PDA

View Full Version : Pat Forde just couldn't resist.



papa whiskey
05-13-2010, 08:25 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=5181110

cbnaylor
05-13-2010, 08:52 AM
That's fair. I thought being that it was Forde, he would have Duke at like 6 or something. I can deal with 2!

JaMarcus Russell
05-13-2010, 09:30 AM
In an earlier era, Forde would have been a Las Vegas cooler. None of his predictions come true. I am very thankful that he didn't put us at number 1.

Remember how we were basically the only top 10 team in the country that had no chance to win the title? :D

El_Diablo
05-13-2010, 09:46 AM
Remember how we were basically the only top 10 team in the country that had no chance to win the title? :D

No, he didn't even have the stones to say that. He just slammed us repeatedly and then kept saying, "I doubt they'll go far, so I'm in show-me mode." What a hack.

striker219
05-13-2010, 09:47 AM
I agree that Purdue will be a very good team next year, but why should we automatically assume that they will be top tier? They are a team that thrives on defense and they are losing their best defensive player, that has to count for something.

MulletMan
05-13-2010, 10:05 AM
I don't understand what "Forde couldn't resist"...?

Purdue is returning it three best players to a well-seasoned and experienced team. They thrive on defense and rebounding. Sound familiar?

Duke, meanwhile, returns two of its top three players, loses two of the key components to a team that relied on D and rebounding, and will rely on an infusion of new players and need to adapt to a new style of play.

How is it so unjustified that Purdue would be preseason #1 and Duke would be preseason #2?

soccerstud2210
05-13-2010, 10:10 AM
i like it. i wish we could fly more under the radar like we did last year. now it will be interesting to see how this team responds to being the HUNTED rather than the HUNTER

COYS
05-13-2010, 10:30 AM
I don't understand what "Forde couldn't resist"...?

Purdue is returning it three best players to a well-seasoned and experienced team. They thrive on defense and rebounding. Sound familiar?

Duke, meanwhile, returns two of its top three players, loses two of the key components to a team that relied on D and rebounding, and will rely on an infusion of new players and need to adapt to a new style of play.

How is it so unjustified that Purdue would be preseason #1 and Duke would be preseason #2?

I agree wholeheartedly. Jon was a phenomenal player for Duke and is a huge loss. Add to that the losses of Zoubs and Thomas and 3 out of our starting 5 are gone. Our entire offense was based around Jon's efficiency and playmaking coupled with Zoubs offensive rebounding and our defense was predicated on the experience and versatility of Thomas and Scheyer (and Zoubs). We will have a lot of talent next year, no doubt, but we still have a few unknowns. How will the Plumlees develop? Will Kyrie be as good as advertised? Will Curry and Dawkins be able to replace what Jon gave us on both ends of the court? How well will the team adjust to an entirely new style of play? Personally, I think we'll answer all of these questions and have an excellent chance to repeat. However, I don't think it's outlandish to take a team like Purdue that returns all of its core over a team like Duke that is losing three out of its five starters from a national title team.

CDu
05-13-2010, 10:40 AM
I don't understand what "Forde couldn't resist"...?

Purdue is returning it three best players to a well-seasoned and experienced team. They thrive on defense and rebounding. Sound familiar?

Duke, meanwhile, returns two of its top three players, loses two of the key components to a team that relied on D and rebounding, and will rely on an infusion of new players and need to adapt to a new style of play.

How is it so unjustified that Purdue would be preseason #1 and Duke would be preseason #2?

I agree completely. Purdue was a top-5 team last year before Hummel went down. They are losing a lot less than we are losing. Granted, we're introducing a lot more talent than they are and we probably have more room for development with our young players than they do. But it's not in any way ridiculous to suggest that Purdue (with more continuity and experience) should be the #1 team.

Basically, I wouldn't argue too much with some picking any of Duke, Purdue, and MSU as #1. There are reasonable arguments to be made for (or against) any of the three, I think. I think those three should be the top 3, but the specific order is less defined in my opinion.

Duvall
05-13-2010, 10:44 AM
How is it so unjustified that Purdue would be preseason #1 and Duke would be preseason #2?

It's not, though I don't think that the loss of the conference defensive player of the year should be glossed over. But if there's an opposite to the benefit of the doubt, I think Pat Forde has long earned it.

77devil
05-13-2010, 10:45 AM
I don't understand what "Forde couldn't resist"...?

Purdue is returning it three best players to a well-seasoned and experienced team. They thrive on defense and rebounding. Sound familiar?

Duke, meanwhile, returns two of its top three players, loses two of the key components to a team that relied on D and rebounding, and will rely on an infusion of new players and need to adapt to a new style of play.

How is it so unjustified that Purdue would be preseason #1 and Duke would be preseason #2?


Totally fair, but one of those of three is coming back from a serious knee injury. It remains to be seen how complete Hummel's recovery will be. Nevertheless, it is easy to make a rational argument to pick Purdue, and indeed Forde probably enjoyed doing so.

All in all, I would prefer that if all of the pundits pick teams other than Duke as preseason # 1.

Wander
05-13-2010, 11:44 AM
They are a team that thrives on defense and they are losing their best defensive player

One might say the same thing about Duke.

The Gordog
05-13-2010, 12:34 PM
I agree that Purdue will be a very good team next year, but why should we automatically assume that they will be top tier? They are a team that thrives on defense and they are losing their best defensive player, that has to count for something.


One might say the same thing about Duke.

Dude, Singler is coming back. :D

weezie
05-13-2010, 12:40 PM
Pat Forde....such a renegade....:rolleyes:

Wander
05-13-2010, 12:41 PM
Dude, Singler is coming back. :D

Don't tell the voters for the all-ACC defense team, but I agree with you.

whereinthehellami
05-13-2010, 01:04 PM
The Purdue-VT game should be a good game and give everyone an idea of how tough Purdue is. VT looks to start 4 seniors and 1 junior and return their top 10 scorers. Plus Blacksburg will be rocking for that game.

VaDukie
05-13-2010, 01:06 PM
No, he didn't even have the stones to say that. He just slammed us repeatedly and then kept saying, "I doubt they'll go far, so I'm in show-me mode." What a hack.

To be fair, I think a lot of us were in "show-me mode" at that point in the season. We're all huge Duke fans so we tolerate skepticism in our ranks (within reason) while we pounce on it whenever it comes from outsiders.

As for this poll, #2 isn't unreasonable. We did lose 3 starters and will be playing an entirely different style next year. The talent is there but ultimately no one has ever won a game in the media - if that was the case we don't survive Baylor or West Virginia but we would have crushed Butler.

PADukeMom
05-13-2010, 01:13 PM
The only time it is important to be #1 is at the end of the season.

gumbomoop
05-13-2010, 03:56 PM
I agree completely. Purdue was a top-5 team last year before Hummel went down. They are losing a lot less than we are losing. Granted, we're introducing a lot more talent than they are and we probably have more room for development with our young players than they do. But it's not in any way ridiculous to suggest that Purdue (with more continuity and experience) should be the #1 team.

Basically, I wouldn't argue too much with some picking any of Duke, Purdue, and MSU as #1. There are reasonable arguments to be made for (or against) any of the three, I think. I think those three should be the top 3, but the specific order is less defined in my opinion.

Uh oh, CDu, COYS, and MulletMan are hurting me here, for they make pretty reasonable arguments in defense of P ahead of D. I don't like it, and am particularly aggrieved at COYS, who uses Jon Scheyer to make his argument. For I spent hours - nay, weeks, possibly months - arguing in favor of "Retire Scheyer," only now, just as I am in recovery, to be hoist on my own petard. AArrrggghhhhhh!!!

But, wait, as one who's posted [probably on Preseason Top thread, but there are so many....] that for #1 "It's Duke, and it's easy," I want to try to reply to these 3 dastardly posters.

While it is not "outrageous" to place either P or MSt ahead of D, surely the Dastards wouldn't disagree that the only team that could - as things look out in the distance from right now, on paper - plausibly break away from the pack in '10-'11 is Duke. In a year already predicted to have, as supposedly was the case in '09-'10, "no great team," for any other team to break away would be implausible. But I assert [over?]confidently that Duke could actually, plausibly, be easily the best, on the court. I do not predict 40-0, but Duke has all the stuff, plausibly, to break away. For P or any other team to do that is - right now, just looking at all the factors - implausible.

Whatever our disagreements, I will be surprised if Duke is not the clear consensus pre #1. I have, alas, been surprised before.

I beg you, don't use Scheyer against me ever again. That hurts.

ChicagoCrazy84
05-13-2010, 05:14 PM
What I don't like when people are talking about us next year is the whole "adapting to a new system" type thing. I don't buy it one bit. Sure, we played a very methodical game last year that was dependant on offensive rebounding and defense, but that was because of te personnel we had. Do you really think we'd be better off trying to play the same style with Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, Felix, the Plumlee's? No way. All of these guys played high octane styles in high school and that is the way Nolan Smith prefers it. Kyle is just so versatile, you can do anything with him so don't anyone say "we're going to be adjusting to a new style." That's a load of you know what. Will we miss Jon? Maybe, but I don't think we will nearly as much as Zoubek or Thomas. We'll miss their rebounding for sure, but look how much they both improved in the course of a year. Mason and Miles still have so much potential that needs to be tapped into and don't overlook the fact that they played alongside these guys in the game and at practice all last year. That will go a long way in my mind. I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised with their defense next year.

SupaDave
05-13-2010, 08:01 PM
What I don't like when people are talking about us next year is the whole "adapting to a new system" type thing. I don't buy it one bit. Sure, we played a very methodical game last year that was dependant on offensive rebounding and defense, but that was because of te personnel we had. Do you really think we'd be better off trying to play the same style with Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, Felix, the Plumlee's? No way. All of these guys played high octane styles in high school and that is the way Nolan Smith prefers it. Kyle is just so versatile, you can do anything with him so don't anyone say "we're going to be adjusting to a new style." That's a load of you know what. Will we miss Jon? Maybe, but I don't think we will nearly as much as Zoubek or Thomas. We'll miss their rebounding for sure, but look how much they both improved in the course of a year. Mason and Miles still have so much potential that needs to be tapped into and don't overlook the fact that they played alongside these guys in the game and at practice all last year. That will go a long way in my mind. I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised with their defense next year.

You say what I have been envisioning in a nutshell for next year - without actually saying it.

There won't be as much a need for rebounding next year - we'll be built a lot like UNC 2008 was built - with the need for speed, except we won't falter in the half court b/c even those sets will be fast motion plays. When the post gets the ball next year he will execute immediately - but the kick out will still exist. Backdoors, secondary breaks, oh my... There will be lots of lay-ups, put backs and alley-oops. I'm gonna need a personal defribrilator...

And on defense - it's a straight up block party in my eyes - with Mason playing the role of Ed Davis from time to time. If you guys didn't notice - Kyle Singler became a serious shot blocker at years end. Miles will fortify that as well - last year it was strength and this year it's post moves - it's gonna be magnificent. Throw in some amazingly quick feet and hands on the perimeter and I see a LOT of turnovers. Only folks like Delaney will get there's. Lot's of free throws. 80 point games. THIS is our team game plan next year. Coach K has basically already said it. Kyle will be thundering Dan Majerle next year - and at his worse perhaps only Michigan Glen Rice.

Basically meaning he's getting his no matter what happens. As will Kyrie who will have the green light. Pre-ACC the team will average close to 90 points.

Remember Nolan Smith breaking Glen Rice's ankle in the ACC tourney? Yeah - get ready for a LOT more of that. It's OVER!!! Seriously, it's gonna be sick. Then suddenly, Nolan lifts his hand to come out the game as if to say "I'm so sick that I need a break from clowning folks coach". In comes Curry...

Mark me down as saying this... b/c it shall be.

The Swami has spoken...

SMO
05-13-2010, 08:21 PM
I don't understand what "Forde couldn't resist"...?

Purdue is returning it three best players to a well-seasoned and experienced team. They thrive on defense and rebounding. Sound familiar?

Duke, meanwhile, returns two of its top three players, loses two of the key components to a team that relied on D and rebounding, and will rely on an infusion of new players and need to adapt to a new style of play.

How is it so unjustified that Purdue would be preseason #1 and Duke would be preseason #2?

So if Duke gets worse (#1 in 2010 to #2 in 2011) due to the changes you mention, UNC should get much worse as well due to the loss of 3 starters including the top 2 rebounders and top 2 scorers. Plus, they lose 2 bench players from an already depleted front court. I refuse to click on the article so someone please tell me if he has UNC improving or getting worse. That, to me, will show if he used similar criteria for all teams.

Hint: he often holds Duke to a different set of metrics than everyone else

roywhite
05-13-2010, 08:45 PM
You say what I have been envisioning in a nutshell for next year - without actually saying it.

There won't be as much a need for rebounding next year - we'll be built a lot like UNC 2008 was built - with the need for speed, except we won't falter in the half court b/c even those sets will be fast motion plays. When the post gets the ball next year he will execute immediately - but the kick out will still exist. Backdoors, secondary breaks, oh my... There will be lots of lay-ups, put backs and alley-oops. I'm gonna need a personal defribrilator...

And on defense - it's a straight up block party in my eyes - with Mason playing the role of Ed Davis from time to time. If you guys didn't notice - Kyle Singler became a serious shot blocker at years end. Miles will fortify that as well - last year it was strength and this year it's post moves - it's gonna be magnificent. Throw in some amazingly quick feet and hands on the perimeter and I see a LOT of turnovers. Only folks like Delaney will get there's. Lot's of free throws. 80 point games. THIS is our team game plan next year. Coach K has basically already said it. Kyle will be thundering Dan Majerle next year - and at his worse perhaps only Michigan Glen Rice.

Basically meaning he's getting his no matter what happens. As will Kyrie who will have the green light. Pre-ACC the team will average close to 90 points.

Remember Nolan Smith breaking Glen Rice's ankle in the ACC tourney? Yeah - get ready for a LOT more of that. It's OVER!!! Seriously, it's gonna be sick. Then suddenly, Nolan lifts his hand to come out the game as if to say "I'm so sick that I need a break from clowning folks coach". In comes Curry...

Mark me down as saying this... b/c it shall be.

The Swami has spoken...

I think this qualifies as smack talk, Swami. Pretty cocky.

I like it.

Wander
05-13-2010, 09:03 PM
So if Duke gets worse (#1 in 2010 to #2 in 2011) due to the changes you mention, UNC should get much worse as well due to the loss of 3 starters including the top 2 rebounders and top 2 scorers.

To be blunt, you're forgetting that Ginyard and Thompson sucked.

Big Pappa
05-13-2010, 09:47 PM
To be blunt, you're forgetting that Ginyard and Thompson sucked.

UNC had a rough year, and no one loved it more than I did but Ginyard and Thompson certainly don't suck. Ginyard did have a challening year (like the entire team) but Thompson led them in points with 13.7 and second in board with 6.7. He also shot almost 50% from the field and 70% from the line.

SupaDave
05-13-2010, 09:53 PM
UNC had a rough year, and no one loved it more than I did but Ginyard and Thompson certainly don't suck. Ginyard did have a challening year (like the entire team) but Thompson led them in points with 13.7 and second in board with 6.7. He also shot almost 50% from the field and 70% from the line.

Thompson will very likely end up nothing more than a side note in the careers of Tyler and Ed Davis... I hope he proves me wrong - I think he toughed the year out.

Big Pappa
05-13-2010, 09:58 PM
Thompson will very likely end up nothing more than a side note in the careers of Tyler and Ed Davis... I hope he proves me wrong - I think he toughed the year out.

IMO there is no way that the NCAA career leader in games played will be a side note.

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?id=5046835

Newton_14
05-13-2010, 10:21 PM
Thompson will very likely end up nothing more than a side note in the careers of Tyler and Ed Davis... I hope he proves me wrong - I think he toughed the year out.

This is speculation on my part but one thing for sure is there was always a bit of jealousy with Hansflop. My view is that Thompson was the perfect: sidekick, complementary player (not role player mind you), but thrived as the 2nd big in a 2 big system where all the attention was on the star big.

I always got the sense that Thompson felt that he was just as good as Hans and he could be the star. I think he found out the hard way that life in the paint was much different as the feature big with all the attention on him.

Thompson has nice offensive skills but he is soft. He avoids contact and prefers the turnaround jumper (which he was great at) over power moves.

It will be interesting to see how his game fares in the NBA.

pfrduke
05-13-2010, 10:38 PM
IMO there is no way that the NCAA career leader in games played will be a side note.

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?id=5046835

There will be maybe 5 non-UNC fans who know that (as a completely unscientific example, I had no idea that Deon Thompson was the career leader in games played, and I pay close attention to college basketball). Thompson is almost the very definition of a sidenote. He was never a viable #1, #2, or even really #3 option, and was lucky to play on some teams where he didn't have to do more than be the #5. As to his numbers this season, he was bad against the best teams, and good against bad teams. Against Syracuse, OSU, Michigan State, Texas, @ Clemson, and two games against Duke, he simply wasn't good.

pfrduke
05-13-2010, 10:42 PM
IMO there is no way that the NCAA career leader in games played will be a side note.

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?id=5046835

By the way, Wayne Turner and Walter Hodge (the previous record holders) were, similarly, side notes in the careers of much better players. Turner was also a much better player than Deon. Hodge is actually a good analogue to Thompson - he was the 5th (or lower) best player on title teams who struggled (and whose team struggled) when asked to become one of the leaders.

Big Pappa
05-13-2010, 10:57 PM
There will be maybe 5 non-UNC fans who know that (as a completely unscientific example, I had no idea that Deon Thompson was the career leader in games played, and I pay close attention to college basketball). Thompson is almost the very definition of a sidenote. He was never a viable #1, #2, or even really #3 option, and was lucky to play on some teams where he didn't have to do more than be the #5. As to his numbers this season, he was bad against the best teams, and good against bad teams. Against Syracuse, OSU, Michigan State, Texas, @ Clemson, and two games against Duke, he simply wasn't good.

I agree with your point that Thompson played good against bad teams and bad against good teams but I disagree that he is not a viable #1, #2, or #3 option. He led a college basketball team in scoring for an entire season; that in itself makes someone a viable option.

I also disagree that many people will not remember. I think the average fan may not, but IMO the intense college basketball fan certainly will. Just take a look at the familiar names associated with most games played records:

MLB: most games played - Pete Rose (NL) and Carl Yastrzemski (AL)
most games in a row - Cal Ripken

NFL: most games played (non-kicker) - Jerry Rice

NBA: most games played - Robert Parish

pfrduke
05-13-2010, 11:06 PM
I agree with your point that Thompson played good against bad teams and bad against good teams but I disagree that he is not a viable #1, #2, or #3 option. He led a college basketball team in scoring for an entire season; that in itself makes someone a viable option.

I also disagree that many people will not remember. I think the average fan may not, but IMO the intense college basketball fan certainly will. Just take a look at the familiar names associated with most games played records:

MLB: most games played - Pete Rose (NL) and Carl Yastrzemski (AL)
most games in a row - Cal Ripken

NFL: most games played (non-kicker) - Jerry Rice

NBA: most games played - Robert Parish

As to your first point, I'll rephrase. He's not a viable #1, #2, or #3 on a good team. He's perfectly capable of leading a team to a .500 regular season, as he did.

As to your second point, I'm impressed you know all those (well, the Ripken one is relatively famous), but I'm not sure how many outside the most intense sports fans know all those. I would also bet that fewer people know of Thompson's record in 3 years than know Rice's, Parish's, or Rose's. Being remembered by none but the most intense fans would, in my opinion, make one a sidenote.

Welcome2DaSlopes
05-13-2010, 11:11 PM
IMO there is no way that the NCAA career leader in games played will be a side note.

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?id=5046835

With 39 games next year Kyle could break that record.

Big Pappa
05-13-2010, 11:13 PM
As to your first point, I'll rephrase. He's not a viable #1, #2, or #3 on a good team. He's perfectly capable of leading a team to a .500 regular season, as he did.

As to your second point, I'm impressed you know all those (well, the Ripken one is relatively famous), but I'm not sure how many outside the most intense sports fans know all those. I would also bet that fewer people know of Thompson's record in 3 years than know Rice's, Parish's, or Rose's. Being remembered by none but the most intense fans would, in my opinion, make one a sidenote.

Fair enough. I guess our argument now is what qualifies an intense fan. IMO many sports fans on this board would know about Thompson's record (especially since it was somewhat publicized during the tourney) as well as at least one of the other ones I named. I realize that many fans on this board would qualify as "intense" to most, but that was who I was referring to when talking about Thompson's record being remembered. I certainly agree that the average sports fan will not remember Thompson's record in a few years.

oldnavy
05-14-2010, 07:45 AM
Something I was thinking about while running on the treadmill. Who benefits more from the changes in personnel next year and has the better season - Nolan or Kyle? My first instinct says Nolan. I predict he has a bust out season (not that last year wasn't a bust out), and takes it up another notch (20+ ppg possible?). I think he benefits more from having KI run the point, and draw the opponents quickest and best guard defensively. Theoretically, Nolan will be able to isolate the opponents second quickest guard, and be better suited to drive past them to the rim than last year when he usually had the quicker defenders on him when Jon was on point... I am making assumptions here so bear with me. Kyle on the other hand will be able to roam the perimeter and benefit from more drive and kicks than perhaps last year. And I feel we will be running much more and Kyle will be able to get up and down and score more in transition than before. Also, he will be able to isolate and drive to the rim if we spread the defense more...

I think they both benefit, so will the Plumlees'.... but I think KI and even Seth Curry being on the court will give the nod to Nolan, and he will do amazing things next year...

What say you?

roywhite
05-14-2010, 08:50 AM
Something I was thinking about while running on the treadmill. Who benefits more from the changes in personnel next year and has the better season - Nolan or Kyle? My first instinct says Nolan. I predict he has a bust out season (not that last year wasn't a bust out), and takes it up another notch (20+ ppg possible?). I think he benefits more from having KI run the point, and draw the opponents quickest and best guard defensively. Theoretically, Nolan will be able to isolate the opponents second quickest guard, and be better suited to drive past them to the rim than last year when he usually had the quicker defenders on him when Jon was on point... I am making assumptions here so bear with me. Kyle on the other hand will be able to roam the perimeter and benefit from more drive and kicks than perhaps last year. And I feel we will be running much more and Kyle will be able to get up and down and score more in transition than before. Also, he will be able to isolate and drive to the rim if we spread the defense more...

I think they both benefit, so will the Plumlees'.... but I think KI and even Seth Curry being on the court will give the nod to Nolan, and he will do amazing things next year...

What say you?

An interesting topic for speculation and pleasant thoughts as we go through the off-season months...

Probably the Plumlees will benefit the most compared to what they've done so far, just more likely to get the ball down low in favorable position or get an alley-oop pass. Should be dunks galore.

But, I'll agree with you as far as Nolan goes. I think about Nolan's performance in the Baylor game, which was brilliant. His mid-range game, that little floater, his use of the glass, and his overall shooting range make him very dangerous. Nolan should be able to get the ball in good position in transition and off penetration by KI to put up several 20-pt. games. Not many teams will be able to defend the Kyrie/Nolan backcourt.

Indoor66
05-14-2010, 08:56 AM
I think that Kyle will benefit most from Kyrie's presence. His constant movement, size, driving abilities and jump shot will be enhanced because he will receive the ball in positions where he can expoit his talents and exploit his defender. Kyle will score in bunches off of Kyrie assists.

SMO
05-14-2010, 12:32 PM
To be blunt, you're forgetting that Ginyard and Thompson sucked.

I didn't forget that at all. Forde's argument seems to focus on production (pts, rebounds, etc) that will be lost, not by our determination of who is a good player (productivity, leadership, etc). By purely looking at lost scoring and rebounding UNC is worse off than Duke. I'm guessing he doesn't have them projected that way though.

DukieInBrasil
05-14-2010, 01:05 PM
What I don't like when people are talking about us next year is the whole "adapting to a new system" type thing. I don't buy it one bit. Sure, we played a very methodical game last year that was dependant on offensive rebounding and defense, but that was because of te personnel we had. Do you really think we'd be better off trying to play the same style with Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, Felix, the Plumlee's? No way. All of these guys played high octane styles in high school and that is the way Nolan Smith prefers it. Kyle is just so versatile, you can do anything with him so don't anyone say "we're going to be adjusting to a new style." That's a load of you know what. Will we miss Jon? Maybe, but I don't think we will nearly as much as Zoubek or Thomas. We'll miss their rebounding for sure, but look how much they both improved in the course of a year. Mason and Miles still have so much potential that needs to be tapped into and don't overlook the fact that they played alongside these guys in the game and at practice all last year. That will go a long way in my mind. I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised with their defense next year.

If we're gonna be playing high-octane why would we miss Z and LT more than Scheyer? Z wasn't really a factor whenever Duke when fast-tempo in his 4 years at Duke, and LT's D was phenomenal in the half-court due to his versatility but a lot (certainly not all) of his value as a defender was mitigated by playing at a fast pace.
I agree that the "adapting" meme is overplayed and that the way we played last year was a direct result of the limitations and specific skill-sets of the players we had. I just think that there is a bit of disconnect between our agreement on that idea and then to say that we'll miss Z and LT b/c of their rebounding, b/c lots of the need for said rebounding will disappear along with the change of style of play.
Actually I think the MPs will be better suited to playing up-tempo than they were in half-court. I also think that their rebounding will be more than adequate for the new iteration of the team. I'm not convinced that they are going to be any more than merely adequate defensively though, fortunately I don't think we'll need lots of precision interior D due to said alteration of style of play.

Kedsy
05-14-2010, 01:13 PM
So if Duke gets worse (#1 in 2010 to #2 in 2011) due to the changes you mention, UNC should get much worse as well due to the loss of 3 starters including the top 2 rebounders and top 2 scorers. Plus, they lose 2 bench players from an already depleted front court. I refuse to click on the article so someone please tell me if he has UNC improving or getting worse. That, to me, will show if he used similar criteria for all teams.

Hint: he often holds Duke to a different set of metrics than everyone else

Well, Duke won the national championship, but we were never #1 in the polls. I don't think he's saying that Duke is worse, and I certainly don't think he's saying we're worse because of our personnel losses.

But whether he is or not, it's kind of silly to project future performance based on past personnel losses. If a team loses his leading scorer, it's only a problem if whoever gets his shots can't convert at close to the same rate. An offensive rebound is essentially an extra possession, so if a team loses its leading offensive rebounder, it can make up for the loss if it gets the same number of extra possessions from additional steals or forced turnovers.

Jon was an incredibly efficient offensive player, but with all of Duke's backcourt firepower next year, whoever's getting the touches Jon got last year (and he had the ball in his hands an awful lot) will probably do good things with those touches. Z did a great job on the offensive boards, but our backcourt next year should make up for that with their very quick hands and pressure D.

It makes much more sense to look what personnel a team will be putting on the court than it does to look at who they've lost.

sagegrouse
05-14-2010, 01:42 PM
How many prognosticators had even one team that made the FF this year in their pre-season top four? Maybe a few picked Michigan State and someone, somewhere may have picked Duke.

Writers do pre-season "rankings" rather than "discussions" because they are easy to write ("fill that hole, Clark Kent") and fans like to see them, not because they offer any value.

sagegrouse

SMO
05-14-2010, 02:28 PM
It makes much more sense to look what personnel a team will be putting on the court than it does to look at who they've lost.

I concur. Which is why I think putting anyone above Duke is difficult to justify. It's also why I have difficulty with some of the UNC projections I've seen (top 10, top 11, etc). Of course, it's all moot until they start to shoot.

gumbomoop
05-14-2010, 02:31 PM
How many prognosticators had even one team that made the FF this year in their pre-season top four? Maybe a few picked Michigan State and someone, somewhere may have picked Duke.

Writers do pre-season "rankings" rather than "discussions" because they are easy to write ("fill that hole, Clark Kent") and fans like to see them, not because they offer any value.

sagegrouse

Fair point, but not necessarily a discussion-stopper. For this thread has morphed into something other than grousing, sagely or otherwise, about Forde. Rather, it's about likely strength of Duke vis-a-vis Purdue and MichSt, a matter of substance, and thus of some value, or at least interest, in the looonnnggg off-season.

We'll perhaps get off this too-early [if it's ever too early] prognosticating, once the National Team project warms up, or, for me and undoubtedly a few others, the World Cup commences. For good or ill, the world's religion is neither Duke Basketball, nor even Duke-Hatred, much less Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism. It's futbol.