PDA

View Full Version : Bad News, Good News



dbowen
03-04-2007, 07:56 PM
The Bad News:
Our underutilized benched was beaten into the ground by Ol' Roy's 80-man rotation. What was K thinking playing (basically) a 6-man rotation against them?

The Good News:
We'll get to see some minutes from Zoubek, Pocius, and Thomas due to the inevitable suspension coming to Henderson.

Fish80
03-04-2007, 08:12 PM
Before you start yakking about minutes played, take a look at the box score and see what Brian, Lance, and Marty did in the minutes they got today.

imagepro
03-04-2007, 08:24 PM
And a LOT of us agree on the bench thing. You may be right, but so may we. If you can't see we got tired in both games, well, I don't know what else to say. To talk about what the bench produced, as oyu say, Marty and Lance didn't have enough minutes to even get into a flow. And I personally thought Zou was decent.

Let me talk about Marty a second too. He made a strong drive to the hole, and did not score. he was taken out, and basically did not play anymore. At least he takes the ball strong to the hole and plays with intensity and energy. Maybe he tried too hard since he gets so little playing time. I really think that is part of it. At least he tries to make things happen.

Just because you have complete faith in what Coach decides to do doesn't mean he is always right. I think if our bench had been developed more, we would be better than we are now. Maybe I'm wrong and you are right. But I think we'd be better than 8-8. That being said, I still think we have the best staff in America. But I don't think even they are perfect. I ask you, do you think they are? I wonder because everytime someone talks about lack of bench play you get very defensive.

dbowen
03-04-2007, 08:28 PM
Zoubek- 6min,0 pts,2 rebs, 2 fls
Pocius- 3min, 0 pts,0 reb
Thomas-2 pts, 1 reb, 3 fls
Your Point???

Fish80
03-04-2007, 08:39 PM
How long do you leave guys in when they aren't producing? Lance was in for 6 minutes and got 1 rebound. You talk about Marty's offense, but he's about the lowest on the team in points-per-minutes production.

I never said the staff was infallible. They just know more than I do about who to play when.

SavannahDevil
03-04-2007, 08:39 PM
McRoberts - 36min - 9pts - 2ast - 6to
Sheyer -35min - 10pts - 2ast - 1to
McClure -16min -0pts - 0ast - 0to

Josh and Jon took 7 and 8 shots respectively. You can't have guys play that many minutes and have such limited impact on the game. Those are reserve player numbers and they are supposedly two of our best. If your main guys aren't going to make more of an effort than that, it would only seem logical to give someone else a chance, right?

dukie8
03-04-2007, 08:49 PM
How long do you leave guys in when they aren't producing? Lance was in for 6 minutes and got 1 rebound. You talk about Marty's offense, but he's about the lowest on the team in points-per-minutes production.

I never said the staff was infallible. They just know more than I do about who to play when.

more than the 20 seconds marty got before he was yanked. here are minutes played for everyone but the guys on the end of the bench.

McClure 16
McRoberts 36
Scheyer 35
Nelson 35
Paulus 31
Henderson 30
Thomas 6
Pocius 3
Zoubek 6

Terry 29
Hansbrough 30
Wright 30
Miller 10
Lawson 29
Thompson 13
Green 10
Ellington 15
Ginyard 20
Frasor 9

so we had 5 guys play AT LEAST 30 minutes plus mcclure with 16 and then basically nothing (that's called a 6-man rotation). unc played NOBODY more than 30 minutes and had 9 guys with 10+ minutes and a 10th with 9 minutes (that's called a deep bench). what was k thinking trying to beat unc with a 6-man rotation? it wasn't all that shocking to see our guys out of gas at the end. our minutes played is even more glaring when you take into account the fact that paulus and mcbob both were in foul trouble in the 2nd half.

Duke15304
03-04-2007, 08:53 PM
Im not trying to start rumors here, i have no info, its just speculation

Fish80
03-04-2007, 08:54 PM
We were down and making a comeback. We got within two, and then it blew back to 8 and 10. Do you bring them in when we're down 10 points?

dukie8
03-04-2007, 09:02 PM
We were down and making a comeback. We got within two, and then it blew back to 8 and 10. Do you bring them in when we're down 10 points?

what kind of a question is that? it's not a binary situation where you either keep them on the bench or bring them all in at one point in time. you work the bench in throughout the game just like royo did. btw, did anyone get a stopwatch on marty in the first half? that was one quick look he got.

imagepro
03-04-2007, 09:04 PM
Fish- We're not stupid. We're not saying bring them in then, and I think you know that. C'mon now, please. We, or at least I, mean playing them fo ra few minutes at times earlier, so we are not so fatigued at the end. It's happened to us several times this seaon as you know.

Let me give you a perfect example. Coaches, and players know very well when there will be a TV timeout. Say there is a dead ball about a minute before the scheduled timeout- rush a player in and replace say, Josh. He gets a minute or so of gametime rest, plus a couple of minutes for the tv timeout, for a total of 4-5 minutes. MORE than enough. If you think coaches don't do that, you really are mistaken. And maybe we should utilize that strategy more. A player averaging 35 mpg is not necessary. We have had players avg taht, and MORE for years. IE JJ, Shelden and on and on. Guys need to rest. The season is long and legs take a beating.

C'mon Fish, you know what we're saying. Don't patronize us by saying things like you did in your last post. You know we don't want those guys to come in when 10 down. BUT, if guys are so tried they can't play defense, then even that would not be a bad strategy.

imagepro
03-04-2007, 09:05 PM
that had to be the quickest substitution in history!

imagepro
03-04-2007, 09:16 PM
We are wasting our time trying to convince him. Really. You made very good points and validated your post. You used logic and common sense. But it's like trying to make a make a fish live on dry land-- Ain't gonna happen.

Amazing, but Coach K has followers that think he can never make a mistake, so they blame players. NOT swaying you Fish, saying some..I for one think the coaches are more responsible than the kids. They are paid ( very well I might add) professionals who know criticism comes with the job description, and can or should be able to handle it.

Kids on the other hand are just that, KIDS. I'm sure when they signed their letter of intent, they never even considered they would be talked about and criticized as they are on DBR. I won't do it----------

OH, you know when ole Roy lost at NC State, HE took all the blame. WELL documented. I'm not being sarcastic here, but asking a real question. Has Coach K ever taken blame for a loss, or said we were not prepared? I personally do not remember that happening. After the Maryland game he blamed the kids for missing their defensive assignments, repeatedly. Was it possible the defensive game plan itself was flawed? Or was it truly all the kids fault? Just a question....

Fish80
03-04-2007, 09:44 PM
... But it's like trying to make a make a fish live on dry land ...

Clever.

If Marty, Brian, and Lance didn't even get off the bench, you might have a point. But they did get minutes, and did not produce enough to merit more minutes. Why you can't see that, I don't know. And we were mounting a comeback most of the game. So if you admit you wouldn't put them in when we are down big and trying to come back, I'll reiterate my question: when would you bring them in?

And don't just give me some cook book platitude about bridging the time out.

FewFAC
03-04-2007, 09:54 PM
If Marty, Brian, and Lance didn't even get off the bench, you might have a point. But they did get minutes, and did not produce enough to merit more minutes. Why you can't see that, I don't know.

Result? 8-8 conference record. I am not necessarily a "the game has passed K by" kinda guy, but I can see no response to any argument regarding K's inability to maximize the potential of his roster and how that impacts the outcome of games against competition that does.

BuschDevil
03-04-2007, 09:57 PM
Actually, I've heard Coach K take the blame for a loss many times, though he usually refers to the whole staff. Conversely, at times he has gotten on the team. I think he treats his teams, players, and the situations differently, depending on what he thinks will work best to get the team better. He doesn't get it right all the time, but he does almost all of the time.

trinitydevil
03-04-2007, 10:03 PM
I read his, and others posts and nothing I saw warrants banning? Not at all.
He did call me and tell me of this, but whats this all about? Fish makes his points, as does imagepro and others. Many supported imagpro also. Moreso than Fish80 on this particular subject. Whats up DBR???? I wonder if your sponsors would approve of this?

Chicago 1995
03-04-2007, 10:12 PM
Clever.

If Marty, Brian, and Lance didn't even get off the bench, you might have a point. But they did get minutes, and did not produce enough to merit more minutes. Why you can't see that, I don't know. And we were mounting a comeback most of the game. So if you admit you wouldn't put them in when we are down big and trying to come back, I'll reiterate my question: when would you bring them in?

And don't just give me some cook book platitude about bridging the time out.

What about having the patience to stick with those guys so they actually get the chance to contribute? Giving those three the chance to play through struggles like K does with other players?

Roy obviously doesn't need to see immediate contribution from a player to give him minutes and to continue to give him minutes. Neither do other very successful coaches. Just seems like at Duke and only, it's all or nothing when it comes to PT.

Chard
03-04-2007, 10:33 PM
Fish, have some more Koolaid.

Highlander
03-04-2007, 10:52 PM
Roy obviously doesn't need to see immediate contribution from a player to give him minutes and to continue to give him minutes. Neither do other very successful coaches. Just seems like at Duke and only, it's all or nothing when it comes to PT.

And Roy is routinely criticized by UNC fans for going TOO DEEP on his bench and playing TOO MANY people. The line goes that Roy needs to shorten his bench so his best players can develop a better feel for each other rather than being so disjointed on offense.

I just think it's ironic that people criticize K for not being more like Roy, and Roy for not being more like K.

Fish80
03-05-2007, 09:02 AM
deleted post

My political affiliation is irrelevant to this topic. But for the record you've got that wrong too.

I like to support my team, including the coaching staff. Some of you guys like to take out your frustration from a loss by bashing K. I don't do that. I'd rather be supportive of the entire team.

Chicago 1995
03-05-2007, 09:31 AM
And Roy is routinely criticized by UNC fans for going TOO DEEP on his bench and playing TOO MANY people. The line goes that Roy needs to shorten his bench so his best players can develop a better feel for each other rather than being so disjointed on offense.

I just think it's ironic that people criticize K for not being more like Roy, and Roy for not being more like K.

There's a balance to be struck between Roy's insistance on playing 12 at least 10 minutes a night (it seems) and K's insistence on having at least four players play in excess of 32 minutes a night.

Happy medium and all.

Highlander
03-05-2007, 09:40 AM
If there is a perfect rotation, what is it? 8 players? 9? 10? From what I see, 12 is too many and 7 is too few. I would guess 8 or 9 would be about right.

Whatever the magic number for a prefect rotation is, there isn't a consensus. If K played 8, he would be criticized for not playing 9, and if Roy played 9 he'd be criticized for not playing 10 or 8. So there probably is a medium, but I doubt it would ever be happy...

I just think its ironic that K and Roy answered this question differently with their respective teams, yet both are routinely criticized.

Jumbo
03-05-2007, 09:42 AM
People,
Let's keep this calm, ok? No need to make comments about political affiliation; no need to play amateur psychologist here either.

What we've got here is a situation where like-minded people can disagree. In fact, it's almost a Catch-22. In the first half, Duke substituted liberally, used nine guys, and were down nine at the half. During the first 10 minutes or so of the second half, Coach K went to a six-man rotation, and Duke cut the lead to two. That was as close as Duke got, and it can be debated whether fatigue had to do with that. (My personal opinion was that talent won out more than fresh legs, but Duke might've been a little tired, all the same. It's hard not to think about depth when it's all Packer talks about.)

So, this really boils down to the second half. Keep in mind that for the past several games, K has used the approach of deep, liberal substitutions in the first half with all nine guys, followed by a 7-man rotation in the second half. So, the question becomes, "At what point would you have subbed in the second half?" All things being equal, you'd probably have rotated a couple of guys in between the 15 and 10 minute marks, I'd assume. This was also right during Duke's big run. So, would you have risked that momentum with a couple of subs (keep in mind that Duke was playing a unique, small lineup -- it's possible that any change could have disrupted that rhythm)? It's a valid debate topic. Maybe Zoubek, Thomas and/or Pocius would have kept the heat on UNC and the starters would have been stronger down the stretch. But it's equally possible that Duke never would have pulled the lead so close, because as much as we like them, Z, LT and MP represent a significant dropoff in ability from the first group right now, and even from UNC's top subs (experienced players like Ginyard, Green, Frasor and Miller).

I think Coach K was walking a tightrope at this point against a better opponent. Sure, he can be criticized, but everything is hypothetical. I know that as I was watching the game, I wasn't sure what to do. I figured we'd need a couple of subs at some point, but during the run, I couldn't justify pulling anyone from the game.

So, there's room to disagree here, but it's also imperative that people see both sides. On the one hand, people have to be willing to acknowledge that fatigue might have played a role in the loss. On the other hand, people have to recognize that players 7-9 are not equal in ability to players 1-6, and that inserting them in the game would have been a calculated risk, because there's no guarantee they would have made the run the starters did.

So, by all means debate, this, but please try to recognize all the angles.

Fish80
03-05-2007, 09:51 AM
Well reasoned, rational. Perhaps I get a little too defensive when people criticise playing time. You are right, there are valid points on both sides of the issue. In this particular game, I agree with the strategy K used. Getting back in the game was the priority, and it came at the expense of subs.

Chicago 1995
03-05-2007, 10:27 AM
People,
On the one hand, people have to be willing to acknowledge that fatigue might have played a role in the loss. On the other hand, people have to recognize that players 7-9 are not equal in ability to players 1-6, and that inserting them in the game would have been a calculated risk, because there's no guarantee they would have made the run the starters did.

So, by all means debate, this, but please try to recognize all the angles.

Jumbo makes some very good points above, and I'd second his thought that there's a rational argument for each side of the discussion about the rotation yesterday.

This is quibbling, but I'm not so sure the line of demarcation is 1-6 vs. 7-9. Generally, that's probably a fair place to draw the line, but yesterday I don't know that there was a big difference between 5 & 6 and 7-9.

It's known, I suspect, that I'm an advocate of a deeper rotation. I've been happy, for the most of the season, with the rotation and that we've not resorted to an iron six and little else. Yesterday we went to a shorter rotation for the comeback and it almost worked.

My complaint, really, isn't with Ks rotation this year or yesterday so much as the justification for the short rotation. Lance, Brian and Marty didn't contribute much in the scorebook yesterday, but I don't think that's a justification for keeping them out. As I said earlier, giving them a chance to play through early struggles -- at least generally -- is in my opinion a better idea. I'd also like to see some recognition that our bench players aren't the only guys that struggle or the only guys that have off nights, and maybe see them get the same chance to play through those struggles as other players have received.

The rotation didn't cost us the game yesterday. Lack of production did -- and not just from 7-9.

I feel better about where we're at in terms of depth going into the tourneys than I have in years though. All nine of our guys can play and contribute, and Ks going to go to them. That's great. I'm looking forward to Lance, Brian and Marty playing next week quite a bit. We're going to need them.

BluBones
03-05-2007, 11:26 AM
I'm astonished that this debate is still alive. This is the worst year we've had in almost a decade, and yet we were ranked nearly the entire year and we're going to the NCAA's. For the record, rather than make a public display of my ignorance of basketball I'm delighted to observe the decisions the coaching staff makes and learn from them.

trinitydevil
03-05-2007, 01:49 PM
Fish you say we are Bashing K. Hardly! If you read imagepros post HE said he thinks we have the best staff in America, and I agree. And you call that bashing? Puhhhlease! Look at how many posts there were echoing, or even preceding what he said. Ever considered you might be wrong? I doubt it.

While you say you support the entire team, you appear to support the coach, and NOT the kids that are not playing. You made that clearly evident when YOU commented on how they (MP, BZ, LT) DO NOT produce. Like image, and all the others on this thread EXCEPT you, WE support Marty, Zou, Lance. Please do not turn this around and say YOU do. YOU made your point clear on about 4 posts here. YOU "support the entire team" as you say, but YOU don't think they can play? Well which is it Fish? I mean honestly, it can't be BOTH ways. It was YOU who commented on their lack of contribution, not ours. It was YOU who questioned how they could get playing time. After it was logically explained, YOU get sarcastic.

I agree with what IP, Dukie8, Few, Savannah and many others here have said. Speaking of that, IP and I sit in section 15 at Cameron. Next season, come and join us one time. You'll hear a LOT more of the "play the bench" talk from fans around us. It's the topic of converstation at every game. But nevermind, you wouldn't want to sit there. You'd fell waaayyy out of place.

Also, it's pretty obvious who was responsible for the ban of IP. OK, you finally win, but a cheap way to do it. Keep it up and it will be all the oldtimers, just like the "good ole days" huh? Like I said a few months ago, you guys should start your own site and sit in your little circle and praise the Almighty.

And by the way, don't bother to ban me, I'm already gone!

Jumbo
03-05-2007, 02:07 PM
Trinity,
Just to clear up any confusion you might have, moderators do not have the ability to ban posters. Only the administrators (J&B) do. In fact, by the time I saw this thread, ImagePro was already banned. I'm trying to figure out what he did to get banned, since he and I had been exchanging some nice messages prior to the game.
On another note, please read my message about respecting other opinions. Your recent post in response to Fish is an example of what we're trying to avoid. You are basically taking the moral high grouind, in essence, by saying any post advocating less depth is a knock on the players, and that knocking players is out of bounds. That's not fair. If it's fair for someone to say why a reserve should play more, it's only fair for someone else to be able to explain why guys should play less. Again, you guys don't need to see eye-to-eye, but you, at the very least, need to understand the other person's argument. Because both sides make valid points.
Let's shoot for a bit less hostility and a little more of an enviornment where people can exchange ideas and learn from one another, ok?

feldspar
03-05-2007, 02:08 PM
Trinity,
Just to clear up any confusion you might have, moderators do not have the ability to ban posters. Only the administrators (J&B) do. In fact, by the time I saw this thread, ImagePro was already banned. I'm trying to figure out what he did to get banned, since he and I had been exchanging some nice messages prior to the game.
On another note, please read my note about respecting other peoples's opinions. Your recent post in response to Fish is an example of what we're trying to avoid. You are basically taking the moral high grouind, in essence, by saying any post advocating less depth is a knock on the players. That's not fair. If it's fair for someone to say why goes should play more, it's only fair for someone else to be able to explain why guys should say less. Again, you guys don't need to see eye-to-eye, but you, at the very least, need to understand the other person's argument. Because both sides make valid points.
Let's shoot for a bit less hostility and a little more of an enviornment where people can exchange ideas and learn from one another, ok?

I just gotta say, I love the new Jumbo.

He makes me want to be a better person. :)

Jumbo
03-05-2007, 02:12 PM
I just gotta say, I love the new Jumbo.

He makes me want to be a better person. :)

Greg and Steve are excellent mentors for this new role, I think. WWBTDFD?

dbr
03-05-2007, 02:37 PM
Jumbo's correct. He had nothing to do with the ban of ImagePro. Besides, the ban was of short duration and was already lifted.

Dukefan4Life
03-05-2007, 02:43 PM
i dont know why we dont use our bench more than we do! I know freshman make mistakes and it could cost the team, but even in some of the games where we knew we would crush they didnt get much PT. I have seen it so many times where we dont use our bench then come tourney time we get in foul trouble and then use a guy who hasnt played all season then expect him to step up and save the day! we get some of the best players in america! i say use them!

Fish80
03-05-2007, 03:11 PM
Fish you say we are Bashing K. Hardly! If you read imagepros post HE said he thinks we have the best staff in America, and I agree. And you call that bashing? Puhhhlease! Look at how many posts there were echoing, or even preceding what he said. Ever considered you might be wrong? I doubt it.

While you say you support the entire team, you appear to support the coach, and NOT the kids that are not playing. You made that clearly evident when YOU commented on how they (MP, BZ, LT) DO NOT produce. Like image, and all the others on this thread EXCEPT you, WE support Marty, Zou, Lance. Please do not turn this around and say YOU do. YOU made your point clear on about 4 posts here. YOU "support the entire team" as you say, but YOU don't think they can play? Well which is it Fish? I mean honestly, it can't be BOTH ways. It was YOU who commented on their lack of contribution, not ours. It was YOU who questioned how they could get playing time. After it was logically explained, YOU get sarcastic.

I agree with what IP, Dukie8, Few, Savannah and many others here have said. Speaking of that, IP and I sit in section 15 at Cameron. Next season, come and join us one time. You'll hear a LOT more of the "play the bench" talk from fans around us. It's the topic of converstation at every game. But nevermind, you wouldn't want to sit there. You'd fell waaayyy out of place.

Also, it's pretty obvious who was responsible for the ban of IP. OK, you finally win, but a cheap way to do it. Keep it up and it will be all the oldtimers, just like the "good ole days" huh? Like I said a few months ago, you guys should start your own site and sit in your little circle and praise the Almighty.

And by the way, don't bother to ban me, I'm already gone!

If Fish is wrong, then I don't want to be right. Wait a minute, I am Fish. :)

trinity, I had no intention of getting imagepro banned and truely hope that my posts did not in some way cause the banning of imagepro. I enjoy discussions with imagepro and look forward to many more.

I'd like to see more time for the bench. In fact, I hope in the NC State game that all 8 guys get between 20 and 30 minutes (average 25, I think). I might be wrong about bench development - maybe the bench could be deeper than it is now if guys had played more in December and January.

But on the specifics of the UNC game on Sunday, I agree with the strategy employed. Not everyone does, and that's fine. C'est la vie.

Zeb
03-05-2007, 04:04 PM
I want to add to the praise for the so-called "new Jumbo". His comments on this thread are exemplary and in the finest tradition of DBR. A few months ago, I would have assumed he'd be in the mosh pit duking it out with the rest of the rabid partisans. Now he's part of the solution. Bravo.

feldspar
03-05-2007, 04:07 PM
I want to add to the praise for the so-called "new Jumbo". His comments on this thread are exemplary and in the finest tradition of DBR. A few months ago, I would have assumed he'd be in the mosh pit duking it out with the rest of the rabid partisans. Now he's part of the solution. Bravo.

I'm smelling an ABC after-school special. :D