A nice K read

[Lord Ash]

Couldn't help but be struck by this one somewhat strange line in the article linked on the front page...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/sportsman/11/03/wolff.krzyzewski/index.html?eref=sihp

"...relatively ordinary guys like Jon Scheyer, Kyle Singler and Lance Thomas..."

Yeah. Pretty ordinary trio of guys, a trio that includes the ninth ALL TIME scorer in Duke history, and the likely third ALL TIME scorer in Duke history.

Talk about underrated!

[DevilHorns]

Couldn't help but be struck by this one somewhat strange line in the article linked on the front page...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/sportsman/11/03/wolff.krzyzewski/index.html?eref=sihp

"...relatively ordinary guys like Jon Scheyer, Kyle Singler and Lance Thomas..."

Yeah. Pretty ordinary trio of guys, a trio that includes the ninth ALL TIME scorer in Duke history, and the likely third ALL TIME scorer in Duke history.

Talk about underrated!

I read the same line and had the exact same visceral response.

I realize this is a support piece that applauds K's recent success, but this line doesn't give our players their due. At the same time, however, I can see where this writer is coming from. Generally speaking, I think most college basketball fans tend to see players like Thomas and Scheyer as fitting the mold for great college players that do not necessarily translate to the NBA. In that sense, they are 'ordinary' in regards to pro potential.

I think he is flat out wrong with Singler. If anything Singler has proven his pro worth by his Final Four MOP performance; there's a reason why he is pre-season All-American and a NPOY candidate. I have a feeling the writer meant to say 'Zoubek' instead of 'Singler' in his line.

[phaedrus]

I have a feeling the writer meant to say 'Zoubek' instead of 'Singler' in his line.

Zoubek was about the least ordinary guy on the team. He's 7'1. And that beard.

I think he was pointing out that combination of "ordinary" things that were subtextually commented on all year - the number of white guys, the strikingly non-athleticness, lack of "real" point guard - whether those things were true, or significant, or not. For better or for worse, that's how that team will be remembered by many - for its ordinariness, for the expected weaknesses that somehow never materialized when it counted.

[DevilHorns]

Zoubek was about the least ordinary guy on the team. He's 7'1. And that beard.

I think he was pointing out that combination of "ordinary" things that were subtextually commented on all year - the number of white guys, the strikingly non-athleticness, lack of "real" point guard - whether those things were true, or significant, or not. For better or for worse, that's how that team will be remembered by many - for its ordinariness, for the expected weaknesses that somehow never materialized when it counted.

You don't have an argument from me here. I don't think Zoubek was ordinary at all. His metamorphosis, his quest to find his role on the team and dig in, was probably the most significant change that transformed us from a really good team to a great team. In general though, I think the rest of college basketball fandom probably found Zoubek to be 'ordinary' in the sense the writer speaks of. He wasn't a top pro prospect that would jump in 1 year to the pros like a Demarcus Cousins or Derek Favors, and it did take him four years to truly find success (and that is no jab at Z, he had one of the toughest injury-ridden rides through his 4 years that I can remember as a Duke fan; never heard him complain about it either).

http://0.tqn.com/d/raleighdurham/1/0/_/8/-/-/Brian-Zoubek-of-the-Duke-Blue-Devils.jpg

---->

http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Brian-Zoubek-2.jpg

[Lord Ash]

Hm, good point, he may have meant Brian, who we all love, but he could fit that sentence.

[sagegrouse]

From the very complimentary article --


Quote:
And remember 1991, when Duke found itself a 103-73 loser to UNLV....

I am sad to report that I was at that game, and it was 1990, not 1991.

sagegrouse

[slower]

I read the same line and had the exact same visceral response.

I realize this is a support piece that applauds K's recent success, but this line doesn't give our players their due. At the same time, however, I can see where this writer is coming from. Generally speaking, I think most college basketball fans tend to see players like Thomas and Scheyer as fitting the mold for great college players that do not necessarily translate to the NBA. In that sense, they are 'ordinary' in regards to pro potential.

I think he is flat out wrong with Singler. If anything Singler has proven his pro worth by his Final Four MOP performance; there's a reason why he is pre-season All-American and a NPOY candidate. I have a feeling the writer meant to say 'Zoubek' instead of 'Singler' in his line.

Kind of a surprising statement by the normally superb Alexander Wolff.

[gumbomoop]

Didn't want to start a new thread, but do want to comment on an interesting K attribute: his sophisticated analysis of his players.

Commenting on Kyle's quiet style - here's the link: http://www2.journalnow.com/sports/2010/nov/11/quiet-leader-ar-528128/ - K describes Kyle's focus in his "world" as "very pure, genuine." Further, noting that Kyle has "no agenda," K observes: "When he talks, it's just very innocent."

I have a point here, but I think maybe I'm asking as much as telling what it is. It's something about how K describes and/or analyzes in language that seems especially telling in its precision. While I can certainly imagine coaches describing one of their players as "genuine," I'm thinking few if any would use "pure" [save describing someone as a pure point guard]. And "innocent" is a charming word in this context, about a charming quality. [Admittedly, one may imagine a coach referring to a player as "innocent" in a rather different, decidedly less charming, context.]

Kyle does seem pretty quiet off the court, an innocent, almost. That's why I was always struck last season by what I saw as his "anger" on defense. I now think that was almost but not quite the right word to apply to Kyle's "pure, genuine" intensity on defense.

Kyle's an interesting guy. K's way of analyzing Kyle's transition to a somewhat more vocal leader is a window into why K himself seems so different in the coaching world. Maybe my observation is little more than fawning over K. But periodically, when we get to see into his ways, they just strike me as so different from, and so much more interesting than, his fellow coaches.

[Orange&BlackSheep]

Kyle's an interesting guy. K's way of analyzing Kyle's transition to a somewhat more vocal leader is a window into why K himself seems so different in the coaching world. Maybe my observation is little more than fawning over K. But periodically, when we get to see into his ways, they just strike me as so different from, and so much more interesting than, his fellow coaches.

People talk all the time about "X" being a great coach. But in college basketball you have the whole mix of needing the horses in addition to coaching practices, coaching games, managing a staff, creating esprit-de-corps, etc. I so agree that Gumbo is pointing out a moment where you get a window into why Coach K truly is a great coach. What a deep level of insight.

Makes me want to be a fly on the wall and understand what it is that makes, say, Gary Williams a great coach. One sees Gary Williams ranting like a lunatic on the sidelines and complaining to anyone who would listen on the bench about the mistakes that are happening in front of him. It feels like this is not a great leadership style. Yet year in and year out his team plays at a high level. Good players play very well. Very good players play great. His teams get better. What is it that he does that separates him from the chaff?

[MChambers]

People talk all the time about "X" being a great coach. But in college basketball you have the whole mix of needing the horses in addition to coaching practices, coaching games, managing a staff, creating esprit-de-corps, etc. I so agree that Gumbo is pointing out a moment where you get a window into why Coach K truly is a great coach. What a deep level of insight.

Makes me want to be a fly on the wall and understand what it is that makes, say, Gary Williams a great coach. One sees Gary Williams ranting like a lunatic on the sidelines and complaining to anyone who would listen on the bench about the mistakes that are happening in front of him. It feels like this is not a great leadership style. Yet year in and year out his team plays at a high level. Good players play very well. Very good players play great. His teams get better. What is it that he does that separates him from the chaff?
It's really incomprehensible as to Gary, isn't it?

On Coach K, I'd like to add my thanks to Gumbo for pointing this out. I'd add that his leadership has been critical with the Olympic and World Championship teams. He's really connected with the players in ways that have been critical.

It has taken me a long time to fully appreciate that Coach K's ability to communicate with his players and understand them, both individually and as a team, is critical to his success.

[Indoor66]

It's really incomprehensible as to Gary, isn't it?

On Coach K, I'd like to add my thanks to Gumbo for pointing this out. I'd add that his leadership has been critical with the Olympic and World Championship teams. He's really connected with the players in ways that have been critical.

It has taken me a long time to fully appreciate that Coach K's ability to communicate with his players and understand them, both individually and as a team, is critical to his success.

Actually, it is critical to anyones success. That is why K teaches at Fuqua.