PDA

View Full Version : How good will the 2010-11 MBB team be?



umdukie
04-20-2010, 12:06 AM
I know that Irving and Mason can't compare with Lawson or Hansbrough but I think we're SINGNIFICANTLY better at spots 2,3 and 4 with Smith, Singler and Hairston/R. kelly.

Thoughts?

Welcome2DaSlopes
04-20-2010, 12:10 AM
Wow as I was going to sleep, and couldn't because I was so excited Singler was staying, I thought the same thing. But no I don't think we are as good, because that teams starting 5 with to the final four one year and ALL came back to win it all. That's a lot of experience they had, when really we have a lot of new guys on our team.

Duvall
04-20-2010, 12:10 AM
I know that Irving and Mason can't compare with Lawson or Hansbrough but I think we're SINGNIFICANTLY better at spots 2,3 and 4 with Smith, Singler and Hairston/R. kelly.

Thoughts?

I think that's an odd question to ask about a team that doesn't exist yet.

-jk
04-20-2010, 12:13 AM
Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves - we get Kyle for one more year, but we're losing a lot of experience and leadership. There'll be some bumps in the road while we get readjusted.

-jk

Big Pappa
04-20-2010, 12:16 AM
Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves - we get Kyle for one more year, but we're losing a lot of experience and leadership. There'll be some bumps in the road while we get readjusted.


I agree with jk. Also, I know that Lawson was obviously a more polished player but I honestly think that Kyrie has the talent to end up being a better player. Especially if he sticks around like Lawson did.

Vincetaylor
04-20-2010, 12:40 AM
I think the rest of the country was better in 2008-2009 than it will be next year. Next year will be a very, very weak year talent wise in college basketball. I'm not sure if Duke will be as good as that UNC team, but I certainly think the gap between Duke and the rest of the country can be as great as the gap that UNC team had.

-bdbd
04-20-2010, 01:05 AM
Don't really CARE much about the 08-09 NC@CH team. Irrelevant.

This will be a very good Duke team and certainly one that will contend for another NC. That's all that matters.


:D

TheRob8801
04-20-2010, 01:11 AM
I...with Smith, Singler and Hairston/R. kelly.

Pre-scandal R.Kelly or post? I feel like that experience will mean a lot when we go up against younger players.

Big Pappa
04-20-2010, 01:16 AM
Pre-scandal R.Kelly or post? I feel like that experience will mean a lot when we go up against younger players.

Almost hate to admit it but that made me laugh.

cptnflash
04-20-2010, 01:29 AM
Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves - we get Kyle for one more year, but we're losing a lot of experience and leadership. There'll be some bumps in the road while we get readjusted.

-jk

Full on agreement. We have sure things at two positions, but elsewhere we still have question marks (can KI run the point as a freshman, can the Plumlees defend without fouling, can Curry score against quality competition, etc.). The only question mark for the 08/09 Heels was whether they would take a night off defensively in the tournament against a team good enough to make them pay for it. And they were smart enough not to.

COYS
04-20-2010, 01:33 AM
I know that Irving and Mason can't compare with Lawson or Hansbrough but I think we're SINGNIFICANTLY better at spots 2,3 and 4 with Smith, Singler and Hairston/R. kelly.

Thoughts?

Personally, I take Duke 2009-2010 over UNC the previous year. Duke takes care of the ball and prevents fast break opportunities. Scheyer takes Ellington out of the game . . . again. Our depth down low matches UNC on the boards and we have enough defenders to make Thompson a non-factor. Lawson and Hansbrough get theirs, but UNC's offense bogs down in the half-court against our defense as the game wears on. With Green and Ellington unable to get open looks from three against the best three point defense in the country and UNC with no one to match up with Singler, Duke's big three become too much for UNC's two and we pull away late and win by five.

Greg_Newton
04-20-2010, 01:50 AM
It's important to keep in mind that this team will only have 3 upperclassmen on it and will start a freshman PG. Given that, I don't think it's very comparable to a team like UNC '09.

However, this is the most firepower we've had on a roster since the 99-02 redonkulousness. I mean, look at the NBA talent we'll have:

4 NBA locks: Singler, Irving, Mason and Nolan. All would be drafted if they were in this year's draft, with only Nolan slipping to the 2nd round.

2 more probable (50%+) NBAers: Curry and Miles. Curry is probably closer to a lock, but I'll reserve judgment until he plays. Miles needs work, but at a solid 6'10 with a 45" vertical, he'd have to have a disastrous 2 years to not get a shot.

4 more very possible NBA players: Dawkins, Hairston, Felix, Kelly. Dawkins and Hairston are on the right track, but are too young to predict anything about. Felix certainly fits the bill physically/athletically, but is still a total unknown. And I would actually bet on Kelly making the league if I had to choose... he's got a lot more under the hood than we saw this year. 6'10" with his skillset is a unique prospect.

I mean, that's nuts. We'll be young, but that is some serious, serious talent. This is going to be fun to watch.

RockLobster
04-20-2010, 01:52 AM
I know that Irving...can't compare with Lawson

Um, what?

Irving is an elite-level point guard. From early reports, he has a skill set similar to Lawson's.

We won't know anything until the season starts, but I expect great things from Irving.

soccerstud2210
04-20-2010, 01:52 AM
Personally, I take Duke 2009-2010 over UNC the previous year. Duke takes care of the ball and prevents fast break opportunities. Scheyer takes Ellington out of the game . . . again. Our depth down low matches UNC on the boards and we have enough defenders to make Thompson a non-factor. Lawson and Hansbrough get theirs, but UNC's offense bogs down in the half-court against our defense as the game wears on. With Green and Ellington unable to get open looks from three against the best three point defense in the country and UNC with no one to match up with Singler, Duke's big three become too much for UNC's two and we pull away late and win by five.

i think the talent is there. don't forget we are losing 3 starters. our main big man and rebounder. our ball hawk versatile defender. and our leader ball handler.

thats a lot to lose.

do i think irving is the hype? oh ya. after watching that kid in the jordan game, the kid gives me chills. do i think mason and miles can continue to progress into zoubs blocking and rebounding? ya i think with some work this summer. but who takes over our ball hawk versatile defender? not sure yet.

we will be young. i like that. but too young always shows itself in the tourney. just ask wall and cousins.

not saying we won't be good next year, because i think we will. we have a change to be REALLY good. but there is a lot missing from this yrs NC team when we step on the court for our first game next season!

as always,

GO DUKE!

COYS
04-20-2010, 01:58 AM
i think the talent is there. don't forget we are losing 3 starters. our main big man and rebounder. our ball hawk versatile defender. and our leader ball handler.

thats a lot to lose.

do i think irving is the hype? oh ya. after watching that kid in the jordan game, the kid gives me chills. do i think mason and miles can continue to progress into zoubs blocking and rebounding? ya i think with some work this summer. but who takes over our ball hawk versatile defender? not sure yet.

we will be young. i like that. but too young always shows itself in the tourney. just ask wall and cousins.

not saying we won't be good next year, because i think we will. we have a change to be REALLY good. but there is a lot missing from this yrs NC team when we step on the court for our first game next season!

as always,

GO DUKE!

Sorry to be confusing, but I meant that I would take this year's championship team in a game against UNC's most recent championship team. Next year's team has to win the title to be in the discussion.

soccerstud2210
04-20-2010, 02:05 AM
Sorry to be confusing, but I meant that I would take this year's championship team in a game against UNC's most recent championship team. Next year's team has to win the title to be in the discussion.

Sorry COYS, i didn't mean to quote excerpt your post! oops. i meant to quote -jk's post about not getting ahead of ourselves. sorry for the confusion. wasn't disagreeing with you or calling you out :D

hedevil
04-20-2010, 03:41 AM
Obviously you can't accomplish anything more than this NC team did. NC, ACC champs, undefeated at home, NIT preseason tourny, sweeping Carolina, and regular season ACC champs. I love what they did, and who they did it with, when no one gave them much of a chance. All that being said, I think this next team has more than a fine chance of being even better. Mainly due to depth.

With an extra year at the collegiate level, I would expect all of the following to take an extra step forward: Kyle, Nolan, Andre, Kelly, Miles, and Mason. I believe these guys will all improve (in some capacity) from the previous year. While we are losing three solid players, we are also gaining six better than before players. Add to that the #3 player in the incoming class (true point guard). Two talented freshman, a Juco player with one year of collegiate experience, and the guy I really can't wait to see in Seth Curry. Seth was the highest scoring freshman in the nation during his freshman year, averaged 25 points versus two ACC teams, and did so on a team where I'm sure he was the focus of opposing defenses. Guess what? It didn't matter. The guy should only get better on a team with much more talent, where he will be able to get better opportunities due to the various weapons that defenses will have to respect.

For me, when it comes to Seth, instead of him proving to me that he has game, I will wait for someone (opposing teams) to prove otherwise. He has the endorsements of his teammates, K, brother Stephen and father Dale, all of whom I think are better qualified than I to question the boy's skills.

LSanders
04-20-2010, 03:52 AM
we will be young. i like that. but too young always shows itself in the tourney. just ask wall and cousins.

I basically agree with a lot of your points ... One notable exception, however, is that Wall, Cousins, et al only had Cal to lean on in crunch time. Our boys have K. So, yes, we will be young, but I can guarantee you, we will be MUCH better prepared for what comes down the track than KY.

MChambers
04-20-2010, 06:35 AM
It's important to keep in mind that this team will only have 3 upperclassmen on it and will start a freshman PG. Given that, I don't think it's very comparable to a team like UNC '09.

However, this is the most firepower we've had on a roster since the 99-02 redonkulousness. I mean, look at the NBA talent we'll have:

4 NBA locks: Singler, Irving, Mason and Nolan. All would be drafted if they were in this year's draft, with only Nolan slipping to the 2nd round.

2 more probable (50%+) NBAers: Curry and Miles. Curry is probably closer to a lock, but I'll reserve judgment until he plays. Miles needs work, but at a solid 6'10 with a 45" vertical, he'd have to have a disastrous 2 years to not get a shot.

4 more very possible NBA players: Dawkins, Hairston, Felix, Kelly. Dawkins and Hairston are on the right track, but are too young to predict anything about. Felix certainly fits the bill physically/athletically, but is still a total unknown. And I would actually bet on Kelly making the league if I had to choose... he's got a lot more under the hood than we saw this year. 6'10" with his skillset is a unique prospect.

I mean, that's nuts. We'll be young, but that is some serious, serious talent. This is going to be fun to watch.

We'll have two senior starters and one junior starter returning. After that, Duke will be a little young, but not all that young.

oldnavy
04-20-2010, 07:03 AM
We'll have two senior starters and one junior starter returning. After that, Duke will be a little young, but not all that young.

To add a little to that, our two seniors are not exactly wall flowers either (not that anyone said they were). BOTH have demonstrated an impressive desire to succeed and true leadership skills. Yes LT and Jon were the leaders of this years team, but does anybody really see a drop off in leadership with Kyle and Nolan as seniors?? To me the question mark is going to be how much the Plumlee's improve, much like my question at the beginning of last year was with Nolan. If we get a bump from MP1 and MP2 like we did from Nolan last year (clearly a better player), well... let's just say that we have the potential to be a very special team next year. I am highly optimistic with what we have coming back. In fact I would by a season ticket to the practices if such a thing existed. Can you imagine the intensity that will be on display in the scrimmages?? WOW!

jdj4duke
04-20-2010, 07:13 AM
Why worry or speculate about any Carolina team except one we are about to play?

BobbyFan
04-20-2010, 07:33 AM
UNC's 2009 team is overrated. They were a great offensive team, but too ordinary on defense to be considered anything more than an average championship team.

sagegrouse
04-20-2010, 08:38 AM
Thread Title: "Will Duke 2010-2011 be as good as Carolina 2008-2009?"

Why do some otherwise loyal Duke posters persist in defining the world in terms of our rival?

I am interested primarily in whether Duke 2011 is as good as Duke 2010.

sagegrouse

dukefan75
04-20-2010, 09:55 AM
Fair enough, as a recent new poster, some were taken aback yesterday when i posted a discussion about some negative consequences of Singler's return. To be fair to my opinions, the positives far outweigh the opposite. It was just meant to discuss. But to focus on those positives-- let me begin a thread about how dominant next season can be. Seriously, this team will and can flirt with an undefetaed record next year. There is no team in the ACC even in their ballpark (obv UNC included), and the game at large is slightly watered down next year from the underclassmen leaving en masse.

So you want me to focus on the positives, how about that-- think of the picture of the domination next year with coach K breaking all-time wins record just as the team goes for the back-to-back. senior nights for singler/smith capping off 2 monster years.

As to all the people that have watched KI's pre-college ball know, they ae getting a special talent with the ball. He will make every guy on this team better. We all saw what they can do with open looks-- there will be plenty of those next year-- u think curry will miss many open looks...There will be plenty of ball to go around next year, bc the slow down game will be a thing of the past. So star egos will easy be placated bc scoring/offensive numbers will go way up across the board in a new style of game. Anyone suggesting KI's minutes will be 25 or under is kidding themselves. We get a talent like this once every 10 years-- he will be playing all day. There is a reason why he can/will be a top 3 NBA draft pick as early as 2011. It will be his show from day 1 and his up tempu ball wizadry will provide easy opportunities to the whole team. Get ready for domination next year. We can banter all we want about Felix/Kelly/Hairston and all the complementary players. But at the end of the day look out... Start the undefeated chatter.

How is that for optimism...

slower
04-20-2010, 10:01 AM
Fair enough, as a recent new poster, some were taken aback yesterday when i posted a discussion about some negative consequences of Singler's return. To be fair to my opinions, the positives far outweigh the opposite. It was just meant to discuss. But to focus on those positives-- let me begin a thread about how dominant next season can be. Seriously, this team will and can flirt with an undefetaed record next year. There is no team in the ACC even in their ballpark (obv UNC included), and the game at large is slightly watered down next year from the underclassmen leaving en masse.

So you want me to focus on the positives, how about that-- think of the picture of the domination next year with coach K breaking all-time wins record just as the team goes for the back-to-back. senior nights for singler/smith capping off 2 monster years.

As to all the people that have watched KI's pre-college ball know, they ae getting a special talent with the ball. He will make every guy on this team better. We all saw what they can do with open looks-- there will be plenty of those next year-- u think curry will miss many open looks...There will be plenty of ball to go around next year, bc the slow down game will be a thing of the past. So star egos will easy be placated bc scoring/offensive numbers will go way up across the board in a new style of game. Anyone suggesting KI's minutes will be 25 or under is kidding themselves. We get a talent like this once every 10 years-- he will be playing all day. There is a reason why he can/will be a top 3 NBA draft pick as early as 2011. It will be his show from day 1 and his up tempu ball wizadry will provide easy opportunities to the whole team. Get ready for domination next year. We can banter all we want about Felix/Kelly/Hairston and all the complementary players. But at the end of the day look out... Start the undefeated chatter.

How is that for optimism...

Perhaps a bit over the top, but not entirely unexpected. ;)

dukefan75
04-20-2010, 10:08 AM
yes obvious that some replies are easy to be-- lets not get ahead of ourselves. a bit extreme. But at the end of the day, this past team lost 5 games all year. I think most on this site agree next year's team will be a better overall team. So instead of 5 losses, is 2 or 3 likely? At that point its splitting hairs-- why not zero? just throwing it out there. The 1992 team lost twice all year as defending champs. Its my opinion given the loss of talent each year nationwide, this team can surpass that.

MrBisonDevil
04-20-2010, 10:10 AM
I think Duke will stay in the top-10 all year but I do not it will be easy to dominate. Our offense will be different from 09-10; therefore, we should expect major adjustment. It usually takes 20-games for Duke to fully get in the swing of things as a unit. My hope is that the underclassmen will be able to adjust early in the season.

Future NBA talent will win games (see Kentucky) but it is not enough to win a championship (see every team w/ major NBA talent). The only way to repeat as champions is if our underclassmen latch on to our offensive & defensive philosophies and they execute. That will take time.

skg2
04-20-2010, 10:11 AM
Before we get ahead of ourselves lets all remember that the most talented Duke team ever was the 99 team and due to whatever you want to believe (chemistry/being outcoached/luck) did not win a championship so next years team will not have a cakewalk no matter what we think - look what happened to kansas this year

Neals384
04-20-2010, 10:11 AM
Hi, Duke Fan 75, and welcome to the board. This is a wonderful place to discuss Duke Basketball; I hope you'll enjoy the board in the coming season as much as I do.

I'm sure you noticed a bit of testiness in a few of the responses to your other post. The rest of us were just trying to be polite and welcoming to a newby.

As you gain more familiarity with DBR, you will learn that some topics are discussed ad infinitum and can become annoying over time - "so and so will transfer if he doesn't get enough PT" is certainly one of them. As you now know, negativity is another. But I have to let you know, the counter to negativity is not unreasonable predictions of an undefeated team for the ages. We simply ask for excitement and realistic optimism about Duke BBall.

As a relative newby (170 posts in 2 years) to the board myself, I try to go the extra mile to fit in with the tone of the group. I've only started new topics a couple times. I try to add something original to existing topics when I can, but mostly I enjoy reading as much as I can about Duke BBall!

Neal

4decadedukie
04-20-2010, 10:12 AM
Thread Title: "Will Duke 2010-2011 be as good as Carolina 2008-2009?"

I am interested primarily in whether Duke 2011 is as good as Duke 2010.

sagegrouse


You bet! Lots of talent and athleticism without leadership, teamwork, character, tenacity, appropriate attitudes, and continuous team improvement assures nothing.

Devil in the Blue Dress
04-20-2010, 10:18 AM
Hi, Duke Fan 75, and welcome to the board. This is a wonderful place to discuss Duke Basketball; I hope you'll enjoy the board in the coming season as much as I do.

I'm sure you noticed a bit of testiness in a few of the responses to your other post. The rest of us were just trying to be polite and welcoming to a newby.

As you gain more familiarity with DBR, you will learn that some topics are discussed ad infinitum and can become annoying over time - "so and so will transfer if he doesn't get enough PT" is certainly one of them. As you now know, negativity is another. But I have to let you know, the counter to negativity is not unreasonable predictions of an undefeated team for the ages. We simply ask for excitement and realistic optimism about Duke BBall.

As a relative newby (170 posts in 2 years) to the board myself, I try to go the extra mile to fit in with the tone of the group. I've only started new topics a couple times. I try to add something original to existing topics when I can, but mostly I enjoy reading as much as I can about Duke BBall!

Neal

This is an excellent post.

I understand the desire to speculate about the future, but as others have pointed out repeatedly, the team has to play to reach the lofty aspirations and fantacies held by us fans. There is so much that can happen along the way as a season develops.

I look forward to a great season next year, but, at the moment, I intend to savor the results of the season just ended. :)

flyingdutchdevil
04-20-2010, 10:18 AM
I think Duke will stay in the top-10 all year but I do not it will be easy to dominate. Our offense will be different from 09-10; therefore, we should expect major adjustment. It usually takes 20-games for Duke to fully get in the swing of things as a unit. My hope is that the underclassmen will be able to adjust early in the season.

The offense that K will run will make everyone on this team happy. Within our starting 5, everyone will love to run the fast break. For the majority of the players on this team, that will be their preferred offense. With Kyrie, who looks born to run the fast break, everyone will excel.

I think the most amazing aspect of this National Championship team is their ability to learn and execute a new offense in less than a year. That is incredible!

SeattleIrish
04-20-2010, 10:24 AM
I'll fess up.

I've also been having fantasies of an undefeated season rolling around in the back of my mind. Going undefeated is certainly a looooooooooong shot, but I think we will be a dominant team next season.

This is going to be/has been a very enjoyable off season :)

s.i.

Johnboy
04-20-2010, 10:33 AM
But, as in the quote from Coach K that I posted on the "Worry about UNC?" thread, be happy with each win instead of merely relieved. High expectations can be a real burden - I hope next year's team will be as good as this year's team at being in the moment, taking it a game at a time and being euphoric about winning more than scared of losing.

What the heck, here's the quote (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/26428172/) again:
"Sometimes being here at Duke, because we've been very, very successful ... they expect you to be perfect. They don't look at process anymore,'' Krzyzewski said. "It's like, 'What, we haven't gone to the Final Four? What, we didn't win the national (title)? Very spoiled, and it ruins it a little bit — really, a lot.

"Part of that then becomes, you win, and sometimes you're just relieved to win,'' he added. "I'm not saying that it happens all the time, but it happens. At the end of that Spain game, most people would say, 'Weren't you relieved?' No, I wasn't. I was exhilarated. It was euphoric. It was the way it should be. That's the way it's going to be for the rest of my career here at Duke.''

billyj
04-20-2010, 10:37 AM
Dear father in heaven, forgive us....

but yeah, looking forward to next year's games.

monkey
04-20-2010, 11:05 AM
I think the loss of Zoubek will have a major impact in the first half of the season at least - hopefully by tourney time we will have tweaked things (more running, traditional pressure d) to overcome the loss. But if we couldn't go undefeated in 1998-99 (when people talked about it preseason and then we promptly lost to Cincinnati) I don't see how we do it this year. We also didn't do it in 2001-02, when we had a remarkable return of players from the 2000-01 championship squad, including that great junior core.

And, I hate to say it, but even though we are champions, last year's team was a very good team - but I think the right team could have beaten us even in the NCAAs.

So undefeated? Unlikely. It will be fun to watch though. And I'm hoping we don't follow the path of the two unfortunate aforementioned extraordinary talented teams - going undefeated really isn't something I'm wishing for...

tele
04-20-2010, 11:06 AM
Having Kyle come back is fantastic. So is Nolan returning. Having two junior starters returning from a National Championship team, in this day and age, just reinforces how very special a team that has been.

And next year? I don't think it is too soon to look ahead. I've been wondering how different the style of play might be. The team should be able to run more which is always fun to watch but doesn't always lead to wins. How well the team plays defense will always matter most when you play in March and April.

That said, last years team scored over a hundred points 5 times, I could see next years team doubling that number of games. The Cameron Crazies seemed to reclaim their place on the heights of fan exultation last season; with next years team, the Crazies may really get Cameron off the ground!

monkey
04-20-2010, 11:11 AM
Um, what?

Irving is an elite-level point guard. From early reports, he has a skill set similar to Lawson's.

We won't know anything until the season starts, but I expect great things from Irving.

Well this is the key question, IMO. Irving may be an awesome prospect but even Jason Williams had some rough patches as a freshman - and he had the ability to take over the game like few others at the position (and a junior J-Will would have destroyed a junior Lawson in a head to head match up, IMO)

ReformedAggie
04-20-2010, 11:20 AM
I hate counting hatched chickens when we just got the eggs -- but knocking on wood, tossing salt over my shoulder, turning around 3 times, hanging garlic on the door, and ohmmming til my throat is sore -- I think next year Duke is going to be fanfuntastic. The test for them (to me and what do I know?) will be to become a TEAM and not a bunch of really great players. Can't wait to watch it all unfold.

Kedsy
04-20-2010, 11:43 AM
Fair enough, as a recent new poster, some were taken aback yesterday when i posted a discussion about some negative consequences of Singler's return. To be fair to my opinions, the positives far outweigh the opposite. It was just meant to discuss. But to focus on those positives-- let me begin a thread about how dominant next season can be. Seriously, this team will and can flirt with an undefetaed record next year. There is no team in the ACC even in their ballpark (obv UNC included), and the game at large is slightly watered down next year from the underclassmen leaving en masse.

I thought the other thread was bad (needlessly negative, creating a controversy where none exists, etc.). This one bothers me almost as much (ridiculously high expectations, bad kharma, etc.). I can't discount the possibility that you might be a troll.

As to the subject matter of your latest opinion, the probability of an undefeated season is negligible -- so small it is not worth discussing. Nor do I think being undefeated will or should be a goal of the team. Championships should be a goal, improving as players and as a team over the course of the year, having fun and enjoying the moment. But would a 35-0 season be more enjoyable than 34-1 or 33-2 (assuming the loss/losses are not in tournament game(s))? Not for me.

In some ways it seems even the prospect of going undefeated can be detrimental to a team. In recent years, most teams that have been undefeated toward the end of the year have seemed to fall apart under the pressure of being undefeated. Better to be calm and loose and not have to think about all that other stuff. In my opinion, anyway.

SoCalDukeFan
04-20-2010, 11:51 AM
Since they went to the 64/65 team seeded tournament the schools that repeated as NC, Duke in '92 and Florida in '07 brought back most the team from the previous NC team.

The three players who are leaving were all very important to the team and for various reasons will be hard to replace - on and off the court.

I am very excited about next season. I will temper my optimism by remembering how hard it is to win the tournament.

Notice I said schools not teams. I am sure we will hear K say that this is a new team and they are not defending nor trying to repeat.

SoCal

soccerstud2210
04-20-2010, 11:56 AM
I basically agree with a lot of your points ... One notable exception, however, is that Wall, Cousins, et al only had Cal to lean on in crunch time. Our boys have K. So, yes, we will be young, but I can guarantee you, we will be MUCH better prepared for what comes down the track than KY.

agreed. a coach K crutch is a better and more established crutch then a CAL!

ACCBBallFan
04-20-2010, 12:25 PM
Having Kyle come back is fantastic. So is Nolan returning. Having two junior starters returning from a National Championship team, in this day and age, just reinforces how very special a team that has been.

And next year? I don't think it is too soon to look ahead. I've been wondering how different the style of play might be. The team should be able to run more which is always fun to watch but doesn't always lead to wins. How well the team plays defense will always matter most when you play in March and April.

That said, last years team scored over a hundred points 5 times, I could see next years team doubling that number of games. The Cameron Crazies seemed to reclaim their place on the heights of fan exultation last season; with next years team, the Crazies may really get Cameron off the ground!

Agreed. Absolutely no concern about next year's team scoring and scoring a lot. Turnovers go up as Duke plays a more uptempo higher risk game than Jon led. So more exciting on both ends of the floor.

How to replace Lance's defense (Kyle best option with Josh Hairston and Carrick Felix as his apprentices) and Zoub's rebounds, how to get more steals to make up for less rebounding will be the keys.

With Kyle back, Duke is not as reliant on certain players not getting into foul trouble as they were last year.

A little light on a proven WF to back up Kyle but good year to break in replacements like Dawkins, Felix and possibly Hairston, or go micro small with Nolan/Seth. Though Nolan would not be a replacement for following year, Austin Rivers or Quincy Miller might be.

Lots of reason for optimism but need to line up a potential replacement for Mason Plumlee after next year. Three or more good prospects being pursued.

CDu
04-20-2010, 12:30 PM
Since they went to the 64/65 team seeded tournament the schools that repeated as NC, Duke in '92 and Florida in '07 brought back most the team from the previous NC team.

The three players who are leaving were all very important to the team and for various reasons will be hard to replace - on and off the court.

I am very excited about next season. I will temper my optimism by remembering how hard it is to win the tournament.

Notice I said schools not teams. I am sure we will hear K say that this is a new team and they are not defending nor trying to repeat.

SoCal

Agreed. There will be several returning players next year, but I suspect next year's team will have very little similarity to this year's team. I agree with the poster who said that a happy medium is the way to go between identifying the negative extreme and the most positive opposite extreme of Singler's decision.

We were one of the best teams in the country this year. Next year's team will be completely different than this year's team. Furthermore, most of the OTHER teams in the NCAA will be different next year as well. As such, it's too early to say with any confidence whether next year's team will fare better or worse than this year's team did.

I think we should be very very good. I think we'll be one of the top-5 teams in the country. Exactly where we fall in the order is still very difficult to determine until we see what the team looks like on the floor together. There are just so many new faces, and so many familiar faces that will be taking on new roles.

jipops
04-20-2010, 12:34 PM
UNC's 2009 team is overrated. They were a great offensive team, but too ordinary on defense to be considered anything more than an average championship team.

http://kenpom.com/rate.php?y=2009

Statistics tell a different story. UNC was the 16th rated defense in '09, not outstanding but certainly not ordinary. They were ofcourse #1 in offensive efficiency. In my opinion, that '09 team would have crushed our '10 team. But that's all subjective anyways.

jipops
04-20-2010, 12:41 PM
To offer my opinion regarding the original post, my answer would be no.

UNC's '09 team featured an extremly talented core of players that had been playing together for at least 3 years. This is quite a valuable asset. Our '10-11 team will feature a core of players that are a mix of all different classes (fr - sr). So in that case, our team as whole will not have that asset yet we will still have a nice 2-man core with Smith and Singler.

Having said that, I'm not so sure we're even the best team THIS upcoming season even with Kyle back. Mich St. looks like the team to beat to me with all of its collective experience.

Duvall
04-20-2010, 12:44 PM
http://kenpom.com/rate.php?y=2009

Statistics tell a different story. UNC was the 16th rated defense in '09, not outstanding but certainly not ordinary. They were ofcourse #1 in offensive efficiency. In my opinion, that '09 team would have crushed our '10 team. .

That's a bit much. They notched an eight-point win at home over Duke's '09 squad - it's hard to see them doing much better against Duke's far superior '10 team. They might have an advantage, but not an overwhelming one.

MChambers
04-20-2010, 12:46 PM
Since they went to the 64/65 team seeded tournament the schools that repeated as NC, Duke in '92 and Florida in '07 brought back most the team from the previous NC team.

The three players who are leaving were all very important to the team and for various reasons will be hard to replace - on and off the court.

I am very excited about next season. I will temper my optimism by remembering how hard it is to win the tournament.

Notice I said schools not teams. I am sure we will hear K say that this is a new team and they are not defending nor trying to repeat.

SoCal
Boy, do I agree with this.

Remember how good that 1992 team was? Had Hurley, Laettner, the Hills, Brian Davis, and Tony Lang returning, and added Cherokee Parks, a top ten recruit. And it took Laettner's shot to beat Kentucky.

I'm just very happy that we'll have a very talented team, despite our key losses. And I hope Duke can win the ACC title again and also the NCAA title, but both of those are difficult to achieve.

DukeGirl4ever
04-20-2010, 01:02 PM
In some ways it seems even the prospect of going undefeated can be detrimental to a team. In recent years, most teams that have been undefeated toward the end of the year have seemed to fall apart under the pressure of being undefeated. Better to be calm and loose and not have to think about all that other stuff.

Agree 100%. I remember a few years ago when St. Joe's was undefeated towards the end of the season and the media kept hounding Martelli about being undefeated. His response was that he didn't care about being undefeated. He said if his team lost a game (at the end of the regular season) he wouldn't care as long as they showed improvement from the previous game. THAT'S what matters going in to post-season - improving and peaking at the right time.

DukieInBrasil
04-20-2010, 01:03 PM
Yes I am very excited about the prospects for next year's team, and I think that an undefeated season is within the realm of possibility, but as others have mentioned should not be an objective or a goal of the team, that's just counterproductive. The goal should be to win the last game to be played.

As for comments from people about personnel changes (and I know this idea has been broached by someone else, maybe Kedsy or CDu): but why should we be concerned about replacing, for example, LT's defense or Z's rebounding? Yes, both guys provided something absolutely essential to the success of last year's team, with all of its limitations, flaws and brilliance. Next year's team will not have the same flaws, limitations or brilliance. Instead it will have different limitations, flaws and (hopefully more) brilliance. Will we need to play good defense? Of course. Will we need to rebound the ball successfully? Of course. But the team won't need to replicate what last year's team did, they will need to identify what strengths they have and try to maximize them, as well as identify which weaknesses they have and try to minimize the exploitation of them. This is what Coach K excels at and what he did such an absolutely masterful job of during our National Championship run. It is entirely possible that he does it again.
I am very up on next year's team and fully expect it to be a lot of fun to be a fan of the Blue Devils next year!!!!

CrazieDUMB
04-20-2010, 01:08 PM
Don't forget, Zoubs was actually pretty effective against Hanstravel when he was in the game. In 09 he couldn't stay in the game long enough to make it matter, but I think in '10 he would have at least contained him pretty well.


Here's the stats between the major guys of UNC '09 and Duke '10


NAME GM MIN PTS REB AST TO A/T STL BLK PF FG% FT% 3P% PPS
Tyler Hansbrough 34 30.3 20.7 8.1 1.0 1.9 1/1.9 1.2 0.4 2.3 .514 .841 .391 1.62
Ty Lawson 35 29.9 16.6 3.0 6.6 1.9 3.5/1 2.1 0.1 1.7 .532 .798 .472 1.70
Wayne Ellington 38 30.4 15.8 4.9 2.7 1.6 1.6/1 0.9 0.2 1.5 .483 .777 .417 1.35
Danny Green 38 27.4 13.1 4.7 2.7 1.7 1.7/1 1.8 1.3 2.2 .471 .852 .418 1.27
Deon Thompson 38 24.8 10.6 5.7 0.7 1.3 1/1.8 0.9 1.1 2.2 .492 .646 .000 1.20
Ed Davis 38 18.8 6.7 6.6 0.6 1.1 1/1.8 0.4 1.7 1.9 .518 .573 .000 1.32

NAME GM MIN PTS REB AST TO A/T STL BLK PF FG% FT% 3P% PPS
Jon Scheyer 40 36.8 18.2 3.6 4.9 1.6 3/1 1.6 0.3 1.4 .399 .878 .383 1.37
Kyle Singler 40 35.9 17.7 7.0 2.4 2.0 1.2/1 1.0 0.8 2.2 .415 .798 .399 1.29
Nolan Smith 38 35.5 17.4 2.8 3.0 1.8 1.7/1 1.2 0.2 1.7 .441 .767 .392 1.22
Brian Zoubek 40 18.7 5.6 7.7 1.0 1.2 1/1.2 0.7 0.8 3.5 .638 .551 .000 1.58
Miles Plumlee 40 16.4 5.2 4.9 0.3 1.1 1/3.6 0.5 0.7 2.6 .561 .661 1.000 1.39
Lance Thomas 40 25.3 4.8 4.9 0.9 1.5 1/1.7 0.6 0.2 3.0 .439 .743 .000 1.23

As you can see, Ty and Danny Green go for 29.7 points and 9.3 dimes, while Jon and Noles go for 35.6 and 7.9. I think our 1-3 has definite advantage, but I doubt that we could have matched them down low on both sides of the ball. The end result looks closer than you might think.

Durhamrocks68
04-20-2010, 01:10 PM
Does Duke have the pieces to repeat as the NCAA Champion? With Kyle back, I believe so. Will it be easy? Of course not, but most teams can't put forth the key pieces necessary for a championship run. As Duke fans, we're lucky in that regard. Hall of Fame coaching and incredibly talented kids equals legendary program. Coach K will be licking his chops to put these pieces into play next year and I believe we will be the favorite to win it all. I'm not gloating, just enjoying the ride and looking forward to watching an extremely talented team take the court next year, with championships as their goal!

JohnGalt
04-20-2010, 01:15 PM
Over/Under 4.5 -

How many lean in fouls would Hansbrough get on a stationary Zoubs with his hands straight in the air?

I think we found the difference.

bird
04-20-2010, 01:18 PM
Having said that, I'm not so sure we're even the best team THIS upcoming season even with Kyle back. Mich St. looks like the team to beat to me with all of its collective experience.


Totally agree. We just won a national championship because of our experienced leadership, when other teams with a higher density of NBA talent flamed out, including a team starting a freshman point guard. Hurley was crazy and good as a freshman, but it was the experienced crazy good Hurley of later seasons who glued together the championship teams. I find it strange that any Duke fans would overlook a little thing like a likely starting freshman point guard in making bold predictions of future prowess.

Classof06
04-20-2010, 02:24 PM
Yes, we lose 3 seniors, but people forget that we will have 2 seniors in Kyle and Nolan and a Junior in Miles Plumlee. Scheyer, Thomas and Zoubek were pretty good leaders, but I think Duke will still have plenty of leadership next year.

I also think from a pure talent standpoint, Duke will be better next season than they were this year. Not to mention our depth will be as good as it's maybe ever been; we'll go 5 deep in the backcourt (Smith, Curry, Dawkins, Irving, Thornton) and 6 deep in the frontcourt (Singler, MP1, MP2, Kelly, Hairston and Felix). Simply put, Duke's stacked.

As a Cavs fan, I liken Duke next year to Cleveland this year; the pieces for a championship are there. Whether or not they get it done remains to be seen.

anon
04-20-2010, 02:36 PM
It's important to keep in mind that this team will only have 3 upperclassmen on it and will start a freshman PG. Given that, I don't think it's very comparable to a team like UNC '09.

However, this is the most firepower we've had on a roster since the 99-02 redonkulousness. I mean, look at the NBA talent we'll have:

4 NBA locks: Singler, Irving, Mason and Nolan. All would be drafted if they were in this year's draft, with only Nolan slipping to the 2nd round.

2 more probable (50%+) NBAers: Curry and Miles. Curry is probably closer to a lock, but I'll reserve judgment until he plays. Miles needs work, but at a solid 6'10 with a 45" vertical, he'd have to have a disastrous 2 years to not get a shot.

4 more very possible NBA players: Dawkins, Hairston, Felix, Kelly. Dawkins and Hairston are on the right track, but are too young to predict anything about. Felix certainly fits the bill physically/athletically, but is still a total unknown. And I would actually bet on Kelly making the league if I had to choose... he's got a lot more under the hood than we saw this year. 6'10" with his skillset is a unique prospect.

I mean, that's nuts. We'll be young, but that is some serious, serious talent. This is going to be fun to watch.

Kentucky '09-'10 ...

Duvall
04-20-2010, 02:39 PM
Kentucky '09-'10 ...

Started three freshmen, instead of two seniors. Citing Kansas '09-'10 would probably be more appropriate.

But the most talented team certainly does not always win.

JohnGalt
04-20-2010, 02:42 PM
It's important to keep in mind that this team will only have 3 upperclassmen on it and will start a freshman PG. Given that, I don't think it's very comparable to a team like UNC '09.

However, this is the most firepower we've had on a roster since the 99-02 redonkulousness. I mean, look at the NBA talent we'll have:

4 NBA locks: Singler, Irving, Mason and Nolan. All would be drafted if they were in this year's draft, with only Nolan slipping to the 2nd round.

2 more probable (50%+) NBAers: Curry and Miles. Curry is probably closer to a lock, but I'll reserve judgment until he plays. Miles needs work, but at a solid 6'10 with a 45" vertical, he'd have to have a disastrous 2 years to not get a shot.

4 more very possible NBA players: Dawkins, Hairston, Felix, Kelly. Dawkins and Hairston are on the right track, but are too young to predict anything about. Felix certainly fits the bill physically/athletically, but is still a total unknown. And I would actually bet on Kelly making the league if I had to choose... he's got a lot more under the hood than we saw this year. 6'10" with his skillset is a unique prospect.

I mean, that's nuts. We'll be young, but that is some serious, serious talent. This is going to be fun to watch.

Do you know how high that is?

Allow me to frame it for you:
Michael Jordan - 42"
LeBron James - 44"
Vince Carter - 43"
(etc.)

pantone287
04-20-2010, 03:08 PM
http://kenpom.com/rate.php?y=2009

Statistics tell a different story. UNC was the 16th rated defense in '09, not outstanding but certainly not ordinary. They were ofcourse #1 in offensive efficiency. In my opinion, that '09 team would have crushed our '10 team. But that's all subjective anyways.

If one is going to look at Kenpom is probably worth noting that the system indicates the Duke '10 team was stronger than the UNC '09 squad compared to the 344 teams they had to contend with (.9848 vs. .9770). Further it indicates that UNC '09 was the 2nd weakest title team in the past 7 seasons (Florida '06: .9739).

BD80
04-20-2010, 03:09 PM
Do you know how high that is?

Allow me to frame it for you:
Michael Jordan - 42"
LeBron James - 44"
Vince Carter - 43"
(etc.)

Greg Paulus 28.5"

Greg_Newton
04-20-2010, 03:19 PM
Do you know how high that is?

Allow me to frame it for you:
Michael Jordan - 42"
LeBron James - 44"
Vince Carter - 43"
(etc.)

To clarify, that's his running vertical. His standing is 36".

Feel free to take it up with Miles if you don't believe him!;) http://bluedevilnation.net/2009/10/bdn-interview-miles-plumlee-is-ready-for-the-season/

Big Pappa
04-20-2010, 03:22 PM
Kentucky '09-'10 ...

Not even close. Kentucky last year started 5 guys most games, I've listed their names and the amount of games they started in their college career prior to the season:

John Wall -0
Demarcus Cousins - 0
Eric Bledsoe - 0
Patrick Patterson - 59
Darius Miller - 2

For a grand total of - 61

If we assume that six guys have a good chance of starting the majority of the games next year (Kyrie, Nolan, Kyle, Seth, Miles and Mason) then put together we will have players who have started a grand total of -231.

231 games started to 61. As I said - Not even close

MChambers
04-20-2010, 03:26 PM
If one is going to look at Kenpom is probably worth noting that the system indicates the Duke '10 team was stronger than the UNC '09 squad compared to the 344 teams they had to contend with (.9848 vs. .9770). Further it indicates that UNC '09 was the 2nd weakest title team in the past 7 seasons (Florida '06: .9739).

The doubters will say that college basketball wasn't as good in 2010 as in 2009. How they quantify (or explain) this is beyond me.

Cockabeau
04-20-2010, 03:30 PM
Yes, we will miss Z and LT.

But we needed those screens and picks to free up Scheyer and Singler for the most part.

Kyrie will not have that problem as he possesses the quickness to blow by anyone. K will adapt and I think next years team is going to be D'Antoniesque.

K finally has the personnel to play the spread, lets see what happens :D

ChicagoCrazy84
04-20-2010, 03:32 PM
Yes, we lose 3 seniors, but people forget that we will have 2 seniors in Kyle and Nolan and a Junior in Miles Plumlee. Scheyer, Thomas and Zoubek were pretty good leaders, but I think Duke will still have plenty of leadership next year.

I also think from a pure talent standpoint, Duke will be better next season than they were this year. Not to mention our depth will be as good as it's maybe ever been; we'll go 5 deep in the backcourt (Smith, Curry, Dawkins, Irving, Thornton) and 6 deep in the frontcourt (Singler, MP1, MP2, Kelly, Hairston and Felix). Simply put, Duke's stacked.

As a Cavs fan, I liken Duke next year to Cleveland this year; the pieces for a championship are there. Whether or not they get it done remains to be seen.


Agreed. This team was possibly #1 pre-season WITHOUT Kyle and with him coming back, we are just stupid good. You get to a point with any good team and you ask yourself, can they lose? That UNC team in '08-'09 was a pretty sure thing of no, they can not. I am thinking the same thing with Duke next year, barring injury. Where do we have a weakness? A freshman PG maybe, but if he is struggling, put Nolan at the point and we wouldn't skip a beat.

In regards to Kansas this past year, they were the odds on favorite, but that spoke to the relative lack of talent across the board rather than their team make-up. If you think about it, KU was not as good as everyone cracked them up to be. Sherron Collins was overrated from day one and past him and a streaky Xavier Henry, their backcourt was very average. I would take Nolan, Kyrie, Dawkins, and Curry over them any day. We should not be compared to this team at all. Let's enjoy the ride boys, it's going to be a fun one.

CDu
04-20-2010, 03:35 PM
Yes, we will miss Z and LT.

But we needed those screens and picks to free up Scheyer and Singler for the most part.

Kyrie will not have that problem as he possesses the quickness to blow by anyone. K will adapt and I think next years team is going to be D'Antoniesque.

K finally has the personnel to play the spread, lets see what happens :D

Well, the "spread" is not a new thing for Coach K teams. We used to always have that option, and we typically used a 4-out approach. In fact, we had that option as recently as two years ago. I can't think of a Duke team that resembled what we did this year.

This team will be interesting in that we can return to the things we did in the Williams/Duhon era while also having the size and depth to go big like we did this year.

The only question is whether the team can come together as a unit with so many new faces and so many old faces in new roles.

JohnGalt
04-20-2010, 03:36 PM
To clarify, that's his running vertical. His standing is 36".

Feel free to take it up with Miles if you don't believe him!;) http://bluedevilnation.net/2009/10/bdn-interview-miles-plumlee-is-ready-for-the-season/

I'll take your word for it; thanks for the clarification. Generally speaking though, it seems to me when you mention someone's vertical without prefacing it with "running" it's taken to mean his standing.

CDu
04-20-2010, 03:38 PM
I'll take your word for it; thanks for the clarification. Generally speaking though, it seems to me when you mention someone's vertical without prefacing it with "running" it's taken to mean his standing.

I think the measurement of vertical (running or jumping) is subject to a great deal of measurement error. Further, comparing the verticals of players over a 30-year period is subject to even more measurement error. What we can probably agree on is that Plumlee can jump pretty darn high.

ChicagoCrazy84
04-20-2010, 03:39 PM
Yes, we will miss Z and LT.

But we needed those screens and picks to free up Scheyer and Singler for the most part.

Kyrie will not have that problem as he possesses the quickness to blow by anyone. K will adapt and I think next years team is going to be D'Antoniesque.

K finally has the personnel to play the spread, lets see what happens :D


We will have a completely different team with a completely different style of play, so it will be tough to say we are going to miss them. Zoobs size? Sure, but we're not exactly small now. LT's tenacity? Of course, but with so many bodies on the squad who are all extremely capable of playing the 4, the guy who will stand out will most likely be the guy that is relentless and plays his heart out. Competition breeds that. It will be interesting to see who wins out and who may be the odd man out.

JohnGalt
04-20-2010, 03:51 PM
I think the measurement of vertical (running or jumping) is subject to a great deal of measurement error. Further, comparing the verticals of players over a 30-year period is subject to even more measurement error. What we can probably agree on is that Plumlee can jump pretty darn high.

Agreed, chalk that up to semantics. It seems to be one of the glamorous measurements that isn't given much thought unless it's alarmingly low..or high for that matter.

Lar77
04-20-2010, 03:58 PM
Agree 100%. I remember a few years ago when St. Joe's was undefeated towards the end of the season and the media kept hounding Martelli about being undefeated. His response was that he didn't care about being undefeated. He said if his team lost a game (at the end of the regular season) he wouldn't care as long as they showed improvement from the previous game. THAT'S what matters going in to post-season - improving and peaking at the right time.

One thing from this year, as K noted several times, is that we learn from losses. The Georgetown game was a catalyst. After every other game that was a loss or a near loss (including the ACC championship, which got tight at the end), we became better because of it. I look forward to next year's team, but it has a lot of unknowns, and watching it develop will be what makes it fun.

JohnGalt
04-20-2010, 04:05 PM
I haven't seen it posted, but I think one of the most important reasons to celebrate Kyle returning is it gives us a proven third option in defending the post.

Much ado has been made about Kelly and how he needs to bulk up in order to assume a low-post defender's role on the team and, while that remains to be seen, Kyle returning fills that gap should either of the PlumTrees get into foul trouble. Personally, looking at Kelly's style of play along with his anatomical build, I have a hard time seeing him gaining a tremendous amount of weight. In line with many, I hope he does. Contrary to many, I don't think he will.

From what I've read, Hairston appears to be the classic face up 4 meaning - especially as a frosh - he'll have trouble sticking with the bigger low post bangers. Another year in the gym will do him well.


I do my best to temper my enthusiasm but similarly to Ozzie drifting in his paradigm of optimism, I struggle mightily.

Kedsy
04-20-2010, 04:07 PM
In regards to Kansas this past year, they were the odds on favorite, but that spoke to the relative lack of talent across the board rather than their team make-up. If you think about it, KU was not as good as everyone cracked them up to be. Sherron Collins was overrated from day one and past him and a streaky Xavier Henry, their backcourt was very average. I would take Nolan, Kyrie, Dawkins, and Curry over them any day. We should not be compared to this team at all. Let's enjoy the ride boys, it's going to be a fun one.

I saw Kansas play in person in December (against top 20 team Temple), and they were scary good. They lost in the NCAAT, but that doesn't mean they weren't the best team in the country. Duke will be really good next year, but it doesn't guarantee anything in the postseason.

Sandman
04-20-2010, 05:42 PM
I think the loss of Zoubek will have a major impact in the first half of the season at least - hopefully by tourney time we will have tweaked things (more running, traditional pressure d) to overcome the loss. But if we couldn't go undefeated in 1998-99 (when people talked about it preseason and then we promptly lost to Cincinnati) I don't see how we do it this year. We also didn't do it in 2001-02, when we had a remarkable return of players from the 2000-01 championship squad, including that great junior core.

And, I hate to say it, but even though we are champions, last year's team was a very good team - but I think the right team could have beaten us even in the NCAAs.

So undefeated? Unlikely. It will be fun to watch though. And I'm hoping we don't follow the path of the two unfortunate aforementioned extraordinary talented teams - going undefeated really isn't something I'm wishing for...

Great post, Monkey! An undefeated season is probabby just a wishfull fantasy. Our 99 team couldn't; the 91 UNLV team couldn't (thank you, God!); and thankfully, the 09 holes couldn't. I saw our team in person in the pre-season NIT and the Final 4, and watched all our other games on TV. Sometimes we looked great (Gonzaga); sometimes horrible (G'town), but what was beautiful to watch was the individual improvements and the development of awsome teamwork as the season progressed. It was like watching a flower sprout forth as a little green shoot and grow into something truly beautiful. We can only hope that the 2010-11 team will have similar development and grow into a highly tuned, powerfiull engine like the last year's team. It will be something wonderfull to watch!! GO DUKE - back-to-back again!!!!

Bo_Spice
04-20-2010, 05:50 PM
So our lineup next season :)

G - Kyrie Irving/Seth Curry/Tyler Thorton
G - Nolan Smith/Andre Dawkins
F - Kyle Singler/Carrick Felix
F - Miles Plumlee/Ryan Kelly
F - Mason Plumlee/Joshua Hairston

roywhite
04-20-2010, 06:06 PM
So our lineup next season :)

G - Kyrie Irving/Seth Curry/Tyler Thorton
G - Nolan Smith/Andre Dawkins
F - Kyle Singler/Carrick Felix
F - Miles Plumlee/Ryan Kelly
F - Mason Plumlee/Joshua Hairston

Not a bad lineup, eh, Bo?

Work on the spelling of Thornton.

Okay, I've resolved to point this out 1 dozen times on this board. I'm at 3 times already. :(

bluedevil2012
04-20-2010, 06:12 PM
So our lineup next season :)

G - Kyrie Irving/Seth Curry/Tyler Thorton
G - Nolan Smith/Andre Dawkins
F - Kyle Singler/Carrick Felix
F - Miles Plumlee/Ryan Kelly
F - Mason Plumlee/Joshua Hairston

I think there's two options here. Obviously we could go with this lineup, and maybe sub in Curry and Dawkins together for Irving and Smith (like the Plumlees did this year with Zoubs and Lance). That way we would see 4 guards split a good portion of PT. Or we could start 3 guards, but that would mean Kyle would have to play the 4. I'm not sure which we're gonna go with, but I'm pretty excited about both possibilities.

-bdbd
04-20-2010, 06:43 PM
So our lineup next season :)

G - Kyrie Irving/Seth Curry/Tyler Thorton
G - Nolan Smith/Andre Dawkins
F - Kyle Singler/Carrick Felix
F - Miles Plumlee/Ryan Kelly
F - Mason Plumlee/Joshua Hairston

I'm more inclined to see K play "the best 5." The fact of the matter is that our tralent and depth will be better in the BACKcourt. Certainly K will mix in different combos, keeping opponents off guard and optimizing matchups for us, but I see a more likely initial starting 5 of: Irving, Smith, Curry, Singler and MP2 (or MP1). Bigger opponents will require that we play with more size more of the time. But in general I think Seth Curry starts over Miles. Remember, this kid has played with this team for a year already, and as a Frosh averaged 21 PPG for a D1 school. As a Frosh, and while being a primary ball handler!

It is a good problem to have though.

I see this as a potential 30-win team before the NCAAT even starts, though anything can happen. And most of us will be more interested in what happens AFTER that point...on the road to Houston (FF).

Can't wait!!!

:D

dukefan75
04-20-2010, 07:24 PM
I agree with last post-- More times than not I think K will look to go with his best 5. There is no doubt in my mind that having all 3 guards on the floor together will be the best talent possible (KI/Nolan/seth). The struggle will be the commitment of Singler at the 3. Under any conditions where we play a smaller team where Kyle wont have to bang with a big body, i think K keeps the 3 guards on the floor. The discussion will be a season long one about how last years team won by incorporating a system of 4 bigs rotating for 2 spots with kyle at the 3. And how the team is moving away from that and if thats the right move. Obviously it will be an enjoyable topic to discuss as i'm sure they will be winning throughout.
It was fun watching this year's team beat you down by waring at you down low. Winning ugly was something the program hadn't done in so long that it was a welcome sight. Next year will be a polar opposite. The nets will be more ablaze in a high tempo look. Can't wait.

weezie
04-20-2010, 07:26 PM
Like hockey lines....we will mystify the opposition with our soul-crushing defense and unpredictable offense. We will swarm them!

SoCalDukeFan
04-20-2010, 07:30 PM
I think that right now K is at the very top of his game. He has 30 years of experience. He has learned from his Olympic experience and seems to be as excited about coaching as a rookie coach.

SoCal

Steve68
04-20-2010, 07:40 PM
I'm more inclined to see K play "the best 5." The fact of the matter is that our tralent and depth will be better in the BACKcourt. Certainly K will mix in different combos, keeping opponents off guard and optimizing matchups for us, but I see a more likely initial starting 5 of: Irving, Smith, Curry, Singler and MP2 (or MP1). Bigger opponents will require that we play with more size more of the time. But in general I think Seth Curry starts over Miles. Remember, this kid has played with this team for a year already, and as a Frosh averaged 21 PPG for a D1 school. As a Frosh, and while being a primary ball handler!

It is a good problem to have though.

I see this as a potential 30-win team before the NCAAT even starts, though anything can happen. And most of us will be more interested in what happens AFTER that point...on the road to Houston (FF).

Can't wait!!!

:D

Not to put a damper on this thread, but I remember the 1992 season as being very difficult to really enjoy because everyone expected us to win it all and the pressure to not lose was almost overwhelming, even for the fans. This past year was great partly because almost no one thought we would do as well as we did, so there was little talk during the year of us even contending for a national championship, let alone winning one. Next year, the term national championship will be associated with us from day one. Yes, this will be a fun team to watch, but don't underestimate the effect pressure will have on all of us.

BD80
04-20-2010, 08:01 PM
Not to put a damper on this thread, but I remember the 1992 season as being very difficult to really enjoy because everyone expected us to win it all and the pressure to not lose was almost overwhelming, even for the fans. This past year was great partly because almost no one thought we would do as well as we did, so there was little talk during the year of us even contending for a national championship, let alone winning one. Next year, the term national championship will be associated with us from day one. Yes, this will be a fun team to watch, but don't underestimate the effect pressure will have on all of us.

I totally agree! This will be a FUN team to watch, a team with tremendous talent and "upside." However, we do have to incorporate three new starters and replace the intensity and will to win of three departing seniors.

We NEED to convince both Plumlees to stop reaching so they can stay on the court, to hustle at both ends of the court, and to NEVER take a play off.

I hope we schedule the toughest teams that will play us, whether home or away, even if that means losing some games. This group can be really special and the more they are tested, the better they will be.

Let's forget the crap about an undefeated season and just enjoy watching these guys improve as individuals, and most important, as a TEAM. Coach K has his eye on one goal, he wants the team to win the last nine games of the season and to improve each game right up to the end. Let's root for going undefeated over the last month.

roywhite
04-20-2010, 08:08 PM
Not to put a damper on this thread, but I remember the 1992 season as being very difficult to really enjoy because everyone expected us to win it all and the pressure to not lose was almost overwhelming, even for the fans. This past year was great partly because almost no one thought we would do as well as we did, so there was little talk during the year of us even contending for a national championship, let alone winning one. Next year, the term national championship will be associated with us from day one. Yes, this will be a fun team to watch, but don't underestimate the effect pressure will have on all of us.

Good point, Steve.

A quick anecdote...I was lucky enough to see the Duke--UK Eastern Region Final classic at the Spectrum in Philadelphia in 1992. Frankly, for all the great play, it was an uncomfortable game to watch because it looked like this great Duke team could lose and not reach another championship or even another Final Four. The Kentucky fans were energized, the Duke fans were supportive but nervous.

In my opinion, the 2010-11 Duke team will win a number of games by a big margin. But there will be challenges and plenty of pressure, particularly in the NCAA Tournament.

That said, this can be a great team and very entertaining to watch. I can't wait for the season to start.

Leck
04-20-2010, 08:43 PM
i agree w/ some of the "don't-count-ur-eggs-before-they've-hatched" sentiments that are in the thread. there are question marks w/ next year's team. but all of that said, i truly think that this is the deepest team that we've had since 1999. if thornton, hairston, kelly, and felix progress over the offseason we could potentially go 11 deep. 11!!!

next year's team is not as experienced as a preseason #1 should be (if they're given that honor), but it has a very high ceiling in terms of potential. they're gonna win a lot of games and be very successful and that's what we should be happy about at this point.

Indoor66
04-20-2010, 09:19 PM
For me, the most exciting thing about next year's team is that they will start off with great tools and will have room to improve through the season as they gain experience together and meld into a unit. That is what happened this year. I can see a team that can be much better in March than they are in December. THAT is exciting!

GODUKEGO
04-21-2010, 07:03 AM
http://nmsn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/Singlers-return-makes-duke-team-to-beat

Jackson
04-21-2010, 07:11 AM
Not to put a damper on this thread, but I remember the 1992 season as being very difficult to really enjoy because everyone expected us to win it all and the pressure to not lose was almost overwhelming, even for the fans. This past year was great partly because almost no one thought we would do as well as we did, so there was little talk during the year of us even contending for a national championship, let alone winning one. Next year, the term national championship will be associated with us from day one. Yes, this will be a fun team to watch, but don't underestimate the effect pressure will have on all of us.

I remember the pressure of 92, BUT the thing that I believe makes 2011 different is that we have Purdue and Michigan State that both will be loaded as well. A lot of "experts" will pick either of them to win it all. IMO that takes a lot of the pressure off of the team from a National standpoint.

MChambers
04-21-2010, 07:55 AM
I remember the pressure of 92, BUT the thing that I believe makes 2011 different is that we have Purdue and Michigan State that both will be loaded as well. A lot of "experts" will pick either of them to win it all. IMO that takes a lot of the pressure off of the team from a National standpoint.
I think you are right. The other difference between this and 1992 is that in 1992 we essentially had all of our returning starters. We lost Koubek, who was a starter, but probably was 7th or so in minutes played, McCaffrey, who was a valuable sub, and Palmer, who was a decent sub.

Duke is losing three starters this time, including a second team All-American.

But there will still be pressure, especially if the team gets off to a fast start.

Cockabeau
04-21-2010, 08:04 AM
There is NO way, Imo that Curry will NOT start.

Having that knock down shooter combined with 2 or 3 streaky shooters can give Duke that extra advantage on any given night.

Curry is arguably the best pure shooter on the team with the least deficiencies.

KI
Smith
Curry
Singler
Plumlee

Certainly an interesting dynamic here.

BobbyFan
04-21-2010, 08:07 AM
http://kenpom.com/rate.php?y=2009

Statistics tell a different story. UNC was the 16th rated defense in '09, not outstanding but certainly not ordinary. They were ofcourse #1 in offensive efficiency. In my opinion, that '09 team would have crushed our '10 team. But that's all subjective anyways.

By "ordinary", I was pointing out that they weren't anything special on defense. Obviously, they were better than the average of 300 or so Division I teams. But going by kenpom's stats, and compared with other championship teams (which was my point) dating to 2004, UNC's 09 team was the lowest ranked on defense.

And I don't see how UNC in 2009 would "crush" our 2010 team, unless if you underestimate the defensive and rebounding prowess of our team. I wouldn't hesitate to give UNC the advantage, but it wasn't a wide margin.

jimsumner
04-21-2010, 08:47 AM
"There is NO way, Imo that Curry will NOT start."

Given that Krzyzewski has already stated publically that Singler will play on the perimeter next season, this means that Curry will (A) start ahead of Nolan Smith, (B) start ahead of Kyrie Irving or (C) play power forward. Which do you think is most likely?

There is no shame or downside to Curry filling the role of 1984-85 David Henderson, late-1991 Billy McCaffrey or 2008 Jon Scheyer role, i.e. super sixth-man.

Duvall
04-21-2010, 08:53 AM
Curry is arguably the best pure shooter on the team with the least deficiencies.


Arguably? On what basis can you possibly make this claim?

CrazieDUMB
04-21-2010, 08:55 AM
There is no shame or downside to Curry filling the role of 1984-85 David Henderson, late-1991 Billy McCaffrey or 2008 Jon Scheyer role, i.e. super sixth-man.

I completely agree. I think people put too much emphasis on who's there when the ball is tipped. What's the difference if he's still getting 20-25 minutes? This team is so deep, I don't think we're going to see anyone get more than 32 anyway.

whereinthehellami
04-21-2010, 09:09 AM
There is NO way, Imo that Curry will NOT start.

Having that knock down shooter combined with 2 or 3 streaky shooters can give Duke that extra advantage on any given night.

Curry is arguably the best pure shooter on the team with the least deficiencies.

KI
Smith
Curry
Singler
Plumlee

Certainly an interesting dynamic here.

I don't think Curry starts all the games. It'll probably come down to matchpus, but I'm in the camp that likes him off the bench for 20-25 minutes a game spelling Irving and Smith.

As far as a knockdown shooter and arguably Duke's best, we shall see. He will no doubht be a good shooter but his stats at Liberty were 35% from 3 and 49% from 2. I know he was focal point of every defense he faced but those were the numbers.

Also there is only one ball. How many scorers do you need? Smith and Singler will be the primary scorers and i think Mason (sprinkle in some Miles) can be a presence down low. With the position in question do you want to add a defender, a rebounder, a glue guy. maybe Curry is those things. Maybe its Miles.

I really like the dynamic of mason and Miles on the court together. They play really well together and seem to push each other, they play tougher together. I saw glimpses last year of a style of ball that i think can be really effective this year, where the guards would penetrate and then lob the ball up there for the Plumlees. With their height and athletiscm that is money. And with Irving's penetration that could be a gold mine.

If I was coach K on offense I would have Smith and Singler on the wings beyond the 3 point line and the Plumlees down low on the baselines, 10 feet from the basket. Irving would penetrate looking for his shot/alley oop with the Plumlees collapsing to the basket and if that is well defended, Irving has the kick out to smith and Sinlger who has the 3 or a lane to the hoop for the floater or lob to the Plumlees who are cornering the rim. i see lots of easy buckets and dunks.

Cisco
04-21-2010, 09:13 AM
To offer my opinion regarding the original post, my answer would be no.

UNC's '09 team featured an extremly talented core of players that had been playing together for at least 3 years. This is quite a valuable asset. Our '10-11 team will feature a core of players that are a mix of all different classes (fr - sr). So in that case, our team as whole will not have that asset yet we will still have a nice 2-man core with Smith and Singler.

Having said that, I'm not so sure we're even the best team THIS upcoming season even with Kyle back. Mich St. looks like the team to beat to me with all of its collective experience.

Duke is definitely the team to beat IMO.

Kedsy
04-21-2010, 10:44 AM
Also there is only one ball. How many scorers do you need? Smith and Singler will be the primary scorers and i think Mason (sprinkle in some Miles) can be a presence down low.

It seems likely we will score 85 to 90+ points a game. We'll probably have seven double-figure scorers in most games. Seth (and Andre, too) will have plenty of opportunities to score.

ChicagoCrazy84
04-21-2010, 11:20 AM
It seems likely we will score 85 to 90+ points a game. We'll probably have seven double-figure scorers in most games. Seth (and Andre, too) will have plenty of opportunities to score.


7? That's a stretch. Nolan and Kyle will still take a lot of the shots and will each average 15+ per game.

Here is my question that I have been pondering since yesterday. Do you guys think Coach K will really go 10-11 deep? Here is our current squad and all of them have a legit shot at playing time, but I have never known Coach K to use a deep bench:

Irving
Smith
Curry
Dawkins
Thornton
Felix
Singler
Kelly
Hairston
Ma. Plumlee
Mi. Plumlee

When the ACC rolls around, I doubt we will see all 11 get PT. I guess you could cross out Ty Thornton, but I like the kid and I think he has a legit shot to be a backup. Even with that, 10 deep? Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!

gumbomoop
04-21-2010, 11:47 AM
When the ACC rolls around, I doubt we will see all 11 get PT. I guess you could cross out Ty Thornton, but I like the kid and I think he has a legit shot to be a backup. Even with that, 10 deep? Let me know your thoughts.

By late-season, my guess is that K will be down to an 8/9 rotation - at most. The 8/9 guys will be RK and CF. I'm a big RK fan, so I want to believe that, at worst, he'll still get some real minutes even by ACCT. I think that's possible, simply because one of the MPs will occasionally be in foul trouble. It's conceivable that, needing defensive stopper for a few minutes, CF will play more than RK. I mean no criticism of any player, and will be interested to see whether TT can also be an effective defender in his first season.

ChicagoCrazy84
04-21-2010, 11:59 AM
By late-season, my guess is that K will be down to an 8/9 rotation - at most. The 8/9 guys will be RK and CF. I'm a big RK fan, so I want to believe that, at worst, he'll still get some real minutes even by ACCT. I think that's possible, simply because one of the MPs will occasionally be in foul trouble. It's conceivable that, needing defensive stopper for a few minutes, CF will play more than RK. I mean no criticism of any player, and will be interested to see whether TT can also be an effective defender in his first season.


I agree, 8/9 seems about right and you are also correct about the Plumlee's getting into foul trouble. It'll be interesting to see how often he plays them together as this past year, they struggled together at times. With Ty, I don't think defense is the issue. I think that was one of his assets. Not sure how is ball handling and poise will measure up though with the very best. We'll see!

jimsumner
04-21-2010, 12:04 PM
For the record, no Duke team has ever had more than five players average in double figures in scoring for an entire season.

Two ACC teams have had six, 1975 Maryland and 1989 UNC. The chances of Duke or anyone else having seven approaches absolute zero.

I'm not all that worried about the Plumlees and foul trouble. Combining improved footwork and with greater experience should ameliorate that problem to an acceptable level.

gumbomoop
04-21-2010, 12:15 PM
I'm not all that worried about the Plumlees and foul trouble. Combining improved footwork and with greater experience should ameliorate that problem to an acceptable level.

OK, I hope and think probably you're right about this. Still, we're most all assuming - certainly I am - an up-tempo pace next year, so even if fouls plague the MPs less next year, they surely can't each play 35 mpg late season. Give 'em 32 each; that still leaves 16 mpg at 4-5. Unless KS shifts to 4 for some minutes late season - a possibility I do not by any means discount - that means RK [I think more likely than JH] will play 12-15 mpg at the 4 late season. Yes?

ncexnyc
04-21-2010, 12:19 PM
Last year's team revolved around the 3S's, which gave us a very good team. We moved up to the next level once Brian emerged as a constant force in the middle. Curry and Kyrie should offset the loss of Jon, but who replaces Lance and Brian? I know it's easy to forget about just what Lance meant to this team, since a lot of what he did on the court didn't make the boxscore, but his replacement is a major question mark. The same goes for Brian's replacement. Before his awakening at the MD game, he was average, but from then on a major force. I know we've got Mason and Miles, but they have yet to prove they can bring it game in and game out. Potential is nice, but doesn't win anything. I realize we've got a lot of kids who could step-up, but until they do I wouldn't hand us another crown.

I also find it funny that a new poster caught a great deal of flack over a thread he started, which asked some valid questions about the impact Kyle's return has on the team and the players who were inline for a boost in playing time if Kyle had left. Now a common theme amongst a number of threads is where the minutes are going to fall and who is playing what position.

Coach K will have his hands full meshing all this talent/potential talent into one cohesive machine. Hopefully everyone will check their ego at the door.

DoubleDuke Dad
04-21-2010, 12:28 PM
Coach K will have his hands full meshing all this talent/potential talent into one cohesive machine. Hopefully everyone will check their ego at the door.

There are an awful lot of coaches that wouldn't mind having that problem!

SMO
04-21-2010, 12:42 PM
I know we've got Mason and Miles, but they have yet to prove they can bring it game in and game out. Potential is nice, but doesn't win anything. I realize we've got a lot of kids who could step-up, but until they do I wouldn't hand us another crown.

You would have to extend similar expectations to Irving and Curry then wouldn't you? Neither have played a game for Duke. I agree with those tempering expectations of another championship given how hard it is to win one. I am very excited for the ride though!

Kedsy
04-21-2010, 12:45 PM
By late-season, my guess is that K will be down to an 8/9 rotation - at most. The 8/9 guys will be RK and CF. I'm a big RK fan, so I want to believe that, at worst, he'll still get some real minutes even by ACCT. I think that's possible, simply because one of the MPs will occasionally be in foul trouble. It's conceivable that, needing defensive stopper for a few minutes, CF will play more than RK. I mean no criticism of any player, and will be interested to see whether TT can also be an effective defender in his first season.

You don't think Josh Hairston will play at all? I think he'll play more than Carrick Felix.

I don't have data about late season vs. early season, and obviously K tightens his rotation as the season moves along, but when K has legitimate depth he has often gone 9 deep:

(note that in the following chart I have adjusted the minutes per game so that DNPs are zero minutes, so the numbers below are often less than the published numbers)

1987-88
8th man: 10.2 mpg
9th man: 9.1 mpg
10th man: 4.7 mpg

1989-90
8th man: 15.1 mpg
9th man: 11.3 mpg
10th man: 3.8 mpg

1990-91
8th man: 11.2 mpg
9th man: 10.4 mpg
10th man: 2.7 mpg

1992-93
8th man: 11.6 mpg
9th man: 9.5 mpg
10th man: 2.4 mpg

1997-98
8th man: 13.7 mpg
9th man: 12.6 mpg
10th man: 7.2 mpg
11th man: 4.6 mpg

2007-08
8th man: 9.7 mpg
9th man: 7.9 mpg
10th man: 7.7 mpg

2008-09
8th man: 15.2 mpg
9th man: 11.5 mpg
10th man: 4.5 mpg

This isn't necessarily a comprehensive list, but in at least six seasons the 9th guy has averaged 9+ minutes a game and in two seasons the 10th man played 7+ mpg (while a couple other seasons the 10th man has averaged 4+ mpg and once the 11th man averaged 4+).

Personally I think the 2010-11 minute distribution will look a lot like 1989-90 or 1997-98 above (although it should be noted the 1998 numbers are skewed because of Elton Brand's injury).

jimsumner
04-21-2010, 12:52 PM
I don't think anyone expects the Plumlees to play anywhere near 35 mpg. Or need to.

Even if Singler never plays a second at the 4--and he will, especially in end-of-game situations where you skew for ball-handling and foul shooting--you've got 80 mpg to allocate amongst Mason Plumlee, Miles Plumlee, Ryan Kelly and Josh Hairston.

Give the Plumlees 50-55 of those and I'm confident Kelly and Hairston can more than handle the rest. For the record, I expect Kelly to start next season at around 235 and be quite capable of being a face-up 5.

Kedsy
04-21-2010, 12:54 PM
Curry and Kyrie should offset the loss of Jon, but who replaces Lance and Brian? I know it's easy to forget about just what Lance meant to this team, since a lot of what he did on the court didn't make the boxscore, but his replacement is a major question mark. The same goes for Brian's replacement.

I have said this many times, but nobody will be replacing anybody. That's not a productive way to look at it. The team will play an entirely different style, both offensively and defensively.

Neither Seth nor Kyrie will bring the intangibles or the leadership that Jon did. In that sense they won't come close to "offsetting" his loss. But from an offensive standpoint their combined production will be significantly more than Jon's was, and from what I've heard their defense will be just as strong if not stronger. Next year's team will play at a much faster pace and score a LOT more than this year's team did. Defense is more of an unknown, but we'll almost certainly force more turnovers and have fewer rebounds. Instead of winning games 64-54, we'll win them 92-77.

In other words, we don't have to replace what we've lost, we just have to play well. And we will.

Kedsy
04-21-2010, 01:06 PM
For the record, no Duke team has ever had more than five players average in double figures in scoring for an entire season.

Two ACC teams have had six, 1975 Maryland and 1989 UNC. The chances of Duke or anyone else having seven approaches absolute zero.

I'm not all that worried about the Plumlees and foul trouble. Combining improved footwork and with greater experience should ameliorate that problem to an acceptable level.

I didn't say we'd have seven players average double figures (although I think we have a good chance at six). I said we'd have seven guys in double figures in a lot of games.

Kyle, Nolan, Seth, and Kyrie will be in double figures almost every game. I expect Mason and Andre to score 10+ in most games as well, and I think Miles, Ryan, and Josh will each do it sporadically, but enough to mean we could have seven guys in double figures in many games.

That may be pie-in-the-sky thinking, but if we average 90 points a game, and Nolan and Kyle have 35 between them, there are still 55 points left, which if they're distributed close to even would lead to seven players in double figures a lot of times.

On the other hand, if Kyle and Nolan average 40 between them and Seth and Kyrie average 30 between them, that would only leave 20 points for the others, and in that case you'd occasionally see six guys in double figures but usually five.

Personally I think it's more likely that Nolan and Kyle are aroung 17 or 18 ppg, Seth and Kyrie in the low teens, and three guys hovering around 10, which should mean seeing seven double figure scorers in a game will not be an unusual occurrence. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

MChambers
04-21-2010, 01:19 PM
For the record, I expect Kelly to start next season at around 235 and be quite capable of being a face-up 5.
Is he hanging out with Sean May? ;)

Seriously, that's good to hear. I'm sure you're right, and I think a 235 lb player with Kelly's skills is one tough matchup for the other team. It also would be good for late game situations to have 5 with his offensive skills.

whereinthehellami
04-21-2010, 02:12 PM
I didn't say we'd have seven players average double figures (although I think we have a good chance at six). I said we'd have seven guys in double figures in a lot of games.

Kyle, Nolan, Seth, and Kyrie will be in double figures almost every game. I expect Mason and Andre to score 10+ in most games as well, and I think Miles, Ryan, and Josh will each do it sporadically, but enough to mean we could have seven guys in double figures in many games.

That may be pie-in-the-sky thinking, but if we average 90 points a game, and Nolan and Kyle have 35 between them, there are still 55 points left, which if they're distributed close to even would lead to seven players in double figures a lot of times.

On the other hand, if Kyle and Nolan average 40 between them and Seth and Kyrie average 30 between them, that would only leave 20 points for the others, and in that case you'd occasionally see six guys in double figures but usually five.

Personally I think it's more likely that Nolan and Kyle are aroung 17 or 18 ppg, Seth and Kyrie in the low teens, and three guys hovering around 10, which should mean seeing seven double figure scorers in a game will not be an unusual occurrence. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Its been awhile since Duke averaged 90 or more a game (2001, 90.7 PPG). Out of the last 8 seasons, Duke averaged more than 80 only 3 times (83.2, 81.1, & 81.0).

Its always fun to project where the pts will come from...

Singler 18 ppg
Smith 17 ppg
Mason 11 ppg
Curry 11 ppg
Irving 10 ppg
Dawkins 8 ppg
Miles 7 ppg
Kelly 6 ppg
Felix 1 ppg
Hairston 1 ppg
Thornton 1 ppg

The above totals 91. It hard to see Irving only averaging 10 ppg but there are so many options that i could see Kyrie defferring to the other scorers for a year.

gumbomoop
04-21-2010, 02:36 PM
You don't think Josh Hairston will play at all? I think he'll play more than Carrick Felix.

I don't have data about late season vs. early season, and obviously K tightens his rotation as the season moves along, but when K has legitimate depth he has often gone 9 deep.

Personally I think the 2010-11 minute distribution will look a lot like 1989-90 or 1997-98 above (although it should be noted the 1998 numbers are skewed because of Elton Brand's injury).

Your research is a whole lot better than my memory, and I'd sure never have remembered a season in which the 11th guy got almost 5 mpg.

Anyhow, re Hairston/Felix: I'm still assuming late season, K goes no deeper than 9. [If that assumption proves false, I have to believe that's going to be very good news.] It seems very likely to me that the last 3 guys by then are CF, TT, and JH. This means I think - only imo, and others might not agree - RK plays, all year. RK knows the system, is likely a 4, and is a player. I'm sure the other 3 will become players, too. My guess is that by late-season, we'll have so many scorers that the #9 guy will be whichever of the 3 can best provide solid situation-D.

I have seen neither CF nor TT, but rumor/rep has it that they can play D. My one time watching JH, I didn't see excellence on D. I'm confident it will come, but I'm just guessing the other 2 might get a little more time.

But I'm semi-quasi-educated-guessing, and I do understand those who say that JH is tall and good enough to play some backup 4. I agree, but only early-season, again, assuming by late-season it's down to 9-man at most.

jimsumner
04-21-2010, 02:46 PM
"I didn't say we'd have seven players average double figures (although I think we have a good chance at six). I said we'd have seven guys in double figures in a lot of games."

Actually, you said "most." A not insignificant distinction.

I think 90 ppg is the upper limit of realistic. Probably something more along the lines of 87. Again, six players in double figures is something not accomplished by any team in Duke history, not 1992, not 1998, not 2001, not 2004. It's possible, sure but not something we should count on.

roywhite
04-21-2010, 02:46 PM
9 at most in the regular rotation by late season...yeah, I'd go along with that.

Not to ask for trouble, but there's always a chance of injury or roster changes, so guessing which player(s) will have the fewest minutes is tricky.

My own hunch is that Carrick Felix will carve out a role for himself. I think he's further along physically than some young guys who are in the program or about to arrive, and hungry for the opportunity.

killerleft
04-21-2010, 03:24 PM
http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/04/21/article/devils_are_already_on_their_way_to_repeat

The bandwagon adds another.

Kedsy
04-21-2010, 04:37 PM
Anyhow, re Hairston/Felix: I'm still assuming late season, K goes no deeper than 9.

That's not an unreasonable assumption. I'd be mildly surprised if he went less deep than 9, however.

Who establishes himself as the ninth man will be interesting to see. I'm assuming Josh because I think he plays the position we're most likely to need minutes. But it wouldn't shock me to see Carrick or even Tyler emerge as a defensive stopper.

hedevil
04-21-2010, 04:39 PM
Nice read! The only part I disagree with in the article is the part about UNC taking over Duke (in some people's eyes) if Singler didn't return. I for one am not one of those people who thought so. I believed Duke was the best team in college ball even without Kyle coming back. But now it's Duke, hands down, IMO.

Kedsy
04-21-2010, 05:00 PM
"I didn't say we'd have seven players average double figures (although I think we have a good chance at six). I said we'd have seven guys in double figures in a lot of games."

Actually, you said "most." A not insignificant distinction.

I think 90 ppg is the upper limit of realistic. Probably something more along the lines of 87. Again, six players in double figures is something not accomplished by any team in Duke history, not 1992, not 1998, not 2001, not 2004. It's possible, sure but not something we should count on.

Alright, you got me. Can I officially change "most" to "many"? Because that's what I think we're going to see.

The reason I think we'll score 90+ ppg (although if we score "only" 87 it wouldn't surprise me very much), and also the reason I think we have a good chance to see six players with double-figure average scoring, is because none of the teams you mention had the depth of outside shooting that we'll have next year. Nolan, Kyle, Seth, Andre, Ryan (sort of) and reportedly Kyrie can all light it up from three-point range.

I suppose 2001 came close, although that team also came close to having six double-digit scorers (five guys at 10+ plus Duhon at 7.2). The 1997-98 team had several shooters (although not as many good ones as we'll have next year), and they had four double-digit guys plus 8.5, 7.6, 7.1, and 6.7. So they weren't that far off.

But in addition to the outside shooting, we'll also have the one-on-one abilities of Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, and Kyle, some inside presence (at least for alley oops) in Mason, Miles, and possibly Ryan or Josh, and what I expect to be a whole lot of transition scoring. Most importantly I expect to play at a very fast pace, which will allow our offensive weapons more opportunities to put the ball in the basket. I believe our offense will rank right up there with 2001 (90.7), 2002 (88.9), 1999 (91.8), and 1992 (88.2). I'm less certain of how our defense will measure up, but I think the scoring will be there.

Kedsy
04-21-2010, 05:04 PM
Nice read! The only part I disagree with in the article is the part about UNC taking over Duke (in some people's eyes) if Singler didn't return. I for one am not one of those people who thought so. I believed Duke was the best team in college ball even without Kyle coming back. But now it's Duke, hands down, IMO.

Actually he said it was a "foregone conclusion" that UNC would overtake Duke if Singler went pro. He also said before Kyle's announcement we were in a rebuilding year and that Kyle was a potential lottery pick. There's more hyperbole than accuracy to much of the article.

But it's still nice to read.

Bluedevil114
04-21-2010, 09:49 PM
Repeat..........I do not know if that is possible. The only reason Duke won the National Championship this season is because they were "Alarmingly Unathletic". Next year with Kyrie, Seth, Nolan, Carrick and the Plumlees improvement they may be considered Athletic. There goes next year. Maybe over the next couple years we can recruit some more unathletic players before Coach K retires like the ones 8 miles down the street that almost won the NIT.

MarkD83
04-21-2010, 10:01 PM
but we'll almost certainly force more turnovers and have fewer rebounds. Instead of winning games 64-54, we'll win them 92-77.

In other words, we don't have to replace what we've lost, we just have to play well. And we will.

The bold statement is the key. With offensive rebounding this year Duke created more possessions. Hopefully, the turnovers will give us those extra possesions. However, Miles, Mason and Kyle are all strong rebounders so we may not drop off in that category as much as one would think. What may dictate how much Ryan, Josh and Carrick play is their ability to rebound. With the offensive fire power of the rest of the team all Ryan, Josh and Carrick have to do is play solid D and rebound.

jimsumner
04-21-2010, 10:31 PM
Kedsy,

I'm a regression to the mean guy. I'm thinking that certain portions of the Duke fan base--not you, certainly--are falling prey to some irrational exuberance. Duke may well set records next season for number of double-figure scorers, points per game, made three-pointers, turnovers forced and so on and so forth. But not likely.

Let's look at that 2001 team. Shane Battier, Jason Williams, Mike Dunleavy, Nate James and Chris Duhon. Three-point shooting? Check. Defensive stoppers? Check? Score in transition? Check. Add Boozer to the mix and we've got that post presence thing covered. Maybe 2011 equals that team, even surpasses it. But maybe not. Lots of questions to be answered and it sure will be fun to find out.

There are only 200 mpg to be allocated and a finite amount of touches and a finite amount of shots. I don't see how Curry and Dawkins get enough shots to both be big scorers. Unless Singler plays most of his time at the 4 and that limits the points scored by the Plumlees and Kelly. I think it's realistic to see Singler, Smith, Mason, Irving and Curry off the bench averaging 10+ ppg. But I can't see a sixth. Not enough shots to go around, even with a more up-tempo attack.

Duke is going to be scary good next year and has as good a chance as anyone at winning it all. I expect Duke to go off number one and spend the entire season in that neighborhood. But Duke is not even money against the field. No one is.

Newton_14
04-21-2010, 10:37 PM
The bold statement is the key. With offensive rebounding this year Duke created more possessions. Hopefully, the turnovers will give us those extra possesions. However, Miles, Mason and Kyle are all strong rebounders so we may not drop off in that category as much as one would think. What may dictate how much Ryan, Josh and Carrick play is their ability to rebound. With the offensive fire power of the rest of the team all Ryan, Josh and Carrick have to do is play solid D and rebound.

That is the really cool thing about next year's team. With the personnel at hand, K can mold different line ups and put smaller, quicker guys in who can press, force turnovers and get steals, but he can also go with bigger guys who are great rebounders and get extra possessions on the offensive glass like this year. Other line ups will have somewhat of a mixture of the two.

There will be 4 PG's on the roster, with one of them a phenom rookie with great offensive skills (Kyrie), another rookie who reportedly has great defensive skills and manages the floor game well (Tyler), and then 2 combo guards in Nolan and Seth with Nolan being a solid 3 point shooter with great drive and finish skills and a great defender. And with Seth being an above average 3 point shooter and a proven scorer at this level.

And like Welcometodaslopes mentioned in another thread, this will be a really unique team with more different components than K has had in a long time, if ever.

There are endless possibilities with this group if the kids work hard, develop on a good pace, and jell together as a team.

I wish the season started tomorrow.

Kedsy
04-21-2010, 11:24 PM
Kedsy,

I'm a regression to the mean guy. I'm thinking that certain portions of the Duke fan base--not you, certainly--are falling prey to some irrational exuberance. Duke may well set records next season for number of double-figure scorers, points per game, made three-pointers, turnovers forced and so on and so forth. But not likely.

Let's look at that 2001 team. Shane Battier, Jason Williams, Mike Dunleavy, Nate James and Chris Duhon. Three-point shooting? Check. Defensive stoppers? Check? Score in transition? Check. Add Boozer to the mix and we've got that post presence thing covered. Maybe 2011 equals that team, even surpasses it. But maybe not. Lots of questions to be answered and it sure will be fun to find out.

There are only 200 mpg to be allocated and a finite amount of touches and a finite amount of shots. I don't see how Curry and Dawkins get enough shots to both be big scorers. Unless Singler plays most of his time at the 4 and that limits the points scored by the Plumlees and Kelly. I think it's realistic to see Singler, Smith, Mason, Irving and Curry off the bench averaging 10+ ppg. But I can't see a sixth. Not enough shots to go around, even with a more up-tempo attack.

Duke is going to be scary good next year and has as good a chance as anyone at winning it all. I expect Duke to go off number one and spend the entire season in that neighborhood. But Duke is not even money against the field. No one is.

I don't disagree with you, Jim (although I do think Andre could get enough chances to be a 10+ point scorer in addition to the five you mention, and I think Miles might come close; it may be unrealistic of me, but I have a strong feeling about it).

My bold predictions are about offense only. I have no idea how well our defense will mesh, and that is what will determine whether we can challenge for another title. I agree we're not close to even money against the field.

As far as comparisons to the 2001 team, I don't expect the 2010-11 version to surpass the top six players from that team in a vacuum, but what next year's group has going for it is (a) more quality depth (the 2001 7,8,9 guys were Casey Sanders, Matt Christensen, and Reggie Love), which may allow for an even faster pace than that team played; and (b) weaker competition, which could elevate the statistics above that attained by the 2001 edition.

Which is another way of saying I think next year's Devils will score as many points as the 2001 National Champions (they scored 90.7). And if that's the case, all we would need is a slightly more even distribution. For example, Jason Williams scored 21.6 ppg and Shane Battier scored 19.9. If Kyle and Nolan (who I expect to be our top two scorers) score around 18 ppg each, that gives us 5.5 points to redistribute. Chris Duhon (the 2001 sixth leading scorer) scored 7.2 ppg that year. Give him 3 of the 5.5 and, viola, we have six double-figure scorers. In other words, I realize it's not a gimme, but it is attainable.

And it's nice to be having this conversation while being able to keep a straight face. As you say, next season is going to be fun.

Welcome2DaSlopes
04-21-2010, 11:37 PM
Game by Game, we can beat anybody, but the season as a whole, we should expect to lost at least twice.

Welcome2DaSlopes
04-22-2010, 12:36 AM
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=204933127

Welcome2DaSlopes
04-22-2010, 01:45 AM
http://beyondthearc.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/20/2275069.aspx

oldnavy
04-22-2010, 06:34 AM
Greg Paulus 28.5"

Zoubs = 2.8 :D

Jackson
04-22-2010, 06:45 AM
Its been awhile since Duke averaged 90 or more a game (2001, 90.7 PPG). Out of the last 8 seasons, Duke averaged more than 80 only 3 times (83.2, 81.1, & 81.0).

Its always fun to project where the pts will come from...

Singler 18 ppg
Smith 17 ppg
Mason 11 ppg
Curry 11 ppg
Irving 10 ppg
Dawkins 8 ppg
Miles 7 ppg
Kelly 6 ppg
Felix 1 ppg
Hairston 1 ppg
Thornton 1 ppg

The above totals 91. It hard to see Irving only averaging 10 ppg but there are so many options that i could see Kyrie defferring to the other scorers for a year.


I think Singler, Smith, Irving and possibly Curry score more than you have here maybe 21, 18, 16, and 12. Mason will score in double figures and possibly Miles. I have a feeling our 7th man in terms of minutes and points very well may be Hairston. As for Dawkins, Kelly, Thornton and Felix, I don't think there will be a great deal of minutes of point production from them, but the one that should have chances would be Dawkins. I think we are realistically looking at a 8 man rotation for most competitive games.

MChambers
04-22-2010, 06:48 AM
A couple of times now I've been talking to friends who follow basketball, but aren't Duke fans, and when I say Duke will be quite good next year, they all ask, "Will that big guy be back?" Of course, they are asking about Zoubek. Hard to imagine that conversation even four months ago.

We will miss him, and the keys will be our inside play and our defense. Thomas and Zoubek were very good at help defense. (Remember Hayward's next to last shot?) I hope that the Plumlees, Kelly, and Hairston become good defensive players, but it's very doubtful that they can fully replace Thomas and Zoubek next year on the defensive side of the ball.

Yes, more ball pressure may help, but it also may mean more drives to the basket by opposing guards, where help defense is critical.

I'm optimistic, but this will be an issue.

jimsumner
04-22-2010, 09:40 AM
"I think Singler, Smith, Irving and possibly Curry score more than you have here maybe 21, 18, 16, and 12. Mason will score in double figures and possibly Miles. I have a feeling our 7th man in terms of minutes and points very well may be Hairston"


Thank you, Jackson. You just made my point about irrational exuberance. If we assume that Mason and Miles top off at 10 ppg each, then you have Duke averaging 87 ppg without a single point from Hairston, Dawkins, Kelly, Felix and Thornton. Throw in a few ppg from these guys and we're in Paul Westhead territory. And K ain't Paul Westhead.

I remember back in the early days of this board, maybe '98, maybe '99, when a poster did a player-by-player scoring projection which averaged out to about 120 ppg.

We haven't reached that point yet but we're heading in that direction.

flyingdutchdevil
04-22-2010, 10:43 AM
Singler and Smith will definitely improve upon next year. No questions asked. However, I'm not too sure if their ppg will increase. What will increase, I have no doubt, is their points per minute ratio. Remember - Smith and Singler played a ton of minutes this year and, with the quality depth we have next year, will most likely not play as many minutes. Thus, while the totals numbers may not go up, the efficiency of each player will go up. I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of them averaged less than 18 ppg, but I would completely expect their ppm (points per minute) to go up.

BD80
04-22-2010, 10:44 AM
Zoubs = 2.8 :D

Running or standing?

NSDukeFan
04-22-2010, 11:14 AM
That is the really cool thing about next year's team. With the personnel at hand, K can mold different line ups and put smaller, quicker guys in who can press, force turnovers and get steals, but he can also go with bigger guys who are great rebounders and get extra possessions on the offensive glass like this year. Other line ups will have somewhat of a mixture of the two.

There will be 4 PG's on the roster, with one of them a phenom rookie with great offensive skills (Kyrie), another rookie who reportedly has great defensive skills and manages the floor game well (Tyler), and then 2 combo guards in Nolan and Seth with Nolan being a solid 3 point shooter with great drive and finish skills and a great defender. And with Seth being an above average 3 point shooter and a proven scorer at this level.

And like Welcometodaslopes mentioned in another thread, this will be a really unique team with more different components than K has had in a long time, if ever.

There are endless possibilities with this group if the kids work hard, develop on a good pace, and jell together as a team.

I wish the season started tomorrow.
I agree next year (and this off-season from a discussion perspective shapes up as very exciting. I agree that I also can't wait for next year to begin, but the reason for a lot of our optimism is that we are all expecting/hoping for big things from many of our players this off-season. From reading a lot of the posts here and in other threads about projected line-ups, it appears this will be a very important summer for a lot of people.
Can Andre improve his offensive movement off the ball enough to be a consistent threat on offense and not just an outlet when his man has been drawn into helpside? Can he improve his ball-handling and defense enough to be a reliable contributor at all times?
Can Ryan gain enough strength and quickness to show the great offensive gifts, and understanding of the game that he appears to possess now that he doesn't have 4 bigs in front of him in the rotation?
Can Kyle and Nolan provide similar leadership to what the seniors provided this past year? Can they make sure (along with coach K) that everyone understands how much intensity the team needs to bring to off-season workouts as well as every practice and game?
Can Kyle improve his communication skills and become a defensive quarterback much like Lance was this past year? Can he do it all offensively and defensively next year in the Hill-Battier role?
Can Kyle and Nolan continue to improve their passing when driving towards the basket?
Can Nolan continue to improve as a lockdown perimeter defender and improve his leadership and play-making ability as a point guard option? Can Nolan continue to develop ways to score in different ways (penetration to the basket, tear drops, pull-ups, 3 pointers?) and become an unstoppable scorer?
Can Miles continue to improve his defensive footwork and help-side awareness to become a solid last line of defense? Can he grow an effective beard and take over as a rebounding machine on both ends of the court and stop reaching in so that he can stay on the court?
Can Mason continue to improve his defensive footwork and help-side awareness? Can he learn to take the ball a little bit stronger to the basket through contact on his moves inside? Can he find the best times to use his great offensive potential in scoring ways? Will Plumlee Brothers Dunking Company do a lot of business next year?
Will Seth live up to the hype and be a dependable three-point shooter, with solid one-on-one moves and good court vision? Will Seth defend well enough to be a sixth starter?
Will Kyrie live up to the hype, get a little stronger over the summer, and defend well enough to start from day 1? Will he be able to get inside at will and make good decisions with the ball leading to easier scoring opportunities for everyone?
Can Joshua get strong enough and pick up his defensive rotations enough to be a solid contributor in ACC play?
Do Tyler and Carrick have enough defensive skills to force their way into the line-up? Can they pick up Duke's offensive and defensive systems well enough to be dependable contributors next year?
Who will win the dunk contest at Countdown to Craziness?
Does Nolan (or anyone) have anything up their sleeves to match the J. Dawkins retro jersey from last year's CTC?
It will be a big summer.

ksimp112
04-22-2010, 11:20 AM
This is just for discussion, but what is everyones thoughts about Duke going undefeated next year.

I know that it would be really tough, and that some of their loses next year will come during ACC play. If they are able to make it through the conference undefeated, I think they oculd at least get through the regular season undefeated.

Just a thought I had the other day. What are your thoughts?

dball
04-22-2010, 11:21 AM
I thought we just ended a perfect season:)

camion
04-22-2010, 11:24 AM
I'm very optimistic. I give it about a 1 in 500 chance.

And I agree with dball about last season. :)

SoCalDukeFan
04-22-2010, 11:25 AM
thinking about it is nuts.

Last season was "perfect" for me.

Too much can happen to ruin it next year. Will you be disappointed if we have lose a game in December but win the rest? How about if we go undefeated into the tournament but don't win the NC?

Just enjoy where we are, National Champions, and get ready for some really fun games next year.

SoCal

NSDukeFan
04-22-2010, 11:25 AM
A couple of times now I've been talking to friends who follow basketball, but aren't Duke fans, and when I say Duke will be quite good next year, they all ask, "Will that big guy be back?" Of course, they are asking about Zoubek. Hard to imagine that conversation even four months ago.

We will miss him, and the keys will be our inside play and our defense. Thomas and Zoubek were very good at help
defense. (Remember Hayward's next to last shot?) I hope that the Plumlees, Kelly, and Hairston become good defensive players, but it's very doubtful that they can fully replace Thomas and Zoubek next year on the defensive side of the ball.

Yes, more ball pressure may help, but it also may mean more drives to the basket by opposing guards, where help defense is critical.

I'm optimistic, but this will be an issue.

The one thing I wonder, related to your post, is when we are shooting poorly (hopefully never all of our great shooters at once) how do we still win games?
This year Zoubs was such an x-factor in that if we weren't shooting well, he just grabbed all the offensive rebounds to generate enough second chances to give us a chance to win. We also took care of the ball very well (thanks Jon) so this gave us a bit of a margin of error.
When we are shooting poorly this year, will Mason, Miles, Kyle or Ryan be able to get us a dependable bucket down low? Will our high-low offense be a part of our offense when we really need a basket with Mason, Ryan or Kyle as passers and Will our bigs be able to get enough offensive rebounds to give us extra possessions? Will we create enough turnovers and take care of the ball well enough to have extra possessions that way? Will we run enough and get enough easy baskets that we can overcome a poor shooting night? What happens when a team plays a deliberate pace and takes care of the basketball?
It's going to be exciting to see what kind of style the team plays next year?

CrazieDUMB
04-22-2010, 11:27 AM
To put this question in perspective, consider this. Let's go overboard and say that Duke will have a 95% chance of winning every game they play (for the sake of argument, assume every other team is the same level). Even in this scenario, for 35 games that only gives us a 16% chance of going undefeated. Even at a 98% chance of winning each game, the chances of going undefeated are 49%.

Would you ever consider any team in the FF to have a 95% chance of winning against the other teams left?

So no.

Love the optimism, let's not go crazy. IMO, the best Duke team ever didn't even win the title (1999). Remember how hard it is to get to the top, nevertheless win every game.

ncexnyc
04-22-2010, 11:32 AM
A couple of times now I've been talking to friends who follow basketball, but aren't Duke fans, and when I say Duke will be quite good next year, they all ask, "Will that big guy be back?" Of course, they are asking about Zoubek. Hard to imagine that conversation even four months ago.

We will miss him, and the keys will be our inside play and our defense. Thomas and Zoubek were very good at help defense. (Remember Hayward's next to last shot?) I hope that the Plumlees, Kelly, and Hairston become good defensive players, but it's very doubtful that they can fully replace Thomas and Zoubek next year on the defensive side of the ball.

Yes, more ball pressure may help, but it also may mean more drives to the basket by opposing guards, where help defense is critical.

I'm optimistic, but this will be an issue.

:eek:How dare you use the word REPLACE:eek: Haven't you been paying attention? We won't have to replace anything. Next year's team is going to be completely different, they'll be motoring up and down the court scoring tons of points and half of those will come off steals and transition baskets;)

Forget the old basketball axiom that it's easier to slow the game down than speed it up, when you're talking about dictating the tempo of the game. No sir, we won't ever be forced to play a halfcourt game where rebounding and defense is a must.

Brian and Lance were just hacks who were lucky to sniff the court, everyone knows the Plumlees were held back by Coach K who was playing his Jedi mind tricks on those poor brothers.;)

Nope all of our extremely talented kids will just mesh like a hand and glove, hopefully not the OJ glove. We won't be like that great team down the road many years ago, which was loaded with talent, but had major chemistry issues.

Now that I'm done with my daily dose of sarcasm, I have to congratulate you for your post. We will have issues, which must be answered at the start of the season. To many on this board sound like their counter parts over at IC. The ones who talk about Barnes, Bullock, and Marshall as if they were the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all rolled into one. Don't get me wrong I love our team on paper, but the games get played on the court.

Osiagledknarf
04-22-2010, 11:35 AM
The UNC team with Ellington, Lawson, Hansbrough, Green etc was a team that was the most talented by far in the country that year was expected to go undefeated and ended up losing 4 games, 2 of which in the ACC... That team was, if not the more talented then this Duke team coming up this year.

They couldn't do it..

With the ACC getting tougher and teams like NC State bringing in good young talent, and UNC getting better with the addition of Harrison Barnes and Reggie Bullock and with everyone healthier and on the same page, they will be a lot better..

With the schedule we are going to get with the defending national champions, we are likely to get a very tough game somewhere like Kentucky, Kansas, or Cuse.. I expect us to be one of, if not the best teams in the country, but undefeated I do not see.

ncexnyc
04-22-2010, 11:42 AM
I agree next year (and this off-season from a discussion perspective shapes up as very exciting. I agree that I also can't wait for next year to begin, but the reason for a lot of our optimism is that we are all expecting/hoping for big things from many of our players this off-season. From reading a lot of the posts here and in other threads about projected line-ups, it appears this will be a very important summer for a lot of people.
Can Andre improve his offensive movement off the ball enough to be a consistent threat on offense and not just an outlet when his man has been drawn into helpside? Can he improve his ball-handling and defense enough to be a reliable contributor at all times?
Can Ryan gain enough strength and quickness to show the great offensive gifts, and understanding of the game that he appears to possess now that he doesn't have 4 bigs in front of him in the rotation?
Can Kyle and Nolan provide similar leadership to what the seniors provided this past year? Can they make sure (along with coach K) that everyone understands how much intensity the team needs to bring to off-season workouts as well as every practice and game?
Can Kyle improve his communication skills and become a defensive quarterback much like Lance was this past year? Can he do it all offensively and defensively next year in the Hill-Battier role?
Can Kyle and Nolan continue to improve their passing when driving towards the basket?
Can Nolan continue to improve as a lockdown perimeter defender and improve his leadership and play-making ability as a point guard option? Can Nolan continue to develop ways to score in different ways (penetration to the basket, tear drops, pull-ups, 3 pointers?) and become an unstoppable scorer?
Can Miles continue to improve his defensive footwork and help-side awareness to become a solid last line of defense? Can he grow an effective beard and take over as a rebounding machine on both ends of the court and stop reaching in so that he can stay on the court?
Can Mason continue to improve his defensive footwork and help-side awareness? Can he learn to take the ball a little bit stronger to the basket through contact on his moves inside? Can he find the best times to use his great offensive potential in scoring ways? Will Plumlee Brothers Dunking Company do a lot of business next year?
Will Seth live up to the hype and be a dependable three-point shooter, with solid one-on-one moves and good court vision? Will Seth defend well enough to be a sixth starter?
Will Kyrie live up to the hype, get a little stronger over the summer, and defend well enough to start from day 1? Will he be able to get inside at will and make good decisions with the ball leading to easier scoring opportunities for everyone?
Can Joshua get strong enough and pick up his defensive rotations enough to be a solid contributor in ACC play?
Do Tyler and Carrick have enough defensive skills to force their way into the line-up? Can they pick up Duke's offensive and defensive systems well enough to be dependable contributors next year?
Who will win the dunk contest at Countdown to Craziness?
Does Nolan (or anyone) have anything up their sleeves to match the J. Dawkins retro jersey from last year's CTC?
It will be a big summer.

I'm really getting confused. Look at all these question marks:eek:

I was led to believe we had the perfect team. You must not have gotten the memo.;)

MChambers
04-22-2010, 12:44 PM
I agree next year (and this off-season from a discussion perspective shapes up as very exciting. I agree that I also can't wait for next year to begin, but the reason for a lot of our optimism is that we are all expecting/hoping for big things from many of our players this off-season. From reading a lot of the posts here and in other threads about projected line-ups, it appears this will be a very important summer for a lot of people.
Can Andre improve his offensive movement off the ball enough to be a consistent threat on offense and not just an outlet when his man has been drawn into helpside? Can he improve his ball-handling and defense enough to be a reliable contributor at all times?
Can Ryan gain enough strength and quickness to show the great offensive gifts, and understanding of the game that he appears to possess now that he doesn't have 4 bigs in front of him in the rotation?
Can Kyle and Nolan provide similar leadership to what the seniors provided this past year? Can they make sure (along with coach K) that everyone understands how much intensity the team needs to bring to off-season workouts as well as every practice and game?
Can Kyle improve his communication skills and become a defensive quarterback much like Lance was this past year? Can he do it all offensively and defensively next year in the Hill-Battier role?
Can Kyle and Nolan continue to improve their passing when driving towards the basket?
Can Nolan continue to improve as a lockdown perimeter defender and improve his leadership and play-making ability as a point guard option? Can Nolan continue to develop ways to score in different ways (penetration to the basket, tear drops, pull-ups, 3 pointers?) and become an unstoppable scorer?
Can Miles continue to improve his defensive footwork and help-side awareness to become a solid last line of defense? Can he grow an effective beard and take over as a rebounding machine on both ends of the court and stop reaching in so that he can stay on the court?
Can Mason continue to improve his defensive footwork and help-side awareness? Can he learn to take the ball a little bit stronger to the basket through contact on his moves inside? Can he find the best times to use his great offensive potential in scoring ways? Will Plumlee Brothers Dunking Company do a lot of business next year?
Will Seth live up to the hype and be a dependable three-point shooter, with solid one-on-one moves and good court vision? Will Seth defend well enough to be a sixth starter?
Will Kyrie live up to the hype, get a little stronger over the summer, and defend well enough to start from day 1? Will he be able to get inside at will and make good decisions with the ball leading to easier scoring opportunities for everyone?
Can Joshua get strong enough and pick up his defensive rotations enough to be a solid contributor in ACC play?
Do Tyler and Carrick have enough defensive skills to force their way into the line-up? Can they pick up Duke's offensive and defensive systems well enough to be dependable contributors next year?
Who will win the dunk contest at Countdown to Craziness?
Does Nolan (or anyone) have anything up their sleeves to match the J. Dawkins retro jersey from last year's CTC?
It will be a big summer.

Great post! You've managed to capture all of the reasons for optimism and concern in one very funny post.

Kedsy
04-22-2010, 01:43 PM
The one thing I wonder, related to your post, is when we are shooting poorly (hopefully never all of our great shooters at once) how do we still win games?
This year Zoubs was such an x-factor in that if we weren't shooting well, he just grabbed all the offensive rebounds to generate enough second chances to give us a chance to win. We also took care of the ball very well (thanks Jon) so this gave us a bit of a margin of error.
When we are shooting poorly this year, will Mason, Miles, Kyle or Ryan be able to get us a dependable bucket down low? Will our high-low offense be a part of our offense when we really need a basket with Mason, Ryan or Kyle as passers and Will our bigs be able to get enough offensive rebounds to give us extra possessions? Will we create enough turnovers and take care of the ball well enough to have extra possessions that way? Will we run enough and get enough easy baskets that we can overcome a poor shooting night? What happens when a team plays a deliberate pace and takes care of the basketball?
It's going to be exciting to see what kind of style the team plays next year?

What you are talking about is offensive efficiency. Last year we achieved it by not turning the ball over and with offensive rebounding and second chance points.

Next year we'll do it in a different way. We may turn the ball over more and get fewer second chance points, but we should force more turnovers (and hopefully convert them into points), get more transition/fast break scoring, and more penetrate-and-dish baskets.

Also, if your regular rotation has three good shooters on it you have a significantly higher chance of a poor shooting night than if you have six. Even if Nolan and Kyle both have off nights at the same time we still have Kyrie, Seth, Andre, and maybe Ryan who can fill it up from outside (this past year if that happened we'd only have Jon plus Andre for a few minutes). Assuming K goes with the hot hand(s) for more minutes in such situations, we will have a much lower chance of an off-shooting night as a team this coming season than we have had in a very long time.

NSDukeFan
04-22-2010, 02:04 PM
What you are talking about is offensive efficiency. Last year we achieved it by not turning the ball over and with offensive rebounding and second chance points.

Next year we'll do it in a different way. We may turn the ball over more and get fewer second chance points, but we should force more turnovers (and hopefully convert them into points), get more transition/fast break scoring, and more penetrate-and-dish baskets.

Also, if your regular rotation has three good shooters on it you have a significantly higher chance of a poor shooting night than if you have six. Even if Nolan and Kyle both have off nights at the same time we still have Kyrie, Seth, Andre, and maybe Ryan who can fill it up from outside (this past year if that happened we'd only have Jon plus Andre for a few minutes). Assuming K goes with the hot hand(s) for more minutes in such situations, we will have a much lower chance of an off-shooting night as a team this coming season than we have had in a very long time.

Duke's offensive efficiency was obviously excellent this year. I thought the team's shot selection was very good and the team moved the ball around to get a good look on just about all of its possessions. This was highlighted to me on the occasions (admittedly not many before tournament time) that I watched non-Duke games. I agree with your points that if the team is to be an offensively efficient team again this year, it will have to be in different ways.

One thing that I liked about how the team achieved this efficiency this year, was that come tournament time, when teams value possessions more, and may play at a more deliberate pace, Brian (especially) was still able to get extra possessions by his outstanding rebounding. I felt like it was almost a trump card for the team this year. I realize that his abiltiy to do that when teams game-planned for him speaks to his persistence and skill and hopefully the team will still be able to generate a turnover margin and fast break baskets when every team looks to limit them at the end of the year. Should be fun to watch.

Cameroncrazie52
04-22-2010, 02:39 PM
this is what im thinking about playing time if he goes 9 deep.
1. irving
2. smith
3. singler
4. kelly/hairston
5. mason/miles
when he is ready for subs they should put
1. seth
2. dawkins
3. felix
4. singler
5. mason/miles
if dawkins improves his ball handling i think they can go with this lineup(also depends on felixs ball handling... if they dont i think they keep irving in and do this
1. irving
2. seth
3. dawkins
4. kelly/ hairston
5. miles/ mason
i dont see thorton getting any time this year except when were blowing people out of the gym...I also think that carrick can come in a play singlers position with this lineup after subs
1. irving
2. seth/dawkins
3. carrick
4. kelly/hairston
5. either plumlee
i dont see the brothers playing together it could work and they could just rotate three people at the 4,5 (not including singler) but this is just my lineup and i think we might just go 8 deep

Chris4UNC
04-25-2010, 01:18 AM
Wow as I was going to sleep, and couldn't because I was so excited Singler was staying, I thought the same thing. But no I don't think we are as good, because that teams starting 5 with to the final four one year and ALL came back to win it all. That's a lot of experience they had, when really we have a lot of new guys on our team.

Don't worry, you guys are going to clean-up in 2010-2011. :( Who knows about another national title but Duke will be great. So, anyone wanna play some baseball? How about football?

Chris4UNC
04-25-2010, 01:22 AM
The UNC team with Ellington, Lawson, Hansbrough, Green etc was a team that was the most talented by far in the country that year was expected to go undefeated and ended up losing 4 games, 2 of which in the ACC... That team was, if not the more talented then this Duke team coming up this year.

They couldn't do it..

With the ACC getting tougher and teams like NC State bringing in good young talent, and UNC getting better with the addition of Harrison Barnes and Reggie Bullock and with everyone healthier and on the same page, they will be a lot better..

With the schedule we are going to get with the defending national champions, we are likely to get a very tough game somewhere like Kentucky, Kansas, or Cuse.. I expect us to be one of, if not the best teams in the country, but undefeated I do not see.

Undefeated is a tough and rare treasure to find. But it is not the most important to be sure. Take a look at the NFL's 18-1 Patriots from a couple years ago.

BoozerWasFouled
04-25-2010, 01:52 AM
To win absolutely every game next year, Duke would need something like an Hasheem Thabeet-caliber interior defender. Duke will see 3-4 games in which an opposing low-post scorer operates with impunity. Just hope it doesn't happen in the tournament.

Saratoga2
04-25-2010, 12:55 PM
Last season’s statistics and my shot at estimating where the production will come from in 10/11. Note the minutes and points don’t completely agree with the averages because not everyone played in all the games. I left assists per game out of my crystal ball, however, this years was 13.7 APG and was also forced to leave off SPG due to the width of the table. Last season was 6.7 and I had estimated slightly more at 7.1. We have a good shot at equaling or exceeding the APG #. I didn’t show any minutes for non-scholarship players but they probably will get some. I am sure other people use a different crystal ball but it is an interesting exercise to go through this. Sorry that my method of building the table was so crude.

Name--------------MPG-----------PPG----------RPG----------BPG
----------------9/10--10/11--9/10---10/11--9/10--10/11--9/10--10/11
Curry-----------0-----18------0------10-----0-----0.5----0------0
Czyz*----------10.2---0------1.2-----0------2-----0------0------0
Davidson--------2.6---0-------0.4-----0------0.2---0------0-----0
Dawkins--------12.6---12------4.4-----6-----1.1----2-----0.1----0.1
Felix------------0------4-------0------1------0-----0.5----0-----0.1
Hairston--------0------12------0-------6-----0------3-----0-----0.3
Irving-----------0------25------0------15-----0-----1.5----0-----0.1
Johnson--------1.7-----0------0.4------0-----0.2----0------0-----0
Kelly------------6.5----10-----1.2------3-----1.1----2------0.4---0.5
Peters----------1.1-----0------0-------0------0.1----0------0----0
Ma Plumlee----14.1----25-----3.7------8-----1.1-----5------0.4--1
Mi Plumlee------16.4---25------5.2-----8------5.2----7------0.7---1
Scheyer--------36.8----0------18.2-----0-----3.6----0------0.3---0
Singler---------35.9----34-----17.7-----18-----7-----7------0.8---0.8
Smith----------35.5----33-----17.4-----18-----2.8---2.8-----0.2--0.2
Thomas--------25.3----0------4.8-------0-----4.9----0------0.2---0
Thornton-------0-------2------0---------1-----0------0.5----0----0.1
Zafirovski-------0------0-------0--------0------0-----0------0-----0
Zoubek---------18.7---0-------5.5-------0-----7.7----0------0.8---0
Totals 09/10-----200-----------77--------------39-----------4.1
Est. Totals 10/11------200---------------94-----------------31.8

GoingFor#5
04-25-2010, 04:34 PM
It'll be interesting to see how K motivates the team this year. It's a completely different game motivation-wise compared to last season. I think it'll be important that the incoming players aren't too cocky coming onto such a loaded team and our veterans need to stay hungry.

Big Pappa
04-25-2010, 05:27 PM
I'm not sure if/when we are going to play Oregon next year (maybe Nov. 27th) but at least they have a coach now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5133719

BattierBattalion
04-25-2010, 07:33 PM
To win absolutely every game next year, Duke would need something like an Hasheem Thabeet-caliber interior defender. Duke will see 3-4 games in which an opposing low-post scorer operates with impunity. Just hope it doesn't happen in the tournament.

Assuming that the team could break our pressure and the big fella could handle a high tempo.

Plus, it seems like we've been able to handle premier big men OKAY (not great) in the past even without the right personal (I'm looking at you Duke 2007 to 09).

CDu
04-25-2010, 07:40 PM
It'll be interesting to see how K motivates the team this year. It's a completely different game motivation-wise compared to last season. I think it'll be important that the incoming players aren't too cocky coming onto such a loaded team and our veterans need to stay hungry.

Luckily, motivating players is something Coach K has proven to be phenomenal at doing. I don't think he'll have trouble getting this group hungry. For one, I don't think Smith and Singler are the type that need much motivation. And the Plumlees, Kelly, Curry, and Dawkins have enough to prove for themselves anyway. But beyond that, if there's any concern at all, Coach K will find the right buttons to hit to get these guys focused.

MisterRoddy
04-25-2010, 09:47 PM
Last season’s statistics and my shot at estimating where the production will come from in 10/11. Note the minutes and points don’t completely agree with the averages because not everyone played in all the games. I left assists per game out of my crystal ball, however, this years was 13.7 APG and was also forced to leave off SPG due to the width of the table. Last season was 6.7 and I had estimated slightly more at 7.1. We have a good shot at equaling or exceeding the APG #. I didn’t show any minutes for non-scholarship players but they probably will get some. I am sure other people use a different crystal ball but it is an interesting exercise to go through this. Sorry that my method of building the table was so crude.

Name--------------MPG-----------PPG----------RPG----------BPG
----------------9/10--10/11--9/10---10/11--9/10--10/11--9/10--10/11
Curry-----------0-----18------0------10-----0-----0.5----0------0
Czyz*----------10.2---0------1.2-----0------2-----0------0------0
Davidson--------2.6---0-------0.4-----0------0.2---0------0-----0
Dawkins--------12.6---12------4.4-----6-----1.1----2-----0.1----0.1
Felix------------0------4-------0------1------0-----0.5----0-----0.1
Hairston--------0------12------0-------6-----0------3-----0-----0.3
Irving-----------0------25------0------15-----0-----1.5----0-----0.1
Johnson--------1.7-----0------0.4------0-----0.2----0------0-----0
Kelly------------6.5----10-----1.2------3-----1.1----2------0.4---0.5
Peters----------1.1-----0------0-------0------0.1----0------0----0
Ma Plumlee----14.1----25-----3.7------8-----1.1-----5------0.4--1
Mi Plumlee------16.4---25------5.2-----8------5.2----7------0.7---1
Scheyer--------36.8----0------18.2-----0-----3.6----0------0.3---0
Singler---------35.9----34-----17.7-----18-----7-----7------0.8---0.8
Smith----------35.5----33-----17.4-----18-----2.8---2.8-----0.2--0.2
Thomas--------25.3----0------4.8-------0-----4.9----0------0.2---0
Thornton-------0-------2------0---------1-----0------0.5----0----0.1
Zafirovski-------0------0-------0--------0------0-----0------0-----0
Zoubek---------18.7---0-------5.5-------0-----7.7----0------0.8---0
Totals 09/10-----200-----------77--------------39-----------4.1
Est. Totals 10/11------200---------------94-----------------31.8


It would b extremely hard for us to average 94 ppg throught the college season.

I will do a less specific breakdown of only this year's team:

player mpg ppg apg rbg
Irving: 28 14 7 3
Smith: 31 15 3 2
Singler 34 16 3 5
Ma. Plum 27 8 1 7
Mi. Plum 22 5 1 8

Curry 17 8 3 1
Dawkins 16 7 1 2
Hairston 13 6 1 4
Felix 8 4 0 3
Kelly 3 .5 0 1
Thornton 1 1 1 0

Total 200 84.5 21 36

With the arrival of Irving, Curry, and Hairston and hopeful improvement of Mason and Andre, Singler and Smith won't have to do as much. Hopefully I am wrong about Kelly but I just don't see him as a player that can get some serious minutes but hopefully he will improve.

whirlieduke4
04-25-2010, 10:54 PM
I'm just not sure if I can agree with the above post's breakdown of points. I'm not sure I see Singler and Smith regressing in points next year, just because I think they'll "get theirs" every game. I'm not saying they take a selfish mentality at the end of the game if they only have 9 points, but I see them taking over in games where some of the other guys don't show up. And how do you see Curry only averaging 8 points next year? I believe jimsumner said earlier that Curry wouldn't be getting enough touches to score in double figures. I think that's just a little ridiculous, this is the same kid that Nolan Smith just said a couple of weeks ago would be one of the top guards in the country next year. And nobody knows Seth better than Nolan. I just don't see the same kid that dominated his D1 team his Freshman year, spent a year practicing against the NATIONAL CHAMPS (still feels awesome to say that) only averaging 8 a game. You have to remember that Zoubs averaged what, like six? I think some of these estimates are a little low, and that our run-and-gun offense will run up the scoreboard on some of these teams. Don't be surprised to see 88-92 ppg from this team next year. (and no, Jim, it'll never be 120, I promise:D ) If I'm wrong, and they only stick around 80, well then heck I'll take 80 points with tenacious defense. Like many have said before, let's just get the season started.

hedevil
04-27-2010, 05:07 PM
In my opinion Duke will be just as good, if not better, than this past team. Will they match this year's achievements (undefeated at home, regular season champs, etc.)? We'll see. But I do expect to see a better team during the second half of the season once K finds his rotation. When all is said and done, I see another ACC championship and another NC. I believe Duke will be super strong come the ACC tournament (with 3 losses at most). Yes we lose three seniors, but we add great depth that I believe K will find a way to max out to potential. I believe Kyle, Nolan, Miles, Mason, Andre, and Ryan all come back better players (one more year of age and experience). Add to that the best point guard in the incoming class, a player with a full year of learning the system in Curry, and Felix, Hairston, Thornton for depth, and I can't see this team taking a step backwards at all.

Last year's team won the NC (meaning they were the best). If this team does what I predict (be better than that team), then the only way to not repeat will be to beat themselves mentally, or for another team to make tremendous strides to surpass this incoming team. This team is likely to be the preseason favorite for a reason. If you take away either Kyle, Nolan, or Kyrie then that changes. So barring injury, Duke is #1 for a reason, not by accident.

Please keep in mind that this is just one man's opinion.:D

cspan37421
04-27-2010, 05:13 PM
Even if we went 40-0, the haters would say that it's not a big accomplishment because the best college players leave after a year.

But you can bet that if we lose an away game, they'll storm the court, thinking it a big accomplishment.

roywhite
04-27-2010, 05:13 PM
In my opinion Duke will be just as good, if not better, than this past team. Will they match this year's achievements (undefeated at home, regular season champs, etc.)? We'll see. But I do expect to see a better team during the second half of the season once K finds his rotation. When all is said and done, I see another ACC championship and another NC. I believe Duke will be super strong come the ACC tournament (with 3 losses at most). Yes we lose three seniors, but we add great depth that I believe K will find a way to max out to potential. I believe Kyle, Nolan, Miles, Mason, Andre, and Ryan all come back better players (one more year of age and experience). Add to that the best point guard in the incoming class, a player with a full year of learning the system in Curry, and Felix, Hairston, Thornton for depth, and I can't see this team taking a step backwards at all.

Last year's team won the NC (meaning they were the best). If this team does what I predict (be better than that team), then the only way to not repeat will be to beat themselves mentally, or for another team to make tremendous strides to surpass this incoming team. This team is likely to be the preseason favorite for a reason. If you take away either Kyle, Nolan, or Kyrie then that changes. So barring injury, Duke is #1 for a reason, not by accident.

Please keep in mind that this is just one man's opinion.:D

I'm optimistic about the 2010-11 Duke team also. But being the best team does not guarantee a national championship. The single elimination format allows opportunities for upsets of the "best team" that could be based on poor shooting, certain unfavorable matchups, or even some close officiating calls.

CEF1959
04-27-2010, 05:14 PM
One word of caution: Injuries.

You never know when they'll hit whom. But they can be The Decider. As K made clear, a critical aspect of this year's team's success was lack of injuries. Zoubek in particular was key in that regard compared with the past couple. No one wants to think about them, but you can imagine the scenarios that would quickly change this whole 2010-11 thing on its head. So... probably best not to get too far ahead of ourselves with predictions about next year's team.

airowe
04-27-2010, 05:27 PM
So... probably best not to get too far ahead of ourselves with predictions about next year's team.

Haha. That's like telling monkeys not to eat bananas.

JohnGalt
04-27-2010, 05:41 PM
One word of caution: Injuries.

You never know when they'll hit whom. But they can be The Decider. As K made clear, a critical aspect of this year's team's success was lack of injuries. Zoubek in particular was key in that regard compared with the past couple. No one wants to think about them, but you can imagine the scenarios that would quickly change this whole 2010-11 thing on its head. So... probably best not to get too far ahead of ourselves with predictions about next year's team.

This has the makings of a really great SciFi flick. The Decider walks around poking players, thereby injuring them. It would be even better if he were invisible too so they couldn't see The Decider coming.

Hmmmm...

hedevil
04-27-2010, 07:58 PM
I don't want to think about injuries, ALRIGHT!!!!!! Stop jinxing it.:D

We all are aware of injuries and sometimes horrible officiating. That's why I predict 2 or 3 losses (only keeping in mind refs). As far as injuries, I am not taking that into account with my assessment. I am simply saying that due to depth, combined with coach K, I believe that next year's team will be better (barring the uncontrollable factors). That is not a knock on the 09-10 team. I love this championship team (that's an understatement). You couldn't ask for a better group of guys to represent Duke. I am just referring to the talent on the floor. I believe that as the season goes along, (again, barring injuries) that this team is going to grow together, mature together, and look pretty darn strong come tourny time. Whether one bad game will come between them and the promised land, we'll see, but if they can play to their potential, watch out.

Unlike some, I don't really put too much effort in controlling my expectations. For me, the disappointment of not winning doesn't soften when I lower my expectations. Either way, I always end the season feeling proud of the guys wearing the uniform just knowing they gave it their all.

Waynne
04-27-2010, 09:45 PM
Team chemistry also will be important, as we learned this year. The 3 seniors and 2 juniors this season were one of the most cohesive units I've seen in a long time. They got that way by playing together for 3 years, experiencing a lot of highs and lows, and learning the hard way what it takes to be a great team.

Next season's team will be a mix of old and new players, and it's impossible to tell now how they'll mesh. I think Kyle and Nolan will provide strong leadership and hopefully the other guys will follow.

MisterRoddy
04-27-2010, 10:11 PM
Team chemistry also will be important, as we learned this year. The 3 seniors and 2 juniors this season were one of the most cohesive units I've seen in a long time. They got that way by playing together for 3 years, experiencing a lot of highs and lows, and learning the hard way what it takes to be a great team.

Next season's team will be a mix of old and new players, and it's impossible to tell now how they'll mesh. I think Kyle and Nolan will provide strong leadership and hopefully the other guys will follow.

I think chemistry will come easily...we just won a championship, we got the senior leaders in Nolan and Kyle...projected starting brothers in the Plumlees...and the best new guards coming in for us (Irving and Curry) are selfless, well-rounded young men. There are some things we probably should worry about but chemistry, imo, is not one of them.

hedevil
04-27-2010, 10:24 PM
I agree.

While we do lose 3 upperclassmen (seniors), we didn't have too much experience behind the seniors and juniors last year. I prefer the tradeoff of 2 seniors in place of last year's three, 2 juniors to match last year's (I count Curry as a junior, right?), but now we add 4 sophmores counting Felix, as well as 3 quality freshman (one of which is our new true point guard, and best in the nation in his class). This year's bench should be a huge upgrade. Obviously we lose rebounding and a great defensive stopper in Z and LT, but I could see quite a few of the new players making up for their (Z and LT) lack of scoring. I just don't see where the fallout could come from, barring injury.

sagegrouse
04-27-2010, 10:29 PM
I think chemistry will come easily...we just won a championship, we got the senior leaders in Nolan and Kyle...projected starting brothers in the Plumlees...and the best new guards coming in for us (Irving and Curry) are selfless, well-rounded young men. There are some things we probably should worry about but chemistry, imo, is not one of them.

I am not so sure that "chemistry will come easily." The 2010 team, especially for the last half of the season performed wondrously well. It played together better than any Duke team I can remember. So achieving that pinnacle with a different team, even with many of the same players, is not a given.

2011 has the potential to be as good or better than 2010, but we are changing a lot of pieces of the machinery. Scheyer was not only a "glue player," and "a coach on the floor," but also a star of the team and its only A-A player. Zoubek was a force of nature.

Maybe Kyrie will be brilliant out of the box; the Plumlees will seamlessly fill in for Z and LT; and the greater depth on the perimeter will give the team more resilience. But we can't assume it will happen, especially not at the beginning of the season.

sagegrouse

MisterRoddy
04-27-2010, 10:39 PM
I am not so sure that "chemistry will come easily." The 2010 team, especially for the last half of the season performed wondrously well. It played together better than any Duke team I can remember. So achieving that pinnacle with a different team, even with many of the same players, is not a given.

2011 has the potential to be as good or better than 2010, but we are changing a lot of pieces of the machinery. Scheyer was not only a "glue player," and "a coach on the floor," but also a star of the team and its only A-A player. Zoubek was a force of nature.

Maybe Kyrie will be brilliant out of the box; the Plumlees will seamlessly fill in for Z and LT; and the greater depth on the perimeter will give the team more resilience. But we can't assume it will happen, especially not at the beginning of the season.

sagegrouse


I guess "chemistry will come easy" wasnt exactly the best way to say it. I guess I mean, while chemistry is one of the top factors as to how good the team plays, I dont think us as fans should worry about it as much as other factors such as injuries because of us winning the NC/Kyle/Nolan/Plumlees/Kyrie/Seth...like I said, while it wont be "easy" to come by, we probably shouldnt worry about it that much.

roywhite
04-27-2010, 10:45 PM
I agree.

While we do lose 3 upperclassmen (seniors), we didn't have too much experience behind the seniors and juniors last year. I prefer the tradeoff of 2 seniors in place of last year's three, 2 juniors to match last year's (I count Curry as a junior, right?), but now we add 4 sophmores counting Felix, as well as 3 quality freshman (one of which is our new true point guard, and best in the nation in his class). This year's bench should be a huge upgrade. Obviously we lose rebounding and a great defensive stopper in Z and LT, but I could see quite a few of the new players making up for their (Z and LT) lack of scoring. I just don't see where the falloff could come from, barring injury.

Yeah, looks like a good combination of returnees and newcomers, esp. strong in the backcourt.

Seth Curry will be a sophomore in eligibility; he and Carrick Felix are both 2 years out of high school, but will have 3 years of eligibility (to my mind, their experience level is a positive thing in assessing their ability to contribute early.)

hedevil
04-27-2010, 10:46 PM
I guess what I'm saying, is that I trust in K. Will everyone have great chemistry when the season begins? No. Will coach K develop chemistry between the players/rotation he sees as best fit going forward? I believe so. I believe that come late season, we'll look back and wonder how chemistry was even being discussed as a potential issue. Just my opinion. :)

MisterRoddy
04-27-2010, 10:51 PM
I guess what I'm saying, is that I trust in K. Will everyone have great chemistry when the season begins? No. Will coach K develop chemistry between the players/rotation he sees as best fit going forward? I believe so. I believe that come late season, we'll look back and wonder how chemistry was even being discussed as a potential issue. Just my opinion. :)

agreed!

MisterRoddy
04-27-2010, 11:06 PM
I haven't heard much talk about Josh Hairston and next year. What do you guys see his role on next year's team being?

hedevil
04-27-2010, 11:20 PM
From what I've read, Josh has made some great strides in the last year or so. Honestly, I don't know if he will be an immediate impact player or just play sparingly his first year. I do expect big things for him over a four year period. For this season, I can see him playing the four spot for 5 to 10 minutes a game. It's a big question mark. I think alot will depend on foul trouble for the Plumlees, and Kelly. In some games he might pick up extra minutes due to fouls. Then again, some of those minutes might go to Kyle instead. It's hard to say, but I'm eager to see what he can do based on what I've heard. He should have a bright future at Duke.

MisterRoddy
04-27-2010, 11:28 PM
From what I've read, Josh has made some great strides in the last year or so. Honestly, I don't know if he will be an immediate impact player or just play sparingly his first year. I do expect big things for him over a four year period. For this season, I can see him playing the four spot for 5 to 10 minutes a game. It's a big question mark. I think alot will depend on foul trouble for the Plumlees, and Kelly. In some games he might pick up extra minutes due to fouls. Then again, some of those minutes might go to Kyle instead. It's hard to say, but I'm eager to see what he can do based on what I've heard. He should have a bright future at Duke.

Hmm is there no middle ground between immediate impact player and playing sparingly? Our front court looks to be a little weak next year. We have both Plumlees but after that it's sketchy. Ryan Kelly hasnt proven anything yet (hopefully he will dramatically improve such as Miles did his soph year) but thats no guarentee. I'm hoping Josh can be that solid role player next year who gets around 10-15 min/game possibly more..is that asking for too much?

Kedsy
04-28-2010, 12:43 AM
Last year's team won the NC (meaning they were the best).

Actually, it means they won the NC. Nothing more. The best team (which in 2009-10 was Kansas) often fails to win the NCAAT.


If this team does what I predict (be better than that team), then the only way to not repeat will be to beat themselves mentally, or for another team to make tremendous strides to surpass this incoming team.

Where to begin? Does anybody think Butler took strides and so was better than Syracuse? Or that Syracuse beat themselves? Does anybody think Ohio would beat Georgetown more than once in a 100 tries? In a one-and-done tournament, sometimes the lesser team has a great game (or the better team has an off-night shooting, or whatever). Your conclusions do not necessarily follow from a logical standpoint.

Duke may win it all next season, or they may not. Whether or not the 2010-11 team is better than the 2009-10 team is pretty close to irrelevant in this conversation.


I just don't see where the fallout could come from, barring injury.

Could you see (in advance) where it was coming from in 1999 or 2002 or 2005 or 2006 or in almost every other year that ended in less than a championship?

MisterRoddy
04-28-2010, 12:56 AM
Originially posted by Kedsy
Actually, it means they won the NC. Nothing more. The best team (which in 2009-10 was Kansas) often fails to win the NCAAT.

What constitutes Kansas as the best team? because they had an excellent regular season? They didn't even get past the second round of the NCAA tournament.

hedevil
04-28-2010, 01:08 AM
That's way too funny.

Duke was the best TEAM.

Kansas was the flavor of the month, then the next flavor was Kentucky, then all of a sudden everyone saw Duke as the best team in the nation when the final 4 came around. It's funny to me how quick people jump ship.

hedevil
04-28-2010, 01:10 AM
For the record, by fallout, I was meaning in terms of a downgrade on the team. I see this upcoming team improving on last years'. MY OPINION!

Kedsy
04-28-2010, 01:42 AM
That's way too funny.

Duke was the best TEAM.

Kansas was the flavor of the month, then the next flavor was Kentucky, then all of a sudden everyone saw Duke as the best team in the nation when the final 4 came around. It's funny to me how quick people jump ship.

I never thought Kentucky was the best team; there was no time this season that I thought they would make the Final Four (and I was almost wrong). I believed from pre-season to NCAAT that Duke would make the Final Four (and I was right). But making the Final Four does not make you the best team, and neither does winning the national championship.

Was Villanova the nation's best team in 1985? Was NC State the best in 1983? Kansas in 1988? Arizona in 1997? George Mason made the Final Four in 2006, did that make them one of the best four teams that year? I could go on.

I saw Kansas on TV several times this past season and I saw them once in person. I watched practically every Duke game this year, including four or five in person. I believe if Duke played Kansas 10 games, Kansas would have won at least six. They were the better team, who happened to have an off-game against an underrated Northern Iowa team. I'm not saying Duke's national championship wasn't deserved -- it most certainly was -- I'm just saying winning the national championship and being the best team are not equivalent.

In 2002, I think Duke was the best team in the country, but they lost in the Sweet 16. Doesn't mean they weren't the best team; it just means they lost a fluky NCAAT game.

I don't whine about how we were overrated or flawed if we lose in the tournament, and I don't have any illusions that we were some sort of juggernaut if we happen to win it all. Your argument that beating a Horizon League team in one game by two points proves we were "the best TEAM" doesn't make logical sense. After all, we got clobbered by NC State earlier in the year. Were they the best team?

flyingdutchdevil
04-28-2010, 06:14 AM
I never thought Kentucky was the best team; there was no time this season that I thought they would make the Final Four (and I was almost wrong). I believed from pre-season to NCAAT that Duke would make the Final Four (and I was right). But making the Final Four does not make you the best team, and neither does winning the national championship.

Was Villanova the nation's best team in 1985? Was NC State the best in 1983? Kansas in 1988? Arizona in 1997? George Mason made the Final Four in 2006, did that make them one of the best four teams that year? I could go on.

I saw Kansas on TV several times this past season and I saw them once in person. I watched practically every Duke game this year, including four or five in person. I believe if Duke played Kansas 10 games, Kansas would have won at least six. They were the better team, who happened to have an off-game against an underrated Northern Iowa team. I'm not saying Duke's national championship wasn't deserved -- it most certainly was -- I'm just saying winning the national championship and being the best team are not equivalent.

In 2002, I think Duke was the best team in the country, but they lost in the Sweet 16. Doesn't mean they weren't the best team; it just means they lost a fluky NCAAT game.

I don't whine about how we were overrated or flawed if we lose in the tournament, and I don't have any illusions that we were some sort of juggernaut if we happen to win it all. Your argument that beating a Horizon League team in one game by two points proves we were "the best TEAM" doesn't make logical sense. After all, we got clobbered by NC State earlier in the year. Were they the best team?

Great points. I agree that Duke was a great team this year, but were they the best? That is the beauty of the NCAA Tourney - it's not about who is the best team but rather the team that plays 6 games in a row the best.

The NBA playoffs are much more representative of the "best team" due to series of 7 rather than one-and-dones. As a result, the 8-seed may win a game here of there, but they rarely win the series against the 1-seed (I said rarely and yes, I'm aware of the Mavs/GSW series).

However, I haven't come across a basketball fan who loves the NBA playoffs more than the NCAA tourney in terms of a sporting event. The NCAA is just a beautiful, beautiful tournament.

airowe
04-28-2010, 07:56 AM
Any Duke fan who remembers 1999 should realize that the best team does not always win the title.

Welcome2DaSlopes
04-28-2010, 07:57 AM
True, but what's the point to go into a season pessimistic

CDu
04-28-2010, 08:16 AM
In my opinion Duke will be just as good, if not better, than this past team. Will they match this year's achievements (undefeated at home, regular season champs, etc.)? We'll see. But I do expect to see a better team during the second half of the season once K finds his rotation. When all is said and done, I see another ACC championship and another NC. I believe Duke will be super strong come the ACC tournament (with 3 losses at most). Yes we lose three seniors, but we add great depth that I believe K will find a way to max out to potential. I believe Kyle, Nolan, Miles, Mason, Andre, and Ryan all come back better players (one more year of age and experience). Add to that the best point guard in the incoming class, a player with a full year of learning the system in Curry, and Felix, Hairston, Thornton for depth, and I can't see this team taking a step backwards at all.

Last year's team won the NC (meaning they were the best). If this team does what I predict (be better than that team), then the only way to not repeat will be to beat themselves mentally, or for another team to make tremendous strides to surpass this incoming team. This team is likely to be the preseason favorite for a reason. If you take away either Kyle, Nolan, or Kyrie then that changes. So barring injury, Duke is #1 for a reason, not by accident.

Please keep in mind that this is just one man's opinion.:D

There are two things (and they're very related) that I think you're overlooking about the concept of a single-elimination tournament and how it relates to the best team:

1. Our national championship this year does not mean we were the best. It means we were the team that was able to win 6 games without losing one. Do you think that UNI was better than Kansas? I would hope not. And if you don't think UNI was better than Kansas, then you have to throw out the idea that the tournament determines the best team. We were arguably one of the 2-3 best teams this season. However, the tournament is not the measuring stick to determine that.

2. There is a third possibility for how we could not win next year. We could face a hot team on a bad day for us. The history of the tournament is littered with cases in which the better team lost simply because they faced a hot opponent. The tournament is fun, but HIGHLY unpredictable. The season's best team often does not win. As such, even if we are the best team next year and don't lose focus, we can lose in the tournament even to an inferior team just because the shots don't fall in for us (or do fall in for them).

Indoor66
04-28-2010, 08:46 AM
I guess what I'm saying, is that I trust in K. Will everyone have great chemistry when the season begins? No. Will coach K develop chemistry between the players/rotation he sees as best fit going forward? I believe so. I believe that come late season, we'll look back and wonder how chemistry was even being discussed as a potential issue. Just my opinion. :)

IMO the chemistry issue is really big. I think that is the key to success. I agree with the above in that chemistry between players will develop through the year.

I hope that it develops on a steady basis, as it did this past year. If it does, the team might perform as well next spring as this year's did this past March-April. I want us to peak at the end of the season, not necessarily start of like a rocket (though I will accept a top level performance for the whole year.) I think many of the national champion teams are teams that progressed through the year and peaked at the end - like Duke did on '09-'10.

JohnGalt
04-28-2010, 09:29 AM
There is a third possibility for how we could not win next year. We could face a hot team on a bad day for us. The history of the tournament is littered with cases in which the better team lost simply because they faced a hot opponent. The tournament is fun, but HIGHLY unpredictable. The season's best team often does not win. As such, even if we are the best team next year and don't lose focus, we can lose in the tournament even to an inferior team just because the shots don't fall in for us (or do fall in for them).

This is absolutely true and is why it is so difficult to repeat in the college basketball tournament. In a single elimination tournament, generally speaking, the hottest team has an advantage over a team that has consistently performed throughout the course of the year. Syracuse wasn't ranked at the beginning of 2003, but won it all. I'm sure there are other examples, but I can't think of them off the top of head. Unless there is a team that is simply heaps and bounds better than the rest - which I would argue this year there was not - the hottest team going into the tournament is generally in the best position to win it.

NSDukeFan
04-28-2010, 09:35 AM
True, but what's the point to go into a season pessimistic

Is it pessimistic to go into a season realizing that even if the team is better that it would be unlikely to match the accomplishments of the previous year's team?

sagegrouse
04-28-2010, 09:40 AM
I saw Kansas on TV several times this past season and I saw them once in person. I watched practically every Duke game this year, including four or five in person. I believe if Duke played Kansas 10 games, Kansas would have won at least six. They were the better team, who happened to have an off-game against an underrated Northern Iowa team. I'm not saying Duke's national championship wasn't deserved -- it most certainly was -- I'm just saying winning the national championship and being the best team are not equivalent.



Isn't the "best team in the country" supposed to play hard every game, especially in NCAA tournament games. Then how do you explain the lackadaisical effort by Kansas in the first 32 minutes against Northern Iowa? Bill Self, smoothy that he is, even signaled his disgust by saying, "We played really hard right to the end." He was too polite to mention when the Jayhawks began playing hard, which was midway through the second half, when they trailed by a dozen.

Being the "best" is also about "wanting it the most." That was characteristic of Duke the last half of the season. Even cranky old Caulton Tudor, in a column on UNC's lack of success, did an abrupt transition to Duke, saying something like, "the Blue Devils play really hard every game for the whole game." His implication was that UNC wasn't even trying hard.

sagegrouse

CDu
04-28-2010, 09:42 AM
This is absolutely true and is why it is so difficult to repeat in the college basketball tournament. In a single elimination tournament, generally speaking, the hottest team has an advantage over a team that has consistently performed throughout the course of the year. Syracuse wasn't ranked at the beginning of 2003, but won it all. I'm sure there are other examples, but I can't think of them off the top of head. Unless there is a team that is simply heaps and bounds better than the rest - which I would argue this year there was not - the hottest team going into the tournament is generally in the best position to win it.

Even the hottest team isn't a very likely pick. In a six-game, single-elimination tournament that spans three weeks, even a "hot" team can cool back off.

Even if the absolute best team is also the hottest team, that team almost certainly has no more than a 33% chance of winning the whole thing. For example, given the first round game (which the #1 seed always wins), if you were an 80% favorite (i.e., expected to win 4 out of every 5 games, which is pretty absurd against the better opponents) against every other opponent in the tournament, you'd only have a 32.8% expected chance of winning it. Even a team that's a 90% favorite in all of those games would only be slightly better than a coin flip's pick to win.

It's hard to repeat because it's hard to win it period. Even the best team and even the hottest team (and even if that's the same team) are very unlikely to win the tournament.

roywhite
04-28-2010, 09:53 AM
Even the hottest team isn't a very likely pick. In a six-game, single-elimination tournament that spans three weeks, even a "hot" team can cool back off.



No doubt the single elimination format makes things difficult, but the KenPom ratings for the last several years appear to have a good track record of identifying a #1 team, which goes on to win the tournament.

CDu
04-28-2010, 10:27 AM
No doubt the single elimination format makes things difficult, but the KenPom ratings for the last several years appear to have a good track record of identifying a #1 team, which goes on to win the tournament.

Well, sort of. If I recall correctly, KenPom had Kansas as the #1 team this year and the most likely (though still highly unlikely) to win it all going into the tournament. Duke was a very close second, but didn't take over the #1 spot in Pomeroy's system until we were in the tournament. And remember that Pomeroy was a bit concerned that his system was overrating Duke because it may have overvalued the ACC as a whole this year.

The final Pomeroy rankings definitely match up fairly well with the winner. But I wonder how much of that is due to the results of tournament itself (in which the winner keeps improving their Pomeroy stats while those that lose early have their numbers hurt).

jimsumner
04-28-2010, 11:19 AM
"front court looks to be a little weak next year. We have both Plumlees but after that it's sketchy."

Why wouldn't the 6'8" senior forward who was first-team All-ACC and Final Four MOP count as a frontcourt player?

mo.st.dukie
04-28-2010, 11:21 AM
Well, sort of. If I recall correctly, KenPom had Kansas as the #1 team this year and the most likely (though still highly unlikely) to win it all going into the tournament.


Duke was #1 for the majority of February and some of January IIRC. I think KU took over the #1 spot after Duke's loss to Maryland. I don't know exactly what his odds were for who would win it all but I'm pretty sure Duke was one of the top 3 teams most likely to win the title going into the tournament.

In most years there are typically 3-5 teams that could win it all. In 2008 many people didn't consider KU to be the best team or most talented. Many people gave that label to UNC or Memphis or even UCLA who had tons of talent and experience. But KU was considered one of the 4 or 5 elite teams in the country. The difference with this year is that despite all the statistics and records suggesting Duke was an elite team most people let their flawed perceptions of what an elite team is get in the way. They saw the lineup and it didn't "look" like an elite team even though all the rankings, statistics, records, etc. suggested Duke actually was an elite team.

CDu
04-28-2010, 11:25 AM
"front court looks to be a little weak next year. We have both Plumlees but after that it's sketchy."

Why wouldn't the 6'8" senior forward who was first-team All-ACC and Final Four MOP count as a frontcourt player?

My guess is that when people are saying "frontcourt," they mean "interior guys." They're thinking of Singler as a perimeter guy. It's not technically correct, as the SF has generally been considered a frontcourt guy. But if you swap "4/5" for frontcourt, the "frontcourt" is then limited to the Plumlees, Kelly, and Hairston. Depending upon your opinion of those four, I don't think it's outlandish to say that the frontcourt is a question mark.

I'm inclined to believe that Kelly will surprise some people next year, and I'm hopeful that the Plumlees make big strides. If that happens, the frontcourt (in any variation of the term) will not be weak. And that's ignoring the potential impact of Hairston. I try not to have big expectations for freshman forwards, but that doesn't mean that he can't have an impact in the frontcourt next year either.

Indoor66
04-28-2010, 11:29 AM
My guess is that when people are saying "frontcourt," they mean "interior guys." They're thinking of Singler as a perimeter guy. It's not technically correct, as the SF has generally been considered a frontcourt guy. But if you swap "4/5" for frontcourt, the "frontcourt" is then limited to the Plumlees, Kelly, and Hairston. Depending upon your opinion of those four, I don't think it's outlandish to say that the frontcourt is a question mark.

I'm inclined to believe that Kelly will surprise some people next year, and I'm hopeful that the Plumlees make big strides. If that happens, the frontcourt (in any variation of the term) will not be weak. And that's ignoring the potential impact of Hairston. I try not to have big expectations for freshman forwards, but that doesn't mean that he can't have an impact in the frontcourt next year either.

Some concepts define and some confine.

I think the overuse of the 1-2-3-4-5 concepts in looking at BB players and performance is a confining use of the terms. It is handy for simplistic nomenclature but hardly is useful in analyzing many players performing abilities.

mo.st.dukie
04-28-2010, 11:31 AM
My guess is that when people are saying "frontcourt," they mean "interior guys." They're thinking of Singler as a perimeter guy. It's not technically correct, as the SF has generally been considered a frontcourt guy. But if you swap "4/5" for frontcourt, the "frontcourt" is then limited to the Plumlees, Kelly, and Hairston. Depending upon your opinion of those four, I don't think it's outlandish to say that the frontcourt is a question mark.



Who says Kyle won't ever play in the "frontcourt" next season? He's not anchored to one position and Duke now has the depth to unleash him and allow him to play all over the court. I'm fully expecting him to play both outside and inside (with 3 other guards on the floor).

CDu
04-28-2010, 11:32 AM
Duke was #1 for the majority of February and some of January IIRC. I think KU took over the #1 spot after Duke's loss to Maryland. I don't know exactly what his odds were for who would win it all but I'm pretty sure Duke was one of the top 3 teams most likely to win the title going into the tournament.

Yes, which is why I said Duke was a very close second in Pomeroy. But note that neither was anticipated to be anything more than a 25-30% chance of winning it, even by Pomeroy.

My point was definitely not that Duke made some huge tourney jump. It was just to note that Pomeroy's post-season #1 team is not always the team that Pomeroy projects as #1 at the start of the tournament. Thus, while it's a pretty good measure of which teams are the best teams 4-5 teams, it's not necessarily as great at exactly predicting the champion. You can bet that the champion will come from the top 3-5 teams in Pomeroy, but it's still unlikely that it'll be the team Pomeroy had at #1 (prior to the tourney).

CDu
04-28-2010, 11:33 AM
Who says Kyle won't ever play in the "frontcourt" next season? He's not anchored to one position and Duke now has the depth to unleash him and allow him to play all over the court. I'm fully expecting him to play both outside and inside (with 3 other guards on the floor).

You're preaching to the choir. I expect him to play 10 or so minutes at the 4 with Dawkins or Curry at the 3. Though that still leaves ~70 minutes for folks other than Singler at the 4/5 spots.

And regardless of whether he plays the 3 or the 4, he'll play both inside and outside offensively. I was just clarifying what I believe to be the viewpoint of the previous poster with regard to excluding Singler in the 4/5 discussion.

Duvall
04-28-2010, 11:35 AM
Some concepts define and some confine.

I think the overuse of the 1-2-3-4-5 concepts in looking at BB players and performance is a confining use of the terms. It is handy for simplistic nomenclature but hardly is useful in analyzing many players performing abilities.

What does that have to do with the fact that the interior rotation of Plumlee, Plumlee, Kelly and Hairston consists of four relatively unproven players?

Kedsy
04-28-2010, 11:37 AM
Isn't the "best team in the country" supposed to play hard every game, especially in NCAA tournament games. Then how do you explain the lackadaisical effort by Kansas in the first 32 minutes against Northern Iowa? Bill Self, smoothy that he is, even signaled his disgust by saying, "We played really hard right to the end." He was too polite to mention when the Jayhawks began playing hard, which was midway through the second half, when they trailed by a dozen.

Well, that's certainly a valid point, but I would argue teams have off games, mentally as well as physically. Duke didn't appear to play especially hard against NC State this year.

jimsumner
04-28-2010, 11:39 AM
Well, "frontcourt" in traditional basketball nomenclature means one center and two forwards. "Backcourt" means the two guards. So, I'm pretty sure Kyle Singler will be a frontcourt player next season.

And yes, when Andre Dawkins or Carrick Felix is playing the 3, then they are frontcourt players.

Singler likely will start at the 3 and spend the bulk of his time there. But he will play some 4, especially in end of game situations, maybe more, depending on matchups, foul trouble and other variables.

Singler will be one of five recruited players 6'8" or taller, four of whom were prep All-Americans and at least two of whom will be first round--likely lottery--picks in the NBA draft.

If Singler, Plumlee, Plumlee, Kelly and Hairston comprise Duke's weak area, then Duke is in pretty good shape. It's a relatively young group to be sure, one senior, one junior, two sophomores and one freshman, so there will be some learning-curve issues. But there also should be season-long improvements.

JohnGalt
04-28-2010, 12:03 PM
Well, "frontcourt" in traditional basketball nomenclature means one center and two forwards. "Backcourt" means the two guards. So, I'm pretty sure Kyle Singler will be a frontcourt player next season.



In an era where the the traditional #5 Center is becoming increasingly scarce, I think it can be difficult to place such a rigid structure to the game. I understand your point that the nomenclature indicates what you mentioned, but in a 4 out 1 set I don't find it outlandish to say the backcourt has 4 players, while the frontcourt only has 1. Granted, this scheme is a little different than most, but it seems the game is moving away from the traditional 2-1-2 scheme and instead involving a more fluid approach that maximizes everyone's different abilities rather than confining them to "the low post" or so on.

The perfect example is LeBron James. He's like 6'9 260 lbs and plays every position on the court at any given time.

CDu
04-28-2010, 12:09 PM
In an era where the the traditional #5 Center is becoming increasingly scarce, I think it can be difficult to place such a rigid structure to the game. I understand your point that the nomenclature indicates what you mentioned, but in a 4 out 1 set I don't find it outlandish to say the backcourt has 4 players, while the frontcourt only has 1. Granted, this scheme is a little different than most, but it seems the game is moving away from the traditional 2-1-2 scheme and instead involving a more fluid approach that maximizes everyone's different abilities rather than confining them to "the low post" or so on.

The perfect example is LeBron James. He's like 6'9 260 lbs and plays every position on the court at any given time.

I agree. The term "frontcourt" was created when teams typically played two perimeter players, two baseline players, and a center. The SF and PF were much more similar than they frequently are now. The PG and SG were much more similar as well, but that's for another discussion. As such, the concept of frontcourt and backcourt made more sense.

The game is evolving (or some may argue has evolved) to the point that many teams play 3 guards. As such, the old concept of the frontcourt doesn't really hold anymore. And because of that, I'm willing to give a lot of wiggle room in how people use the term.

jimsumner
04-28-2010, 12:11 PM
So, we should expect to see a lot of that Nolan Smith, Kyrie Irving, Seth Curry, Tyler Thornton lineup? With modern basketball having four guards and all.

Sign of relief. Good thing Krzyzewski brought in some extra guards this year.

airowe
04-28-2010, 12:12 PM
Whoever plays what position, I'm confident that Jumbo's +/- numbers will have a lot more lineup configurations next year than they did this year.

JohnGalt
04-28-2010, 12:13 PM
I agree. The term "frontcourt" was created when teams typically played two perimeter players, two baseline players, and a center. The SF and PF were much more similar than they frequently are now. The PG and SG were much more similar as well, but that's for another discussion. As such, the concept of frontcourt and backcourt made more sense.



I'm not sure I agree with this though, CDu. It seems to me this hybrid "combo guard" concept is something that is becoming increasingly popular. As I haven't been on this earth a tremendous amount of time, I could be wrong, but it seems to me the "Scoring Point Guard" player that handles the 1 while looking for his own shot as much as his teammates' is part of this new evolution.

Kedsy
04-28-2010, 12:34 PM
I understand your point that the nomenclature indicates what you mentioned, but in a 4 out 1 set I don't find it outlandish to say the backcourt has 4 players, while the frontcourt only has 1.

Well, only if "back" and "front" mean the same as "outside" and "inside." Personally, I don't think these definitions can be pinned to where a player happens to be playing on offense. If Jon Scheyer was guarded by a 5'10" PG and Jon spent much of the game posting up the shorter player, does that mean Jon was in the frontcourt that game?

Ultimately, basketball is about matchups, and most importantly about defensive matchups. In my opinion, Jim Sumner's Nolan, Kyrie, Seth, Tyler T lineup would have a chance to get on the floor if Coach K thought such a lineup would be able to defend effectively.

CDu
04-28-2010, 12:35 PM
So, we should expect to see a lot of that Nolan Smith, Kyrie Irving, Seth Curry, Tyler Thornton lineup? With modern basketball having four guards and all.

Sign of relief. Good thing Krzyzewski brought in some extra guards this year.

Maybe you could lay of the snarky comments that miss the broader point here. The idea of the frontcourt comprising of the center and both forwards is an anachronistic concept. In the old days, the backcourt was synonymous with perimeter guys, while the frontcourt was synonymous with baseline/post guys. It was logical to group them as such. That's not really the case anymore.

Nowadays, teams play a lot more lineups with three perimeter guys. Some teams even play four perimeter guys. As such, staying rigid with the three-man frontcourt concept just doesn't make sense. Being a perimeter player is no longer synonymous with being a guard.

We're going to see a lot of lineups with two guards and a perimeter-oriented 3. We'll see some lineups with three guards and a perimeter-oriented 4. Nobody is suggesting that we'll play four guards. Just that we'll play four perimeter players quite a bit. There's a big distinction.

Perhaps the best way to think about this is to drop the "frontcourt/backcourt" concepts, which are out of date. Maybe that will ease the confusion.

CDu
04-28-2010, 12:36 PM
I'm not sure I agree with this though, CDu. It seems to me this hybrid "combo guard" concept is something that is becoming increasingly popular. As I haven't been on this earth a tremendous amount of time, I could be wrong, but it seems to me the "Scoring Point Guard" player that handles the 1 while looking for his own shot as much as his teammates' is part of this new evolution.

You're right. I should have said the game has/had evolved into a specialized backcourt (it still is that way in the NBA), and is now maybe starting to evolve back into a less specialized backcourt.

CDu
04-28-2010, 12:38 PM
Well, only if "back" and "front" mean the same as "outside" and "inside." Personally, I don't think these definitions can be pinned to where a player happens to be playing on offense. If Jon Scheyer was guarded by a 5'10" PG and Jon spent much of the game posting up the shorter player, does that mean Jon was in the frontcourt that game?

Ultimately, basketball is about matchups, and most importantly about defensive matchups. In my opinion, Jim Sumner's Nolan, Kyrie, Seth, Tyler T lineup would have a chance to get on the floor if Coach K thought such a lineup would be able to defend effectively.

The terms originated as interior/baseline (frontcourt) guys and perimeter (backcourt) guys. And you are right that the terminology depends on both ends of the floor. But most teams play three "outside" guys these days. And many teams are playing four "outside" guys. Thus, the concept of grouping three guys as frontcourt guys makes less and less sense in today's college game.

Kedsy
04-28-2010, 12:43 PM
I'm not sure I agree with this though, CDu. It seems to me this hybrid "combo guard" concept is something that is becoming increasingly popular. As I haven't been on this earth a tremendous amount of time, I could be wrong, but it seems to me the "Scoring Point Guard" player that handles the 1 while looking for his own shot as much as his teammates' is part of this new evolution.

There was a time when the two guards were interchangeable on many/most teams. They both could handle, they both could shoot, and it was rare to see a single player in charge of what we now think of as point guard duties.

The term "point guard" wasn't even invented until the late 1960s or early 1970s (as far as I can tell). And as soon as it was invented, the "scoring point guard" was born. It is not in any way new. Tiny Archibald, for example, was known as a point guard but looked for his own shot plenty, leading the NBA in scoring in 1973.

CDu
04-28-2010, 12:54 PM
There was a time when the two guards were interchangeable on many/most teams. They both could handle, they both could shoot, and it was rare to see a single player in charge of what we now think of as point guard duties.

The term "point guard" wasn't even invented until the late 1960s or early 1970s (as far as I can tell). And as soon as it was invented, the "scoring point guard" was born. It is not in any way new. Tiny Archibald, for example, was known as a point guard but looked for his own shot plenty, leading the NBA in scoring in 1973.

Exactly. That was a better way of saying what I was trying to say originally. I would agree with JohnGalt though that the idea of having two ballhandling guards on the floor at the same time is coming back into vogue. So in a way, that part of the game is maybe evolving (again) back towards its roots?

sagegrouse
04-28-2010, 01:01 PM
The terms originated as interior/baseline (frontcourt) guys and perimeter (backcourt) guys. And you are right that the terminology depends on both ends of the floor. But most teams play three "outside" guys these days. And many teams are playing four "outside" guys. Thus, the concept of grouping three guys as frontcourt guys makes less and less sense in today's college game.

Well,... Basketball for decades had one center, two forwards, and two guards. And, when the teams were introduced at the beginning of the game, that's how it was done. Back in my era it was not unusual for the "center" on a HS team to be 6-1 or 6-2.

Deam Smith, I believe, pioneered the 1-5 notation.

K has resisted labeling players as anything but "players," because he wants to encourage versatility

But, of course, unlike in football, where certain players are limited in what they can do, position doesn't mean anything in terms of the rules. So position doesn't have any true meaning.

It seems like most teams show starting lineups of two forwards and three guards. The center position at times seems to be vanishing. At Duke, out of approximately 130 roster positions over the past decade (average roster x 10), only 15 were listed at center and one of those (Patrick Johnson) was a C/F. The other listed centers for Duke in the "aught" decade were Boozer, Casey Sanders, Michael Thompson, Eric Boateng, and Zoubs. McRoberts, Horvath, Shav, and Shelden were all listed as "forwards." And only Boozer and Patrick Johnson, of the players listed, were under 6-10.

sagegrouse

gumbomoop
04-28-2010, 01:10 PM
The difference with this year is that despite all the statistics and records suggesting Duke was an elite team most people let their flawed perceptions of what an elite team is get in the way. They saw the lineup and it didn't "look" like an elite team even though all the rankings, statistics, records, etc. suggested Duke actually was an elite team.

Because this thread includes some comparison of our NC team with next year, I post this here, though I think it deserves a separate thread. I tried to get some discussion of just how good the NC team was on the "Unanswered Prayers" thread, but didn't go very far. So, one last shot, using mo.st.dukie's important observation in tag quote.

The evening of the NC, midnight or so, Bobby Knight was interviewed on ESPN, and said something like, "By late season, Duke was the best team, played the best, could play you several ways, take your best shot, superb on defense" etc. So, like mo.st.d, Knight sure thought Duke was an underappreciated but nevertheless elite team, an "actually elite team." But, as Knight implied and mo.st.d says explicitly, flawed perceptions got in the way of "actually seeing" how good - in KenPom's terms, how efficient - Duke had become by last few regular season games and into ACCT. Those flawed perceptions had to do with silly "Duke always [always?] folds" and equally silly "no real PG" and "alarmingly unathletic" assumptions.

Even when Z got some surprising praise - i.e,, the praiser was surprised to be praising such an unworthy senior, I guess - it didn't count for all that much. Every once in a while, one of 3-S had only an ok game, and apparently the Talking Heads assumed, incorrectly, that Duke couldn't win unless all 3 scored 20 a night. They didn't understand how difficult it was to defend 3 scorers. Didn't appreciate LT at all. Paid no attention to KenPom and very interesting numbers.

Then Duke lost to Md, and the wrong conclusions were there for the concluding, not entirely overcome by 82-50; and certainly not overcome by a grind-it-out ACCT title. Didn't notice that Duke's grind involved weird strengths [too weird to count as strengths], along with a solid smattering of 3-bombs, floaters by NS, angry, angry defense by KS, low TOs, high offensive rebounds. Didn't count for much; didn't look elite...... to people who didn't look carefully, one might even say objectively - or as roughly objective as humans can be.

KenPom's numbers were saying something about how Duke "actually" as opposed to "presumably" played. And Knight would occasionally make a comment - "You know, Duke's really good" - well before 12:30 am on April 6.
But the very thought that Duke could actually deserve a #1 ranking was ridiculous. So outrageous that it had to be a CBS-NCAA thing. Had nothing to do with actual performance.

CDu
04-28-2010, 01:15 PM
Well,... Basketball for decades had one center, two forwards, and two guards. And, when the teams were introduced at the beginning of the game, that's how it was done. Back in my era it was not unusual for the "center" on a HS team to be 6-1 or 6-2.

Deam Smith, I believe, pioneered the 1-5 notation.

K has resisted labeling players as anything but "players," because he wants to encourage versatility

But, of course, unlike in football, where certain players are limited in what they can do, position doesn't mean anything in terms of the rules. So position doesn't have any true meaning.

It seems like most teams show starting lineups of two forwards and three guards. The center position at times seems to be vanishing. At Duke, out of approximately 130 roster positions over the past decade (average roster x 10), only 15 were listed at center and one of those (Patrick Johnson) was a C/F. The other listed centers for Duke in the "aught" decade were Boozer, Casey Sanders, Michael Thompson, Eric Boateng, and Zoubs. McRoberts, Horvath, Shav, and Shelden were all listed as "forwards." And only Boozer and Patrick Johnson, of the players listed, were under 6-10.

sagegrouse

I think positions still matter in as much as many teams still classify their players in such terms. So you have to conceptualize positions in that you have to defend them. For example, there's clearly a positional difference between Zoubek and Smith. Now, I don't think there should be as much compartmentalization of roles by position, but I think the concept of positions matters at at least some level.

I'm guessing (I'm admittedly being lazy here) that the 3pt line has had a good bit to do with the evolution towards teams playing more and more perimeter players. But in today's game, almost everybody plays three guys who are primarily/completely perimeter-oriented. Many teams play four guys on the perimeter (even if two of them are forwards). It just doesn't make sense to necessarily group a forward with the frontcourt guys anymore.

roywhite
04-28-2010, 01:27 PM
KenPom's numbers were saying something about how Duke "actually" as opposed to "presumably" played. And Knight would occasionally make a comment - "You know, Duke's really good" - well before 12:30 am on April 6.
But the very thought that Duke could actually deserve a #1 ranking was ridiculous. So outrageous that it had to be a CBS-NCAA thing. Had nothing to do with actual performance.

Excellent points.

I became a true believer (as opposed to my more normal overly optimistic view) when Duke went through the month of February undefeated. That's been the stumbling block for previous teams. They wear down, other teams learn how to play them, early season Coach K advantages are overcome by other coaches, etc., etc. But not this year's team---the energy level went up, the confidence level went up, the defense got even tougher, and the team displayed incredible togetherness. I really can't recall seeing a college team where the roles were better defined and fulfilled.

Carry-over to 2010-11? Gotta be some, I think. Kyle Singler and Nolan Smith are better players than they were a year or 6 months ago. The Plumlees seem to have "buy-in." Andre has overcome his adjustment period and Ryan Kelly has a blueprint of what he needs to do.

Six shooters (Andre, Nolan, Kyle, Kyrie, Seth, Andre and that's not counting Ryan) on one team! No, they can't all play at the same time, but they will be available.

Experience, talent, size, shooters, coaching---check marks all the way down the line.

Priorities?---find the best defensive and offensive systems for the personnel, define roles, reward hard work and good play in practice. It's hard to repeat, but I wouldn't trade places with any team in the country for 10-11.

CDu
04-28-2010, 01:33 PM
Excellent points.

I became a true believer (as opposed to my more normal overly optimistic view) when Duke went through the month of February undefeated. That's been the stumbling block for previous teams. They wear down, other teams learn how to play them, early season Coach K advantages are overcome by other coaches, etc., etc. But not this year's team---the energy level went up, the confidence level went up, the defense got even tougher, and the team displayed incredible togetherness. I really can't recall seeing a college team where the roles were better defined and fulfilled.

That's where I'd fall as well. Up until then, I felt we were a very good team that could go as far as the matchups would take us. It's important to note as well that the February boost also coincided with the transformation of Zoubek into a consistent juggernaut on the boards. Prior to that, I felt that we were just too inconsistent inside. We were certainly capable of big interior performances (any of the four could step up on any night), but there were still the off-nights inside. When Zoubek solidified the position, we took a big step forward.


Carry-over to 2010-11? Gotta be some, I think. Kyle Singler and Nolan Smith are better players than they were a year or 6 months ago. The Plumlees seem to have "buy-in." Andre has overcome his adjustment period and Ryan Kelly has a blueprint of what he needs to do.

I'm not sure I see a "carry-over" to next season, as I anticipate next year's team having a completely different style. So while there is plenty of talent carried over, I don't think that necessarily translate into a success carry-over. So much will be dependent upon how good the incoming players are and how much the younger returning players improve.

There's no reason we can't follow up this championship with another deep run (and maybe even a championship), but there's not much reason to assume that we'll have the carry-over either. A lot still has to work out right, just like a lot had to work out right this year.

That said, I'm very optimistic about next year's team. Even though we'll have a freshman PG, I think the talent is there to have something special (again).

MChambers
04-28-2010, 01:38 PM
I think positions still matter in as much as many teams still classify their players in such terms. So you have to conceptualize positions in that you have to defend them. For example, there's clearly a positional difference between Zoubek and Smith. Now, I don't think there should be as much compartmentalization of roles by position, but I think the concept of positions matters at at least some level.

I'm guessing (I'm admittedly being lazy here) that the 3pt line has had a good bit to do with the evolution towards teams playing more and more perimeter players. But in today's game, almost everybody plays three guys who are primarily/completely perimeter-oriented. Many teams play four guys on the perimeter (even if two of them are forwards). It just doesn't make sense to necessarily group a forward with the frontcourt guys anymore.

I think the three point line is part of it, as is the tendency of players to head to the NBA after they've made their first college dunk. My sense is that the players who are most likely to go early entry are big players, although I also think that in recent years more guards are tending to jump to the NBA early. This means that it simply likely that you have more good perimeter players than inside players.

I also agree with you that 1-5 positional notation often has more to do with defense than offense.

Someone pointed to Lebron James as a player who plays all over. Some of us who are older will remember Grant Hill doing that. (I still smile when I remember a GT game where coming out of a timeout, Laettner came out, so Hill was the biggest player on the floor for Duke, but playing point, because Hurley was out, and Cremins didn't anticipate that, so Matt Geiger found himself covering Hill. Quick foul, of course.) Magic Johnson would be another example. Offensively, he was the primary ballhandler, but defensively he didn't usually cover the other team's "1".

MChambers
04-28-2010, 01:47 PM
IMO the chemistry issue is really big. I think that is the key to success. I agree with the above in that chemistry between players will develop through the year.

I hope that it develops on a steady basis, as it did this past year. If it does, the team might perform as well next spring as this year's did this past March-April. I want us to peak at the end of the season, not necessarily start of like a rocket (though I will accept a top level performance for the whole year.) I think many of the national champion teams are teams that progressed through the year and peaked at the end - like Duke did on '09-'10.

I agree with all of this. I'm particularly concerned about defensive chemistry. The team will have some very good offensive weapons, and I worry that it will win by simply outscoring opponents. By season's end, I hope the team's defense is outstanding, but I doubt it will be outstanding at the beginning of the season.

The Gordog
04-28-2010, 01:58 PM
Fair enough, as a recent new poster, some were taken aback yesterday when i posted a discussion about some negative consequences of Singler's return. To be fair to my opinions, the positives far outweigh the opposite. It was just meant to discuss. But to focus on those positives-- let me begin a thread about how dominant next season can be. Seriously, this team will and can flirt with an undefetaed record next year. There is no team in the ACC even in their ballpark (obv UNC included), and the game at large is slightly watered down next year from the underclassmen leaving en masse.

So you want me to focus on the positives, how about that-- think of the picture of the domination next year with coach K breaking all-time wins record just as the team goes for the back-to-back. senior nights for singler/smith capping off 2 monster years.

As to all the people that have watched KI's pre-college ball know, they ae getting a special talent with the ball. He will make every guy on this team better. We all saw what they can do with open looks-- there will be plenty of those next year-- u think curry will miss many open looks...There will be plenty of ball to go around next year, bc the slow down game will be a thing of the past. So star egos will easy be placated bc scoring/offensive numbers will go way up across the board in a new style of game. Anyone suggesting KI's minutes will be 25 or under is kidding themselves. We get a talent like this once every 10 years-- he will be playing all day. There is a reason why he can/will be a top 3 NBA draft pick as early as 2011. It will be his show from day 1 and his up tempu ball wizadry will provide easy opportunities to the whole team. Get ready for domination next year. We can banter all we want about Felix/Kelly/Hairston and all the complementary players. But at the end of the day look out... Start the undefeated chatter.

How is that for optimism...

It's a long shot, and I think it's unseemly to talk about it. Look what happened to KY this year.


I think Duke will stay in the top-10 all year but I do not it will be easy to dominate. Our offense will be different from 09-10; therefore, we should expect major adjustment. It usually takes 20-games for Duke to fully get in the swing of things as a unit. My hope is that the underclassmen will be able to adjust early in the season.

Future NBA talent will win games (see Kentucky) but it is not enough to win a championship (see every team w/ major NBA talent). The only way to repeat as champions is if our underclassmen latch on to our offensive & defensive philosophies and they execute. That will take time.

And stay healthy.

2006=not healthy=loss in sweet 16::2010=healthy=Natiopnal Champions


Before we get ahead of ourselves lets all remember that the most talented Duke team ever was the 99 team and due to whatever you want to believe (chemistry/being outcoached/luck) did not win a championship so next years team will not have a cakewalk no matter what we think - look what happened to kansas this year

2001 was more talented than 1999.

JWill & Duhon>Langdon & Avery
Dunleavy=1999 C-well
2001 Battier>1999 Battier (way better!)
Boozer<Brand


As to the subject matter of your latest opinion, the probability of an undefeated season is negligible -- so small it is not worth discussing. Nor do I think being undefeated will or should be a goal of the team. Championships should be a goal, improving as players and as a team over the course of the year, having fun and enjoying the moment. But would a 35-0 season be more enjoyable than 34-1 or 33-2 (assuming the loss/losses are not in tournament game(s))? Not for me.

In some ways it seems even the prospect of going undefeated can be detrimental to a team. In recent years, most teams that have been undefeated toward the end of the year have seemed to fall apart under the pressure of being undefeated. Better to be calm and loose and not have to think about all that other stuff. In my opinion, anyway.

I think doing it would be huge fun for us fans, but hard on the team at the time. After it's over the bragging rights would be incomparable, however.

JohnGalt
04-28-2010, 02:40 PM
Exactly. That was a better way of saying what I was trying to say originally. I would agree with JohnGalt though that the idea of having two ballhandling guards on the floor at the same time is coming back into vogue. So in a way, that part of the game is maybe evolving (again) back towards its roots?

Perhaps termed 'evolution by devolution'?




I'm guessing (I'm admittedly being lazy here) that the 3pt line has had a good bit to do with the evolution towards teams playing more and more perimeter players. But in today's game, almost everybody plays three guys who are primarily/completely perimeter-oriented. Many teams play four guys on the perimeter (even if two of them are forwards). It just doesn't make sense to necessarily group a forward with the frontcourt guys anymore.

I'd throw the introduction of the shot clock in there too. Without the vaunted 'four corner offense' in play there wasn't quite as much a need for big guys to be able to throw over others. Also, pressing with a shot clock seems as it would require the team with the ball to have players with more of a skill set centered around ballhandling due to the fact that not only does the team have to keep it from getting stolen, but also up the court. Like CDu I haven't done any research, but that seems plausible. Doesn't it?

CDu
04-28-2010, 03:54 PM
I think the three point line is part of it, as is the tendency of players to head to the NBA after they've made their first college dunk. My sense is that the players who are most likely to go early entry are big players, although I also think that in recent years more guards are tending to jump to the NBA early. This means that it simply likely that you have more good perimeter players than inside players.

I also agree with you that 1-5 positional notation often has more to do with defense than offense.

Someone pointed to Lebron James as a player who plays all over. Some of us who are older will remember Grant Hill doing that. (I still smile when I remember a GT game where coming out of a timeout, Laettner came out, so Hill was the biggest player on the floor for Duke, but playing point, because Hurley was out, and Cremins didn't anticipate that, so Matt Geiger found himself covering Hill. Quick foul, of course.) Magic Johnson would be another example. Offensively, he was the primary ballhandler, but defensively he didn't usually cover the other team's "1".

I think you're spot on with the early-entry point as well. Without doing the requisite leg work, I'm guessing that the proportion of early-entrants is still heavily skewed toward big men, even though there are more guards coming out early now as well. Combined that with the fact that good big men are already harder to find than good guards and you have a big issue of not enough quality bigger players to play the traditional three-man frontcourt.

Wander
04-28-2010, 04:04 PM
2006=not healthy=loss in sweet 16::2010=healthy=Natiopnal Champions


I think the more relevant point here is:

Lance > 5th best player on 2006 team
Zoubek > 4th best player on 2006 team
Nolan >>>>>>>....repeat 100 times....>>>>> 3rd best player on 2006 team

hedevil
04-28-2010, 04:33 PM
Well I'll stick to my opinions that Duke will have added depth and will be the best team again this year, like they were last year. Obviously some people believe that Duke was given the easy bracket, hence the NC. I mean come on, Duke simply won the NC for being the best team in the tourny. BOTTOM LINE. For not 1, but 6 games they beat a variety of teams that offered different obstacles/styles of play, personnel wise. So now it's by accident? I think it's by design. THE BEST TEAM WON.

Does the best team always win. No. I never said such a thing, nor did I say it would happen this year. Addmittedly, I did say that I believe that with the incoming depth and experience to go with it, I believe Duke is ripe for a repeat. And I think they will. THAT'S MY OPINION. Others are free to feel doubtful. Lord knows there were plenty who did so this year too. I just prefer to go into the season believing that, considering the depth, coach K will have our guys playing as the best TEAM in the nation going into the tourny, AGAIN. As I have said consistantly, because it's how I feel, Duke should improve this year as the season goes on, and barring injury or mental breakdowns, are my favorite to win it this year. For me, NC State was a mental breakdown. At times throughout the season, Jon, and even Kyle, had trouble finding their range. Thanks to our depth this year, coack K will have options when trying times like that surface. An option he didn't really have last year.

Lastly, I respect everyone's opinions, even if they see the glass as half empty. I prefer to see it half full, and trust in K and the coaches to fill the other half throughout the season. :D

CDu
04-28-2010, 04:45 PM
Well I'll stick to my opinions that Duke will have added depth and will be the best team again this year, like they were last year. Obviously some people believe that Duke was given the easy bracket, hence the NC. I mean come on, Duke simply won the NC for being the best team in the tourny. BOTTOM LINE. For not 1, but 6 games they beat a variety of teams that offered different obstacles/styles of play, personnel wise. So now it's by accident? I think it's by design. THE BEST TEAM WON.

I didn't say that Duke necessarily wasn't the best team. My only beef was with your statement that winning the national championship proved that we were the best team. Unless you think NC State in 1983 and Villanova in 1985 were also the best teams those years, then the logic doesn't hold.

Duke may have been the best team this year (I'd definitely agree with the fact that we were one of the 2-3 best teams). But winning it doesn't prove it. It certainly doesn't hurt the argument, but it doesn't prove it. I'd hope you can see the distinction.


Lastly, I respect everyone's opinions, even if they see the glass as half empty. I prefer to see it half full, and trust in K and the coaches to fill the other half throughout the season. :D

I think there's a difference between seeing things as "glass half empty" and understanding the fact that, even if we have the best team (which is a very real possibility), we have less than a 30% chance of winning the tournament. You can be very optimistic about the season and also realize that we're unlikely to win the championship. EVERYBODY is unlikely to win the championship.

hedevil
04-28-2010, 04:50 PM
I agree.



But like I said, I see the glass as half full, including winning the NC.
50% chance: for us
50% chance:everybody else

airowe
04-28-2010, 04:56 PM
Last year's team won the NC (meaning they were the best).


Duke simply won the NC for being the best team in the tourny. BOTTOM LINE. THE BEST TEAM WON.


These are two different statements. I think that's where everyone had a bone to pick with you.

Duke WAS the best team in the tourney. Duke WAS NOT the best team all year long...

CDu
04-28-2010, 04:56 PM
I agree.



But like I said, I see the glass as half full, including winning the NC.
50% chance: for us
50% chance:everybody else

If you think we have a 50/50 shot at the title next year, I'd say you see the glass as a lot more than half full.

hedevil
04-28-2010, 05:07 PM
I don't mind people having a bone to pick. I have my opinions. Anyone is free to disagree. Respectfully, I still don't see where I said anything about being the best all season. They were the best when it counted, and won a national title.

CDu, man oh man. It's a joke.

However, I do like Duke's chances above anyone else's. Feel free to disagree. Unlike some, I respect others' opinions even if they aren't mine.

CDu
04-28-2010, 05:14 PM
However, I do like Duke's chances above anyone else's. Feel free to disagree. Unlike some, I respect others' opinions even if they aren't mine.

No disagreement that our odds right now are probably as good or better than anyone else's odds. The only team I'd give consideration to have better odds right now would be MSU. And I hope your last sentence wasn't directed at me or (at least) many of the others who disagreed with you on this. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion, and I'm pretty sure that holds for others as well.

Welcome2DaSlopes
04-28-2010, 05:19 PM
If you think we have a 50/50 shot at the title next year, I'd say you see the glass as a lot more than half full.

haha yeah, giving duke a 50% chance to win the title out of what 300 other teams is def. seeing the glass half full

hedevil
04-28-2010, 06:15 PM
I surrender!!!!:)

i surrender!!!!!:)

gumbomoop
04-28-2010, 11:45 PM
But like I said, I see the glass as half full, including winning the NC.
50% chance: for us
50% chance:everybody else

OK, now is this essentially the same as saying "I'll take Duke v. the whole field"? If yes, then yeah, that's a good deal more than half full.

Still....... I know that sounds a little wacky, certainly pretty confident, as hedevil admits to being [confident, not wacky, sorry], but I might join up. You know, if someone said let's wager $100, and gave me the choice, take Duke or the whole field, well, I think I might take the Devils, and let the whole field take the hindmost. [And I know I'd do it if the wager were considerably less. Considerably more? Ooooh, gee, wait, uh.........]

Signed,

Corresponding Secretary of LOL [Loony Optimists League]