minute spurts a couple times per half, unless someone got into foul trouble.

Up until that point in the season there wasn't really a consistent rhythm to how the four bigs were used. I think that by establishing this set pattern, each of the guys knew what would be expected of them. Also, the Plumlees seemed to play really well together and they give a totally different look than Z and Lance, forcing opponents to adjust.

The downside of this is that Kelly got pushed almost entirely out; hopefully he will be able to bring it next season.

[fgb]

Why are you trying to compare these two issues? Nobody "told" G or Elliott anything about being "better off" without them.

not sure why you think i said someone "told" them that; if anything, i'm sure that they were told the opposite. i'm also sure anyone in a position to tell them anything would have believed the opposite. what i was responding to was something that another poster on this board said:


We would have been different! IMO we would not have been better. I always saw Henderson as a black hole. He was somewhat single dimensional. He was not a good passer and tended to cause the rest of the team to become stagnant.

Elliot, IMO, had a high desire for the flash, slash and spectacular. That trait would have hurt this year's team.

IMO we were better off without them both. As it turned out, I was correct.

[fgb]

This has NOTHING to do with the recruitment of Austin Rivers.

i was making an analogy: believing one year ago that we'd be better off without gerald and elliot is like believing right now that we'd be better off without rivers.

[devildownunder]

Associated with the insertion of Zoubek into the starting lineup was a firming up of the rotation - Z and Thomas started, and the Plumlee brothers would come in at around the 15-16 minute mark. The second "shift" would play together for 3-4 minute spurts a couple times per half, unless someone got into foul trouble.

Up until that point in the season there wasn't really a consistent rhythm to how the four bigs were used. I think that by establishing this set pattern, each of the guys knew what would be expected of them. Also, the Plumlees seemed to play really well together and they give a totally different look than Z and Lance, forcing opponents to adjust.

The downside of this is that Kelly got pushed almost entirely out; hopefully he will be able to bring it next season.

I think Kelly plays a lot next season.

[Jumbo]

Just for another stroll down memory lane, here's the thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19396)on Lance's knee injury immediately after the win at UNC.

[greybeard]

There's no arguing with Jumbo, even when he's dead wrong, which I certainly wouldn't say is the case here. However, I think that Zoubek was on the move and would likely have moved to a dominant roll whether Lance went down before the Maryland game or not. So while the game was amazing theater and a seminal event in the season, I'm not sure it is the event that is the turning point visa via where this thing ended.

And, K's decision to change the nature of the looks Singler was getting. That had to happen sooner or later. Heck, it is the one thing in all the years that Jumbo and I came close to agreeing upon before it happened, although we did have different takes on what needed to happen. Good thing that K borrowed a little from both of us.

Where one can argue that this season turned was "the shot." K goes to his captain with the ACC Championship on the line, a captain who was struggling (you think) with his shot, and the ACC Championship according to the pundits being perhaps the most that Duke could hope for, and Jon knocked that sucker down.

K wants the ball in the hands of his senior leader at such times--not only have they earned it, but I also think more importantly that K thinks that they are ready emotionally to handle it, whether it goes in or not. (Often, for an underclassman, it can be more difficult to handle long term if the thing goes in but that is for another discussion). Jon's footwork was impecible and needed to be, he made a great catch off a contested little shuffle pass, got his balance and in one movement let it go, lofted, no aim, trusting in everything. A moment, Duke was going to be at its best when it needed to.

But, I actually think that the "shot" might come in second.

The turning point, in my view, with respect to a Championship, was the second half against Purdue. Since there is no second half without Kyle's first half, I am tempted to say that Kyle's first half was the seminal turning point of the Championship season. A team tried to wrench Duke's Championship run from its hands the way a bully does, and Kyle looked the bully dead in the eye and just smiled--been there, done that, game's on.

But, what the heck, I'm going to go with the senior again. Jon is still struggling, without him whether they lose to Purdue or not hardly even matters, and following Kyle's lead and K's hand-to-hand combat tips during half time, that five basket run in which Scheyer got all schoolyard against Purdue, dribbling it around, picking his spots, and then finishing with slow, unathletic moves that had guys flying past, over, left or right of him.

Scheyer was back and the game was on for the final run.

As I'm finishing this, while I think that the turning point was oh so much Scheyer's reemergence as a scorer after he had lost it for whatever reason(s), it might well have been that first half against Purdue where they came out to man handle Duke off the court, and Kyle rose up and punched the bully square in the nose.

Hey, let's face it, there were a number of them, and what is so remarkable, so many different players were involved. Many special moments. Many special playres. Not a bad outcome.

Go Brian Zoubek!