PDA

View Full Version : Next Year



Pages : [1] 2

Jackson
03-25-2011, 10:25 AM
Can't stand thinking about last night anymore. What does everyone think about next year? We have Rivers, Cook, Plumlee III, Gbinije, maybe Daniels coming in. Who from this year's team returns? Losing Kyle and Nolan is tought...but what does Mason do? Is it a foregone conclusion the Kyrie leaves? What contribution can we expect from Kelly and Miles? What kind of player will Seth develop into? Preseason ranking? We've gotta be right up there to start the season. I'm looking for some positives in a very negative day.

DukeWarhead
03-25-2011, 10:34 AM
Can't stand thinking about last night anymore. What does everyone think about next year? We have Rivers, Cook, Plumlee III, Gbinije, maybe Daniels coming in. Who from this year's team returns? Losing Kyle and Nolan is tought...but what does Mason do? Is it a foregone conclusion the Kyrie leaves? What contribution can we expect from Kelly and Miles? What kind of player will Seth develop into? Preseason ranking? We've gotta be right up there to start the season. I'm looking for some positives in a very negative day.

I said this a few weeks ago, but it was taken off to wait for 'after the season.' Well, sadly, here we are. In my mind, my biggest concern for next year is who will assume the team leader role. It's an absolute must. Maybe the most important thing. If Kyrie does the unthinkable and stays, then he will be the face of next years squad -and he will be absolutely great in that role. However, I'm going to assume he leaves. In that case, I have a hard time envisioning the guys left as the floor general. Austin is confident and might want that role, but it should be somebody with more experience. Just my perception, but I see Miles, Mason, Ryan, Andre and Seth as role players and very good ones, but I'm not sure if they are capable of overt leadership. I hope I am wrong, I really do. Perhaps Seth will step up and assert himself. I dunno.

Jackson
03-25-2011, 10:38 AM
Can Austin be good enough as a freshman to lead the team? He looks scary good. If Mason sticks around, he can turn into a huge presence inside with his brother and Kelly. A backcourt of Rivers and Curry with Cook should already be one of the best in the country. If Kyrie stays, is there a better backcourt ANYwhere?

dyedwab
03-25-2011, 10:43 AM
I said this a few weeks ago, but it was taken off to wait for 'after the season.' Well, sadly, here we are. In my mind, my biggest concern for next year is who will assume the team leader role. It's an absolute must. Maybe the most important thing. If Kyrie does the unthinkable and stays, then he will be the face of next years squad -and he will be absolutely great in that role. However, I'm going to assume he leaves. In that case, I have a hard time envisioning the guys left as the floor general. Austin is confident and might want that role, but it should be somebody with more experience. Just my perception, but I see Miles, Mason, Ryan, Andre and Seth as role players and very good ones, but I'm not sure if they are capable of overt leadership. I hope I am wrong, I really do. Perhaps Seth will step up and assert himself. I dunno.

I see your point - but being a role player and being the team leader are not incompatible. For instance, Lance Thomas was a key leader on last year's team, and going back further, Brian Davis was the vocal leader of the 1991-1992 teams. (if you go back to the 1991 NCAA championship video, you'll see a huddle just before Duke took the court against UNLV - and its Brian Davis doing the talking).

The question of who will step up to become the leader is a key to next year's team.

Jackson
03-25-2011, 10:46 AM
I see your point - but being a role player and being the team leader are not incompatible. For instance, Lance Thomas was a key leader on last year's team, and going back further, Brian Davis was the vocal leader of the 1991-1992 teams. (if you go back to the 1991 NCAA championship video, you'll see a huddle just before Duke took the court against UNLV - and its Brian Davis doing the talking).

The question of who will step up to become the leader is a key to next year's team.

If Kyrie stays, it will be him. If not, Mason? Miles?

OZZIE4DUKE
03-25-2011, 10:48 AM
40 - 0. ACC and National Champions!

Seth Curry is consensus National Player of the Year.
Austin Rivers is Rookie of the Year.
Mike Krzyzewski is Coach of the Year.

Any other questions?

Dukefan4Life
03-25-2011, 10:51 AM
I think We will be solid next year. We shouldnt have any problem at the guard postion. My only question is who and what will be our inside scoring option? Mason going pro? i am not getting on the kid but he needs one more year to get an better shooting the ball and learning a few post moves!

Reddevil
03-25-2011, 10:55 AM
The question of who will step up to become the leader is a key to next year's team.

Ideally, it will be the point guard. Understandably, with two All-American seniors on the team, the rest of the guys deferred. I can see Seth stepping up, and I think there is a competitive fire that burns in Kelly that we have not witnessed yet. There is a void, and it will be filled. It will be fun to get to know the team all over again, with guys in new roles.

nickjyd
03-25-2011, 10:58 AM
Last night was really tough. I think most of us think there is a strong chance that Irving will leave, but if he stays, there is your team leader and Duke will be scary good. Without him, someone is really going to have to step up. Austin Rivers seems most likely.

I dont post here much, but read every day. I'm not trying to insult anyone here or cause any riots, but the thought of Mason Plumlee going pro just baffles me. I cant understand how anyone would think that is a good idea. He has great athleticism and has potential, but he is still putting his college game together. How in the world could anyone think he is ready and why would any NBA team draft him? Don't get me wrong, I really like Mason, I just think talk of him and the NBA is ridiculous. It seems to me that a guy should show that he can do serious damage at the college level before making the jump but maybe the whole thing just makes no sense.

unexpected
03-25-2011, 10:59 AM
Let's keep our expectations in check somewhat-

Next year, our SG/SF positions will be STACKED. If Kyrie goes pro, we may have some PG issues - Cook is good, but not Irving good. Tyler Thornton and him will fight for PG, and I wouldn't be surprised if Curry played some PG as well.

Our inside options are still somewhat lacking. Miles and Mason - I don't think we can expect them to turn into world beaters at this point. I think we should hold them to a Zoubek level ceiling, instead of a Sullinger level ceiling. While both are incredibly athletic - they're both incredibly uncoordinated around the basket - they're just not comfortable with their backs to the basket. It still boggles my mind that Mason, with a height/jumping advantage on almost everyone he plays, cannot put together some inside moves, and instead settles for that hook shot. It is what is. Maybe it will come with more game time, but I'm skeptical.

CLW
03-25-2011, 11:03 AM
Its obviously very speculative at this point but I see two main "issues" for next year's team

#1 Low Post/Back-to-the-basket scoring option - From "most" accounts it doesn't sound like MP3 will be ready on Day 1 to fill this void. Can Miles develop into a decent option? Does Mason return? If so can he develop some post moves?

#2 Who provides the leadership on the floor - We only have one Sr. on next years team Miles. Can he step up and develop into a vocal and/or leader by example?

Dukefan4Life
03-25-2011, 11:03 AM
I would like to see kelly have a bigger role in our offense next year! the kid has the skills to shoot,pass, and take it to the hole. Why we tryed to turn him into lance thomas this year ill never know. we could have used him better this season if you ask me

nmduke2001
03-25-2011, 11:04 AM
I think Dre will be first team all-acc. When he is confident, he is a beast. Look for him to improve his handle this summer and be a force next year.

Jderf
03-25-2011, 11:04 AM
Seth is going to be huge next year. In fact, he was huge this year: all our worst moments were stretches when Seth was either off his game or not on the court. He is smart and surprisingly quick. He has incredibly sneaky hands on defense, letting no dribble be safe. He distributes the ball well and has great court awareness. Next year, I would not be pessimistic at all if he was our best option for running the offense.

Dukefan4Life
03-25-2011, 11:08 AM
Yeah Dawk will contiune to shoot the lights out! I would like to see him be more than a spot up shooter. He has the ability to take to the rack

jdk
03-25-2011, 11:19 AM
Its obviously very speculative at this point but I see two main "issues" for next year's team

#1 Low Post/Back-to-the-basket scoring option - From "most" accounts it doesn't sound like MP3 will be ready on Day 1 to fill this void. Can Miles develop into a decent option? Does Mason return? If so can he develop some post moves?

#2 Who provides the leadership on the floor - We only have one Sr. on next years team Miles. Can he step up and develop into a vocal and/or leader by example?

1) I think with expectations lessened next year, we take the gamble of passing the ball inside to the Plumlees (and Josh) early in the season. Marshall should probably redshirt. Clean slate next year, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by forcing them to adapt to that role. Inside-out game, and build upon that.

2) Seth Curry will provide leadership. Next year is his fourth year in college. If he had stayed at Liberty, he would be a junior this season (or an NBA rookie). He has already stepped up in big games, and seemed to accept responsibility for the VaTech game.

CarmenWallaceWade
03-25-2011, 11:22 AM
Last night was really tough. I think most of us think there is a strong chance that Irving will leave, but if he stays, there is your team leader and Duke will be scary good. Without him, someone is really going to have to step up. Austin Rivers seems most likely.

I dont post here much, but read every day. I'm not trying to insult anyone here or cause any riots, but the thought of Mason Plumlee going pro just baffles me. I cant understand how anyone would think that is a good idea. He has great athleticism and has potential, but he is still putting his college game together. How in the world could anyone think he is ready and why would any NBA team draft him? Don't get me wrong, I really like Mason, I just think talk of him and the NBA is ridiculous. It seems to me that a guy should show that he can do serious damage at the college level before making the jump but maybe the whole thing just makes no sense.


Totally agree here. I certainly don't think Mason's ready for the pros. He has the tools to be really, really good, but he needs polishing. He needs to develop a few reliable low post moves. The hook shot behind the head while moving across the lane is ineffective. He also needs to learn how to stay in front of his man and to not be tempted to reach so much. And work on the free throws (ironically he hit two in the second half last night - about the only thing that went right for us). If he averaged near 70% he would have had many more double digit scoring games this year. Put these things together with his vertical ability and he becomes a consistent go to weapon whose game translates well at the NBA level. He's a great kid with a lot of potential, and I know he'll work hard this off season to develop these skills.

COYS
03-25-2011, 11:36 AM
Seth is going to be huge next year. In fact, he was huge this year: all our worst moments were stretches when Seth was either off his game or not on the court. He is smart and surprisingly quick. He has incredibly sneaky hands on defense, letting no dribble be safe. He distributes the ball well and has great court awareness. Next year, I would not be pessimistic at all if he was our best option for running the offense.

The dork analysis backs up your observations. While 'Dre technically had a higher offensive rating (123.1-121.7), Curry's efficiency was achieved in far more ways than just shooting well from three point range (as Dawkins was). He had a low turnover rate while shouldering a lot of the ball handling and distribution duties and was tied with Kyrie for best steal percentage on the team. His assist rate could easily go up more if he had the ball in his hands a bit more next year. He also was strangely bad from 2 point range at only 39%. While this lower percentage probably does show that he lacks the extra hops to finish through contact at the rim, i would expect this number to improve dramatically next year since he will be stronger and more used to the physicality of ACC ball . . . plus we know he's crafty enough to find ways to score (he flashed a really effective floater a number of times). An improvement in his two point percentage would lift his offensive rating even higher.

Although I hesitate to compare two players, I can't help but hope he can make a Scheyer-like jump. Curry possesses some of the same markers in his stats (low turnover rate, decent assist rate, etc.) that Scheyer possessed after his freshman season and sophomore seasons. In fact, Curry's dork stats almost fit perfectly in the middle of the difference between Jon's freshman and sophomore seasons. Given that he is a redshirt sophomore, (or a super rookie), I hope that next year he'll be able to make the jump and do many of the things Jon did. Value the basketball. Distribute the basketball. Penetrate effectively (but not always to score). And score. I'm not saying he will be like Jon (as I am right behind Jumbo as the number 2 fan in the Scheyer fan club . . . I think Jon will always be the most overlooked superstar to play for Duke), as those are big shoes to fill. But I think Seth has HUGE potential to make a leap next year.

jdj4duke
03-25-2011, 11:36 AM
It hasn't been, and won't be, long.

1913

ncexnyc
03-25-2011, 11:42 AM
The dust hasn't even settled and already some are talking about next year. It's way to early to have this discussion as we don't know what the components of next year's team will actually be. Once we find out who is staying and who is going, then I'll be happy to join the fray.

loldevilz
03-25-2011, 11:44 AM
Let's keep our expectations in check somewhat-

Next year, our SG/SF positions will be STACKED. If Kyrie goes pro, we may have some PG issues - Cook is good, but not Irving good. Tyler Thornton and him will fight for PG, and I wouldn't be surprised if Curry played some PG as well.


I don't know why you would say our SF position is stacked. I really think our SF position will be a problem. Curry and Rivers will obviously be our backcourt which is fine.

I really wish we could get someone at Small Forward with real athletiism. Obviously Grant Hill or Derrick Williams athleticism won't be there, but we should have at least some athleticism in the front court. I would love to see Hairston start at small forward. And have Lance Thomas's role. Thomas was so key last year as a defensive stopper and a shut down man.

Curry
Rivers
Hairston
Kelly
Mi. Plumlee

However, Coach K seems to be in love with these small lineups which got us beat last night and against Villanova. So Dawkins will probably start and we will get killed in the sweet sixteen next year.

Reddevil
03-25-2011, 11:54 AM
...the thought of Mason Plumlee going pro just baffles me. I cant understand how anyone would think that is a good idea. He has great athleticism and has potential, but he is still putting his college game together. How in the world could anyone think he is ready and why would any NBA team draft him? Don't get me wrong, I really like Mason, I just think talk of him and the NBA is ridiculous. It seems to me that a guy should show that he can do serious damage at the college level before making the jump but maybe the whole thing just makes no sense.


Totally agree here. I certainly don't think Mason's ready for the pros. He has the tools to be really, really good, but he needs polishing. He needs to develop a few reliable low post moves. The hook shot behind the head while moving across the lane is ineffective. He also needs to learn how to stay in front of his man and to not be tempted to reach so much. And work on the free throws (ironically he hit two in the second half last night - about the only thing that went right for us). If he averaged near 70% he would have had many more double digit scoring games this year. Put these things together with his vertical ability and he becomes a consistent go to weapon whose game translates well at the NBA level. He's a great kid with a lot of potential, and I know he'll work hard this off season to develop these skills.

The P word is what the NBA draft is all about. Strange but true.

DukeWarhead
03-25-2011, 11:55 AM
The dust hasn't even settled and already some are talking about next year. It's way to early to have this discussion as we don't know what the components of next year's team will actually be. Once we find out who is staying and who is going, then I'll be happy to join the fray.

Disagree. Looking to next year is theraputic - helps ease the sting from waking up to no chance for this year. I see nothing wrong with asking some key questions about next year - even if we don't know if Kyrie will jump or not yet. So no, it's not too early to start discussing next season, IMO. We talk about recruits two, sometimes three years out, after all. I think the majority would say - IF Kyrie stays, then many questions are answered and Duke will be very dangerous next year. Without him, there are questions that people would like to discuss- and not wait 2 or 3 months to discuss. Ever heard of contingencies?

unexpected
03-25-2011, 11:58 AM
I'm using the duke version of the SF term - 2/3's that are interchangeable. Scorer's that are not PG.

You don't need someone 6'8" to play the SF position. This isn't the NBA. Look at how tall the Arizona players were. Next year we'll have:

Dawkins
Rivers
Curry
Gbinije

The top 3 would start at almost every program in the country. With us, only 2 can start (if we decide to PG with Cook and Thornton). Every program would be THRILLED to have Gbinije - and he might not even crack the rotation!

Big Men wise, we're pretty much "stuck" with what we've got. That's not a big thing, but the big keys next year will be:

1) Big Guy play -

Kelly will never be as fast as the other PF's, he has to combat that with size and strength. He also needs to clean up his shot. He's capable of hitting it, but it looks funny and man, he sure does hesitate before taking it.

Mason/Miles - been through this already

Hairston - does he make a leap? I hope so. I feel like a sophomore Hairston could have been a great antidote to keep up with williams - quick enough to keep up with him.

2) PG play (assuming Irving is gone)

Do we go with Thornton? I don't think he's a bad option actually, and he's a good defender. I liked his hustle out there last night - I wish we would have sent him in earlier. How good is quinn really?

wk2109
03-25-2011, 12:01 PM
Last night was really tough. I think most of us think there is a strong chance that Irving will leave, but if he stays, there is your team leader and Duke will be scary good. Without him, someone is really going to have to step up. Austin Rivers seems most likely.

I dont post here much, but read every day. I'm not trying to insult anyone here or cause any riots, but the thought of Mason Plumlee going pro just baffles me. I cant understand how anyone would think that is a good idea. He has great athleticism and has potential, but he is still putting his college game together. How in the world could anyone think he is ready and why would any NBA team draft him? Don't get me wrong, I really like Mason, I just think talk of him and the NBA is ridiculous. It seems to me that a guy should show that he can do serious damage at the college level before making the jump but maybe the whole thing just makes no sense.

It may not make sense to you (or to anyone else on this board), but NBA scouts are looking at him as a potential lottery/first-round pick, and that's what matters.

Next year's squad will potentially be very deep, but it'll definitely be hard to 'replace' Kyle and Nolan (and maybe Kyrie and Mason). The four guys coming in play the same positions as the four guys leaving (assuming Kyrie and Mason go) but, except for Austin, none will be expected to come remotely close to the production level of the guy whose roster spot he's filling.

But who knows. I remember a professor of mine (who is a Duke basketball 'insider') saying after Elliot transferred during the summer of 2009, "I never want to underestimate K, but I think this will be a tough year." And we know how 09-10 turned out. There can always be an Andre Dawkins or Brian Zoubek who turns the whole team's fortunes around. Let's hope Seth channels his inner Jon Scheyer, Andre turns into JJ Redick 2.0, and Ryan becomes his #34 predecessor Mike Dunleavy.

Reddevil
03-25-2011, 12:03 PM
I don't know why you would say our SF position is stacked. I really think our SF position will be a problem. Curry and Rivers will obviously be our backcourt which is fine.

I really wish we could get someone at Small Forward with real athletiism. Obviously Grant Hill or Derrick Williams athleticism won't be there, but we should have at least some athleticism in the front court. I would love to see Hairston start at small forward. And have Lance Thomas's role. Thomas was so key last year as a defensive stopper and a shut down man.

Curry
Rivers
Hairston
Kelly
Mi. Plumlee

However, Coach K seems to be in love with these small lineups which got us beat last night and against Villanova. So Dawkins will probably start and we will get killed in the sweet sixteen next year.

As for the SF issue: Dawkins = athletic 6'4", Rivers = athletic 6'5", Gbinije = athletic 6'6"

As for the rest, come on now. Duke wins that game over 50% of the time. It was AZ's night. Tip your hat and root on.

COYS
03-25-2011, 12:03 PM
However, Coach K seems to be in love with these small lineups which got us beat last night and against Villanova. So Dawkins will probably start and we will get killed in the sweet sixteen next year.

Yeah, K is so in love with small lineups that we went really small all season last year . . . oh wait. Or, you know, we could have a small lineup that runs all the way to the national title like in 2001. Also, remember that we played a small lineup in 2009 against Nova because, well, we had a small team (Zoubek was coming back from another injury plagued season and Kyle and Lance were our best options at 4 and 5). Besides, this ignores the fact that last night we tried to play big as much as possible. However, Miles, who was very effective, got into foul trouble, as did Singler. Kelly was totally outmatched on the boards and, even when he was in there with another big, he didn't give us any of the rebounding we would expect out of a big lineup. The team just had a bad game.

Anyway, as for next year, I do think you have a point in that depending on the personnel we have available, we may need some rebounding out of the small forward position. The coaching staff will definitely have some tough decisions to make as the team next year, even if Mason and Kyrie both leave, will be capable of playing a number of different styles. The big vs. small debate will probably be a theme next season, as well.

Bojangles4Eva
03-25-2011, 12:07 PM
ugh!!!!! Wrote the longest reply ever and went to spell check it, had to log back in and now.....gone! Gonna have to learn to select all + copy before I click anything from now on....

In a shorter version, I think we will miss the experience from Kyle and Nolan A LOT at times next year, especially Kyle's from winning so many games as a starter. That said, if KI stays, our ceiling talent-wise is higher, but we would have to work to get there. If he goes, we will have flashes of brilliance from Curry, Dawkins, Kelly, MPI&II, Rivers, and hopefully others, but there will no doubt be bumps in the road, and post-season success will be a surprise, not an expectation. I think our success ultimately revolves around 1) the continued development of Mason, Miles and Kelly, all of whom I have lots of faith in and 2) if Irving stays

dcdrumsinc
03-25-2011, 12:09 PM
No matter how good are guards or how deep our backcourt will be, I just don't see us winning unless we get more athletic, quicker, and have a legit post presence. I don't see it next year. even if kyrie comes back. he would be our most athletic player and he is above average. we are going to get killed in dribble penetration and by teams with quick guards.

Just like this past season, we are raising out expectations to high. Let's be honest with ourselves. we got blown out tonight. that hurt. but kyrie also put up 28 points, on 9-15 shooting, 2-4 3 point shooting, 8-9 fts. and it was obvious he was still out of shape, out of synch, and still going at i would say 85% of his speed. That's how good he is. The guy has a 99% chance that he is gone. and I don't question him.

unexpected
03-25-2011, 12:33 PM
We don't have to be that good. Again, remember this is mainly a therapeutic exercise.

As we learned last night, you can be a 5 seed and do some damage in the tournament. You can also be a 5 seed and lose to VCU (Duke 2007). Such is the madness of march.

While we won't have the overall dominance that we had this year (before last night), our roster that we have next year doesn't preclude it. We have one player that will absolutely assert his will (Rivers) and a strong supporting cast.

We should do no worse than #2-3 in the ACC next year. We'll still be a 1-5 seed come March.

Reddevil
03-25-2011, 12:47 PM
Similar to the expectations thread, one nice thing about next year is the unknown. Let teams like Michigan with everyone returning do the sweating next year. We can watch the team develop without stressing over every hiccup. I love years with expectations, but the team building years offer a pleasantness that we should not take for granted. They may even add years to our lives!

loldevilz
03-25-2011, 01:17 PM
Besides, this ignores the fact that last night we tried to play big as much as possible. However, Miles, who was very effective, got into foul trouble, as did Singler. Kelly was totally outmatched on the boards and, even when he was in there with another big, he didn't give us any of the rebounding we would expect out of a big lineup. The team just had a bad game.


Dawkins played 22 minutes. 22 freaking minutes almost all of with were at the 3. That is not "trying to play big".

Our team got absolutely manhandled on the glass. I believe there was a 22-6 rebounding disparity at one point. Arizona's offensive rebounding rate was 47%.


And this isn't the first time this has happened. The same exact thing that happened against Villanova when we were a smaller team.

Whether Duke fans admit it or not, Duke is not the team of the late 80s early 90s. They have been upset 7 times in the sweet sixteen as the higher seed.

Something makes me believe that Duke is going to play Dawkins at the 3 and get upset in the sweet sixteen.

DukieInBrasil
03-25-2011, 01:43 PM
No matter how good are guards or how deep our backcourt will be, I just don't see us winning unless we get more athletic, quicker, and have a legit post presence. I don't see it next year. even if kyrie comes back. he would be our most athletic player and he is above average. we are going to get killed in dribble penetration and by teams with quick guards.

We won a National Championship last year with a team that did not have the athleticism that this team does, in terms of minutes played x athleticism of said player. Also, Kyrie is not just "above average" in athleticism, he is phenomenal. Add it all up, athleticism does not championships win. Teamwork, communication, skill and dedication do.

DukieinSoCal
03-25-2011, 02:10 PM
The Plumlees both need to go a big man camp this summer and learn how to play with their back to the basket. It's ridiculous for 2 guys that big and athletic to provide so little on the offensive end. They really need to learn how to play the game. Their basketball IQ is probably half of what it needs to be for us to be successful.

Frankly, I'm not even sure if it would hurt us that much if Mason went to the NBA. I don't think he's anywhere near ready but it looks like he'll go pretty high based on his "upside". And if he were to leave, I think we'd be just fine playing Ryan at the 4 next year. Ryan is like the anti-Plumlee. Not a great leaper but so smart, fundamentally sound, works on actual basketball skills.

sandinmyshoes
03-25-2011, 02:18 PM
The dust hasn't even settled and already some are talking about next year. It's way to early to have this discussion as we don't know what the components of next year's team will actually be. Once we find out who is staying and who is going, then I'll be happy to join the fray.

I agree with this. We don't know what the make up of our team will be, but even more, we don't know what environment they will be facing. Who leaves or stays with other ACC teams, and other teams on our schedule or potential top 20 type teams. Just too early.

Though I was tempted to play, just to ease the pain.

HDB
03-25-2011, 02:24 PM
I haven't seen anyone mention Hairston as a key to next year's puzzle. I, for one, will be very interested to see what he brings to the table as he was pretty much invisible this year.

uh_no
03-25-2011, 02:26 PM
I agree with this. We don't know what the make up of our team will be, but even more, we don't know what environment they will be facing. Who leaves or stays with other ACC teams, and other teams on our schedule or potential top 20 type teams. Just too early.

Though I was tempted to play, just to ease the pain.

Well, I think kyle and nolan are gone :P

I think the only questions are really mason and kyrie, obviously. I think the loss of mason is the easier of the two to absorb, and with 2 other plumlees and kelly, I think we are the same essentially with or without mason. Nothing taking away from what he brings to the team, but we have several of that type of player right now and can absorb the loss of possibly the most talented.

Kyrie is obviously a different issue....

superdave
03-25-2011, 02:34 PM
Something makes me believe that Duke is going to play Dawkins at the 3 and get upset in the sweet sixteen.

I know what that "Something" is - it's called negativity. We're down enough today - we dont need Debbie Downer ruining talk of next season already.

Too bad we cant have an NBA prototype at the 3 every year....alas.

whereinthehellami
03-25-2011, 02:36 PM
Here are some stats from ESPN on players that will be back for sure next year and from guys that averaged over 10 minutes per game this year...

2010-2011
Curry 25 MPG, 9 PPG, 2 RPG, 2 APG, 1 SPG, 0 BPG, 1 TOPG, 42%FG, 79% FT, 44% 3PT
Dre 21 MPG, 8 PPG, 2 RPG, 1 APG, 1 SPG, 0 BPG, 1 TOPG, 48%FG, 79% FT, 43% 3PT
Kelly 20 MPG, 7 PPG, 4 RPG, 1 APG, 1 SPG, 1 BPG, 1 TOPG, 52%FG, 81% FT, 32% 3PT
Miles 17 MPG, 5 PPG, 5 RPG, 0 APG, 1 SPG, 1 BPG, 1 TOPG, 52%FG, 59% FT, 0% 3PT

2009-2010
Dre 13 MPG, 4 PPG, 1 RPG, 0 APG, 0 SPG, 0 BPG, 0 TOPG, 40%FG, 74% FT, 38% 3PT
Kelly 7 MPG, 1 PPG, 1 RPG, 0 APG, 0 SPG, 0 BPG, 0 TOPG, 36%FG, 67% FT, 26% 3PT
Miles 16 MPG, 5 PPG, 5 RPG, 0 APG, 1 SPG, 1 BPG, 1 TOPG, 56%FG, 66% FT, 100% 3PT

2008-2009
Miles 7 MPG, 2 PPG, 1 RPG, 0 APG, 0 SPG, 1 BPG, 1 TOPG, 47%FG, 55% FT, 0% 3PT


Thoughts

Curry, Dre, and Kelly have strong shooting percentage numbers. There is alot of room for their production numbers to go up next year. They all could average double figures in Pts next year. You've got to think that Rivers will be in that discussion to.


Dre pretty much doubled production in less than double the MPG from 09-10. Dre's shooting percentages also went up across the board. There is no reason to think that Dre's numbers won't increase significantly next year. i'm not sure how much more his shooting percentages will go up because they are currently pretty high.


Miles numbers look a little more like they have flattened out. Is there some more potential that Miles can tap on the offensive side of the ball?


I'd love to see Miles and/or Kelly's rebonding numbers increase dramatically next year.


These stats don't really shed any light on the defensive side of the ball, which could be a real cause for concern next year, after losing Smith and Singler.

ncexnyc
03-25-2011, 02:41 PM
I agree with this. We don't know what the make up of our team will be, but even more, we don't know what environment they will be facing. Who leaves or stays with other ACC teams, and other teams on our schedule or potential top 20 type teams. Just too early.

Though I was tempted to play, just to ease the pain.

These were exactly my thoughts on the matter. There's just to much that can happen in the next few months. Once we have a set group of kids then we can discuss line-ups, minutes, and whatnots.

Sitting at our keyboards won't remedy any wild scenarios that we can dream up.

Kedsy
03-25-2011, 02:43 PM
No matter how good are guards or how deep our backcourt will be, I just don't see us winning unless we get more athletic, quicker, and have a legit post presence. I don't see it next year. even if kyrie comes back. he would be our most athletic player and he is above average. we are going to get killed in dribble penetration and by teams with quick guards.

Yeah, because in 2009-10 we were so athletic, quick, and had a bevy of offensively dominant big men, and that's why we won it all. No, wait...


However, Coach K seems to be in love with these small lineups which got us beat last night and against Villanova. So Dawkins will probably start and we will get killed in the sweet sixteen next year.

It was in anticipation of posts like this that I almost didn't come to DBR today.

Atlanta Duke
03-25-2011, 03:03 PM
Last night was really tough. I think most of us think there is a strong chance that Irving will leave, but if he stays, there is your team leader and Duke will be scary good. Without him, someone is really going to have to step up. Austin Rivers seems most likely.

I dont post here much, but read every day. I'm not trying to insult anyone here or cause any riots, but the thought of Mason Plumlee going pro just baffles me. I cant understand how anyone would think that is a good idea. He has great athleticism and has potential, but he is still putting his college game together. How in the world could anyone think he is ready and why would any NBA team draft him? Don't get me wrong, I really like Mason, I just think talk of him and the NBA is ridiculous. It seems to me that a guy should show that he can do serious damage at the college level before making the jump but maybe the whole thing just makes no sense.

Interesting to read Ben Howland's comments on how he will advise UCLA players on entering the draft with what Howland sees as a likely lockout for part of the next NBA season and how that might relate to Mason Plumlee's circumstances (which are obviously not as favorable as Kyrie Irving's)

"I can tell you in the NBA, in my opinion, this is going to be a serious lockout," Howland said Tuesday. "They will not be playing, in my opinion, next December and maybe even January. … You're not even going to get paid next year for half the year."...
Howland said any player projected to be among the top 15 picks in the draft has his blessing to declare; currently none of the Bruins fall into that category.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0323-ucla-basketball-fyi-20110323,0,94289.story

Do not know if K has ever expressed similar thoughts for the record on likley first round draft postion being a factor in departing

MChambers
03-25-2011, 03:15 PM
It was in anticipation of posts like this that I almost didn't come to DBR today.
Me too. When I saw the board was closed this morning, I was actually happy.

Having graduated in 1979, I've seen Duke finish last in the ACC, so I don't ever take getting to the Sweet Sixteen for granted. I do know, however, that we will be a fine team next year, even without knowing who if anyone is leaving beyond Kyle and Nolan and without knowing if Duke's 2011 recruiting is finished. Can't wait for the Blue-White game next fall!

I'm happy to think about potential lineups and schemes for next year, but there are so many variables right now that it really isn't possible to put it all down on paper.

gcashwell
03-25-2011, 03:18 PM
Yeah, because in 2009-10 we were so athletic, quick, and had a bevy of offensively dominant big men, and that's why we won it all. No, wait...



It was in anticipation of posts like this that I almost didn't come to DBR today.

But in 2009-10 we did have a post presence. It was not typical, but it was powerful. Duke kept the lane full. That was not there at all this season, if the opposing offense got in the paint, they scored. Maybe the Plumlees will get it figured out, maybe not.

jpfrizzle
03-25-2011, 03:24 PM
Seeing Irving and Rivers on the same team will be very exciting. Kyrie didn't get to show much of his talents this season, he was cut short of that. If Irving stays, He and Rivers will help this new team immensely to another (i believe) possible top rank spot starting the new season. The guys we have coming in, I feel very confident we can achieve our overall goal. Winning the NCAA title! Look for it to happen in the 2011-2012 season, if Irving stays? :cool:

I anticipate seeing Irving and Rivers play on the same Duke team, before they leave. :D

Kedsy
03-25-2011, 03:26 PM
But in 2009-10 we did have a post presence. It was not typical, but it was powerful. Duke kept the lane full. That was not there at all this season, if the opposing offense got in the paint, they scored. Maybe the Plumlees will get it figured out, maybe not.

Ah, but "post presence" is generally a term used to describe offense. If you want to discuss defense, we had the overall #3 defense in the country this season, coming into the NCAAT and as defined by Pomeroy. Too many people interpret the big scoring nights by opposing bigs as meaning we showed poor interior defense, but it's not true. Coach K's most common defensive schemes are vulnerable to such things. Check out the lines of opposing bigs in 2005 and 2006; very similar to this year except we had Shelden Williams manning the middle -- was Shelden not a "post presence"?

MChambers
03-25-2011, 03:31 PM
If Irving stays, He and Rivers will help this new team immensely to another (i believe) possible top rank spot starting the new season.
Kyrie is wonderful, but I don't we should capitalize "he" when referring to him. ;)

Kfanarmy
03-25-2011, 03:37 PM
Ideally, it will be the point guard. Understandably, with two All-American seniors on the team, the rest of the guys deferred. I can see Seth stepping up, and I think there is a competitive fire that burns in Kelly that we have not witnessed yet. There is a void, and it will be filled. It will be fun to get to know the team all over again, with guys in new roles. Oddly I'm not sure KI wasn't the emotional leader of the team THIS year. Last year I really think Z was the guy who got the team UP when it needed to be...really had no emotional leader this year from what I could tell.

Duke: A Dynasty
03-25-2011, 03:37 PM
What on earth are you talking about??????

What are you asking?

If you are comparing to other college players then yes he is super atheletic but I am going by how the NBA views him. He is thought of as another Chris Paul, not a tremendous athelte but a phenominal point guard that can do it all. John Wall and Derrick Rose are what are considered "Elite" atheletes

Kfanarmy
03-25-2011, 03:39 PM
The dust hasn't even settled and already some are talking about next year. It's way to early to have this discussion as we don't know what the components of next year's team will actually be. Once we find out who is staying and who is going, then I'll be happy to join the fray. for the input?

jv001
03-25-2011, 03:49 PM
I also stayed away from this site last night and this morning. I really love this team. Particularly Nolan and Kyle our two senior warriors. I just want to thank them and say God Bless you guys.
Now for next year. The first thing I thought of after last nights beating was how good are we going to be next year? My number one concern is what will our man to man defense look like? We lose Nolan, Kyle and probably Kyrie. Then people are saying that Mason is leaning toward going pro(don't see it). When healthy Nolan, Kyle and Kyrie were our best on the ball defenders and Mason is a good shot blocker(last wall of defense). We know that Coach K will play man if we start 5 mummys. So we must get some defense from: Seth, Andre, Tyler, Miles, Ryan, Austin, Michael G, Quinn and Josh. If Kyrie returns 100% healthly, he is a very good on the ball defender(not so last night). Seth is a good off the ball defender(great hands). The others need some work on defense. I believe our offense will be good because of Austin, Seth, Andre and maybe Michael G. Right now I say we're top 15-25 to begin the year. Who knows what the future holds by the latter part of the year. Go Duke!

Forgot to add. My official golf season began around 12 midnight last night. But still Go Duke!

wacobluedevil
03-25-2011, 03:50 PM
Totally agree here. I certainly don't think Mason's ready for the pros. He has the tools to be really, really good, but he needs polishing. He needs to develop a few reliable low post moves. The hook shot behind the head while moving across the lane is ineffective. He also needs to learn how to stay in front of his man and to not be tempted to reach so much. And work on the free throws (ironically he hit two in the second half last night - about the only thing that went right for us). If he averaged near 70% he would have had many more double digit scoring games this year. Put these things together with his vertical ability and he becomes a consistent go to weapon whose game translates well at the NBA level. He's a great kid with a lot of potential, and I know he'll work hard this off season to develop these skills.

Mason needs to study film of Tim Duncan in the low post.

MChambers
03-25-2011, 03:55 PM
My number one concern is what will our man to man defense look like? We lose Nolan, Kyle and probably Kyrie. Then people are saying that Mason is leaning toward going pro(don't see it). When healthy Nolan, Kyle and Kyrie were our best on the ball defenders and Mason is a good shot blocker(last wall of defense). We know that Coach K will play man if we start 5 mummys. So we must get some defense from: Seth, Andre, Tyler, Miles, Ryan, Austin, Michael G, Quinn and Josh. If Kyrie returns 100% healthly, he is a very good on the ball defender(not so last night). Seth is a good off the ball defender(great hands). The others need some work on defense. I believe our offense will be good because of Austin, Seth, Andre and maybe Michael G. Right now I say we're top 15-25 to begin the year. Who knows what the future holds by the latter part of the year. Go Duke!

Yes, my son and I were discussing this last night. Who's going to apply ball pressure? Who's going to take the other team's top scorer? Seems to me that if you want to play next year, you should work on your defensive chops. (Thornton might be the exception, since he already plays great defense.)

jv001
03-25-2011, 03:57 PM
Mason needs to study film of Tim Duncan in the low post.

I liked the suggestion the poster made about Mason and Miles going to a big man camp this summer. Can't hurt. Go Duke!

BigZ
03-25-2011, 03:58 PM
Personally I believe we should use a NBA style offense where a PG doesn't need to run the offense. My lineup w/o Irving: Curry, Dawkins, Rivers, Kelly, Mason.

Wander
03-25-2011, 04:00 PM
I hope we all lower our expectations for next year.

I really don't mean this in a negative way - we've had a great recent run that includes a national championship, there's nothing more you could really ask for. But exactly zero programs are realistic national title contenders every single year. We should be very thankful that our "down years" still include pretty solid NCAA tournament teams. That's actually an amazing accomplishment. I'm not sure that's true of any other program, except maybe Kansas.

It may be cliche and cause some groans, but it really is as simple as post play. The good news is we still have enough pieces - especially, I think, in Rivers and Curry - to be a good team and do damage in the ACC. And our recruiting is still fantastic - I honestly think that objectively, we're the best program in college basketball. Just don't be disappointed with, say, a 10-6 ACC finish and Sweet 16 team next year.

jv001
03-25-2011, 04:01 PM
Personally I believe we should use a NBA style offense where a PG doesn't need to run the offense. My lineup w/o Irving: Curry, Dawkins, Rivers, Kelly, Mason.

I would insert Miles into the starting rotation. He's our toughest not afraid to get dirty low post guy. And Ryan doesn't look to be bummed coming off the bench. Go Duke!

Slackerb
03-25-2011, 04:09 PM
If Kyrie and Miles leave, Duke loses 77% of scoring, 61% of rebounding, and 90% of it's assists from this year's team.

That void will be very hard to replace.

Better lower those expectations for next year and have fun with what we have.

jv001
03-25-2011, 04:22 PM
If Kyrie and Miles leave, Duke loses 77% of scoring, 61% of rebounding, and 90% of it's assists from this year's team.

That void will be very hard to replace.

Better lower those expectations for next year and have fun with what we have.

I don't think Miles is going anywhere, but Mason just might. Look at Shav Randolph. GoDuke!

Saratoga2
03-25-2011, 06:01 PM
My guess is that Austin will see a lot of PT at shooting guard, provided he can learn to play defense effectively. With him we will probably start two bigs from the Plumlee, Kelly fold. So that will leave the wing and point guard positions. For wings we will have options of Gjbnie (sp), Andre and Josh (although Josh may play inside). At point we have the options of Seth, Cook and Tyler. Tyler may show the biggest improvement, while Cook will be learning and Seth will be the most experienced. Can't see us playing a lot with two small guards on the floor together, so we shall see.

I don't expect the team to be rated very highly going into the season, and will have to develop a lot to be in the running for the ACC title.

Reddevil
03-25-2011, 06:21 PM
My guess is that Austin will see a lot of PT at shooting guard, provided he can learn to play defense effectively. With him we will probably start two bigs from the Plumlee, Kelly fold. So that will leave the wing and point guard positions. For wings we will have options of Gjbnie (sp), Andre and Josh (although Josh may play inside). At point we have the options of Seth, Cook and Tyler. Tyler may show the biggest improvement, while Cook will be learning and Seth will be the most experienced. Can't see us playing a lot with two small guards on the floor together, so we shall see.

This is not just directed at you, and without malice. This is a tough one, but he deserves our best going forward. I just wanted to point this out in support of my fellow Richmonder. Maybe it should be added to a sticky if it hasn't already. His name is Michael Gbinije. It is pronounced Ben-e-jay. I look forward to seeing him in uniform!:)

dcdrumsinc
03-25-2011, 07:55 PM
Yeah, because in 2009-10 we were so athletic, quick, and had a bevy of offensively dominant big men, and that's why we won it all. No, wait...



It was in anticipation of posts like this that I almost didn't come to DBR today.

It's all about personel...we had an identity last year. we were not quick and athletic, so we just clogged the paint and were tough defensively and on the O boards. this year, we simply did not have the personel to play the up and down game and did not have the vast array or bigs to play a slow down physical game. what will our identity be next season? stand and watch austin rivers shoot? we will have a lot of tall guys, none with much post presence. and small guards. will we play up and down or play the half court game and shoot a bunch of threes? again?

dcdrumsinc
03-25-2011, 08:02 PM
If Kyrie and Miles leave, Duke loses 77% of scoring, 61% of rebounding, and 90% of it's assists from this year's team.

That void will be very hard to replace.

Better lower those expectations for next year and have fun with what we have.

Agreed. If we expect a freshman to lead us to a NC, forget about it.

Sandman
03-25-2011, 08:19 PM
I think Dre will be first team all-acc. When he is confident, he is a beast. Look for him to improve his handle this summer and be a force next year.

I love Dre and think you could be right.......if he has the desire to "be the man" enough to really work hard this year to improve both his strength and his handle. He's still a very young player and most likely his maturity level will ramp waaaay up this year. He has the talent to be really scary on the court when that happens.

Teton Jack
03-25-2011, 08:20 PM
I couldn't go to work today because I was depressed and saddened by last night. Thanks to Kyle and Nolan for four wonderful years and their impressive careers. We will miss you.

Now, for next year, we're still loaded. I'm still of the opinion that it's a toss-up about Kyrie. If he goes, good luck. If he stays, fantastic; however, our year doesn't rely on one person.

We will have a more experienced front court with the two Plumlees (Mason stays). I expect they will take lessons from the foul troubles experienced this year. My break-out candidate is Ryan Kelly who has such a high b-ball IQ. Also, Hairston will be more productive. MP3, he's a freshman. Anything we get from him will be gravy.

For the other three spots, we have a wealth of talent. Curry, Dawkins, Thornton, Rivers, potentially Kyrie, and Gbinije.

I think Curry will take a leadership role along with Kyrie, if he stays.

unexpected
03-25-2011, 08:23 PM
while you may expect a NC next year, expecting an NC every single year is simply unhealthy - last night was a good reality check. Where's the fun in Duke basketball if you're going to be crushed every time we don't win? The last 50 years would have been quite disappointing!

I'm merely saying we won't be down in the dumps next year. We will have A LOT of talent. We will be very deep! In 2006, we had to ride JJ, Shelden, McBob, and Paulus down to the bone playing a 6 man rotation. We should be better than the 07 and 08 teams as well.

Will we be dominant? No. I bet we'll take some rough losses. Will we be capable? Yes. We'll have a ton of scoring potential, K as mastermind, and the lessons learned from this year.

We will have the potential to beat any other team in the country. Remember how everyone was railing on Zoubek his frosh, soph, junior, and 1/2 senior year? How Lance Thomas "disappointed" for the first 3 years?

Games are won on the court. Most schools would be thrilled with our talent acquisition for next year - only UK/UNC have done better.

sagegrouse
03-25-2011, 08:33 PM
I couldn't go to work today because I was depressed and saddened by last night. Thanks to Kyle and Nolan for four wonderful years and their impressive careers. We will miss you.

Now, for next year, we're still loaded. I'm still of the opinion that it's a toss-up about Kyrie. If he goes, good luck. If he stays, fantastic; however, our year doesn't rely on one person.

We will have a more experienced front court with the two Plumlees (Mason stays). I expect they will take lessons from the foul troubles experienced this year. My break-out candidate is Ryan Kelly who has such a high b-ball IQ. Also, Hairston will be more productive. MP3, he's a freshman. Anything we get from him will be gravy.

For the other three spots, we have a wealth of talent. Curry, Dawkins, Thornton, Rivers, potentially Kyrie, and Gbinije.

I think Curry will take a leadership role along with Kyrie, if he stays.

Don't forget Quinn Cook, a four-star point guard.

One difference next year is that the team will have five upperclassmen against only three this year. These include our three leading front-line players. We need one of them play at a first-team All-ACC level. It can happen with big men; the talent is there; now we need a breakout performance.

sagegrouse

Devilsfan
03-25-2011, 08:36 PM
Next year? Who's going to play in our front court? We were beat when men decided to get physical with us and we kept playing volleyball instead of maning up and grabing rebounds and loose balls. And guess what? We don't have have a fromt court player coming from inner city Detroit or Newark. Like Coach Cut says it's time to BIG BOY UP!
I bet Coach K with his millitary background was not only let down last night but totally ashamed of our lack of fight although he won't say it publically.

scheyerfan
03-25-2011, 08:39 PM
I just looked at the updated projected draft numbers and Williams in number one, followed by Barnes and Irving.

For those who think Mason is leaving because of "potential" he is not listed in either the first or the second rounds.

SMO
03-25-2011, 08:44 PM
An experienced, skilled, athletic frontcourt is a rarity in college basketball and I expect Duke's to be a huge competitive advantage in '11/'12. Add to that terrific backcourt depth and I think Duke will stack up much like they did this year on the national stage with potential for an ACC title, #1 seed, 30 wins, etc. The biggest question for me is who's the glue? The intangibles of leadership, hustle, chasing loose balls, and setting the tone are up for grabs. Hopefully with a number of high character guys several will fill that void.

For what it's worth, I think KI is gone.

loldevilz
03-25-2011, 08:52 PM
I think the key in the offseason is for Mason to stay. The best thing about 2010 is the amound of frontcourt depth Duke had. 4 guys all of whom were at least competent who played hard in limited time and could give fouls. If we have 4 guys at least 6-10 we will be able to play like we did in 2010.

A rotation involving Ryan, Mason, Miles, Marshall could really give Duke an advantage on the boards with Ryan and Mason real candidate to become scoring options down low.

I am very optomistic about the backcourt. We have more than enough talent in Curry and Rivers to be a good to great backcourt. Both those guys can score the ball and I really think Curry has some Scheyer in him in that he really controls the pace well and doesn't turn the ball over.

At small forward as I've said before Hairston seems to me the guy, because we need a versatile athletic defender to shut down the other teams best player.

Obviously this year Duke had ridiculous talent, but the injury to Irving was really unlucky and the timing of both his loss and his return could not have been worse. Funny, that the swing in the Duke's last game was Curry's injury. Hopefully, next year we don't have injury problems.

Jackson
03-25-2011, 08:58 PM
Agreed. If we expect a freshman to lead us to a NC, forget about it.

I don't think we can expect Austin to lead us to a NC, BUT, I don't think Syracuse expected Carmelo to do the same thing yet he did. How good is Austin Rivers going to be? I predict he will average at least 20 ppg next year. A lot depends on Kyrie, but no matter what, we'll still be loaded, lots to be excited about. I'm done with the NCAA tournament, now looking forward to the McD game and Jordan Brand to get a glimpse of the future.

uh_no
03-25-2011, 09:00 PM
I predict he will average at least 20 ppg next year.

well.....somebody's going to have to score.....seth, andre and austin are the only scorers on the team....barring a zoubek level plumlee rebirth

Scorp4me
03-25-2011, 09:01 PM
I think the key in the offseason is for Mason to stay. The best thing about 2010 is the amound of frontcourt depth Duke had. 4 guys all of whom were at least competent who played hard in limited time and could give fouls. If we have 4 guys at least 6-10 we will be able to play like we did in 2010.

A rotation involving Ryan, Mason, Miles, Marshall could really give Duke an advantage on the boards with Ryan and Mason real candidate to become scoring options down low.

I am very optomistic about the backcourt. We have more than enough talent in Curry and Rivers to be a good to great backcourt. Both those guys can score the ball and I really think Curry has some Scheyer in him in that he really controls the pace well and doesn't turn the ball over.

At small forward as I've said before Hairston seems to me the guy, because we need a versatile athletic defender to shut down the other teams best player.

Obviously this year Duke had ridiculous talent, but the injury to Irving was really unlucky and the timing of both his loss and his return could not have been worse. Funny, that the swing in the Duke's last game was Curry's injury. Hopefully, next year we don't have injury problems.


I just don't see Mason leaving. That's not a gut feeling or intuition, that's just he ain't ready. All this talk is really befuddling me to be honest. I also don't see Hairston as an athletic versatile defender. A Lance Thomas type player who can start by his Senior year maybe, but not next year. I agree Rivers and Curry could make a dynamic backcourt. But that leaves out Dawkins along with two great point guards in Cook and Thornton.

And that doesn't even include He Who I Cannot Spell who is coming in next year. Gjbnie is it? I can either spell it or pronounce it. Never can seem to do both.

I certainly agree with you about injuries. The timing of Irving's injury and return certainly could have been better.

uh_no
03-25-2011, 09:06 PM
I also don't see Hairston as an athletic versatile defender.

I don't think that's a fair assessment after he played 1 year of severely limited minutes. He will undoubtedly bulk up a bunch over the summer and come back a year the better for it. He has shown flashes of it this year, and it will come out. If he turns into a beast, a derrick williams or jeff adrien double double machine could very well be in his future.

Kedsy
03-25-2011, 09:17 PM
I just don't see Mason leaving. That's not a gut feeling or intuition, that's just he ain't ready.

I agree he's not close to ready, but when has that ever stopped an NBA team from drafting someone with his potential? The thing that makes me a little nervous regarding Mason is why did we start recruiting DeAndre Daniels all of a sudden?

Devilsfan
03-25-2011, 09:30 PM
We get younger in the backcourt next year and still have the same deficiencies in the front court if we face teams like this years Florida State, Az, and St. Johns with quick, hungry, strong and athletic front courts. We should be able to get by most average teams and win 20-25 games with Coach K. I just watched ol'roy interviewed and can't believe he led his team deeper into the tourney than Coach K.

loldevilz
03-25-2011, 09:53 PM
We get younger in the backcourt next year and still have the same deficiencies in the front court if we face teams like this years Florida State, Az, and St. Johns with quick, hungry, strong and athletic front courts. We should be able to get by most average teams and win 20-25 games with Coach K. I just watched ol'roy interviewed and can't believe he led his team deeper into the tourney than Coach K.

We actually aren't younger in the backcourt.
Seth Curry, redshirt junior= Nolan smith, senior.
Austin Rivers, freshman= Kyrie Irving, freshman.

MaxAMillion
03-26-2011, 02:19 AM
We actually aren't younger in the backcourt.
Seth Curry, redshirt junior= Nolan smith, senior.
Austin Rivers, freshman= Kyrie Irving, freshman.

We will be younger in terms of overall experience. I don't think Smith's experience can be overstated. I think it was that experience that allowed him to take over and thrive once Irving got injured.

MaxAMillion
03-26-2011, 02:23 AM
An experienced, skilled, athletic frontcourt is a rarity in college basketball and I expect Duke's to be a huge competitive advantage in '11/'12. Add to that terrific backcourt depth and I think Duke will stack up much like they did this year on the national stage with potential for an ACC title, #1 seed, 30 wins, etc. The biggest question for me is who's the glue? The intangibles of leadership, hustle, chasing loose balls, and setting the tone are up for grabs. Hopefully with a number of high character guys several will fill that void.

For what it's worth, I think KI is gone.

You think next year's front court will be a rarity? I don't see all the skill that you see from the Plumlee's. It sounds like hoping more than anything. I think it is safe to say that next year's frontline won't be as good as the frontline from the 09-10 season. None of the returning frontcourt players are as good offensively as Singler and none of the returning players are as good defensively as Thomas. I guess we just see things differently.

Kewlswim
03-26-2011, 03:43 AM
Hi,

This was on my mind before the game started. Last year the Devils seemed a lot "happier." I think they were having more fun playing ball. I think this team was tight. I think they put way too much pressure on themselves to "repeat."

I like teams with a chip on their shoulder (remind you of any team last night?) who attack, attack, attack! I think we will have that next year.

To make matters worse last night we had an injury to Seph that effectively kept him out of the game. I hope that the Devils remain relatively injury free next year.

GO DUKE!

bjornolf
03-26-2011, 06:35 AM
Its obviously very speculative at this point but I see two main "issues" for next year's team

#1 Low Post/Back-to-the-basket scoring option - From "most" accounts it doesn't sound like MP3 will be ready on Day 1 to fill this void. Can Miles develop into a decent option? Does Mason return? If so can he develop some post moves?


I think MP3 will whip into shape faster than you might think. I remember stories of big men of the past helping to bring along the younger guys, and I'm sure that MP1 and MP2 will relish that role with little brother. Plus, their connection as family may help that relationship even more. We'll see.

bjornolf
03-26-2011, 06:45 AM
Everybody keeps talking about our problems at SF. I don't know much about Gbinije except that he's listed as a SF at 6'6", but it seems that he and Hairston at 6'7" should be able to fill that role if needed, and if we need to go smaller and quicker, Dawkins should be able to fill that role at 6'4".

SMO
03-26-2011, 09:26 AM
You think next year's front court will be a rarity? I don't see all the skill that you see from the Plumlee's. It sounds like hoping more than anything. I think it is safe to say that next year's frontline won't be as good as the frontline from the 09-10 season. None of the returning frontcourt players are as good offensively as Singler and none of the returning players are as good defensively as Thomas. I guess we just see things differently.

I realize the next few days are a time to be extremely negative for many, but I would challenge anyone to name some teams that will have 3 upper classmen 6'10" or taller, 2 of which can run great, jump out the gym, and block shots plus one who is solid from mid range and 3 who is also a decent shot blocker. Of course I'm assuming some progression, but that's to be expected.

Tim1515
03-26-2011, 09:54 AM
Everybody keeps talking about our problems at SF. I don't know much about Gbinije except that he's listed as a SF at 6'6", but it seems that he and Hairston at 6'7" should be able to fill that role if needed, and if we need to go smaller and quicker, Dawkins should be able to fill that role at 6'4".

I don't think there is any chance in the world we see Hairston at the 3 for Duke over his career. I do see Andre playing SF along with Gbinije who i think will be more college ready then Marshall or Quinn.

Jackson
03-26-2011, 09:58 AM
Has anyone heard anything else about the idea floated around about Alex Murphy coming a year early? When will underclassmen start making decisions about entering the draft? Cook/Curry along with Rivers, MPI, MPII, Kelly/Gbinije in the starting lineup with Dawkins makes us really deep and really athletic. Rivers is going to be a flat out star! IF KI makes the decision to stick around, we could be looking at something really special. For me, I keep wondering how good Gbinije might be as a freshman. Excitement for next year helps to push down the depression from Thursday.

sagegrouse
03-26-2011, 10:06 AM
We will be younger in terms of overall experience. I don't think Smith's experience can be overstated. I think it was that experience that allowed him to take over and thrive once Irving got injured.

The total years of prior experience for our guards are the same for 2012 as for 2011. Seth, Dre, and Tyler each have one more year. But we are replacing Nolan and Kyrie (3 and 0 prior years) with Austin and Quinn (0 prior years). (Pardon me for assuming that Kyrie is leaving, but I believe that's the conservative planning approach.)

The difference isn't experience -- it's credentials. Nolan was a 2nd team All-ACC performer in 2010, averaging 17.4 points. Next year, our returning players, despite some big games, average in single digits without any such accomplishments. I expect big things in 2012 from both Dre and Seth, but it will be through breakout years, not continuation.

Actually, next year none of the likely returning players averaged double digits in 2011. Seth, Dre and Mason are the highest at 9, 8, and 7. Mason's 8.4 rebounds average, however, is a notable base to build on if he returns.

sagegrouse

Rogue
03-26-2011, 10:37 AM
I expect everyone to return next season that isn't a senior. I think Kyrie loved college life and being apart of Duke, and Duke basketball.

I expect our front line to be vastly improved with being a year older. They will be better. Our back court is fine. The front line is where we will see the most improvement.


9f

9f

licc85
03-26-2011, 10:38 AM
A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to be gravitating towards big man and point guards play. I'm not focused on positional discussion. Coach K WILL figure out how to make this team's offense work. He has done this for 30+ years and has 900 wins. This is what we need to look at coming into 2011-12:

1. Defense.

Nolan, Kyle, Mason, and Kyrie were our 4 best defensive players this year. They could all be gone next year. This is a SERIOUS issue. we cannot afford to lose all of them and expect to win a national championship.

Of our returning players, I would say Mason (if he returns), Seth, Tyler, and Ryan are above average defenders. Miles and especially Andre NEED to work on their quickness and anticipation during this offseason.

2. Leadership

Replacing Nolan and Kyle is impossible. We're talking about 2 of the top 10 players to ever wear DUKE on their chests. Having 2 senior all-americans play all out on every play, especially defensively caused the entire team step up their game. However, while we can never duplicate what they meant to Duke, we need someone to lead this group. The best possible candidates for this job are Kyrie Irving and Seth Curry in that order. While Miles will be a senior, I do not believe he is vocal enough to lead this team. He has always played somewhat in the shadow of Mason, and unless he has a Brian Zoubek/Josh Harrellson type of senior year, I don't think we'll be seeing Miles slap the floor on defense to fire up the Crazies. Seth will need to take the reins from Nolan and Kyle if Kyrie goes pro. On the other hand, if Kyrie returns . . . we will have our leader.

3. Andre Dawkins

Andre is our best returning wing player. I cannot tell you how freaking scared this makes me after 4 years of having Singler out there terrorizing everyone on both sides of the court. Dre cannot possibly expect to play 30+ minutes if he cannot improve his perimeter defense and ball handling. He needs to make the biggest leap of anyone on the team if we are to be successful.

Next year, we will still have size down low and a major perimeter scoring threat in Austin Rivers. Kyrie's decision to go pro or not will obviously be the biggest factor in our title hopes, but these 3 issues are the next things we need to consider.

Teton Jack
03-26-2011, 11:39 AM
Don't forget Quinn Cook, a four-star point guard.

One difference next year is that the team will have five upperclassmen against only three this year. These include our three leading front-line players. We need one of them play at a first-team All-ACC level. It can happen with big men; the talent is there; now we need a breakout performance.

sagegrouse

My brain has started to atrophy. Please accept my apology, but I sometimes get the names of my kids and pets mixed up.

licc85
03-26-2011, 11:53 AM
Although we lost a lot of offense this year, I really don't think we need to have an elite scorer at the small forward position. Curry, Rivers, Kelly, and Mason should all be guys that average double digits.

I never meant to imply that Andre should start at the 3, he's totally not ready, and he may never be a starter for us, but we NEED him to play at the highest level of his potential as a college player if we want to win next year. I totally agree that we don't need a scorer, but what do DO need is an elite defender at the 3. What we really missed this year was that all-purpose super versatile defender who could shut down a team's best player, say, a guy like Derrick Williams. All of our championship teams had that guy. I'm talking about the Lance Thomas/Shane Battier/Nate James/Grant Hill/Thomas Hill guys. Chris Carrawell also fits this description, although he was never lucky enough to win it all. Kyle tried to be that guy for us this year, but it hurt his offense sometimes, and he never truly fit that role. I'm hoping Hairston or Gbinijie can turn themselves into that guy for us.

mickeysgotagun
03-26-2011, 11:57 AM
Sorry if this has been posted before as I kinda skimmed, but has anyone thought of Hairston as a leader? Although he didn't get much playing time he seems like one of the most vocal Duke players that I remember and seems like he'd be a great leader.

loldevilz
03-26-2011, 12:17 PM
what we really missed this year was that all-purpose super versatile defender who could shut down a team's best player, say, a guy like Derrick Williams. All of our championship teams had that guy. I'm talking about the Lance Thomas/Shane Battier/Nate James/Grant Hill/Thomas Hill guys. Chris Carrawell also fits this description, although he was never lucky enough to win it all. Kyle tried to be that guy for us this year, but it hurt his offense sometimes, and he never truly fit that role. I'm hoping Hairston or Gbinijie can turn themselves into that guy for us.

Exactly. I think this is the best analysis of the team so far. Josh Hairston is obviously that guy. He plays with the best motor I think I've ever seen (Lance Thomas excluded). I think he is also the most vastly underrated player on the team. He can play inside, he can play outside. He can rebound from the position. He can defend. During C2C he put on a show. He is the real deal.

NSDukeFan
03-26-2011, 12:34 PM
I never meant to imply that Andre should start at the 3, he's totally not ready, and he may never be a starter for us, but we NEED him to play at the highest level of his potential as a college player if we want to win next year.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Andre may never be a starter? Andre started 7 games as a 19 year old sophomore on a 32-5 team. I believe some people can still improve in their 20s and one of my favorite things about watching college basketball is seeing players improving from year to year. I see no reason why Andre will not continue to improve, though he did score the fourth highest point total on the team this year (as a 19 year old.) Andre has also had many games this year where he defended very effectively at the 3.


I totally agree that we don't need a scorer, but what do DO need is an elite defender at the 3. What we really missed this year was that all-purpose super versatile defender who could shut down a team's best player, say, a guy like Derrick Williams. All of our championship teams had that guy. I'm talking about the Lance Thomas/Shane Battier/Nate James/Grant Hill/Thomas Hill guys. Chris Carrawell also fits this description, although he was never lucky enough to win it all. Kyle tried to be that guy for us this year, but it hurt his offense sometimes, and he never truly fit that role. I'm hoping Hairston or Gbinijie can turn themselves into that guy for us.

I would say that Kyle perfectly fit that role and his hurt offense was still among the top 20 players in the country. I am not sure how he never truly fit that role. He was the leader of a top 10 ranked defense nationally (Ken Pom's numbers after the Arizona debacle that would have changed defensive numbers some.) I would say he was a very good super versatile defender who could shut down a team's best player, though due to match ups he didn't always guard the other team's best player. (Of course Nolan would guard most opponents' best guard.)

licc85
03-26-2011, 12:37 PM
Sorry if this has been posted before as I kinda skimmed, but has anyone thought of Hairston as a leader? Although he didn't get much playing time he seems like one of the most vocal Duke players that I remember and seems like he'd be a great leader.

It really depends on how much they develop and well they play, but I anticipate Josh and Tyler being the unquestioned leaders of this team in 3 years. They both have a business like attitude towards preparation and both play extremely hard. They are also both VERY vocal. Coach K was very wise in recruiting those guys for the long-term.

jv001
03-26-2011, 12:41 PM
It really depends on how much they develop and well they play, but I anticipate Josh and Tyler being the unquestioned leaders of this team in 3 years. They both have a business like attitude towards preparation and both play extremely hard. They are also both VERY vocal. Coach K was very wise in recruiting those guys for the long-term.

Let's hope their talent catches up to their hard play, work ethic and attitude. I think it can but it needs to begin this summer. Go Duke!

ncexnyc
03-26-2011, 12:42 PM
Exactly. I think this is the best analysis of the team so far. Josh Hairston is obviously that guy. He plays with the best motor I think I've ever seen (Lance Thomas excluded). I think he is also the most vastly underrated player on the team. He can play inside, he can play outside. He can rebound from the position. He can defend. During C2C he put on a show. He is the real deal.
You're not talking about the same Josh Hairston who sat on the bench the majority of the season are you?

licc85
03-26-2011, 12:46 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Andre may never be a starter? Andre started 7 games as a 19 year old sophomore on a 32-5 team. I believe some people can still improve in their 20s and one of my favorite things about watching college basketball is seeing players improving from year to year. I see no reason why Andre will not continue to improve, though he did score the fourth highest point total on the team this year (as a 19 year old.) Andre has also had many games this year where he defended very effectively at the 3.

He's not going to start over Rivers or Curry next year, and he's not good enough of a defender to start at the 3, plain and simple. He just doesn't doesnt have the physical tools to defend that position. Senior year, I could see him starting at the 2.


I would say that Kyle perfectly fit that role and his hurt offense was still among the top 20 players in the country. I am not sure how he never truly fit that role. He was the leader of a top 10 ranked defense nationally (Ken Pom's numbers after the Arizona debacle that would have changed defensive numbers some.) I would say he was a very good super versatile defender who could shut down a team's best player, though due to match ups he didn't always guard the other team's best player. (Of course Nolan would guard most opponents' best guard.)

Kyle obviously did not fit this role as well as those guys I mentioned. Otherwise, Arizona would not have been such a matchup nightmare. Kyle's biggest strength as a player is creating mismatches on offense and making plays with his toughness and determination. He was never a defensive specialist a la Battier. Not saying he did a bad job, he had an amazing season for us and did everything we could possibly ask of him, but we needed another guy to take that role this year because we really couldnt afford to let Kyle expend so much energy on defense. It obviously affected his shot, which was so reliable for us when we had Lance Thomas doing all the dirty work on defense. How do you think Jimmer Fredette lead the nation in scoring this year? He barely played D. When you're tired, it's hard to shoot, plain and simple.

check out our 2002 team, we had Boozer, Dunleavy, and Williams, but we lost Battier, that shut down defender and glue guy, same as Lance Thomas. Same result as this season, sweet 16 exit after a championship.

Very few guys are good enough to be the glue guy and still carry a team's offense. And by very few, I mean Grant Hill and Shane Battier. That's it. (as far as duke players)

Kedsy
03-26-2011, 12:54 PM
Andre's defense improved by leaps and bounds over his freshman year, and he held his own size-wise against all but the biggest opposing SFs. His offense became much more diversified over the last few weeks.

But whether you like it or not, Andre Dawkins is the favorite for starters minutes next year, either at the 3 or at the 2 with Austin Rivers at the 3. Although obviously a lot can change between now and November, I expect that Andre will start for us, and actually I'm pretty excited about it.

adukeforduke
03-26-2011, 01:04 PM
I feel like you guys are underrating Quinn Cook in next year's recruiting class. I saw Quinn Cook play in high school at Oak Hill Academy this year and he has excellent potential at the point. He has been rehabing a knee injury for the last year and I felt like his athleticism and speed were not quite back to where they were before the injury. However, Cook could flat out score the basketball from behind the arc, had a nice handle on the ball, and made some nice passes. Most importantly, he was one of the most confident players on the court I have ever seen. While he does not have the drive to the rim that Kyrie has, I feel he is a future star a Duke,especially in his Sophomore or Junior seasons.

Do not take this as any criticism about Nolan Smith, but I saw both Cook and Smith play in high school and I feel like Cook is better at this stage in his career than Smith was at the same point. Of course, Oak Hill also had Brandon Jennings back then and he definitely wanted the spotlight on that team.

licc85
03-26-2011, 01:08 PM
Do not take this as any criticism about Nolan Smith, but I saw both Cook and Smith play in high school and I feel like Cook is better at this stage in his career than Smith was at the same point. Of course, Oak Hill also had Brandon Jennings back then and he definitely wanted the spotlight on that team.

key phrase: "at this stage." Nolan improved exponentially year by year. If Cook becomes 1/2 the player and person that Nolan Smith is today, we would be extremely lucky.

NSDukeFan
03-26-2011, 01:09 PM
He's not going to start over Rivers or Curry next year, and he's not good enough of a defender to start at the 3, plain and simple. He just doesn't doesnt have the physical tools to defend that position. Senior year, I could see him starting at the 2.
This


The idea that supposed Duke fans can write stuff like the above is what makes me sick. Andre's defense improved by leaps and bounds over his freshman year, and he held his own size-wise against all but the biggest opposing SFs. His offense became much more diversified over the last few weeks.

But whether you like it or not, Andre Dawkins is the favorite for starters minutes next year, either at the 3 or at the 2 with Austin Rivers at the 3. Although obviously a lot can change between now and November, I expect that Andre will start for us, and actually I'm pretty excited about it.


Kyle obviously did not fit this role as well as those guys I mentioned. Otherwise, Arizona would not have been such a matchup nightmare. Kyle's biggest strength as a player is creating mismatches on offense and making plays with his toughness and determination. He was never a defensive specialist a la Battier. Not saying he did a bad job, he had an amazing season for us and did everything we could possibly ask of him, but we needed another guy to take that role this year because we really couldnt afford to let Kyle expend so much energy on defense. It obviously affected his shot, which was so reliable for us when we had Lance Thomas doing all the dirty work on defense. How do you think Jimmer Fredette lead the nation in scoring this year? He barely played D. When you're tired, it's hard to shoot, plain and simple.

check out our 2002 team, we had Boozer, Dunleavy, and Williams, but we lost Battier, that shut down defender and glue guy, same as Lance Thomas. Same result as this season, sweet 16 exit after a championship.

Very few guys are good enough to be the glue guy and still carry a team's offense. And by very few, I mean Grant Hill and Shane Battier. That's it. (as far as duke players)
We'll have to agree to disagree. Arizona played a small rotation with Williams their tallest player. To avoid the Plumlees having to guard smaller, quicker players while keeping their valuable presences on the floor, Duke chose to have Williams guarded by a bigger player and he got hot in the first half from the outside, hitting 5 3s, including a ridiculous one at the buzzer where he was very well defended. In the second half, Duke decided to put its best defender on Williams and he didn't score as much, but the rest of the team did, in a game that was very far from a typical Duke defensive performance.
If you feel that top offensive players should not have to expend much energy on defense, you may be cheering for the wrong team. I don't disagree that it may be more difficult shooting if you are playing hard on defense, but I believe Iron Singler did a great job of that for four years at Duke and I refuse to let one game tarnish how I feel about his outstanding offensive and defensive career at Duke. Kyle may not be the defensive stopper that Grant and Battier were, but he is and has been a super versatile great defender for Duke over four years. I feel that does not change because he lost his final game.

jv001
03-26-2011, 01:11 PM
I feel like you guys are underrating Quinn Cook in next year's recruiting class. I saw Quinn Cook play in high school at Oak Hill Academy this year and he has excellent potential at the point. He has been rehabing a knee injury for the last year and I felt like his athleticism and speed were not quite back to where they were before the injury. However, Cook could flat out score the basketball from behind the arc, had a nice handle on the ball, and made some nice passes. Most importantly, he was one of the most confident players on the court I have ever seen. While he does not have the drive to the rim that Kyrie has, I feel he is a future star a Duke,especially in his Sophomore or Junior seasons.

Do not take this as any criticism about Nolan Smith, but I saw both Cook and Smith play in high school and I feel like Cook is better at this stage in his career than Smith was at the same point. Of course, Oak Hill also had Brandon Jennings back then and he definitely wanted the spotlight on that team.

If Quinn can play good on the ball defense, he may get more playing time as a freshman than we think. GoDuke!

taiw93
03-26-2011, 01:16 PM
My predictions for next year, assuming Kyrie leaves and Mason stays:

Starters:
1: Curry, RJr. (Captain)
2: Rivers, Fr.
3: Dawkins, Jr.
4: Mason, Jr.
5: Miles, Sr.

Bench (in order of PT):
Backcourt: Thornton, So.; Cook, Fr.
Wing: Gbinije, Fr.; Hairston, So. (could play frontcourt also; I see him as a 3/4)
Frontcourt: Kelly, Jr. (Captain) (Sixth Man); Marshall, Fr.

I think Curry and Kelly will be the captains, because they both showed a good deal of leadership on the floor, and seemed good at avoiding mental mistakes. I think that Rivers and Curry will be our leading scorers, with Dawkins and Mason both capable of scoring over 20 on a given night. And for those ripping Dawkins' defensive ability, I advise you to compare his defense from the beginning of this season to his defense at the end. By March, he was at the very least a serviceable defender on the perimeter (showing marked improvement), and he will only continue to get better. Currently, Seth and Thornton seem to be our most capable backcourt defenders.

licc85
03-26-2011, 01:17 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree. Arizona played a small rotation with Williams their tallest player. To avoid the Plumlees having to guard smaller, quicker players while keeping their valuable presences on the floor, Duke chose to have Williams guarded by a bigger player and he got hot in the first half from the outside, hitting 5 3s, including a ridiculous one at the buzzer where he was very well defended. In the second half, Duke decided to put its best defender on Williams and he didn't score as much, but the rest of the team did, in a game that was very far from a typical Duke defensive performance.
If you feel that top offensive players should not have to expend much energy on defense, you may be cheering for the wrong team. I don't disagree that it may be more difficult shooting if you are playing hard on defense, but I believe Iron Singler did a great job of that for four years at Duke and I refuse to let one game tarnish how I feel about his outstanding offensive and defensive career at Duke. Kyle may not be the defensive stopper that Grant and Battier were, but he is and has been a super versatile great defender for Duke over four years. I feel that does not change because he lost his final game.

I'm not quite sure what we're disagreeing over. You didn't quite get what I was saying. I meant to say that Singler was our only option for that role this year, so it was a matter of necessity. I am in no way implying that he should play any less hard on D than he always has. What I am saying is that we didnt have enough alternative options on offense to compensate for him having to guard the other team's best player constantly. We needed Singler's offense. He is BETTER at offense than defense, believe it or not. It's just what he is. He's not crazy athletic or have long arms, he's a great defender because he's smart as hell and knows where to be. He does not naturally have the defensive tools of a guy like Grant Hill. Having a defensive specialist who is willing to sacrifice his offense for the good of the team is a luxury for your team's best offensive players, and it was a luxury which we were unfortunately forced to go without this year.

loldevilz
03-26-2011, 01:36 PM
The idea that supposed Duke fans can write stuff like the above is what makes me sick. Andre's defense improved by leaps and bounds over his freshman year, and he held his own size-wise against all but the biggest opposing SFs. His offense became much more diversified over the last few weeks.

But whether you like it or not, Andre Dawkins is the favorite for starters minutes next year, either at the 3 or at the 2 with Austin Rivers at the 3. Although obviously a lot can change between now and November, I expect that Andre will start for us, and actually I'm pretty excited about it.

Sorry, that came off the wrong way. I love Andre as a person, its just I really don't think he should start. Andre is bad defensively, I don't know how you cannot see that.

Andre is a three point specialist. It seems to me that he is the last person we need starting on a team with Curry, Rivers, and Kelly who all do what Dawkins does and better.

The others on the board have pointed out that every Duke national championship team has had a defensive specialist. Hairston seems like a guy very willing to embrace that role. Plus, I think many are underestimating his offensive game.

Saratoga2
03-26-2011, 01:57 PM
My predictions for next year, assuming Kyrie leaves and Mason stays:

Starters:
1: Curry, RJr. (Captain)
2: Rivers, Fr.
3: Dawkins, Jr.
4: Mason, Jr.
5: Miles, Sr.

Bench (in order of PT):
Backcourt: Thornton, So.; Cook, Fr.
Wing: Gbinije, Fr.; Hairston, So. (could play frontcourt also; I see him as a 3/4)
Frontcourt: Kelly, Jr. (Captain) (Sixth Man); Marshall, Fr.

I think Curry and Kelly will be the captains, because they both showed a good deal of leadership on the floor, and seemed good at avoiding mental mistakes. I think that Rivers and Curry will be our leading scorers, with Dawkins and Mason both capable of scoring over 20 on a given night. And for those ripping Dawkins' defensive ability, I advise you to compare his defense from the beginning of this season to his defense at the end. By March, he was at the very least a serviceable defender on the perimeter (showing marked improvement), and he will only continue to get better. Currently, Seth and Thornton seem to be our most capable backcourt defenders.

My expectations for starters, 6th man and roll players are as follows:

1. Point Kyrie, Seth, Tyler, Quinn (Kyrie will probably leave)

2. SG Andre, Seth, Austin

3. WF Austin, Michael, Andre, Josh

4. PF Mason, Ryan, Josh

5. PF/C Miles, Mason, Marshall

We all know that to get significant PT at Duke, the player has to learn to play defense. It is usually a learning experience for freshmen. Austin is so exceptional offensively, he may get PT even if he is not a finished product on defense.

I also think we will have issues putting two small guards on the floor at the same time unless our opponents do the same. In that case, I would use Seth as shooting guard with either Tyler or Quinn at point.

Without knowing the personalities of the players, I wouldn't try to predict captains at this point. Miles should get some consideration though.

Kedsy
03-26-2011, 02:05 PM
Sorry, that came off the wrong way. I love Andre as a person, its just I really don't think he should start. Andre is bad defensively, I don't know how you cannot see that.

What I see is a guy who has improved dramatically on defense from last year to this year and from the beginning of the season to the end. In the middle of the season, I thought Andre lost focus and intensity on D and I think that's why his minutes were reduced. By the end of the season he seemed to regain that and his minutes went back up. If he were truly a poor defensive player, Coach K never would have played him for almost 23 minutes a game during the NCAAT.


Andre is a three point specialist. It seems to me that he is the last person we need starting on a team with Curry, Rivers, and Kelly who all do what Dawkins does and better.

Well, first of all, I haven't seen much of Austin, except highlight reels, but Andre has the best shooting form on the current team (including Seth, although it's close). So I don't see how Seth, Austin, and Ryan do it "better." As far as Andre being a specialist, I think he's shown signs of diversifying his offense. He is no more a "three point specialist" than JJ Redick was as a sophomore (although Andre shoots for a higher percentage), and JJ worked out pretty well.


The others on the board have pointed out that every Duke national championship team has had a defensive specialist. Hairston seems like a guy very willing to embrace that role. Plus, I think many are underestimating his offensive game.

Josh has great energy, and a pretty good motor, but he is not a good defensive player yet. When he learns to channel that energy to combine with better footwork and positioning, then I agree he can become a first rate defender. Will he be a candidate to shut down ultra-quick opposing threes? I don't know, but I have some doubts from what I've seen so far. Will he be ready to be a first rate defender his sophomore year? I don't know that, either; I don't think anybody knows that yet. Will his off-season improvement make him good enough to start? Again, I don't know, but I can say I would be shocked if he starts at the "3."

Having said all that, I think Josh will be a much better offensive player than Lance ever was, so even assuming he becomes a plus defender, I don't think Josh will end up being pigeonholed as a defensive specialist.

licc85
03-26-2011, 02:16 PM
I you guys are wondering why I've suddenly had an explosion of posts, it's because I'm sitting in a 6-hour, once a month law class that is boring as hell, and I have nothing but Duke bball on my mind. Here's what I think our best/worst case scenarios for next year are:

BEST CASE/IT WON'T HAPPEN BUT OMG WE WILL KICK BUTT IF IT DOES
-Kyrie returns for another year, becomes Duke's leader
-Rivers is everything we heard about and more, and figures out how to blend his game in with Kyrie, learning how to play off the ball
-Seth takes his game up another notch, turns into a consistent double digit scorer off the bench
-Mason and Miles actually develop some offensive post moves and are capable of backing down their defender 1 on 1 a few times per game for a high percentage look.
-Josh or Michael evolves into an elite defender who can shoot the 3, and becomes the starter at small forward by the end of the year (yes, I'm dead serious)
-Our starting 5 is: Kyrie/Austin/Josh/Ryan/Mason
-Ryan Kelly continues his progression as a skilled big man who is always a threat to score, making it impossible to help off of him, starts all year at the 4.
-Andre continues to be instant offense off the bench and improves his defense to the point where he is no longer a liability on that end.
-Seth/Tyler/Quinn/Andre/Michael/Marshall accept their roles as bench players on a ridiculously deep team, but continue to work hard and help the team in whatever way they can when they are on the court.
-Duke is ranked #1 all season long and wins the national championship in one of the toughest fields of all time

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD/WHAT I THNK WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN
-Kyrie goes pro
-At the end of the year, our starting 5 is Quinn/Seth/Austin/Ryan/Mason
-Josh improves enough to play 12-15 minutes a game off the bench , providing energy and defense
-Miles and Mason improve a bit on offense, but still don't dominate the way that they should for their size/athleticism, but do develop a tough enforcer type of mentality
-Tyler and Andre bring defense and offense off the bench, respectively, as they have this year
-Duke stays in the top 10 all year, gets a 1 seed and makes it to at least the elite 8, and has a good shot to win it all against loaded squads from Ohio State, Kentucky, and Carolina

WORST CASE/BUT STILL BETTER THAN 2006
-Kyrie and Mason both go pro
-Austin is good, but because of a lack of consistent offense around him, gets constantly doubled
-Quinn is not ready to run the point as a freshman
-Our starting 5 at the end of the year: Seth/Tyler/Austin/Ryan/Miles
-Josh Hairston inexplicably continues to ride the pine
-Gbinijie and Marshall don't pan out as impact players quite yet
-Duke is a top 15 team, gets a 2 or 3 seed, makes it to the sweet 16 and gets upset by a team on fire from 3.

loldevilz
03-26-2011, 02:29 PM
What I see is a guy who has improved dramatically on defense from last year to this year and from the beginning of the season to the end. In the middle of the season, I thought Andre lost focus and intensity on D and I think that's why his minutes were reduced. By the end of the season he seemed to regain that and his minutes went back up. If he were truly a poor defensive player, Coach K never would have played him for almost 23 minutes a game during the NCAAT.

I agree that Dawkins improved his defensive intensity, and he is perhaps not a liability, but he is far from a good defender. BTW, During those 23 minutes he played against Arizona it just so happened that Duke had the worst defensive breakdown in 8 years of recording. I think it proves my point about why we need Hairston. I also think that Coach K was forced to play Dawkins because of foul trouble and matchup issues.


Well, first of all, I haven't seen much of Austin, except highlight reels, but Andre has the best shooting form on the current team (including Seth, although it's close). So I don't see how Seth, Austin, and Ryan do it "better." As far as Andre being a specialist, I think he's shown signs of diversifying his offense. He is no more a "three point specialist" than JJ Redick was as a sophomore (although Andre shoots for a higher percentage), and JJ worked out pretty well.

Austin is the #1 rated player in his class. With the USA team he set the three point record last year. The chances that Rivers is riding the bench for Dawkins is close to nil.

As for the "better" commonet, the difference between Rivers, Curry compared to Dawkins is that they can handle the ball and create their own shot. Dawkins is still basically a catch and shoot guy who has a tendency to float through games. And Ryan of course creates huge matchup issues due to his size.


Josh has great energy, and a pretty good motor, but he is not a good defensive player yet. When he learns to channel that energy to combine with better footwork and positioning, then I agree he can become a first rate defender. Will he be a candidate to shut down ultra-quick opposing threes? I don't know, but I have some doubts from what I've seen so far. Will he be ready to be a first rate defender his sophomore year? I don't know that, either; I don't think anybody knows that yet. Will his off-season improvement make him good enough to start? Again, I don't know, but I can say I would be shocked if he starts at the "3."

I agree with this. We haven't really seen him yet. He has been called a Lance Thomas and I can only hope he lives up to the billing.

NYC Duke Fan
03-26-2011, 02:53 PM
I expect everyone to return next season that isn't a senior. I think Kyrie loved college life and being apart of Duke, and Duke basketball.

I expect our front line to be vastly improved with being a year older. They will be better. Our back court is fine. The front line is where we will see the most improvement.


9f

9f

He might like college life etc. but I am sure that he will like being the number draft pick a whole lot better.

Kedsy
03-26-2011, 02:53 PM
The chances that Rivers is riding the bench for Dawkins is close to nil.

What gave you the idea I think Austin will be on the bench? Don't be silly. Of course he's going to start. I think Andre will also start and that Josh won't (or at least Josh won't start at the 3).

Scorp4me
03-26-2011, 03:06 PM
Hairston reminds me of Jamal Boykin. Of course Boykin left before we got to really find out what he had to offer here at Duke. Hopefully we'll get to see alot more of Hairston.

CDu
03-26-2011, 03:15 PM
What gave you the idea I think Austin will be on the bench? Don't be silly. Of course he's going to start. I think Andre will also start and that Josh won't (or at least Josh won't start at the 3).

Like you, I think Rivers and Dawkins will both start. I'm not sure where people have gotten the idea that Hairston is a 3, or that he's a defensive stopper. I'm thinking two problems are at play resulting in people jumping to the "Hairston is the answer at the 3" position:
1. they're projecting the senior year version of Lance Thomas onto Hairston
2. they're mistakenly thinking that Lance Thomas ever played the 3 at Duke

Hairston has not played extended minutes for Duke, and has played zero minutes anywhere other than the 4 or 5. He's shown the potential to have a decent 10-15 foot shot (which is a 4/5 skill), but has shown neither the ballhandling, quickness, or perimeter game to play the 3.

Now, I'm not saying Hairston doesn't have those attributes in him (or that he can't develop those attributes). But I'm not entirely sure why people are so quick to move him to a position he's never played.

I think Dawkins and Gbinije will be the ones competing for time at the 3. And I think Dawkins will be the one getting more of the minutes there. Rivers may see time there too if (a) he's as good as advertised and (b) the smaller guards force their way onto the floor.

But I think it's more realistic to hope that Dawkins/Rivers/Gbinije prove they can handle the 3 spot than it is to hope that Hairston learns to play a completely different position. I think it's more sensible to hope that Hairston can develop into a capable defender at the 4 spot (to guard guys like Williams who are versatile post players).

SMO
03-26-2011, 03:26 PM
I agree that Dawkins improved his defensive intensity, and he is perhaps not a liability, but he is far from a good defender. BTW, During those 23 minutes he played against Arizona it just so happened that Duke had the worst defensive breakdown in 8 years of recording. I think it proves my point about why we need Hairston. I also think that Coach K was forced to play Dawkins because of foul trouble and matchup issues.



Austin is the #1 rated player in his class. With the USA team he set the three point record last year. The chances that Rivers is riding the bench for Dawkins is close to nil.

As for the "better" commonet, the difference between Rivers, Curry compared to Dawkins is that they can handle the ball and create their own shot. Dawkins is still basically a catch and shoot guy who has a tendency to float through games. And Ryan of course creates huge matchup issues due to his size.



I agree with this. We haven't really seen him yet. He has been called a Lance Thomas and I can only hope he lives up to the billing.

Posts like these provide great perspective. I'm sure many of us remember LT being panned on these boards for much of his career. Now we're hoping young guys rise to meet his standard.

loldevilz
03-26-2011, 04:43 PM
Like you, I think Rivers and Dawkins will both start. I'm not sure where people have gotten the idea that Hairston is a 3, or that he's a defensive stopper. I'm thinking two problems are at play resulting in people jumping to the "Hairston is the answer at the 3" position:
1. they're projecting the senior year version of Lance Thomas onto Hairston
2. they're mistakenly thinking that Lance Thomas ever played the 3 at Duke

First of all I have no idea what Coach K is going to do and neither does anyone else. I was just making the case for Hairston.I really think that the fact that he didn't play the 3 this year doesn't matter. Singler went from center to small forward. Hairston has a small forward's body and seems capable of defending either forward position, just like Thomas. We have yet to see if he's capable.

The people who support a smaller lineup with Dawkins in my view are mistakingly emphasizing defense over offense. I can't remember the last time Duke lost a game because of offense. I can remember many many that Duke lost because of defense.

It seems to me that the formula that the 2010 team had was the right one. The front court of Singler, Thomas, Zoubek had scoring, athleticism, and rebounding. I think a frontcourt of Kelly, Hairston, Ma. Plumlee also has scoring, athleticism, and rebounding.

uh_no
03-26-2011, 04:48 PM
I can't remember the last time Duke lost a game because of offense.

does clemson ring a bell?

while the overall offense wasn't bad, several of our losses this year were caused by long stretches of not scoring....UNC, St. Johns, virginia tech, florida state and several of our wins had long stretches of no points

dcar1985
03-26-2011, 04:51 PM
I for one will be looking for an huge junior year jump from Dawkins similar to Nolan, hopefully he puts in the work during the summer to improve his lateral quickness and especially his handle, there's no reason at 6'4 he shouldn't have a tight handle.

If he doesn't I really think he might find himself searching for minutes, I've said it before but I think alot of people are sleeping on Mike G's game...He's definitely not as good a shooter as Andre but I would say his offensive game is more versatile and would also argue hes a better natural defender, now picking up defensive schemes is another thing we'll have to wait and see on that part. But at 6'6 he's bigger, longer than Dre and I think he has a better handle than Dre right now.

I think alot also depends on the development of our PG's I think Cook will be a good player during his time at Duke but not ready to run the team next year, Tyler I could see starting at point depending on how he improves over the summer he has a high IQ, steady, and looks to distribute....If he does come in next year ready to run the team then I think u would be looking at a back court of Tyler, Seth, Austin which again pushes Dre further back in rotation...Dre w/o improvement in his handle wont get time at the 2, being guarded by smaller quicker players, they'll just pick his pocket everytime he puts it on the ground.

The other scenario I see is that Tyler nor Quinn is ready to handle the point so we put the ball is Seth's hands where I do think Seth could handle the job even though it would take away from his game offensively, in that case you have Seth, Austin, & Dre/Mike ....I just dont see it being a given that Dre will be a starter next year.

Im a big fan of Dre besides KI he's my favorite player on the team, Im hoping he works his butt of during the summer on the parts of his game that are lacking not just that sweet jumper he has....the kid has star potential, jus has to put in the work to get there.

Kedsy
03-26-2011, 05:02 PM
Hairston has a small forward's body and seems capable of defending either forward position, just like Thomas. We have yet to see if he's capable.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think CDu's point is there's no reason to believe Josh "seems capable of defending either forward position" when we've never seen him do it. From what we've seen of him so far, it's debatable whether he could stay with his man if he were guarding a quick 6'6" perimeter player, which is what most SFs are in college. And his offensive game does not appear to lend itself to the "3."

I agree with you that a lot of people around here seem to only look at the offensive side of the ball, but I'm not one of them. Even if Josh can show adequate defense against opposing SFs (which as I said is debatable), he needs a great deal of work before he would be considered good at it. And at the same time, on offense the lineup you propose would have a lot of issues. Opponents could double Austin, put a taller guard on Seth, and stick two bigs down low to prevent alley-oops and such, and then dare Miles and Josh to beat us with 15 foot jumpers. I personally can't see us running that sort of offense with all the offensive weapons we'd have on the bench. Just to get Josh to play at a slight mismatch on defense?

Don't get me wrong, I think Josh can be a valuable contributor playing 15 to 18 minutes at the "4" position. I just don't think we'll be seeing him as our starting "3" anytime soon. How he develops going into his junior or senior years, I have no idea. By then for all we know he may be able to do it.

Kedsy
03-26-2011, 05:09 PM
If he does come in next year ready to run the team then I think u would be looking at a back court of Tyler, Seth, Austin which again pushes Dre further back in rotation...Dre w/o improvement in his handle wont get time at the 2, being guarded by smaller quicker players, they'll just pick his pocket everytime he puts it on the ground.

A backcourt of Tyler, Seth, and Austin is awfully small, probably giving up a lot of height at 3 positions. I can see us run that occasionally, and against very small opponents, but as a primary backcourt I think there would be too many defensive issues.

Also, nobody would ask Andre to be the primary or even secondary ballhandler. He would only put it on the floor after a shot fake that with his shot they'd have to go for. I'm not saying he's as good as JJ Redick, but JJ never showed much handle until his senior year. Andre can be an outstanding "2" (or "3") on offense running off picks like JJ did. All Andre has to do is show he can defend those positions, which I think he has already shown, albeit not consistently.

dcar1985
03-26-2011, 05:17 PM
A backcourt of Tyler, Seth, and Austin is awfully small, probably giving up a lot of height at 3 positions. I can see us run that occasionally, and against very small opponents, but as a primary backcourt I think there would be too many defensive issues.

Also, nobody would ask Andre to be the primary or even secondary ballhandler. He would only put it on the floor after a shot fake that with his shot they'd have to go for. I'm not saying he's as good as JJ Redick, but JJ never showed much handle until his senior year. Andre can be an outstanding "2" (or "3") on offense running off picks like JJ did. All Andre has to do is show he can defend those positions, which I think he has already shown, albeit not consistently.

Yea only thing is Dre also doesnt seem to move well w/o the ball, maybe thats by design maybe not, and even if he can continue to get away with that pump fake one dribble move the fact still remains that Dre is 6'4 w/ the handle of a 7 footer...he really needs to improve that part of his game regardless

houstondukie
03-26-2011, 05:21 PM
Based on the insider articles I've read on Rivals and Scout, Duke is in very good shape w/ Daniels, perhaps even the leader. If Duke lands Daniels, we get a college ready, versatile 3/4 player, w/ good size (6'8), length, very good athleticism, and excellent shooting ability. I think he starts at SF by mid-year.

If Irving (unlikely) and Mason (likely) come back, and Duke lands Daniels:

PG: Irving
SG: Rivers
SF: Daniels
PF: Plumlee
C: Plumlee

That's a great team, with tons of firepower and depth off the bench (12 scholarship players total)

gumbomoop
03-26-2011, 05:22 PM
I think alot also depends on the development of our PG's I think Cook will be a good player during his time at Duke but not ready to run the team next year, Tyler I could see starting at point depending on how he improves over the summer he has a high IQ, steady, and looks to distribute.

The other scenario I see is that Tyler nor Quinn is ready to handle the point so we put the ball is Seth's hands.

Duke will actually have 4 guys who can play point, each with particular strengths, and some ?-marks.

Quin Cook has an excellent handle, and was a leader on one of those USA Basketball under-? teams. He left a slightly bad impression on some posters from his game in Cameron last month, but let's assume that was an aberration. Good court vision, great handle, probably will need to discipline his passing to cut down on TOs.

Tyler Thornton has been described by K as "unusually mature," so if he develops enough O, including penetrating, drive-dish-or-finish, he will gradually get more minutes. He's a leader of his team, sooner or later.

Seth Curry has an inconsistent handle, but his O is so good that clearly he'll be a key scorer next year as a combo guard. When he, Austin, and Andre are on the court at the same time, that's a lot of 3-bombers. Seth's quick hands on D are a big plus. [And FWIW, I personally do not worry overmuch about, "Well, who plays the 3 on D in that scenario," as I think of the 2/3 as interchangeable "wings," who will switch on D a lot anyhow. Duke will be at no more of a disadvantage in playing Austin or Andre at the 3 than they were this year - including whatever happened v. Arizona - for when Duke "went small" this year, almost never - almost never - did the opposing team dump it down low to their SF to go over our smaller "3." I agree it can be a problem for rebounding, but our 2 bigs simply have to do the defensive boardwork.]

And finally, Austin Rivers, who is a combo guard, possessed of a great, great handle, great court vision. Had Duke no other options, Austin would be a superb PG. I expect he won't "play the point," in the sense of bringing the ball upcourt, but he'll control the O a lot once he gets the ball on the wing or up top on a weave. On D, he'll guard an opposing "wing," whether 6'4" or 6'7". And he and the other perimeter players will switch so often that for some seconds intermittently he'll be guarding a PG.

I know too little about Quin's commitment to D, and maybe Austin's, too. But Tyler and Seth know K's insistence about D-commitment. And both Quin and Austin are physically gifted players from whom we may reasonably expect some D to complement their O. Perhaps even Andre will regale the newcomers with telling examples of his own experience with K's expectations.

loldevilz
03-26-2011, 05:44 PM
Based on the insider articles I've read on Rivals and Scout, Duke is in very good shape w/ Daniels, perhaps even the leader. If Duke lands Daniels, we get a college ready, versatile 3/4 player, w/ good size (6'8), length, very good athleticism, and excellent shooting ability. I think he starts at SF by mid-year.

If Irving (unlikely) and Mason (likely) come back, and Duke lands Daniels:

PG: Irving
SG: Rivers
SF: Daniels
PF: Plumlee
C: Plumlee

That's a great team, with tons of firepower and depth off the bench (12 scholarship players total)

I think thats a tad unrealistic.

Firstly, Irving is probably gone seeing as he's a high lottery pick.

Secondly, I thought the whole deal was that we pick up Daniels if Mason leaves. I think if Mason stays it seems unlikely we get Daniels. I'm crossing my fingers that Mason has the sense to stay and get better.

There is also no chance that Kelly doesn't start next year. Kelly is so much more talented than Miles and frankly Mason too. Kelly's offense will be critical with the departure of Singler.

Also, I think the starting point guard job was won this year after Irving went down. Seth Curry has the spot locked up. It took some time to adjust last year, but he has a lot of Jon Scheyer in him. He is very composed, doesn't turn the ball over. He was a star in the Maryland game after Nolan went out.

I think it will be:

PG: Seth Curry RJr.
SG: Austin Rivers Fr.
SF: Josh Hairston So.?
PF: Ryan Kelly Jr.
C: Mason Plumlee Jr.

Bench: Miles Plumlee, Marshall Plumlee, Andre Dawkins

I think that team has tremendous upside. Also, if they were lucky enough to win anything, they could all return.

uh_no
03-26-2011, 05:49 PM
I think it will be:

PG: Seth Curry RJr.
SG: Austin Rivers Fr.
SF: Josh Hairston So.?
PF: Ryan Kelly Jr.
C: Mason Plumlee Jr.

Bench: Miles Plumlee, Marshall Plumlee, Andre Dawkins

I think that team has tremendous upside. Also, if they were lucky enough to win anything, they could all return.

don't forget ty thornton

FireOgilvie
03-26-2011, 05:58 PM
I think thats a tad unrealistic.

Firstly, Irving is probably gone seeing as he's a high lottery pick.

Secondly, I thought the whole deal was that we pick up Daniels if Mason leaves. I think if Mason stays it seems unlikely we get Daniels. I'm crossing my fingers that Mason has the sense to stay and get better.

There is also no chance that Kelly doesn't start next year. Kelly is so much more talented than Miles and frankly Mason too. Kelly's offense will be critical with the departure of Singler.

Also, I think the starting point guard job was won this year after Irving went down. Seth Curry has the spot locked up. It took some time to adjust last year, but he has a lot of Jon Scheyer in him. He is very composed, doesn't turn the ball over. He was a star in the Maryland game after Nolan went out.

I think it will be:

PG: Seth Curry RJr.
SG: Austin Rivers Fr.
SF: Josh Hairston So.?
PF: Ryan Kelly Jr.
C: Mason Plumlee Jr.

Bench: Miles Plumlee, Marshall Plumlee, Andre Dawkins

I think that team has tremendous upside. Also, if they were lucky enough to win anything, they could all return.

Don't say something is unrealistic and then throw Hairston in as a starter haha... although I agree with you about Seth and Ryan starting.

Hairston was very lost on defense the entire year and I don't expect him to completely turn it around in the offseason. I think Gbinije actually has a much better chance to start than Hairston, and I don't see that happening.

loldevilz
03-26-2011, 06:31 PM
Don't say something is unrealistic and then throw Hairston in as a starter haha... although I agree with you about Seth and Ryan starting.

Hairston was very lost on defense the entire year and I don't expect him to completely turn it around in the offseason. I think Gbinije actually has a much better chance to start than Hairston, and I don't see that happening.

I guess I'm the only one that thinks starting Hairston at small forward is inspired. lol. Anyways, don't count him out yet. A lot of people counted out Ryan this year because of freshman struggles.

kong123
03-26-2011, 06:35 PM
I guess I'm the only one that thinks starting Hairston at small forward is inspired. lol. Anyways, don't count him out yet. A lot of people counted out Ryan this year because of freshman struggles.

lotta guys wanted to kill him cause of the way he played in the UNC game. What did he do? He snapped back with a great ACC tourney. He is young and will be big for you guys next year.

coldriver10
03-26-2011, 07:58 PM
When will we know whether or not Alex Murphy is going to come early? We could REALLY use him next year...more than anyone else coming in, in my opinion.

Kedsy
03-26-2011, 08:11 PM
When will we know whether or not Alex Murphy is going to come early? We could REALLY use him next year...more than anyone else coming in, in my opinion.

He's a top 10 or 15 recruit, but not top five. And that's in the 2012 class. Do you think he would even start as a freshman? Especially as a young freshman?

Kedsy
03-26-2011, 08:31 PM
Here's the thing about people thinking two or three freshmen will start next year: it hardly ever happens unless the recruit is top five or the cupboard is bare.

By my count, only nine freshmen have started a majority of the games for Duke this century: Kyrie (tied for #2), Kyle (#5), Jon Scheyer (#28, but the roster only had three returnees who had contributed anything the year before, so some freshmen had to start), Lance Thomas (#20, but see previous parenthetical and he only started 18 of 31 games), McBob (1st), Greg Paulus (#13, but the only PG on the roster), Luol Deng (#2), Jason Williams (#3), and Carlos Boozer (#8, but the roster only had three returnees who had contributed anything the year before, so some freshmen had to start).

Next year the cupboard will not be bare. Austin Rivers (currently #3) will almost certainly start. It is a LOT less likely Quinn Cook (#20), Mike Gbinije (#23), DeAndre Daniels (#29), Marshall Plumlee (#66), or Alex Murphy (2012 #9 Scout; 2012 #11 Rivals) will be able to break into the starting lineup.


Note: all numbers taken from the RSCI (except where noted). And, yes, I know Kyrie didn't start the majority of Duke's games this year, but he would have if he'd been healthy.

coldriver10
03-26-2011, 08:33 PM
He's a top 10 or 15 recruit, but not top five. And that's in the 2012 class. Do you think he would even start as a freshman? Especially as a young freshman?
I never said I thought he would start. But I think he would play very significant minutes and could potentially start later in the year.

turnandburn55
03-26-2011, 08:44 PM
I could see Quinn Cook playing a similar part as Duhon or Elliot Williams did as freshman... maybe not so many minutes at first, but work his way into a starting role by the end of the season. While the cupboard may not be bare, the PG position is up for grabs. I think K would rather see Seth Curry play off the ball in an ideal world, while Tyler Thornton certainly does not have a chokehold on the starting job....

While I'm not holding my breath waiting for Kyrie to return, I do think there is a reasonable chance he may. If that's the case, this discussion is gravy...

davekay1971
03-26-2011, 08:50 PM
Next year the cupboard will not be bare. Austin Rivers (currently #3) will almost certainly start. It is a LOT less likely Quinn Cook (#20), Mike Gbinije (#23), DeAndre Daniels (#29), Marshall Plumlee (#66), or Alex Murphy (2012 #9 Scout; 2012 #11 Rivals) will be able to break into the starting lineup.

Thank you so much for this post, Kedsy. I had forgotten how loaded the incoming freshman class is. With Seth, Andre, Mason (probably), Miles, Ryan, Tyler, and Josh coming back (and maybe maybe maybe Kyrie), we'll be young, but talented. Man, it'll be fun to watch the team develop all over again!

jipops
03-26-2011, 09:08 PM
I actually see a bit of an up-and-down year coming for Duke. There will be some growing pains and of-course some great moments. I'm a little concerned with how we will man the point position or how the offense will flow with either an inexperienced primary ball handler or a player such as Seth who is not accustomed to setting up an offense. I'm sure Austin is a very special talent, but we won't have a Nolan Smith or a Kyrie or Kendall Marshall type talent on the floor next season to control the ball. The second concern/question is how well will this team communicate on the floor. I think this is where our front court will actually perform better than our back court next season.

Expectations for this team should be tempered. Though there is the potential for very good things there is also the potential to become rudderless at times. There probably won't quite be the type of senior leadership we have seen the past couple seasons. I'll be curious to see how this team responds in pressure late game situations.

houstondukie
03-26-2011, 09:17 PM
Secondly, I thought the whole deal was that we pick up Daniels if Mason leaves. .

That's not my impression at all. Daniels is needed at the SF position.

MV HAWK
03-26-2011, 11:17 PM
Hey guys. First time poster here. I just want to say that I've followed DBR for several years now and have thoroughly enjoyed reading what everyone has to say.

Whether Irving stays or not, I feel that if we did add Daniels to our current recruiting class, we will be a top 5 team. Based just off of highlights and what everyone has had to say about Rivers and Gbinije, I feel that Gbinije is the better overall player. With that being said, I believe that both Gbinije and Rivers will be starters at some point during the season. Curry or Cook will have the point guard spot. Rivers will obviously have a spot at either the 2 or 3. I think Gbinije will be a starter on the wing just because he has no glaring weakness and has the athleticism and I.Q. to be a force on defense. Daniels, if we get him, will be a starter from day one, either at the 3 or 4. He is a long and athletic and if he adds 10-15 pounds will be a matchup nightmare for any forward in the nation. This would be one of the most athletic teams, Duke has thrown out on the court in a long time.

gcashwell
03-26-2011, 11:21 PM
I just hope we get some good improvements from our big men. With the obvious exception of zoubek conquering the world last year, I haven't been happy with our inside presence on a long time. Zoubek did things that can not be coached. I just want the plumlees to do what can be.

Kedsy
03-26-2011, 11:44 PM
Hey guys. First time poster here. I just want to say that I've followed DBR for several years now and have thoroughly enjoyed reading what everyone has to say.

Whether Irving stays or not, I feel that if we did add Daniels to our current recruiting class, we will be a top 5 team. Based just off of highlights and what everyone has had to say about Rivers and Gbinije, I feel that Gbinije is the better overall player. With that being said, I believe that both Gbinije and Rivers will be starters at some point during the season. Curry or Cook will have the point guard spot. Rivers will obviously have a spot at either the 2 or 3. I think Gbinije will be a starter on the wing just because he has no glaring weakness and has the athleticism and I.Q. to be a force on defense. Daniels, if we get him, will be a starter from day one, either at the 3 or 4. He is a long and athletic and if he adds 10-15 pounds will be a matchup nightmare for any forward in the nation. This would be one of the most athletic teams, Duke has thrown out on the court in a long time.

Welcome. I hope you're right that all our freshman are deserving to start, and it's possible each of them may start a few games, but I just don't think any of them other than Austin Rivers actually will start the majority of the games. I would be absolutely shocked if we ever trotted out a starting lineup that contained all of Rivers, Cook, Gbinije, and Daniels, as you seem to suggest could happen.

dyedwab
03-26-2011, 11:58 PM
1) Dawkins and defense. Clearly, Dawkins calling card was not defense - he is has a sweet shot, but has had to learn to play defense at a higher level then he ever had before. And for much of the year, he wasn't. But, unless something was fooling me, it seemed that toward the end of the season, Coach K was giving Dawkins more difficult defensive assignments, and was holding his own. He isn't defensive player of the year material yet - but, according to a couple of recent articles, he seems to understand that defense is how he stays on the court. And he's getting better at it. Which lead me to my second point....

2) Players get better. Seems like a simple point, but fairly critical to next year's success. As has been pointed out, we won't have a double-digit scorer returning next year (except in the unlikely case that Kyrie returns), so we need players to improve. And the good thing is, that usually happens. We all have seen what happened to Zoubek and Lance last year, etc. but even our top players tend to improve, e.g. Nolan going from a 17 point a game scorer as a junior to the ACC PoY and 1st Team AA his senior year. And this is not an isolated incident. Players get better. And that is what we need to see happen next year.

MV HAWK
03-27-2011, 12:31 AM
Welcome. I hope you're right that all our freshman are deserving to start, and it's possible each of them may start a few games, but I just don't think any of them other than Austin Rivers actually will start the majority of the games. I would be absolutely shocked if we ever trotted out a starting lineup that contained all of Rivers, Cook, Gbinije, and Daniels, as you seem to suggest could happen.

I feel that Rivers and Daniels would start from day one. If Seth Curry is comfortable running the point then I don't see Cook starting. If Curry is better off the ball, which I expect him to be, then I would like to see Thornton have a chance to run this team. You are probably right in saying that it is highly unlikely that four freshman will start on this years team. However, Gbinije has very good size and athleticism as a wing and I think he will be second or third coming off of the bench behind Dawkins, Miles, and maybe Thornton/Cook. If the MP2 struggles, then I could easily see Kelly moving to the 5, Daniels to the 4, and Gbinije to the 3.

-bdbd
03-27-2011, 12:45 AM
Welcome. I hope you're right that all our freshman are deserving to start, and it's possible each of them may start a few games, but I just don't think any of them other than Austin Rivers actually will start the majority of the games. I would be absolutely shocked if we ever trotted out a starting lineup that contained all of Rivers, Cook, Gbinije, and Daniels, as you seem to suggest could happen.

Gotta agree with Kedsy, especially given K's track record. If we say that KI goes to the NBA - if not then he starts in a hearbeat! - and say MP2 stays, then I'd expect a Nov. 2011 starting line-up of Curry, Rivers, Dawkins, MP2, MP1/Kelly. Make no mistake, I share the enthusiasm about our incoming freshmen, but (other than Rivers) they will need to gain experience before expecting to start and/or averaging 20+ minutes, other than maybe against a couple early-season patsies. But as the season wears along, I could easily see evolving starting or otherwise significant roles from Tyler, Josh, MG, QC and/or DD. Experience, in K's program, is worth quite a lot.

But I DO love the enthusiasm for the incoming Freshmen. Even though we are sometimes somewhat spoiled by our consistent recruiting and on-court success, this will be a special class. :D

BD - "I'm somewhat surprised at the level of unabashed enthusiasm over DD given MG's and QC's relatively higher recruiting ratings for most of this year (not that he wouldn't be terrific in filling a specific need)" - BD

lotusland
03-27-2011, 12:58 AM
I think thats a tad unrealistic.

Firstly, Irving is probably gone seeing as he's a high lottery pick.

Secondly, I thought the whole deal was that we pick up Daniels if Mason leaves. I think if Mason stays it seems unlikely we get Daniels. I'm crossing my fingers that Mason has the sense to stay and get better.

There is also no chance that Kelly doesn't start next year. Kelly is so much more talented than Miles and frankly Mason too. Kelly's offense will be critical with the departure of Singler.

Also, I think the starting point guard job was won this year after Irving went down. Seth Curry has the spot locked up. It took some time to adjust last year, but he has a lot of Jon Scheyer in him. He is very composed, doesn't turn the ball over. He was a star in the Maryland game after Nolan went out.

I think it will be:

PG: Seth Curry RJr.
SG: Austin Rivers Fr.
SF: Josh Hairston So.?
PF: Ryan Kelly Jr.
C: Mason Plumlee Jr.

Bench: Miles Plumlee, Marshall Plumlee, Andre Dawkins

I think that team has tremendous upside. Also, if they were lucky enough to win anything, they could all return.

I think Marshall Redshirts and Dre starts with Seth and AR. I think Miles has a big year next year and becomes a really good post defender and rebounder. I think Mason stays and both Plums start. No reason to think Thornton won't be a valuable bench player and Michael G sounds like a player that can earn some minutes at 3. Josh should get more minutes at 4 if he has a good summer. Quin and Daniels, if we land him, are the wildcards IMO. I haven't heard anything more about Murphy coming early and it doesn't seem like we have a dire need for him too but if he did his impact would be unpredictable. We won't know who will be most readyto play until the fall and of course injuries can change everything.

magjayran
03-27-2011, 12:59 AM
Do y'all REALLY think that Mason gets drafted if he comes out this year? I just don't see anything from him that makes me think NBA other than athleticism in space. Nbadraft.net doesn't even have him getting drafted. I like the guy. I like his dunks, blocks, and he can be a very good passer but he really needs to show more than a shaky hook shot in the post before NBA scouts are gonna want him.

FireOgilvie
03-27-2011, 01:25 AM
Do y'all REALLY think that Mason gets drafted if he comes out this year? I just don't see anything from him that makes me think NBA other than athleticism in space. Nbadraft.net doesn't even have him getting drafted. I like the guy. I like his dunks, blocks, and he can be a very good passer but he really needs to show more than a shaky hook shot in the post before NBA scouts are gonna want him.

Mason would absolutely be drafted in one of the two rounds. How high is the question and depends on who else comes out. Would I draft him in the lottery? Absolutely not, but it only takes one team to do it, and you really never know. Also, a lot of mock drafts on websites like that are almost totally pulled out of thin air. The draft board on NBAdraft.net is a joke. Apparently, Perry Jones will go at 9 this year while Jimmer will follow at 10. Also, Kendall Marshall will go 10th next year, while Michael Gilchrist will be the 14th pick. We'll see how those picks work out for them.

Duke: A Dynasty
03-27-2011, 04:51 AM
I agree with above statement on Seth winning the starting pg job from his play this past season.

PG - Seth
SG - Austin
SF - ???
PF - Miles
C - Kelly

To me the only hard one is the SF position. You could go so many ways with it, and I think K will toy with it the most early next season.

SF candidates:

DeAndre Daniels 6'8" 180lbs (Reclassified for 2011 and is the 3rd best SF 9th overall, 5 star prospect)
- Will start out being first or second off the bench and at some point be thrown into the starting spot until K figures out what works best. He is considered a top tier player and potentially a 1 or 2 year guy before going pro. Guys ranked in the top 10 usually get big mins at any school and are game changers (not every time but majority of the time).

Strengths:
He has great size, Great Speed, Respectable 3 pt shooter and a good rebounder.

Weaknesses:
He is very slender, a little too aggresive at times leading to bad shot selection and overlooking open teamates.

Micheal Gbinije 6'6" 194 (8th best SF 31st overall, 4 star prospect)
- Too me Gbinije will not play unless its mop up duty in a blow out but he should be an amazing 4 year player for Duke.

Strengths:
Has good not great size, good athlete, great basketball IQ

Weaknesses:
His defense is lacking like most players his age, he gets lost in the game due to lack of intensity and he lacks a quick first step.

Andre Dawkins 6'4" 205 (Junior guard, 8ppg past season)
- Should and will start based on expierence but lack of size could keep him from starting many games in the ACC. Another thing to consider is Andre loses confidence very easily and tends to disappear for several games at a time.

Strengths:
His stroke is to die for and gets him many 3's, has a good build for his size, has a better understanding of the defensive schemes than incoming players due to experience, good athlete and good explosiveness.

Weaknesses:
His confidence affects his play a bit too much causing him to go MIA for multiple games and he handles a basketball about like a middle school kid (a bit drastic but you get the idea).

Josh Hairston 6'7" 210 (Sophmore forward, mop-up mins last season)
- I do not see this happening at all but other have said it as an option. I do not see the foot speed or explosiveness for him to play SF. He very well could be our next Lance Thomas though (stays 4 years gives great defense and hustle and a nice little jumper from time to time). I think he comes in more at the PF position next year.



So by ACC play I see this:

PG: Seth (also mins at 2)
SG: Austin (also mins at 1 and 3)
SF: DeAndre (also mins at 4)
PF: Miles (also mins at 5)
C: Ryan (also mins at 4)

Bench:
1. Andre (mins at the 2 and 3)
2. Josh (mins at the 4)
3.Tyler (mins at the 1)



This assuming we lose Mason and Kyrie and gain DD.

MV HAWK
03-27-2011, 07:15 AM
PG: Seth (also mins at 2)
SG: Austin (also mins at 1 and 3)
SF: DeAndre (also mins at 4)
PF: Miles (also mins at 5)
C: Ryan (also mins at 4)

Bench:
1. Andre (mins at the 2 and 3)
2. Josh (mins at the 4)
3.Tyler (mins at the 1)



This assuming we lose Mason and Kyrie and gain DD.

Whether Mason stays or goes, I think that will be the line up. It's strictly a gut feeling, but I feel that Miles is going to really step up, being the only senior on this team. I also expect Ryan Kelly to be the second or third scoring option on defense. think that will be the starting lineup for the majority of the season. I'm glad you brought up that AR might spend some time at the 1. I think I read that he was expecting to run a little bit of the one in maybe one of his journals a while ago? I think that with AR at the point then Dawkins would get a lot of time at the 2. Although with 3 guys perfectly capable of running the point, I don't see AR running it too often, but what a luxury his versatility is

Saratoga2
03-27-2011, 07:51 AM
I agree with above statement on Seth winning the starting pg job from his play this past season.

PG - Seth
SG - Austin
SF - ???
PF - Miles
C - Kelly

To me the only hard one is the SF position. You could go so many ways with it, and I think K will toy with it the most early next season.

SF candidates:

DeAndre Daniels 6'8" 180lbs (Reclassified for 2011 and is the 3rd best SF 9th overall, 5 star prospect)
- Will start out being first or second off the bench and at some point be thrown into the starting spot until K figures out what works best. He is considered a top tier player and potentially a 1 or 2 year guy before going pro. Guys ranked in the top 10 usually get big mins at any school and are game changers (not every time but majority of the time).

Strengths:
He has great size, Great Speed, Respectable 3 pt shooter and a good rebounder.

Weaknesses:
He is very slender, a little too aggresive at times leading to bad shot selection and overlooking open teamates.

Micheal Gbinije 6'6" 194 (8th best SF 31st overall, 4 star prospect)
- Too me Gbinije will not play unless its mop up duty in a blow out but he should be an amazing 4 year player for Duke.

Strengths:
Has good not great size, good athlete, great basketball IQ

Weaknesses:
His defense is lacking like most players his age, he gets lost in the game due to lack of intensity and he lacks a quick first step.

Andre Dawkins 6'4" 205 (Junior guard, 8ppg past season)
- Should and will start based on expierence but lack of size could keep him from starting many games in the ACC. Another thing to consider is Andre loses confidence very easily and tends to disappear for several games at a time.

Strengths:
His stroke is to die for and gets him many 3's, has a good build for his size, has a better understanding of the defensive schemes than incoming players due to experience, good athlete and good explosiveness.

Weaknesses:
His confidence affects his play a bit too much causing him to go MIA for multiple games and he handles a basketball about like a middle school kid (a bit drastic but you get the idea).

Josh Hairston 6'7" 210 (Sophmore forward, mop-up mins last season)
- I do not see this happening at all but other have said it as an option. I do not see the foot speed or explosiveness for him to play SF. He very well could be our next Lance Thomas though (stays 4 years gives great defense and hustle and a nice little jumper from time to time). I think he comes in more at the PF position next year.



So by ACC play I see this:

PG: Seth (also mins at 2)
SG: Austin (also mins at 1 and 3)
SF: DeAndre (also mins at 4)
PF: Miles (also mins at 5)
C: Ryan (also mins at 4)

Bench:
1. Andre (mins at the 2 and 3)
2. Josh (mins at the 4)
3.Tyler (mins at the 1)



This assuming we lose Mason and Kyrie and gain DD.

I agree Seth will probably start at the point but do not see him as the ideal guy for that position. He has experience and is a canny scorer and has quick enough hands to make a steal now and again. He lacks the explosiveness to slash to the basket, has an okay but not great handle and is not the best defender against big and quick guards. That's why I see Seth as more of a shooting guard as the season progresses and either Tyler or Quinn winding up with more of the PG duties.

I haven't heard that DeAndre has committed to Duke as yet, so it is a stretch to put him in the starting lineup. Plus, he is very thin and young. I would guess that Andre and Austin will start at the 2 and 3 positions. Scheyer played a lot of 3 until moved into the 1 and he is similar in size to Austin.

The bigs will be a wait and see game to determine if Mason will return. We are set there in any case. Josh is a wild card with potential to play the 3 or 4.

With many freshman to integrate, it is likely to be a bumpy season.

Jholt915
03-27-2011, 08:05 AM
Mason would absolutely be drafted in one of the two rounds. How high is the question and depends on who else comes out. Would I draft him in the lottery? Absolutely not, but it only takes one team to do it, and you really never know. Also, a lot of mock drafts on websites like that are almost totally pulled out of thin air. The draft board on NBAdraft.net is a joke. Apparently, Perry Jones will go at 9 this year while Jimmer will follow at 10. Also, Kendall Marshall will go 10th next year, while Michael Gilchrist will be the 14th pick. We'll see how those picks work out for them.

Mason wouldn't get drafted. He just hasn't shown enough to warrant getting drafted. I like Mason and think he has enormous potential. If he leaves he'll end up playing overseas not in the NBA.

CDu
03-27-2011, 09:36 AM
I guess I'm the only one that thinks starting Hairston at small forward is inspired. lol. Anyways, don't count him out yet. A lot of people counted out Ryan this year because of freshman struggles.

I still don't see why you are so gung-ho about him as a SF and then repeatedly reference Lance Thomas (who never played SF at Duke). The reality of Lance Thomas didn't emerge until he was a senior. Prior to that, he was quite spastic and unable to stay on the floor for extended minutes. It wasn't until his senior year that things clicked, and he became a defensive force as a post player - able to guard versatile PF-types.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for Hairston to expand his game and be effective as a SF. I'm just saying that none of us have seen anything about his game that suggests he'd be good at it. We've seen some things that suggests he could potentially be good at the 4 spot (like Thomas). But nothing at all suggests he'll be good as a 3.

Devilsfan
03-27-2011, 12:07 PM
If Josh grows 3" by next October our problems with a physical, high basketball IQ inside game would be over.

MaxAMillion
03-27-2011, 12:24 PM
I actually see a bit of an up-and-down year coming for Duke. There will be some growing pains and of-course some great moments. I'm a little concerned with how we will man the point position or how the offense will flow with either an inexperienced primary ball handler or a player such as Seth who is not accustomed to setting up an offense. I'm sure Austin is a very special talent, but we won't have a Nolan Smith or a Kyrie or Kendall Marshall type talent on the floor next season to control the ball. The second concern/question is how well will this team communicate on the floor. I think this is where our front court will actually perform better than our back court next season.

Expectations for this team should be tempered. Though there is the potential for very good things there is also the potential to become rudderless at times. There probably won't quite be the type of senior leadership we have seen the past couple seasons. I'll be curious to see how this team responds in pressure late game situations.

I agree with you completely. You don't lose Smith, Singler, and possibly Irving from your team and carry on at the same level. Experience and leadership matter more than people think. It isn't a video game where you can just plug in players with certain attributes and move forward with no problems. I predict that we will miss the defense of Smith and Singler most of all. I don't think their replacements will be as good on D and that will show itself next year.

wk2109
03-27-2011, 01:39 PM
Like all of you, I've thought about next year's squad and know that things won't be sorted out until Kyrie and Mason decide whether they're staying and DeAndre Daniels commits to a school. But I had a scary random thought that I need someone to convince me could never happen: what if next year's team is like 09-10 UNC? Or, to a much lesser extreme, like 06-07 Duke?

A few questions (assuming Kyrie leaves):
-For the past few seasons, Duke has had at least one, if not multiple, surefire All-ACC guy(s) coming back. Who is that guy next year? Seth, Andre, and Austin seem to be the likely candidates, but there's no one who's actually proven himself to be capable of consistently playing at the level yet. It's kind of like how Carolina fans expected Deon Thompson, Ed Davis, and Tyler Zeller to be really awesome in 09-10 because they were solid role players with occasional bursts of All-ACC level play. We all think highly of our guys because they're the players we know best, but basketball is about beating other guys, not just about having good players. Are our players talented enough to create a great team that's better than most other teams? Coaching can only take you so far -- ultimately you gotta have some talent too. I think Duke will be a preseason top-15 team, but that'll be more because of the DUKE on the jerseys, not because of what the returning players proved this year, kind of like how UNC was preseason #4 last year based on its name.
-I think Austin Rivers is going to be really good, but what if he's not? John Henson was a top-5 recruit too and while he showed promise during his freshman year, he definitely didn't live up to the hype. I hope Austin has as big of an impact as Kyrie did from day 1, but for some reason, I don't feel like he's a sure thing like I did with Kyrie.

There are obvious reasons why next year's team won't end up like 09-10 UNC (but please give me more):
-Coach K: The 09-10 season and this season reminded us how amazing Coach K is. Unlike the guy down the road, he actually looks at his players' strengths and doesn't insist on running a system that doesn't work with his personnel.
-Larry Drew: No matter who our point guard is, I'm certain that he won't be as bad as Larry Drew. That guy was always the opposing team's best player (a bit of an exaggeration but he was pretty bad).
-Injuries: I hate to admit it, because I LOVED how UNC was so bad last year, but injuries definitely hurt that team. It's unlikely (knock on wood) that our team, or any team, will have the same bad luck with injuries next year.

I'm generally very positive about Duke, but that random thought I had this morning has been bugging me and I need some people to tell me why it could never happen.

timmy c
03-27-2011, 01:51 PM
If Josh grows 3" by next October our problems with a physical, high basketball IQ inside game would be over.

I thought Austin Rivers was going to grow three inches. Or, maybe he'll pull a David Robinson and become a 7 footer between now and his Sophmore year.

Bay Area Duke Fan
03-27-2011, 01:58 PM
I thought Austin Rivers was going to grow three inches. Or, maybe he'll pull a David Robinson and become a 7 footer between now and his Sophmore year.

What sophomore year?

unexpected
03-27-2011, 02:05 PM
It's remarkable to me that people are obsessing over who's going to play SF.

We have this "image" that the SF position should be filled with someone 6'5" or taller.

This has not happened very often in recent times. Duke treats the SF position like another 2 guard spot.

Daniel Ewing, JJ Redick, Scheyer, Dawkins have all taken their turns playing the SF position.

We don't pick the SF position based on height - we pick it based on who can play. Talent and skill level will dictate who plays the position - not some arbitrary height standard.

That being said, I don't think Seth Curry starts at PG. He's shown no requisite PG skills. Yes, he's small, yes he's quick, but he's been TO prone and hasn't really shown PG awareness this year.

loldevilz
03-27-2011, 02:15 PM
I still don't see why you are so gung-ho about him as a SF and then repeatedly reference Lance Thomas (who never played SF at Duke). The reality of Lance Thomas didn't emerge until he was a senior. Prior to that, he was quite spastic and unable to stay on the floor for extended minutes. It wasn't until his senior year that things clicked, and he became a defensive force as a post player - able to guard versatile PF-types.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for Hairston to expand his game and be effective as a SF. I'm just saying that none of us have seen anything about his game that suggests he'd be good at it. We've seen some things that suggests he could potentially be good at the 4 spot (like Thomas). But nothing at all suggests he'll be good as a 3.

I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal out of 3/4. Coach K plays Dawkins at the 3 and he is absolutely not a small forward. Hairston is more a powerfoward especially offensively, but he is athletic and high energy and should be able to guard multiple positions and improve the defensive pressure overall. I actually like that he has played powerforward because I think it will improve his impulse to rebound, which is one thing that Singler did very well from that spot.

I can't be the only one that thinks that Duke is setting itself up for failure again by not having an athletic defender in its front court, or going too small. Did anybody watch that second half against Arizona where Duke got killed on the boards with basically the same exact team that people are throwing out here?

I really would like to see a return to the defensive principles that won Duke its 2010 national championship. For some reason Coach K and company completely ran away from the contracted defense that focused on rebounding and limiting the 3 three. Instead they tried to chase people around and turn them over which didn't work at all.

Its kind of frustrating that Duke wins a championship with a team based around defense are rebounding and the next year they try to run people out of the gym again and get blown out in the sweet sixteen by a team that kills them on the boards.

Moral of the story: stick with what works.

davekay1971
03-27-2011, 02:24 PM
I'm generally very positive about Duke, but that random thought I had this morning has been bugging me and I need some people to tell me why it could never happen.

Several reasons.

First, to get back to UNC 09-10, it took a lot of bad things happening to make that team so bad. They had injuries. They had horrible chemistry issues. They had committed to a PG who was a terrible, terrible PG and had no viable 2nd option. They had no leadership at all. They had a coach who was completely unable to handle either the chemistry issues or the more technical problem of poor PG play.

Aside from injuries, Duke isn't likely to have any of those problems. Let's assume Kyrie goes but Mason stays and look at those issues.

First, chemistry: simply not an issue. The guys coming back are all high character guys, and I trust K and the staff to not bring in a freshman who's going to wreck team chemistry...or let him get away with it.

Second, PG play: Seth was pretty good by season's end in this role. We also have Tyler coming back and Quin coming in. Between those 3 guys PG play won't be a weakness. None of them are Kyrie, but that's ok.

Third, coach. K's best attributes are getting guys to accept team roles (ie, chemistry) and figuring out how to adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of the personnel at hand.

So, will next season be a "catastrophe"? No, absolutely not.

Where will it be on the scale of great to good to a struggle? Depends on so many questions.

1) Do Mason, Miles, and Kelly improve both performance and consistency to become a good interior game?

2) How does our PG position develop? Can Seth run the offense and still find his own? Does Tyler or Quinn become our best PG option? In college ball it's the most important position on the floor. In my mind our PG position could be solid, good, or really good. If it's really good, we'll be really good.

3) Is Austin the real deal? Remember when we heard how great Kyrie was going to be? And then he was? If Austin comes with that kind of game-changing ability out of the gate, then wow. But that's rare for a freshman to come in so good and so ready. Kyrie did. Lot's of other guys don't.

4) Andre: we all love him, and he's got a stroke to die for. He's improved his D, improved his game getting to the basket, and we all know how good he can be. If he commits himself to maximizing his gifts, he could be an all ACC player...undersized at the 3, but still a great, great weapon.

5) The freshmen other than Austin - lots of talent coming in. If one or two of those guys is ready by ACC play to be big-time contributors, that would add a ton of depth.

gumbomoop
03-27-2011, 02:28 PM
It's remarkable to me that people are obsessing over who's going to play SF.

We have this "image" that the SF position should be filled with someone 6'5" or taller.

This has not happened very often in recent times. Duke treats the SF position like another 2 guard spot.

Daniel Ewing, JJ Redick, Scheyer, Dawkins have all taken their turns playing the SF position.

Amen. K plays 2 "wings," who are from 6'1" [Curry, at times] to 6'8" [Singler, if he was actually that tall, which I doubt]. Definitely true that Duke will miss Singler's [and Nolan's] great D next year, and that it will help immensely if any of Rivers [6'4", I guess], Andre [6'3"?] Gbinije [6'6"?] and/or Hairston [6'7"] can play decent D on the occasional talented 6'5"-6'7" classic-SF that we [i.e., they] will face.

omar
03-27-2011, 02:46 PM
Can't stand thinking about last night anymore. What does everyone think about next year? We have Rivers, Cook, Plumlee III, Gbinije, maybe Daniels coming in. Who from this year's team returns? Losing Kyle and Nolan is tought...but what does Mason do? Is it a foregone conclusion the Kyrie leaves? What contribution can we expect from Kelly and Miles? What kind of player will Seth develop into? Preseason ranking? We've gotta be right up there to start the season. I'm looking for some positives in a very negative day.

Well, if it wasn't last year it won't be next year, take it to the bank. We had our number one line up, full steam ahead, no excuses and we all know what happened. Sir Charles made a great comment for CBS. He said something like every team -presumably those in serious contention to be #1- needs a truly great player. BYU needed more role players, however, no one could the greatness of UCONN's Walker or Arizona's Williams. Next year's team has no reputed outstanding, go to player. UNC will clearly be #! in the conference. Duke will be a solid, good team but will not challenge for ultimate greatness. SOS, superior guards, decent front court strength but no beast to boss the boards.

CDu
03-27-2011, 03:03 PM
I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal out of 3/4. Coach K plays Dawkins at the 3 and he is absolutely not a small forward. Hairston is more a powerfoward especially offensively, but he is athletic and high energy and should be able to guard multiple positions and improve the defensive pressure overall. I actually like that he has played powerforward because I think it will improve his impulse to rebound, which is one thing that Singler did very well from that spot.

I can't be the only one that thinks that Duke is setting itself up for failure again by not having an athletic defender in its front court, or going too small. Did anybody watch that second half against Arizona where Duke got killed on the boards with basically the same exact team that people are throwing out here?

I really would like to see a return to the defensive principles that won Duke its 2010 national championship. For some reason Coach K and company completely ran away from the contracted defense that focused on rebounding and limiting the 3 three. Instead they tried to chase people around and turn them over which didn't work at all.

Its kind of frustrating that Duke wins a championship with a team based around defense are rebounding and the next year they try to run people out of the gym again and get blown out in the sweet sixteen by a team that kills them on the boards.

Moral of the story: stick with what works.

I think you're missing the target on the differences between this year and last year. I don't think our defensive philosophy in the frontcourt is very different from last year's philosophy. We still try to prevent the 3 and we still try to rebound. We just didn't do a good job of either against Arizona. And that wasn't due to Dawkins.

I also think you're overemphasizing the results of last year's tournament (in which we were fortunate enough to win) and this year's tournament (in which we were unfortunate enough to lose early). And I think you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with your suggestion of Hairston at the 3. There is no magical formula to winning a national championship. Last year's formula happened to work last year for last year's team. That doesn't mean that last year's formula would have worked this year (with either this year's team OR last year's team).

I'd love to have a tall, athletic, skilled player at both the 3 and the 4. Heck - I'd take a tall, athletic, skilled player at EVERY position. But I'll take a skilled, athletic player at the 3 over a taller guy who can't play the position offensively and hasn't shown any of the skills to play the position defensively. I'd love to see Hairston prove ready to play at the 4, because it addresses some of my concerns about athleticism at the 4. But I REALLY don't think he's the answer at the 3 next year. And I think forcing him out of position in hopes that he fills some sort of concept that we need to be tall and athletic at the 3 is a bad idea.

As for the obsession over a tall, athletic 3, it's not a necessity. Butler has made the Final Four the last two years playing three very small players. UConn plays primarily with a skinny 6'5" guy with wing skills at the 3. Kansas was (until they stunk it up in the first half) the favorite of the remaining teams and they start and play primarily with three small players on the floor. The key isn't whether your 3 is tall and athletic. It's that whatever lineup you play works with the players you have. Playing Hairston at the 3 doesn't work with the players we'll have.

tommy
03-27-2011, 03:38 PM
I think Marshall Redshirts and Dre starts with Seth and AR.
When was the last time K redshirted a player? I'm not talking about medical redshirts, but just because he wasn't going to play? Never. And Marshall Plumlee won't be the first, trust me. He'll sit and watch and get stronger and better at practice and if he's able to contribute a little, fine. If not, he won't.




UNC will clearly be #! in the conference.
How do you know that before you know the composition of their roster? Do you know whether Barnes, Henson, and even Zeller will be on the team? Didn't think so. Nobody does.




Mason wouldn't get drafted. He just hasn't shown enough to warrant getting drafted. I like Mason and think he has enormous potential. If he leaves he'll end up playing overseas not in the NBA.

While your last sentence may or may not turn out to be true, your first certainly isn't. There is zero, I mean zero, chance that he does not get drafted. That's not the same as saying he's an NBA-ready player. He clearly isn't. But that's not what drives many draft decisions, and the examples of that are too numerous to cite.

Kedsy
03-27-2011, 03:39 PM
It's remarkable to me that people are obsessing over who's going to play SF.

We have this "image" that the SF position should be filled with someone 6'5" or taller.

This has not happened very often in recent times. Duke treats the SF position like another 2 guard spot.

Daniel Ewing, JJ Redick, Scheyer, Dawkins have all taken their turns playing the SF position.

We don't pick the SF position based on height - we pick it based on who can play. Talent and skill level will dictate who plays the position - not some arbitrary height standard.

You're saying everyone else's "image" is a player 6'5" or taller (which Jon Scheyer is, by the way) but you and Duke will go all the way down to 6'4"? I think what dictates who plays the SF position is who can defend that position. Andre may be only 6'4" (although to me it looks like he's grown a little since last year and he was listed at 6'4" last year too) but he seems to be able to guard all but the biggest SFs. We don't know yet about Austin, but I expect he'll be the same at 6'4"/6'5". Seth and Tyler (and presumably Quinn) are too small to guard the "3" effectively, so I don't expect them to play there at all, because I don't think Duke treats it like "another 2 guard spot."

loldevilz
03-27-2011, 03:41 PM
I think you're missing the target on the differences between this year and last year. I don't think our defensive philosophy in the frontcourt is very different from last year's philosophy. We still try to prevent the 3 and we still try to rebound. We just didn't do a good job of either against Arizona. And that wasn't due to Dawkins.

I also think you're overemphasizing the results of last year's tournament (in which we were fortunate enough to win) and this year's tournament (in which we were unfortunate enough to lose early). And I think you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with your suggestion of Hairston at the 3. There is no magical formula to winning a national championship. Last year's formula happened to work last year for last year's team. That doesn't mean that last year's formula would have worked this year (with either this year's team OR last year's team).

I'd love to have a tall, athletic, skilled player at both the 3 and the 4. Heck - I'd take a tall, athletic, skilled player at EVERY position. But I'll take a skilled, athletic player at the 3 over a taller guy who can't play the position offensively and hasn't shown any of the skills to play the position defensively. I'd love to see Hairston prove ready to play at the 4, because it addresses some of my concerns about athleticism at the 4. But I REALLY don't think he's the answer at the 3 next year. And I think forcing him out of position in hopes that he fills some sort of concept that we need to be tall and athletic at the 3 is a bad idea.

As for the obsession over a tall, athletic 3, it's not a necessity. Butler has made the Final Four the last two years playing three very small players. UConn plays primarily with a skinny 6'5" guy with wing skills at the 3. Kansas was (until they stunk it up in the first half) the favorite of the remaining teams and they start and play primarily with three small players on the floor. The key isn't whether your 3 is tall and athletic. It's that whatever lineup you play works with the players you have. Playing Hairston at the 3 doesn't work with the players we'll have.

Wow that's great for Butler. Playing small hasn't worked for Duke. I would love to see the +/- for Dawkins in this year's tournament. I know against Michigan he was -6 because when we went small they made the run. I know against Arizona we went small basically the entire second half due to foul trouble for the bigs. What happened: Duke was outrebounded by like 17 in the second half. It was ridiculous.

Unlike Coach K, Brad Stevens doesn't completely change the way he plays every year. He had tremendous success last year and guess what? he played the exact same way. Whodathunkit. He is in the final four and Duke is pissed off and wondering what happened.

But maybe you are right: Duke should play Dawkins, Ewing, Redick at the 3. Call me when they make a final four doing it.

Kedsy
03-27-2011, 03:44 PM
I really would like to see a return to the defensive principles that won Duke its 2010 national championship. For some reason Coach K and company completely ran away from the contracted defense that focused on rebounding and limiting the 3 three. Instead they tried to chase people around and turn them over which didn't work at all.

Its kind of frustrating that Duke wins a championship with a team based around defense are rebounding and the next year they try to run people out of the gym again and get blown out in the sweet sixteen by a team that kills them on the boards.

Moral of the story: stick with what works.

You do realize that Coach K has coached for 31 years at Duke and 2010 was pretty much the only year we played that way, right? And we made ten Final Fours and won three national championships playing more or less the way we played this year.

"What works" for K is using his personnel to their best advantage, not attempting to shoehorn this year's kids into last year's mold. That's the real moral of the story.

wk2109
03-27-2011, 03:47 PM
But maybe you are right: Duke should play Dawkins, Ewing, Redick at the 3. Call me when they make a final four doing it.

The 03-04 team made the Final Four with Duhon, Dockery, Ewing, and Redick sharing the 1, 2, and 3 spots (which means either Ewing or Redick was at the 3 all of the time). The same goes for last year when either Andre or Kyle played the 3 (though admittedly it was mostly Kyle).

CDu
03-27-2011, 04:06 PM
Wow that's great for Butler. Playing small hasn't worked for Duke. I would love to see the +/- for Dawkins in this year's tournament. I know against Michigan he was -6 because when we went small they made the run. I know against Arizona we went small basically the entire second half due to foul trouble for the bigs. What happened: Duke was outrebounded by like 17 in the second half. It was ridiculous.

Unlike Coach K, Brad Stevens doesn't completely change the way he plays every year. He had tremendous success last year and guess what? he played the exact same way. Whodathunkit. He is in the final four and Duke is pissed off and wondering what happened.

Stephens has had two great years with veteran players. Coach K has had success for 30+ years with a variety of different lineups. What he hasn't generally done is force a guy to play wildly out of position unless absolutely necessary. And he's generally erred on the side of skill/talent first rather than size. If he's had both, obviously that's nice too.

There's a big difference between Thomas Hill/Grant Hill/Nate James/Mike Dunleavy/Kyle Singler and Josh Hairston. The first five all had solid-to-terrific perimeter skills, whereas Hairston has shown none of that.

If Hairston develops A LOT as a ballhandler and perimeter shooter (and just as importantly as a perimeter defender) then I'd be happy to have him play the 3. And he may eventually get there. But I REALLY don't think he's going to be ready to do so next year. And I think we'll be better off going a different route.


But maybe you are right: Duke should play Dawkins, Ewing, Redick at the 3. Call me when they make a final four doing it.

Umm, you seem to have forgotten 2003-2004, when we made the Final Four (and were about 2 minutes from being the favorite in the title game) with Ewing/Redick at the 3. As I said, Coach K has had success with many different styles of team. Sometimes, it makes sense to play smaller perimeter players. Sometimes, it makes sense to go bigger.

loldevilz
03-27-2011, 04:13 PM
The 03-04 team made the Final Four with Duhon, Dockery, Ewing, and Redick sharing the 1, 2, and 3 spots (which means either Ewing or Redick was at the 3 all of the time). The same goes for last year when either Andre or Kyle played the 3 (though admittedly it was mostly Kyle).

They also had Luol Deng who is a beast.

2009
2008
2006
2005

All sweet sixteen upsets. Duke suddenly breaks through in 2010 and wins a national championship playing extremely large, and with a slow pace. Everyone wants to rush back to 2006. Pardon me if I just don't get it.

Kedsy
03-27-2011, 05:07 PM
But maybe you are right: Duke should play Dawkins, Ewing, Redick at the 3. Call me when they make a final four doing it.

1986: David Henderson
1988: Billy King
2004: JJ Redick/Daniel Ewing

Can I call collect?

BlueDevil2022
03-27-2011, 05:30 PM
They also had Luol Deng who is a beast.

2009
2008
2006
2005

All sweet sixteen upsets. Duke suddenly breaks through in 2010 and wins a national championship playing extremely large, and with a slow pace. Everyone wants to rush back to 2006. Pardon me if I just don't get it.

Maybe the fact that Duke played all juniors and seniors in 2010 has more to do with the fact they won a title rather than they played "big" and slow!!!!! And upsets? Did anyone really feel Duke was one of the best teams in the country in 2008 or 2009? The teams were good but I would have to say that it wasnt a shocking upset. The sweet sixteen is not such a bad place to end a season. Only eight teams go deeper into the season!!!! While we all would love to go to 7 final fours in 9 years (1986-94) but does that really ever happen outside of UCLA under Wooden? I would love for the Blue Devils to win it all every year, but it is unrealistic!!!!!!!!!!!

sporthenry
03-27-2011, 05:35 PM
Sir Charles made a great comment for CBS. He said something like every team -presumably those in serious contention to be #1- needs a truly great player. BYU needed more role players, however, no one could the greatness of UCONN's Walker or Arizona's Williams. Next year's team has no reputed outstanding, go to player. UNC will clearly be #! in the conference. Duke will be a solid, good team but will not challenge for ultimate greatness. SOS, superior guards, decent front court strength but no beast to boss the boards.

I guess the obvious question is who was so great for Duke last year? They had 3 very good players who each stepped up when needed. But AR and KI would have more great players than last year's Duke team. Heck, UNC and UK's best players are freshmen.

sporthenry
03-27-2011, 05:45 PM
Maybe the fact that Duke played all juniors and seniors in 2010 has more to do with the fact they won a title rather than they played "big" and slow!!!!! And upsets? Did anyone really feel Duke was one of the best teams in the country in 2008 or 2009? The teams were good but I would have to say that it wasnt a shocking upset. The sweet sixteen is not such a bad place to end a season. Only eight teams go deeper into the season!!!! While we all would love to go to 7 final fours in 9 years (1986-94) but does that really ever happen outside of UCLA under Wooden? I would love for the Blue Devils to win it all every year, but it is unrealistic!!!!!!!!!!!

This brings up another question I'm wondering about which is what year will be Duke's best year to win a title? It will involve a lot of assumptions but lets just play along. If KI and Mason return, we will still have a young team but with 2 potential top 5 picks but a limited frontcourt. Or will Duke be better off with more experience and skill across the board as MG, Cook, Hairston, and possibly Parker develop.

turnandburn55
03-27-2011, 06:36 PM
They also had Luol Deng who is a beast.


Yes. You have successfully proven that if we have a 6'9" wing player who happens to be to the #1 incoming player in the freshman class (Only LeBron was ranked higher), we should start him. Nobody is disputing that.

However, you may not be aware that Luol Deng is not on this team, nor is he expected to be on the team next year. Pardon the sarcasm, but you play the hand you're dealt. Coach K would probably love to start a lineup where every player fits the "classic" mold... a bruiser in the post, an athletic slasher at SF, a pure scorer at SG, and a point guard who can break down the defense off the dribble and distribute.

Unfortunately, there's (at best) one or two of those types of teams in the country in a given year. As you aptly illustrated, we haven't really had it since 2004. Every other team and every other year, we have to compromise at least at one position. Last year, we didn't exactly have Elton Brand in the middle and J-Dub playing the point... and next year, we probably won't have a Grant Hill clone starting at the 3.

Part of what makes college basketball so fun and unpredictable is seeing how coaches meet these challenges, often in wild and unconventional ways.

loldevilz
03-27-2011, 07:14 PM
Maybe the fact that Duke played all juniors and seniors in 2010 has more to do with the fact they won a title rather than they played "big" and slow!!!!! And upsets? Did anyone really feel Duke was one of the best teams in the country in 2008 or 2009? The teams were good but I would have to say that it wasnt a shocking upset. The sweet sixteen is not such a bad place to end a season. Only eight teams go deeper into the season!!!! While we all would love to go to 7 final fours in 9 years (1986-94) but does that really ever happen outside of UCLA under Wooden? I would love for the Blue Devils to win it all every year, but it is unrealistic!!!!!!!!!!!

"The sweet sixteen is not such a bad place to end a season".

Its mediocrity. No one is happy with mediocrity. At least I hope not.

MChambers
03-27-2011, 07:27 PM
"The sweet sixteen is not such a bad place to end a season".

Its mediocrity. No one is happy with mediocrity. At least I hope not.

It's not mediocrity. You may want to look up the definition of that word. And you might want to think about your sense of entitlement, too.

I don't think Duke and Coach K are satisfied with the sweet sixteen, but 90% or more of college programs are delighted to get that far. Only the best programs are not satisfied with that.

theAlaskanBear
03-27-2011, 07:32 PM
"The sweet sixteen is not such a bad place to end a season".

Its mediocrity. No one is happy with mediocrity. At least I hope not.

Except it's not mediocrity. It's a very successful season that all but a handful of players & programs would gladly trade places with. Yes, it was a disappointment, but it was NOT mediocrity.

Indoor66
03-27-2011, 07:34 PM
"The sweet sixteen is not such a bad place to end a season".

Its mediocrity. No one is happy with mediocrity. At least I hope not.

There are 346 division 1 basketball teams. That means we are in the top 4.623% of all team in division 1. THAT IS NOT MEDIOCRITY. Get your expectations in line with reality.

Jderf
03-27-2011, 08:00 PM
They also had Luol Deng who is a beast.

2009
2008
2006
2005

All sweet sixteen upsets. Duke suddenly breaks through in 2010 and wins a national championship playing extremely large, and with a slow pace. Everyone wants to rush back to 2006. Pardon me if I just don't get it.

Consider yourself pardoned.

Why are people feeding the troll?

DukeWarhead
03-27-2011, 08:34 PM
There are 346 division 1 basketball teams. That means we are in the top 4.623% of all team in division 1. THAT IS NOT MEDIOCRITY. Get your expectations in line with reality.

I do agree, however, that Duke's standards are/should be higher than 96% of the other DIV 1 teams. Why? Because it is the most winningest program in D-I over the past two decades, it has the best coach in college basektball and almost gets any player it wants. Sorry, I just don't buy the pollyanna outlook on the sweet sixteen either. Just ask JJ, or Nolan and Kyle. They will probably tell you that a sweet sixteen exit was mediocre by their standards, too. Sure, it doesn't mean that the entire season was mediocre, but as for the tourney itself - yes. This Duke team winning only two games falls well below expectations of excellence the program has established and the players hold themselves too. But I love the team, nonetheless. I'm proud of them.

NSDukeFan
03-27-2011, 08:38 PM
I do agree, however, that Duke's standards are/should be higher than 96% of the other DIV 1 teams. Why? Because it is the most winningest program in D-I over the past two decades, it has the best coach in college basektball and almost gets any player it wants. Sorry, I just don't buy the pollyanna outlook on the sweet sixteen either. Just ask JJ, or Nolan and Kyle. They will probably tell you that a sweet sixteen exit was mediocre by their standards, too. Sure, it doesn't mean that the entire season was mediocre, but as for the tourney itself - yes. This Duke team winning only two games falls well below expectations of excellence the program has established and the players hold themselves too. But I love the team, nonetheless. I'm proud of them.

Have you been paying attention to the tournament? It's a one and done format and no number 1 seeds advanced to the final four. Upsets happen. No, the team did not want their season to end when it did, but sometimes being in the top 4% after a monumental upset happens.

SoCalDukeFan
03-27-2011, 08:44 PM
Whenever unc-ch loses a game next year their fans will blame it on the refs.

SoCal

licc85
03-27-2011, 08:49 PM
Whether Irving stays or not, I feel that if we did add Daniels to our current recruiting class, we will be a top 5 team.

Do you even realize how loaded ohio state, kentucky, unc, uconn, etc are going to be next year? top 5 will be stretch without kyrie.

Vincetaylor
03-27-2011, 08:52 PM
Sorry. It's impossible to get excited about next year when a Sweet 16 team loses 2, and probably three, of its best players. Expectations should be low.

jipops
03-27-2011, 08:57 PM
Sorry. It's impossible to get excited about next year when a Sweet 16 team loses 2, and probably three, of its best players. Expectations should be low.

Well, in case you haven't been watching this year's tournament - there is logic and then there are the way things play out. Those are usually two completely different things in college basketball.

Kfanarmy
03-27-2011, 09:16 PM
"The sweet sixteen is not such a bad place to end a season".

Its mediocrity. No one is happy with mediocrity. At least I hope not. 300+ teams and number 9-16 is mediocrity. I disagree...though Duke expects more, there's nothing mediocre about it.

jipops
03-27-2011, 09:20 PM
"The sweet sixteen is not such a bad place to end a season".

Its mediocrity. No one is happy with mediocrity. At least I hope not.

Wow, way to not take things for granted.

tommy
03-27-2011, 09:51 PM
Do you even realize how loaded ohio state, kentucky, unc, uconn, etc are going to be next year? top 5 will be stretch without kyrie.

Ohio State loses Lighty and Diebler for sure. Those are very key players. Sullinger says he's staying, but lots of guys say that at this stage. Buford is a junior. Who knows about him?

It should go without saying that Kentucky's roster is a total unknown from year to year.

Carolina could lose Barnes, Henson, and maybe even Zeller.

What would UConn's roster look like without Kemba?

These teams are going to have a lot of question marks, just like everybody else. That's the nature of college basketball these days. Wait until the deadline to withdraw from the draft passes, then it's the intelligent time to assess next year's rosters. Right now, if Kyrie returns, I think we'll be top 5 pre-season given the full roster of talented (and mostly experienced) players we're going to have.

gofurman
03-27-2011, 10:24 PM
Ohio State loses Lighty and Diebler for sure. Those are very key players. Sullinger says he's staying, but lots of guys say that at this stage. Buford is a junior. Who knows about him?

It should go without saying that Kentucky's roster is a total unknown from year to year.

Carolina could lose Barnes, Henson, and maybe even Zeller.

What would UConn's roster look like without Kemba?

These teams are going to have a lot of question marks, just like everybody else. That's the nature of college basketball these days. Wait until the deadline to withdraw from the draft passes, then it's the intelligent time to assess next year's rosters. Right now, if Kyrie returns, I think we'll be top 5 pre-season given the full roster of talented (and mostly experienced) players we're going to have.

dumb question but help me - who do we have /or maybe have/ next year?

Guards
Kyrie Irving (super pg, prolly not but there is a lil' chance) so.
Quin Cook (pg) fr.
Tyler Thornton (pg) so.
Seth Curry (great 1/2 guard) jr.
Austin Rivers (great 2 guard) fr.
Andre Dawkins (2/3 guard) jr.
Michael Gbinje (3) fr.

Forwards
Kelly (4) jr.
Ma Plumlee (5) jr
Miles Plumlee (5) sr
Marsh Plumlee (5) fr

is this right? anyone I left off?

diveonthefloor
03-27-2011, 10:28 PM
dumb question but help me - who do we have /or maybe have/ next year?

Guards
Kyrie Irving (super pg, prolly not but there is a lil' chance) so.
Quin Cook (pg) fr.
Tyler Thornton (pg) so.
Seth Curry (great 1/2 guard) jr.
Austin Rivers (great 2 guard) fr.
Andre Dawkins (2/3 guard) jr.
Michael Gbinje (3) fr.

Forwards
Kelly (4) jr.
Ma Plumlee (5) jr
Miles Plumlee (5) sr
Marsh Plumlee (5) fr

is this right? anyone I left off?
Josh may be a little sad you left him off the party list. :cool:

El_Diablo
03-27-2011, 10:28 PM
dumb question but help me - who do we have /or maybe have/ next year?

Guards
Kyrie Irving (super pg, prolly not but there is a lil' chance) so.
Quin Cook (pg) fr.
Tyler Thornton (pg) so.
Seth Curry (great 1/2 guard) jr.
Austin Rivers (great 2 guard) fr.
Andre Dawkins (2/3 guard) jr.
Michael Gbinje (3) fr.

Forwards
Kelly (4) jr.
Ma Plumlee (5) jr
Miles Plumlee (5) sr
Marsh Plumlee (5) fr

is this right? anyone I left off?

Hairston

CarmenWallaceWade
03-27-2011, 10:29 PM
dumb question but help me - who do we have /or maybe have/ next year?

Guards
Kyrie Irving (super pg, prolly not but there is a lil' chance) so.
Quin Cook (pg) fr.
Tyler Thornton (pg) so.
Seth Curry (great 1/2 guard) jr.
Austin Rivers (great 2 guard) fr.
Andre Dawkins (2/3 guard) jr.
Michael Gbinje (3) fr.

Forwards
Kelly (4) jr.
Ma Plumlee (5) jr
Miles Plumlee (5) sr
Marsh Plumlee (5) fr

is this right? anyone I left off?



josh hairston

sporthenry
03-27-2011, 10:32 PM
Do you even realize how loaded ohio state, kentucky, unc, uconn, etc are going to be next year? top 5 will be stretch without kyrie.

Well I think this is just an exercise in futility until we know who is going and staying. But I believe this thread is just to help Duke fans cope. So lets just worry about Duke's future and let other teams worry about their teams.

gofurman
03-27-2011, 10:47 PM
josh hairston

right - my miss on hairston... any real chance teh 2012 recruit comes early or is that not happening now? how about this latest recruit I have seen mentioned or is that low ot no chance?

DukeWarhead
03-27-2011, 10:50 PM
Have you been paying attention to the tournament? It's a one and done format and no number 1 seeds advanced to the final four. Upsets happen. No, the team did not want their season to end when it did, but sometimes being in the top 4% after a monumental upset happens.

Um, yes, I have been watching the tournament. The issue is the use of the term "mediocre" or "mediocrity" when it used to refer to losing in the sweet sixteen. Not used to describe an entire season - but, rather, a tournament performance. Guess what, not a single No. 1 seed that gets booted in the sweet sixteen is happy about it. They aren't slapping themselves on the back for making it half-way to a championship. Yes, upsets happen, we all know that. But that does nothing to dispell the notion that a sweet sixteen could be considered "mediocre" by a number of teams. Right now, Ohio State, Kanas, Pitt, and yes Duke probably would consider their outcome in this years tournament as short of what they wanted - not an abject failure (OK, maybe PITT) but certainly not satifying- so it lies somewhere in between - dare I say it, gasp, an average or MEDIOCRE finish by their standards. That's just the thing - programs built to win championships don't go nuts when they reach the sweet sixteen - they just don't - because they want more, and they believe they can get more. The Final Four is where they want to end their season - and they should want that. Would hate it if they set their bar at the second or third round. So, the rationale that you can't consider a sweet sixteen exit as "mediocre" for a No. 1 seed is silly. Is it "really good?" Is it "pretty good?" yes, yes, upsets happen. We all know this. But that doesn't mean these top 5% teams don't consider going home 1/2 into the tournament as a "so-so" outcome. (i.e. mediocre.)
Semantics.
But don't kid yourself that Duke and the other top tier programs have the same definition of success for a basketball season as the rest of the D-1 schools. That's not reality. Just making the NCAA tournament is enough to make most D-1 schools jump for joy. What was the last time you jumped for joy when Duke qualified for the NCAA tournament? (Well, the 2007 team had me nervous, I'll admit.) But let's be honest, shall we? Duke basketball sets out each year hoping to win the ACC and to compete for a national championship. Same with UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, and a handful of others. If they have great seasons and earn No. 1 seeds, they are going to believe that they have a shot and are capable of making the final four. And they should believe that. Don't say "well, most schools would love to make the sweet sixteen." Fine, but those schools that make it to the sweet sixteen with regularity have a different perspective - they want more.

-jk
03-27-2011, 11:08 PM
Um, yes, I have been watching the tournament. The issue is the use of the term "mediocre" or "mediocrity" when it used to refer to losing in the sweet sixteen. Not used to describe an entire season - but, rather, a tournament performance. Guess what, not a single No. 1 seed that gets booted in the sweet sixteen is happy about it. They aren't slapping themselves on the back for making it half-way to a championship. Yes, upsets happen, we all know that. But that does nothing to dispell the notion that a sweet sixteen could be considered "mediocre" by a number of teams. Right now, Ohio State, Kanas, Pitt, and yes Duke probably would consider their outcome in this years tournament as short of what they wanted - not an abject failure (OK, maybe PITT) but certainly not satifying- so it lies somewhere in between - dare I say it, gasp, an average or MEDIOCRE finish by their standards. That's just the thing - programs built to win championships don't go nuts when they reach the sweet sixteen - they just don't - because they want more, and they believe they can get more. The Final Four is where they want to end their season - and they should want that. Would hate it if they set their bar at the second or third round. So, the rationale that you can't consider a sweet sixteen exit as "mediocre" for a No. 1 seed is silly. Is it "really good?" Is it "pretty good?" yes, yes, upsets happen. We all know this. But that doesn't mean these top 5% teams don't consider going home 1/2 into the tournament as a "so-so" outcome. (i.e. mediocre.)
Semantics.
But don't kid yourself that Duke and the other top tier programs have the same definition of success for a basketball season than the rest of the D-1 schools. That's not reality.

Well, from where I sit the season ended in "disappointment" rather than "mediocrity".

I hope to never get so used to winning that I can't enjoy a very good season by any historic measure. (If I do, I'll turn in my seats.)

And, yes, I'm disappointed with its ending. I'd loved to have gone deeper. Who wouldn't?

But college ball is about more than wins and losses. It's also about the journey - watching the kids grow. If all that matters are Ws, perhaps there's a pro franchise in need of some more fans...

-jk

Kedsy
03-28-2011, 01:03 AM
Sorry. It's impossible to get excited about next year when a Sweet 16 team loses 2, and probably three, of its best players. Expectations should be low.

The thing is, after watching this year's tournament so far, how can anybody judge any team's season by their NCAAT performance? Sure, everyone wants to be in the Final Four and everyone wants to win the national championship, but this year the Final Four consists of the 4th place team in the Colonial League, the #2 seed in the Horizon League, the 9th place team in the Big East, and the 3rd best record in the SEC. Clearly success in the tournament has little to do with who is the best team or anything other than who got lucky and/or who got hot for a couple of weeks in March.

I'm also at a loss to understand why anyone would say things like we have no chance to win a championship or make the Final Four next year. No matter who stays or goes, do you really think our 2011-12 Blue Devils wouldn't be able to finish 4th in the Colonial League or 9th in the Big East?

So many people around here seem to define how good a Duke team is by what happened in its last game. But if that's all that matters to you I don't see why you even bother.

sporthenry
03-28-2011, 01:17 AM
I'm also at a loss to understand why anyone would say things like we have no chance to win a championship or make the Final Four next year. No matter who stays or goes, do you really think our 2011-12 Blue Devils wouldn't be able to finish 4th in the Colonial League or 9th in the Big East?


Well by all accounts, this was a pretty terrible year in college basketball. Next year you might see some of the great or complete teams return which is why you have some guys around here who are worried. Not that Duke wouldn't have an outside shot to make a FF with their talent but Duke without KI and especially Mason could conceivably be behind many other teams with more talent and/or experience.

Kedsy
03-28-2011, 01:24 AM
Well by all accounts, this was a pretty terrible year in college basketball. Next year you might see some of the great or complete teams return which is why you have some guys around here who are worried. Not that Duke wouldn't have an outside shot to make a FF with their talent but Duke without KI and especially Mason could conceivably be behind many other teams with more talent and/or experience.

Well, this is exactly my point. This year there were a handful of teams who were head and shoulders above everybody else, virtual locks for the Final Four, with loads more talent and/or experience than the other 330+ "terrible" teams. And exactly zero (0) of them made it. Why do people persist in the idea that the best teams -- the "teams with more talent and/or experience" -- are the teams that will make the Final Four? History says it isn't so.

sporthenry
03-28-2011, 01:39 AM
Well, this is exactly my point. This year there were a handful of teams who were head and shoulders above everybody else, virtual locks for the Final Four, with loads more talent and/or experience than the other 330+ "terrible" teams. And exactly zero (0) of them made it. Why do people persist in the idea that the best teams -- the "teams with more talent and/or experience" -- are the teams that will make the Final Four? History says it isn't so.

Well considering this is only the 3rd time that no #1 seeds have ever made the FF or the first time no #1/#2 made the FF and again, you had no dominant teams this year, I would say that history might say it is so. Of course it is impossible to tell, but how do we know that we don't just make up the 'best' teams b/c we need to have a favorite each year.

It is obviously very early and I will reserve judgment b/c it is way too soon to know who is leaving early but I do think the NBA will take its fair share of the top teams that you won't see another complete team but take for example that UNC loses nobody and they are a complete team.

And I also think it is a testament to K but when was the last time Duke had a team that played better in the tournament than the regular season. If anything, he gets the most out of them in the regular season only to be exploited in the tournament. So I don't necessarily think that if Duke has the talent to make a run to the FF that you will see them underperform so much as to go .500 in conference.

ncexnyc
03-28-2011, 02:05 AM
300+ teams and number 9-16 is mediocrity. I disagree...though Duke expects more, there's nothing mediocre about it.
I get your point, but 300+ teams didn't have Nolan, Kyle, and Kyrie on their roster. Let's be perfectly honest, at the start of the season most people felt we had a very good chance of going back to back. When Kyrie went down we still were a threat to make the Final Four. Once Kyrie was back a number of so called experts said we were once again serious contenders.

Mediocrity could be considered a poor choice of words and I can buy into disappointing, but we really did have high hopes for this season. And no it's not being spoiled or exhibiting a sense of entitlement. Duke has a HOF coach and gets elite talent every year, they should be highly competitive every season.

Jackson
03-28-2011, 09:20 AM
I get your point, but 300+ teams didn't have Nolan, Kyle, and Kyrie on their roster. Let's be perfectly honest, at the start of the season most people felt we had a very good chance of going back to back. When Kyrie went down we still were a threat to make the Final Four. Once Kyrie was back a number of so called experts said we were once again serious contenders.

Mediocrity could be considered a poor choice of words and I can buy into disappointing, but we really did have high hopes for this season. And no it's not being spoiled or exhibiting a sense of entitlement. Duke has a HOF coach and gets elite talent every year, they should be highly competitive every season.

Even without Kyrie, Duke should be highly competitive next year. Kelly was the #20 overall recruit his senior year in high school. He will have the opportunity to showcase his ability more and not defer to others. Mason should be the most athletic big in college basketball. Miles has gotten better every year. He doesn't need to set the world on fire, but with continued improvement, I don't see why a double double isn't doable for him. As for Seth, while not as talented as his brother, has shown some flashes like him. Watch the McDonald's AA game on Wednesday. Although it's just a glorified pick-up game, Austin will stand out above everyone there. Add in Dawkins, Cook, Gbinije, Hairston and Thornton, and we have a lot to be excited about. Everything's just speculation, but I also think that either Cook or Gbinije will turn into an impact freshman right away.

Wander
03-28-2011, 09:28 AM
Clearly success in the tournament has little to do with who is the best team or anything other than who got lucky and/or who got hot for a couple of weeks in March.


Not to single you out, because a lot of people believe some form of this, but this is complete nonsense. It's demonstrably untrue, insulting to successful teams (including ours last year), and quite frankly sounds like petty excuse making from fans of teams that got upset early. This line of thought needs to end as soon as possible.

I don't think we'll be very good next season, by our high standards (minus a surprising Kyrie return). I'm okay with that. Yes, of course, VCU shows that it's possible we make the Final Four anyway. But that doesn't mean it's anywhere near likely, or that we shouldn't keep our expectations relatively low.

COYS
03-28-2011, 09:39 AM
I'm also at a loss to understand why anyone would say things like we have no chance to win a championship or make the Final Four next year. No matter who stays or goes, do you really think our 2011-12 Blue Devils wouldn't be able to finish 4th in the Colonial League or 9th in the Big East?


Another thing to remember about everyone griping about perceived personnel weaknesses is that I really don't think any of us would trade the Duke roster for any of the rosters of the teams that made the Final Four. UCONN is highly dependent on Kemba Walker. They are lucky that they played Arizona on a night where every three the Wildcats took didn't go in. Kentucky is slightly less talented than their team last year and lacks the leadership of a player of Pattrick Patterson's talent and experience and yet they actually have gone deeper into the tournament. In fact, I would argue that Kentucky's performance against Princeton was far worse than Duke's performance against Arizona . . . the difference is that Kentucky was lucky enough to escape with a win because Princeton couldn't get the extra bounce of the ball it needed to pull off the upset while Duke played a mediocre game against a team capable of an explosive offensive performance and paid the price. Butler lost their best and most explosive offensive player from their runner up team the year before and somehow made the Final Four as an 8 seed. VCU . . . nobody but VCU fans saw this coming.

All of these teams have serious weaknesses that are at least as severe as any weakness on this year's Duke team and possibly even next year's Duke team. UCONN lacks depth, Kentucky lacks experience and depth, Butler is "alarmingly unathletic" and lacking explosive players, VCU's pedigree just isn't there (and they lack high-caliber talent when compared to the other FF teams).

The worst case scenario for Duke next year is that Mason and Kyrie leave, Daniels does not commit, and Murphy sticks with the class of 2012, leaving Duke with "just" Seth, Andre, Ryan, and Miles as upperclassmen to team up with arguably the top recruit in the nation in Austin Rivers. This group will be supported improving sophomores Tyler and Josh plus freshmen Quinn, Gbinije, and MP3 who, at worst, provide depth at every position and at best push the more experienced players for playing time/starting spots and give us a solid 8-man rotation, or so.

This lineup doesn't strike me as being obviously better or worse than the lineups of the teams in the FF right now . . . especially when considered at the beginning of the season. Even a team with as much talent as UK STARTS Josh Harrellson, who averaged all of 4 mpg last season (and was pretty poor during those 4 minutes). That's far worse than any returning Duke player for next year who will likely be asked to start.

Duke's 2009-2010 roster is another example of a team that, at the beginning of the season, was considered to be worse than the previous year after losing the explosive Gerald Henderson to the draft and the youngest player with the most upside (Williams) to transfer.

I guess my main point is that we really need to let next year's team write its own story. We have a lot of returning talent, no matter who stays of goes. We have a lot of players that have the potential to improve. We have the entire offseason and non-conference schedule to see what types of strategies K employs to maximize the talent on the team. We have the whole ACC slate to see how team develops in high-stakes games. We have the ACC tournament for the team to earn a championship. And we have the NCAA tournament to see how the team stacks up against the best of the best in a single elimination format where anything can happen. Next year at this time, we could be talking about how Miles' game has really blossomed and how he is the perfect complement to Kelly. Austin Rivers could be the second player in a row projected to be drafted 1st overall out of Duke as he approaches the end of a brilliant freshman campaign. Curry and Dawkins could both be all-ACC players (and we may even secretly worry that either or both of them may test the draft waters after having breakout years). And the team, as a whole, could come together to win the big one and hang banner number 5 in Cameron. Is this the most likely scenario? No. Is it very possible? Absolutely! If we are staying up nights worry about this potential roster, then we are simply the most spoiled fan-base in the nation and we are selling our players and coaching staff short to assume that such a team has zero chance to become great.

Jackson
03-28-2011, 10:09 AM
Another thing to remember about everyone griping about perceived personnel weaknesses is that I really don't think any of us would trade the Duke roster for any of the rosters of the teams that made the Final Four. UCONN is highly dependent on Kemba Walker. They are lucky that they played Arizona on a night where every three the Wildcats took didn't go in. Kentucky is slightly less talented than their team last year and lacks the leadership of a player of Pattrick Patterson's talent and experience and yet they actually have gone deeper into the tournament. In fact, I would argue that Kentucky's performance against Princeton was far worse than Duke's performance against Arizona . . . the difference is that Kentucky was lucky enough to escape with a win because Princeton couldn't get the extra bounce of the ball it needed to pull off the upset while Duke played a mediocre game against a team capable of an explosive offensive performance and paid the price. Butler lost their best and most explosive offensive player from their runner up team the year before and somehow made the Final Four as an 8 seed. VCU . . . nobody but VCU fans saw this coming.

All of these teams have serious weaknesses that are at least as severe as any weakness on this year's Duke team and possibly even next year's Duke team. UCONN lacks depth, Kentucky lacks experience and depth, Butler is "alarmingly unathletic" and lacking explosive players, VCU's pedigree just isn't there (and they lack high-caliber talent when compared to the other FF teams).

The worst case scenario for Duke next year is that Mason and Kyrie leave, Daniels does not commit, and Murphy sticks with the class of 2012, leaving Duke with "just" Seth, Andre, Ryan, and Miles as upperclassmen to team up with arguably the top recruit in the nation in Austin Rivers. This group will be supported improving sophomores Tyler and Josh plus freshmen Quinn, Gbinije, and MP3 who, at worst, provide depth at every position and at best push the more experienced players for playing time/starting spots and give us a solid 8-man rotation, or so.

This lineup doesn't strike me as being obviously better or worse than the lineups of the teams in the FF right now . . . especially when considered at the beginning of the season. Even a team with as much talent as UK STARTS Josh Harrellson, who averaged all of 4 mpg last season (and was pretty poor during those 4 minutes). That's far worse than any returning Duke player for next year who will likely be asked to start.

Duke's 2009-2010 roster is another example of a team that, at the beginning of the season, was considered to be worse than the previous year after losing the explosive Gerald Henderson to the draft and the youngest player with the most upside (Williams) to transfer.

I guess my main point is that we really need to let next year's team write its own story. We have a lot of returning talent, no matter who stays of goes. We have a lot of players that have the potential to improve. We have the entire offseason and non-conference schedule to see what types of strategies K employs to maximize the talent on the team. We have the whole ACC slate to see how team develops in high-stakes games. We have the ACC tournament for the team to earn a championship. And we have the NCAA tournament to see how the team stacks up against the best of the best in a single elimination format where anything can happen. Next year at this time, we could be talking about how Miles' game has really blossomed and how he is the perfect complement to Kelly. Austin Rivers could be the second player in a row projected to be drafted 1st overall out of Duke as he approaches the end of a brilliant freshman campaign. Curry and Dawkins could both be all-ACC players (and we may even secretly worry that either or both of them may test the draft waters after having breakout years). And the team, as a whole, could come together to win the big one and hang banner number 5 in Cameron. Is this the most likely scenario? No. Is it very possible? Absolutely! If we are staying up nights worry about this potential roster, then we are simply the most spoiled fan-base in the nation and we are selling our players and coaching staff short to assume that such a team has zero chance to become great.

Great post! In my haste to post I neglected to mention MPIII, TT and possibly the addition of Daniels and/or the early addition of Alex Murphy. I have become a huge Robo Cop fan just from watching him on video. If he comes in 2011 or 2012, Murphy will be an immediate impact player.

davekay1971
03-28-2011, 10:12 AM
And I also think it is a testament to K but when was the last time Duke had a team that played better in the tournament than the regular season.

2010

Kfanarmy
03-28-2011, 10:26 AM
I get your point, but 300+ teams didn't have Nolan, Kyle, and Kyrie on their roster. Let's be perfectly honest, at the start of the season most people felt we had a very good chance of going back to back. When Kyrie went down we still were a threat to make the Final Four. Once Kyrie was back a number of so called experts said we were once again serious contenders.

Mediocrity could be considered a poor choice of words and I can buy into disappointing, but we really did have high hopes for this season. And no it's not being spoiled or exhibiting a sense of entitlement. Duke has a HOF coach and gets elite talent every year, they should be highly competitive every season. Agree with everything you've said especially that Mediocrity was a poor choice of words. Disappointing is much more appropos.

gumbomoop
03-28-2011, 10:48 AM
The worst case scenario for Duke next year is that Mason and Kyrie leave, Daniels does not commit, and Murphy sticks with the class of 2012, leaving Duke with "just" Seth, Andre, Ryan, and Miles as upperclassmen to team up with arguably the top recruit in the nation in Austin Rivers. This group will be supported improving sophomores Tyler and Josh plus freshmen Quinn, Gbinije, and MP3 who, at worst, provide depth at every position and at best push the more experienced players for playing time/starting spots and give us a solid 8-man rotation, or so.

We have a lot of returning talent, no matter who stays of goes. We have a lot of players that have the potential to improve.... If we are staying up nights worry about this potential roster, then we are simply the most spoiled fan-base in the nation and we are selling our players and coaching staff short to assume that such a team has zero chance to become great.

Ditto.

I assume, but obviously am not 100% certain, that Kyrie will depart. I assume, but obviously am not 100% certain, that Mason stays. But, as an idiotic optimistic re Duke bball, I'm more than willing - prefer, even - to assume a worst case scenario. For, like COYS here [and some other posters], I'd be happy to watch this worst-case team play.

Bigs - Ryan, who played up and down, and looked slow once or twice v. Arizona, is likely to be very good next season, with more minutes and touches. He's smart, sneaky defender and shot blocker. Miles, a disappointment to me, must develop better footwork and softer hands. So, is he still a ?-mark? Yep. I'll still look forward to his reaching his considerable potential. Josh will presumably be first big off the bench. IMO, he can play and contribute, given lots more mpg. Marshall? Well, I believe most here will be unimpressed with him in Wed eve's McD game, because he's clearly not a top-top talent. I'm skeptical he'll play much once the ACC season starts, but I'll still be happy to see whatever potential he offers. [Fwiw, I've seem Marshall play and think, not so much next season but in '12-'13, he'll help.]

Wings - As good a shooting group as any team in the country. [Is there any dissent on this particular point? Tell me.] Austin - I trust most posters are aware - is both a 3-bomber and a driver extraordinaire, with great handle. I wouldn't quite expect K to be so public with his Austin-gushes as he was with his Kyrie-gushes, but K won't say, "We'll have to see whether Austin develops." Seth has a good, not great, handle, sneaky hands on D, and a real nice shot. Andre? We all agree, I think, that his handle must improve, that we'd like to see him attack the rim a bit more, just to keep the defense honest. And we think and hope we saw signs of his getting it on D late this season. Michael Gbinije is multi-talented, might by default have to be a wing-defender-specialist. I'd expect his minutes, like those of Marshall, to dwindle as season goes on, but maybe he'll make an impact much more quickly, as a few posters are predicting.

PG - I've posted elsewhere on this thread that we have 4 of them. Quin and Tyler will presumably share these duties. Although Quin did not have an auspicious game in Cameron, he seems to have been a leader on his under-? US National Team. K has described Tyler as "unusually mature." These 2 are neither Kyrie nor Nolan, but they can play. I could easily see - as a fair number of posters predict - Seth as the early season starting PG, but he'll be a combo guard, for both Tyler and Quin are very likely to get meaningful minutes all season long. And Austin could, in a pinch, play PG. He will certainly control the ball a whole lot from the wing.

In this worst-case scenario, we have many ?-marks, but real talent, in the bigs, a very strong set of wings, and young but likely leaders at PG. What's not to like?

This: as spoiled fanatics, We the Entitled [including me, for sure] worry that 4 or 5 teams will return more, and yes, very talented, players. We fear that UNC will somehow lose no one early, that Sullinger will in fact return, and that, this time, maybe Cal will retain both Knight and Jones. Kemba? Who knows?

So, it appears right this minute that Duke will be preseason 10-20, a fate [you gotta see the humor in this] made all the more unsettling by the prospect that the Horrible 3 ABCs [UNC, Cal Cats, UConn] may be The Teams preseason. Cal Cats or UConn might well be chasing Repeat. Godawful, true.

If all the godawful things come true.

p.s. - I will post elsewhere, or later on this thread, what I think is to be our ACC unbalanced schedule next season.

davekay1971
03-28-2011, 10:49 AM
I get your point, but 300+ teams didn't have Nolan, Kyle, and Kyrie on their roster. Let's be perfectly honest, at the start of the season most people felt we had a very good chance of going back to back. When Kyrie went down we still were a threat to make the Final Four. Once Kyrie was back a number of so called experts said we were once again serious contenders.

Mediocrity could be considered a poor choice of words and I can buy into disappointing, but we really did have high hopes for this season. And no it's not being spoiled or exhibiting a sense of entitlement. Duke has a HOF coach and gets elite talent every year, they should be highly competitive every season.

I know this may be semantics and I can't tell you how to feel, but there's a lack of realism and still a sense of entitlement to your post.

I agree that before the season most of us believed there was a good chance at back to back and, yes, without, and then with, Kyrie, we were considered contenders. We were contenders, just like Pitt, Kansas, and Ohio State.

Sure, the Arizona game was disappointing. But was the season? 30+ wins, an ACC championship, a Sweet 16 appearance? If that's a disappointing season, I could get used to disappointment.

As for the last sentence of your post, were we not highly competitive this year? Does a team have to have 30+ wins, an ACC championship, AND make the final four to be "highly competitive"? And just because we have a HOF coach and can get elite talent, how does that translate to us performing at or above the level of this year (since clearly you're dissatisfied with the results of this year) "every year"? UNC has both of those things and last year graced the NIT with their presence. Same for UConn. How about the season Michigan State just endured? UCLA? Which program has been as consistently good as Duke, year in and year out, for the last decade? The last 2 decades? The last 3? We've had exactly 2 very brief down periods in the last 27 years (1995 and 1996, then 2006 and 2007). Every other year we've been "highly competitive" by almost any rational definition. UNC is about the only other program in the nation I can think of that has had anything like that kind of consistent success.

So what's special about Duke that we should be "highly competitive every season" when UNC, Syracuse, Michigan State, UCLA, Arizona, UConn, Kentucky, Kansas, etc can't manage to do it?

Duvall
03-28-2011, 10:53 AM
Not to single you out, because a lot of people believe some form of this, but this is complete nonsense. It's demonstrably untrue, insulting to successful teams (including ours last year), and quite frankly sounds like petty excuse making from fans of teams that got upset early. This line of thought needs to end as soon as possible.

Except that it happens to be true. There's no way to look at the 76 games that Kansas and VCU played this season and reasonably conclude that VCU was the better team this year. And yet Kansas goes home and VCU moves on because two hours on a Sunday afternoon. I'm not saying that's unfair, but it pretty clearly has little to do with who had the better team for the entire season.

Wander
03-28-2011, 11:03 AM
Except that it happens to be true. There's no way to look at the 76 games that Kansas and VCU played this season and reasonably conclude that VCU was the better team this year. And yet Kansas goes home and VCU moves on because two hours on a Sunday afternoon. I'm not saying that's unfair, but it pretty clearly has little to do with who had the better team for the entire season.

VCU reaching the Final Four is the exception, not the rule.

Saying that the actual quality of a team has "little to do" with that team's success in March is very easily proven false.

Kedsy
03-28-2011, 11:22 AM
Well considering this is only the 3rd time that no #1 seeds have ever made the FF or the first time no #1/#2 made the FF and again, you had no dominant teams this year, I would say that history might say it is so.

No dominant teams? Are you kidding? All we heard all year was how Ohio State, Kansas, and Duke (with Kyrie) were dominant in what was overall a "down year" for NCAA basketball. For a short period, Texas was considered dominant, although obviously that didn't last long. The Big East was called dominant approximately 648,527 times on ESPN (remember this is just an approximation). I get your point that maybe the public has a need to see favorites, but Kansas, Ohio State, and Duke (with Kyrie) were in fact pretty dominant.

As far as history, all four #1s have made the Final Four (the same year) only once ever in the NCAAT. We have had champions like 1983 NC State, 1985 Villanova, 1988 Kansas, 1997 Arizona, 2003 Syracuse, etc., etc. win the championship. The NCAA tournament is simply not designed to choose the best team. And I'm fine with that, by the way. I just can't stand the way Duke fans whine after the team loses in the NCAAT about the team not being any good.


And I also think it is a testament to K but when was the last time Duke had a team that played better in the tournament than the regular season.

Someone else mentioned 2010, which was a little less than a year ago. You could easily add 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1994 to that list, which admittedly are a few years ago, but with the randomness of the tournament I'm not sure why recency matters so much.


Not to single you out, because a lot of people believe some form of this, but this is complete nonsense. It's demonstrably untrue, insulting to successful teams (including ours last year), and quite frankly sounds like petty excuse making from fans of teams that got upset early. This line of thought needs to end as soon as possible.

Demonstrably untrue? Then demonstrate it. Why can't you distinguish between "best team" and "national champion"?

In my opinion, the line of thought that needs to end is that which suggests that if a Duke team loses before the Final Four then that team was somehow flawed and unworthy.

And by the way, according to Pomeroy (pre-tournament) the Final Four is populated by the #7 team, #17, #54, and #84. Which is the best team in the country? And don't tell me "whoever wins," because what is "demonstrably untrue" is that the best team wins every college basketball game.


I don't think we'll be very good next season, by our high standards (minus a surprising Kyrie return). I'm okay with that. Yes, of course, VCU shows that it's possible we make the Final Four anyway. But that doesn't mean it's anywhere near likely, or that we shouldn't keep our expectations relatively low.

I'm willing to put aside that our team next year will be better than any of this year's Final Four teams. How about our team next year should be more talented than many past Duke Final Four teams?

I don't have a problem with keeping expectations low, and I'm not saying we'll definitely make the Final Four next year, or even have a high percentage chance to do so (nobody does). What I am saying is I don't get the negativism, basically for little reason other than Arizona played better than we did in the second half of last Thursday's game.


If we are staying up nights worry about this potential roster, then we are simply the most spoiled fan-base in the nation and we are selling our players and coaching staff short to assume that such a team has zero chance to become great.

Amen, brother.

Saratoga2
03-28-2011, 11:25 AM
Except that it happens to be true. There's no way to look at the 76 games that Kansas and VCU played this season and reasonably conclude that VCU was the better team this year. And yet Kansas goes home and VCU moves on because two hours on a Sunday afternoon. I'm not saying that's unfair, but it pretty clearly has little to do with who had the better team for the entire season.

VCU is a darn good team and has proved it by beating 5 more highly rated teams. If you look at their roster, they are athletic, aggressive players and have an excellent coach who gets the most from them.

They have a very good (not Kyrie good) and a backup PG; they have enough size inside to compete and have shooters and scorers. They also have enough depth to wear on other teams. While Kansas has two very good inside players, VCU matched up well with them and the win was no fluke.

I have seen others on this string saying the best team didn't win based on the season's record. I don't buy that. Kentucky, UCONN, Butler and VCU are the best teams at this point in the season. With 3 of the top 5 recruits coming, does anyone doubt Kentucky will have a formidable team next year?

Wander
03-28-2011, 11:39 AM
Demonstrably untrue? Then demonstrate it. Why can't you distinguish between "best team" and "national champion"?


One of the few best regular season teams in the country won the national championship in 2010. And 2009. And 2008. And 2007. And 2005. And 2004. And 2002. And 2001. And 2000. I'd argue 2006 as well. Were these teams THE best during the regular season? Hard to tell in most cases, but it's abundantly clear that having success in the tournament has more than just "a little to do" with how good you are during the regular season. Again, this year is the exception, not the rule.




I don't have a problem with keeping expectations low, and I'm not saying we'll definitely make the Final Four next year, or even have a high percentage chance to do so (nobody does). What I am saying is I don't get the negativism, basically for little reason other than Arizona played better than we did in the second half of last Thursday's game.


Maybe you shouldn't interpret every basketball-related criticism as "negativism." Saying that a team that loses Kyrie Irving, Nolan Smith, and Kyle Singler isn't going to be a Final Four team sounds a lot more like objective analysis than excessive negativity.

Kedsy
03-28-2011, 11:41 AM
With 3 of the top 5 recruits coming, does anyone doubt Kentucky will have a formidable team next year?

Probably almost as formidable as their 2010 team.

And VCU may be a really good team and they're certainly playing well, but this season they also lost to South Florida, Georgia State, Drexel, and James Madison, and were something like 8-8 against the RPI top 100 this year. They are not one of the best four teams in the country by any objective measure, other than the fact that they went on a five game winning streak at exactly the right time.

Kedsy
03-28-2011, 11:58 AM
Maybe you shouldn't interpret every basketball-related criticism as "negativism." Saying that a team that loses Kyrie Irving, Nolan Smith, and Kyle Singler isn't going to be a Final Four team sounds a lot more like objective analysis than excessive negativity.

What you actually said was, "I don't think we'll be very good next season," and I do think that sounds like negativism. Personally, I think it's wrong-headed thinking to judge a college team on what it "loses" from the previous year. Instead I prefer to look at what players will be playing.

In each of the past three seasons, a team outside the Sagarin top 20 has made the Final Four. You don't think next year's Duke team will be a top 20 team?

To say Duke probably won't make the Final Four may sound like "objective analysis," but it is also pointless, because before the season starts almost every team in the country (frankly, from a statistical standpoint, probably every team) will probably not make the Final Four. But you (and others) didn't say "probably." In my mind, to say categorically that Duke "isn't going to be a Final Four team" goes well beyond objectivity.

ncexnyc
03-28-2011, 11:58 AM
I know this may be semantics and I can't tell you how to feel, but there's a lack of realism and still a sense of entitlement to your post.

I agree that before the season most of us believed there was a good chance at back to back and, yes, without, and then with, Kyrie, we were considered contenders. We were contenders, just like Pitt, Kansas, and Ohio State.

Sure, the Arizona game was disappointing. But was the season? 30+ wins, an ACC championship, a Sweet 16 appearance? If that's a disappointing season, I could get used to disappointment.

As for the last sentence of your post, were we not highly competitive this year? Does a team have to have 30+ wins, an ACC championship, AND make the final four to be "highly competitive"? And just because we have a HOF coach and can get elite talent, how does that translate to us performing at or above the level of this year (since clearly you're dissatisfied with the results of this year) "every year"? UNC has both of those things and last year graced the NIT with their presence. Same for UConn. How about the season Michigan State just endured? UCLA? Which program has been as consistently good as Duke, year in and year out, for the last decade? The last 2 decades? The last 3? We've had exactly 2 very brief down periods in the last 27 years (1995 and 1996, then 2006 and 2007). Every other year we've been "highly competitive" by almost any rational definition. UNC is about the only other program in the nation I can think of that has had anything like that kind of consistent success.

So what's special about Duke that we should be "highly competitive every season" when UNC, Syracuse, Michigan State, UCLA, Arizona, UConn, Kentucky, Kansas, etc can't manage to do it?

My comments were based on the expectations at the start of the season and how the season ended. This team had two outstanding players returning and two extremely talented newcomers, one who is being touted as the potential #1 NBA draft choice. So yes, anything short of a Final Four I consider a disappointment.

As for next year, we will be highly competitive and by that I mean Top Ten.

gumbomoop
03-28-2011, 12:00 PM
As I promised, or threatened, above, herewith the ACC unbalanced schedule for next year. Two caveats, which, depending on what any poster thinks [or knows, inside-info-style], may render this post either dead-certain-right-on or mere, if interesting, speculation: (1) I assume, but am not certain, that the ACC will continue its unbalanced schedule of a 16-game ACC season. (2) I assume that if (1) is true, then the ACC will not re-invent the wheel, i.e., the actual 3-year rotating pattern that was established beginning with the '05-'06 season, was repeated beginning with the '08-'09 season, and would therefore be repeated again beginning with the '11-'12 season.

Over the past 6 seasons, each team's unbalanced schedule follows this pattern:
'05-'06 = '08-'09
'06-'07 = '09-'10
'07-'08 = '10-'11

So, assuming (1) and (2) in the first paragraph above:
'11-'12 = '08-'09

Link is below, but here's a quick summary of the Duke and UNC schedules:

Duke -
primary partners (H & A) - UNC, Md
rotating H & A partners - Wake, FSU, VT
rotating H only partners - NCS, UVa, Miami
rotating A only partners - GaT, BC, Clemson

UNC -
primary partners (H & A) - Duke, NCS
rotating H & A partners - Md, UVa, Miami
rotating H only partners - GaT, BC, Clemson
rotating A only partners - Wake, FSU, VT

Link here: http://www.theacc.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/acc/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/model-three-years

A key statement from the 3-year schedule page is that over the 3 years, each team will have played its 2 "primary partners" 6 times [for Duke: UNC and Md; for UNC: Duke and NCS], and its "rotating partners" 4 times.

Finally, back to caveats: I suppose one might speculate that if the ACC is considering a longer ACC schedule, or some divisional structure which would necessitate new scheduling, then it makes some sense to make such a change at the end of a 3-year cycle. The '10-'11 season does in fact complete a 3-year cycle.

tommy
03-28-2011, 12:08 PM
Kentucky, UCONN, Butler and VCU are the best teams at this point in the season.

No, they're just the four teams that played the best in their respective brackets and therefore happen to still be alive. Would you still be saying they're the four best teams if they had happened to be placed in the same bracket such that only one of them reached the Final Four?

kong123
03-28-2011, 12:12 PM
Clearly success in the tournament has little to do with who is the best team or anything other than who got lucky and/or who got hot for a couple of weeks in March.


Excellent point. Its all about how you are playing and who you are playing. You cannot control if a VCU comes out of no where to beat a Kansas. If your team benefits from such an outcome, you shouldn't apologize for it. But, do you think that VCU is better than Kansas? Do you think Arizona can beat Duke 4 out of 7 games?

However, this truth does not diminish Duke's championship last year. That's why they play the game. Almost anyone can win on almost any night. The best teams usually end up winning it all, but sometimes its just the best of who's left. Duke was the best of who was left last year, but because they didn't play one of the other #1 seeds, the argument could be made that the best team didn't win the championship last year.

Duvall
03-28-2011, 12:23 PM
VCU is a darn good team and has proved it by beating 5 more highly rated teams. If you look at their roster, they are athletic, aggressive players and have an excellent coach who gets the most from them.

They have a very good (not Kyrie good) and a backup PG; they have enough size inside to compete and have shooters and scorers. They also have enough depth to wear on other teams. While Kansas has two very good inside players, VCU matched up well with them and the win was no fluke.


If all that's true, then why did VCU turn in four months of mediocre play? November, December, January and February happened - they didn't disappear after two weeks of hot shooting.

tommy
03-28-2011, 12:55 PM
Excellent point. Its all about how you are playing and who you are playing. You cannot control if a VCU comes out of no where to beat a Kansas. If your team benefits from such an outcome, you shouldn't apologize for it. But, do you think that VCU is better than Kansas? Do you think Arizona can beat Duke 4 out of 7 games?

However, this truth does not diminish Duke's championship last year. That's why they play the game. Almost anyone can win on almost any night. The best teams usually end up winning it all, but sometimes its just the best of who's left. Duke was the best of who was left last year, but because they didn't play one of the other #1 seeds, the argument could be made that the best team didn't win the championship last year.

I guess it depends on how you define who the "best team" is. Is the best team automatically one of the four #1 seeds no matter their tournament peformance? Is it the team that plays the best in the tournament, no matter how pedestrian their regular season was?

I think it's the team that combines an outstanding regular season with playing the best in the tournament. Duke did that last year. They had an excellent regular season, which is why they got a #1 seed, and then coupled that with a tournament run in which they clearly were the best team in the tournament. Handling Cal and Purdue, albeit without Hummel, and then besting a very tough Baylor squad in Houston, demolishing the best the Big East had to offer in West Virginia, and then the win over Butler, again in hostile territory in Indianapolis -- well, nobody played better than Duke did, and it wasn't close.

kong123
03-28-2011, 01:08 PM
I guess it depends on how you define who the "best team" is. Is the best team automatically one of the four #1 seeds no matter their tournament peformance? Is it the team that plays the best in the tournament, no matter how pedestrian their regular season was?

I think it's the team that combines an outstanding regular season with playing the best in the tournament. Duke did that last year. They had an excellent regular season, which is why they got a #1 seed, and then coupled that with a tournament run in which they clearly were the best team in the tournament. Handling Cal and Purdue, albeit without Hummel, and then besting a very tough Baylor squad in Houston, demolishing the best the Big East had to offer in West Virginia, and then the win over Butler, again in hostile territory in Indianapolis -- well, nobody played better than Duke did, and it wasn't close.


there are arguments both ways. neither argument is perfect. it is unfair to just ignore a comment because you do not share the viewpoint.

jv001
03-28-2011, 01:12 PM
there are arguments both ways. neither argument is perfect. it is unfair to just ignore a comment because you do not share the viewpoint.

kong123, congratuations on a very good year. Both teams will watch the Final Four and get ready for next year. I would say good luck, but I wouldn't really mean it. But I wish you and your family good luck and God Bless you. GoDuke!

sporthenry
03-28-2011, 01:25 PM
Someone else mentioned 2010, which was a little less than a year ago. You could easily add 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1994 to that list, which admittedly are a few years ago, but with the randomness of the tournament I'm not sure why recency matters so much.


Well in terms of 2010, were we not the Vegas favorite from the start and if you break it down game by game, were we ever the underdog. Sure, you can look at it different ways and if you looked at the bracket at the beginning, you might not have Duke winning it all but what game did Duke actually exceed expectations last year
considering the opponent and not 'who should have been there' ?
And recency matters b/c the bluebloods get treated differently. If Butler has a year similar to 2007, then they aren't a 6 seed. When was the last time Duke got underseeded? Some of that results from Duke being a proven program and some of that results from K getting the most out of his team during the regular season but under K, Duke has only made the FF once not being a top 2 seed (they were a 3 seed) and have been a one seed for each of their FF since 99.

uh_no
03-28-2011, 01:27 PM
Well in terms of 2010, were we not the Vegas favorite from the start

I'm pretty sure kansas and kentucky both were favored over us...perhaps syracuse as well.

sporthenry
03-28-2011, 01:33 PM
I'm pretty sure kansas and kentucky both were favored over us...perhaps syracuse as well.

I may have been wrong, I thought I saw it somewhere and I know Vegas loves Duke probably b/c people hate to bet for them. But you are correct that Duke wasn't the pre-tournament favorite but they were the favorites in each of their game. But they still were a #1 seed and my main point is I just don't see Duke having a bad year where they are a 4 seed let alone an 8 or 11 and get to the FF.

davekay1971
03-28-2011, 03:02 PM
I may have been wrong, I thought I saw it somewhere and I know Vegas loves Duke probably b/c people hate to bet for them. But you are correct that Duke wasn't the pre-tournament favorite but they were the favorites in each of their game. But they still were a #1 seed and my main point is I just don't see Duke having a bad year where they are a 4 seed let alone an 8 or 11 and get to the FF.

Hopefully it'll be a long, long time (and after Coach K has retired) before Duke gets a chance to prove you wrong.

dukelifer
03-28-2011, 06:15 PM
VCU is a darn good team and has proved it by beating 5 more highly rated teams. If you look at their roster, they are athletic, aggressive players and have an excellent coach who gets the most from them.

They have a very good (not Kyrie good) and a backup PG; they have enough size inside to compete and have shooters and scorers. They also have enough depth to wear on other teams. While Kansas has two very good inside players, VCU matched up well with them and the win was no fluke.

I have seen others on this string saying the best team didn't win based on the season's record. I don't buy that. Kentucky, UCONN, Butler and VCU are the best teams at this point in the season. With 3 of the top 5 recruits coming, does anyone doubt Kentucky will have a formidable team next year?

KY will usually be in the mix as will Duke and UNC and UConn as combined they have won 11 of the last 20 National Championships. That is likely not going to change for a while.

NYC Duke Fan
03-28-2011, 08:21 PM
If Irving came back to Duke and Hensen, Zeller and Barnes all returned to UNC.

Duke: A Dynasty
03-28-2011, 08:27 PM
If Irving came back to Duke and Hensen, Zeller and Barnes all returned to UNC.

I think you have to say unc is the favorite at the start of the year but being a Duke fan I think we still come out on top if Rivers is as good as I think. I just do not see unc beating that kind of guard combo. Marshall and Strickland make other teams guards look like NBA all stars so I dont see how that changes with us having arguably the 2 best guards in the country.

kong123
03-28-2011, 08:38 PM
If Irving came back to Duke and Hensen, Zeller and Barnes all returned to UNC.

I think UNC would be much more experienced and more talented at more positions.

I think UNC is more likely to return our big three than you are to return KI. Henson was quoted after the game saying that the three of them would talk about it soon and that they had to consider how special next years team will be if they return.

dukelifer
03-28-2011, 08:43 PM
I think UNC would be much more experienced and more talented at more positions.

I think UNC is more likely to return our big three than you are to return KI. Henson was quoted after the game saying that the three of them would talk about it soon and that they had to consider how special next years team will be if they return.

Maybe the three will decide to take their collective talents to Los Angeles to play at UnCLA to join their brothers :D

Newton_14
03-28-2011, 08:56 PM
I think UNC would be much more experienced and more talented at more positions.

I think UNC is more likely to return our big three than you are to return KI. Henson was quoted after the game saying that the three of them would talk about it soon and that they had to consider how special next years team will be if they return.

Sean May said the exact same thing. "I am coming back and I am going to talk to these guys about joining me cause we would be a great team".

We won't know about any of these guys until all the information is gathered and assessed. Stating there is a better chance of your 3 coming back than Kyrie coming back is just misinformed. You don't know any of these kids personally and have no idea what each of them want in life.

All four of them will make their own decisions, and Barnes and Irving will have the most difficult choices as both are projected to be Top 3 picks.

sporthenry
03-28-2011, 09:32 PM
I think UNC would be much more experienced and more talented at more positions.

I think UNC is more likely to return our big three than you are to return KI. Henson was quoted after the game saying that the three of them would talk about it soon and that they had to consider how special next years team will be if they return.

Well if KI comes back, Duke has 2 top 5 picks in their backcourt. That would give them arguably the best backcourt in the 21st Century. Zeller seems to have hit his ceiling similar to Miles who will both be seniors albeit Zeller is better. Mason and Henson are still developing but seem to have similar upsides with different games. Kelly will be much more experienced than McAdoo.

Obviously, Barnes will cause some matchup issues but the same could be said of Rivers and KI. Hairston seems to be Bullock 2.0 and it'll be interesting to see where McDonald, Hairston, and Bullock get their minutes. But Duke vs UNC will be interesting to see if 2 star players can carry a team vs. a team with a better all around 5 although I doubt we'll ever see it.

I do agree that it appears HB has a better chance of returning than KI. (Maybe I'm playing worst case scenario) but he has 2 other guys who will talk him into returning (similar to Kyle with Nolan) and he also wasn't heralded as a top pick all year. I think after a while, these kids begin to buy into the hype while HB hasn't really had that heaped on him all year. Not to mention, Duke has more questions to answer.

kong123
03-28-2011, 09:46 PM
Zeller seems to have hit his ceiling similar to Miles who will both be seniors albeit Zeller is better. Mason and Henson are still developing but seem to have similar upsides with different games. Kelly will be much more experienced than McAdoo.


I think saying that Zeller has hit his ceiling is probably true if you consider he averaged over 20 pts and around 10 boards a game in the NCAA tournament. However, for the season he averaged less. So, I think if he returns, he could improve his consistency and his toughness.

Comparing Henson and Mason physically is interesting, however Mason has accomplished very little individually. Henson doesn't have Mason's bulk but he does play bigger defensively. Henson also rarely gets into foul trouble. Do they both have upsides, sure, but Mason has to get going soon if he wants to realize it before he makes the jump.

Finally, if you have read any of the coverage of the McDonald's practices, you may have heard what Rivers and Cook are saying about McAdoo.

“James McAdoo is a player that you always want on your team,” Rivers said. “He does a little bit of everything. James rebounds, he passes and he scores. He does all the little things that help team win. That’s why every AAU team he’s been on wins. That’s a guy you always want on your team.”

“I like McAdoo,” he added. “I wish he would have committed to Duke because he’s a great player.”

Cook, who played with McAdoo at USA Basketball, echoed Rivers’ thoughts.

“I’ve had the privilege of playing with him for two years. He’s one of the best players I’ve ever played with. He works hard. He talks. He’s a leader. He’s a competitor. He just doesn’t want to lose. I wish he was coming to Duke because I’ve had a lot of success playing with him.”

I believe McAdoo will be UNC's next NBA star. I am not sure HB has a good enough handle to be able to be top notch, but I believe McAdoo can be a special kid.

Just my thoughts.

sporthenry
03-28-2011, 09:57 PM
I think saying that Zeller has hit his ceiling is probably true if you consider he averaged over 20 pts and around 10 boards a game in the NCAA tournament. However, for the season he averaged less. So, I think if he returns, he could improve his consistency and his toughness.

Comparing Henson and Mason physically is interesting, however Mason has accomplished very little individually. Henson doesn't have Mason's bulk but he does play bigger defensively. Henson also rarely gets into foul trouble. Do they both have upsides, sure, but Mason has to get going soon if he wants to realize it before he makes the jump.


Well I won't say much about McAdoo's game b/c I haven't seen much but I think he will struggle a bit with his size. I have no doubt he will be good but I'm not sure he will be dominant until he gets stronger.

As far as Zeller, I'd say 16/8 will be good for him. Tourney figures are often misleading especially since he put up inflated numbers against LIU, Marquette, or even UK who had little depth in the frontcourt. Not to mention, I'd think UNC would use the guards more as they get older.

And I think Mason often gets the raw end. He averaged 7 and 8.4 compared to Henson at 11.7 and 10. However, Mason shot 59% compared to Henson at 50%. Both players left tons of points on the line. Henson has developed his post move while Mason is still working on his. But I think Mason has shown more flashes and is more dynamic offensively, the difference being Henson's defense and consistency. Duke's interior defense mainly the rotating was terrible this year so as that gets better, Mason should become a better shot blocker.

I think Mason coming back is the easiest decision b/c he has developed some but he just needs to improve consistency and his consistency should make him a lottery pick. That is followed by Zeller who really can't do much about his status similar to Singler and with the impending lockout and the ability to return to a good team, no reason to leave. Then its Henson followed by Barnes/KI.

kong123
03-28-2011, 10:45 PM
Well I won't say much about McAdoo's game b/c I haven't seen much but I think he will struggle a bit with his size. I have no doubt he will be good but I'm not sure he will be dominant until he gets stronger.

As far as Zeller, I'd say 16/8 will be good for him. Tourney figures are often misleading especially since he put up inflated numbers against LIU, Marquette, or even UK who had little depth in the frontcourt. Not to mention, I'd think UNC would use the guards more as they get older.

And I think Mason often gets the raw end. He averaged 7 and 8.4 compared to Henson at 11.7 and 10. However, Mason shot 59% compared to Henson at 50%. Both players left tons of points on the line. Henson has developed his post move while Mason is still working on his. But I think Mason has shown more flashes and is more dynamic offensively, the difference being Henson's defense and consistency. Duke's interior defense mainly the rotating was terrible this year so as that gets better, Mason should become a better shot blocker.

I think Mason coming back is the easiest decision b/c he has developed some but he just needs to improve consistency and his consistency should make him a lottery pick. That is followed by Zeller who really can't do much about his status similar to Singler and with the impending lockout and the ability to return to a good team, no reason to leave. Then its Henson followed by Barnes/KI.

Well, I sure hope Mason finally lives up to all this potential I have heard about for the last 2 years. Do you think if he played at UNC or with a team like Ohio St. he would have reached that potential quicker? Zeller may make the mistake Singler did by coming back for his senior season. As far as his draft stock is concerned, he would have been better off going last year as opposed to this year. Even with Nolan winning many player of the year awards, he may have left a lot of money on the table by coming back. I understand and respect why he came back, but ultimately it could cost him. So, Zeller and Henson have big decisions to make. HB and KI will go in the top five whenever they decide to leave.

sporthenry
03-28-2011, 11:26 PM
Well, I sure hope Mason finally lives up to all this potential I have heard about for the last 2 years. Do you think if he played at UNC or with a team like Ohio St. he would have reached that potential quicker? Zeller may make the mistake Singler did by coming back for his senior season.As far as his draft stock is concerned, he would have been better off going last year as opposed to this year. Even with Nolan winning many player of the year awards, he may have left a lot of money on the table by coming back. I understand and respect why he came back, but ultimately it could cost him. So, Zeller and Henson have big decisions to make. HB and KI will go in the top five whenever they decide to leave.

Well when you have 2 players like Singler and Smith and then you add in KI, there just is no reason to run the offense through Mason like UNC had to do with Zeller and Henson until HB came along. So yes, in respect to him getting more of the ball, Duke was a mistake but I have to think that some kids care more about just getting the ball as much as possible. And again, I think UNC will have similar issues with McDonald, Bullock and now Hairston who will all be behind HB, KM, and Dex. Between the 30+ minutes who will go to those 3, that leaves 30 minutes for 3 guys when 2 of them averaged about 15 each. (I guess HB could go to the 4 and Dex can get some time at the point but I feel someone won't 'develop' just like Mason hasn't). And again Mason shot 58% (which put him right behind Marcus Morris at 39th in the country ahead of players like Sullinger, Henson, or Zeller). Henson was a better offensive rebounder and shot blocker but after that there isn't too much difference.

Nolan didn't leave any money on the table. He has actually increased his draft status a lot as he has gone from a 2nd rounder in most mocks last year to a 1st rounder in all mock drafts I've seen. As far as Singler, I don't believe he was ever guaranteed as a first rounder but most drafts had him as late lottery to late first. Now, he is mostly seen as a late first rounder. But the difference in rookie salary scale is about 500k from late lottery to late first round. So over 3 years, he loses 1.5 million, which is a lot of money to us but hardly the millions people said he left on the table. Similar to Singler, Zeller doesn't have much room for improvement but I also don't see a huge drop off and even with Singler's drop off he is more than likely a first rounder.

jipops
03-28-2011, 11:32 PM
If Irving came back to Duke and Hensen, Zeller and Barnes all returned to UNC.

UNC definitely. They will have a substantial talent advantage over everyone in the country along with experience. They were already arguably the most talented team in the conference this year. And I would venture to say there is .000000001% chance Kyrie is on the roster in '11-'12. Queue the Dumb and Dumber quotes...

jipops
03-28-2011, 11:35 PM
Zeller may make the mistake Singler did by coming back for his senior season.

Now that is quite a bit short-sighted isn't it? Even last season there were still questions on whether or not Kyle was a 1st round pick. Besides, I will guarantee you that Kyle will have no regrets in life about being a 4 year guy.

tommy
03-28-2011, 11:57 PM
Now that is quite a bit short-sighted isn't it? Even last season there were still questions on whether or not Kyle was a 1st round pick. Besides, I will guarantee you that Kyle will have no regrets in life about being a 4 year guy.

Well, I don't think it's fair to say that Kyle made a mistake. He had a great opportunity to lead a team to a repeat national championship, enjoy his last year of college, and earn his degree, and perhaps improve his draft stock as well. While I don't think he helped his draft stock with his play this year, and of course Duke didn't reach its ultimate team goal, I have a feeling Kyle is very happy with his decision. And with the weakness of this year's draft compared to last, his draft position may not even suffer much at all. Probable middle to late first rounder either way, no worse than early 2nd.

-bdbd
03-28-2011, 11:59 PM
I think saying that Zeller has hit his ceiling is probably true if you consider he averaged over 20 pts and around 10 boards a game in the NCAA tournament. However, for the season he averaged less. So, I think if he returns, he could improve his consistency and his toughness.

Comparing Henson and Mason physically is interesting, however Mason has accomplished very little individually. Henson doesn't have Mason's bulk but he does play bigger defensively. Henson also rarely gets into foul trouble. Do they both have upsides, sure, but Mason has to get going soon if he wants to realize it before he makes the jump.
That's good news, as I'm sure Kentucky will be concerned to hear that. :rolleyes:
All fans tend to see their own players through rose-colored glasses. No doubt Henson has had greater individual success to date. But the argument is true that such is at least partially the result of NC's relative weakness elsewhere (on the perimeter). I hope that they both stay. I do agree that its reasonable to see greater improvement from this year to next by Mason, simply b/c, though blessed with some terrific physical abilities, Mason still as more room to grow performance-wise. But the "flashes" give us good reason to hope.



Finally, if you have read any of the coverage of the McDonald's practices, you may have heard what Rivers and Cook are saying about McAdoo.

“James McAdoo is a player that you always want on your team,” Rivers said. “He does a little bit of everything. James rebounds, he passes and he scores. He does all the little things that help team win. That’s why every AAU team he’s been on wins. That’s a guy you always want on your team.”

“I like McAdoo,” he added. “I wish he would have committed to Duke because he’s a great player.”

I believe McAdoo will be UNC's next NBA star. I am not sure HB has a good enough handle to be able to be top notch, but I believe McAdoo can be a special kid.

That's great, as NC is years overdue for having one of those!
My curent prediction is that both HB and KI likely - but not definitely - go pro. I sure hope that is wrong, as it would be wonderful to see a full year of a healthy Kyrie Irving. (BTW, I see virtually NO chance either stays a 3rd year.) And it would be simply amazing to see the combined affect of having him working alongside Austin Rivers. For NC, I agree that y'all seem to have an awful lot of big bodies competing for minutes next year - keeping everyone happy will be a challenge for Coach Williams. But that is a GOOD problem to have!

BTW, nice to see the Duke and NC players saying nice things about each other at the All-Star games. Though I have been really surprised that none of our UNC posters have been pointing out the total numbers of McD players heading to each of our schools, unlike they kept doing last year.... ;-) Just wish MG were allowed to be there - his athleticism would be just terrific to see in the dunk competition! http://www.mcdonaldsallamerican.com/2011_BoysRosterAlph.pdf

Assuming both KI and HB leave, it seems likely that NC and then Duke dominate the ACC pre-season polls next year.

burns15
03-29-2011, 01:59 AM
UNC definitely. They will have a substantial talent advantage over everyone in the country along with experience. They were already arguably the most talented team in the conference this year. And I would venture to say there is .000000001% chance Kyrie is on the roster in '11-'12. Queue the Dumb and Dumber quotes...

you keep bringing up UNC's substantial talent advantage over anyone else in the nation... and I just don't see it

Why are they more talented? Do they play better defense than Duke? No. Do they shoot better than Duke? No. They are more athletic than Duke, we know, but athleticsm does not equal talent.

Let's breakdown their roster this year, IMHO:
Marshall -- phenomenal paser, yet not the best shooter & a weak defender
Strickland --- drives to hoop like a running back everytime, cant shoot or handle the ball well enough to be a very good guard
Bullock -- Ill reserve judgement until healthy
McDonald --- a shooter and thats it, usually a spot up shooter although he can pump fake and use a dribble or two
Barnes -- all-around stud, the only one
Watts -- energy off the bench, thats about it
Henson -- a very long, atheltic and unique big man, good shot blocker and rebounder, terrible shooter, no consistent offensive move
Zeller-- an above average college big man, yet who only has ONE post move (albeit a very consistent and tough to block one),
Knox

kong123
03-29-2011, 06:36 AM
Now that is quite a bit short-sighted isn't it? Even last season there were still questions on whether or not Kyle was a 1st round pick. Besides, I will guarantee you that Kyle will have no regrets in life about being a 4 year guy.

Hey, like I said, I understand the reasons for coming back. But, if you to focus on his NBA career only, you could see that he left a year of salary and maybe a good chunk of change per year on the table. Who knows if he gets a chance to prove himself. Hansbrough and Gerald Henderson are getting that chance now after a coaching change, but maybe it doesn't work out that way. KS ultimately took a chance on coming back to win back to back championships and to be the NPOY. Neither happened. On top of that, he struggled for most of the last part of the year. Professionally, I believe returning for his senior season did not do him any favors.

kong123
03-29-2011, 06:43 AM
That's great, as NC is years overdue for having one of those!

I believe Felton should have been an all-star this year. I also think that now that Lawson is the starter on a good team, he will now get a shot at doing special things. Plus, Hansbrough is averaging almost 20 pts over the last month with two 29-30 point games again the Knicks.

El_Diablo
03-29-2011, 08:34 AM
Hey, like I said, I understand the reasons for coming back. But, if you to focus on his NBA career only, you could see that he left a year of salary and maybe a good chunk of change per year on the table. Who knows if he gets a chance to prove himself. Hansbrough and Gerald Henderson are getting that chance now after a coaching change, but maybe it doesn't work out that way. KS ultimately took a chance on coming back to win back to back championships and to be the NPOY. Neither happened. On top of that, he struggled for most of the last part of the year. Professionally, I believe returning for his senior season did not do him any favors.

Maybe you could wait to see where he's drafted before jumping to conclusions about where he's getting drafted, especially since you clearly are not privy to where he was projected last year (late first round, early second round). In the meantime, since he's not going to be playing at Duke next year, you might want to restrict your discussion in this thread to more pertinent subjects (like next years' teams) and save your criticisms of our departing senior for IC.

Sgt. Dingleberry
03-29-2011, 09:15 AM
I would venture to say there is .000000001% chance Kyrie is on the roster in '11-'12. Queue the Dumb and Dumber quotes...

I think you are close, but I would still take the under...:(

It is impossible to evaluate UNC next year, until we see who comes back.

But, I think Duke's team next year is going to be a lot of fun and by the end of the year will be a heck of a team. There will be upperclassmen on the roster, but there will be zero leaders when the season begins. It will be interesting to see who becomes the leaders of the team and how the team grows throughout the year. I would not want to be playing Duke at the end of next year, with a whole season under their belt to gel and learn to play with each other.

Sgt. Dingleberry
03-29-2011, 09:52 AM
you keep bringing up UNC's substantial talent advantage over anyone else in the nation... and I just don't see it

Why are they more talented?

If everybody comes back and if McDonald and Bullock progress a little bit with their consistency, UNC has the potential to really have zero weaknesses and I am not really even considering incoming freshman.

Strickland, Barnes and Henson are all very good defenders. Zeller's shotblocking is also a nice thing to have.

McDonald, Bullock and Barnes (maybe Hairston) have the potential to be very good long distance shooters.

I love Kendall Marshall and the way he plays. This kid is awesome. His defense is suspect, but it should improve and he is the perfect point guard for UNC.

Henson/Zeller/Barnes (w/ McAdoo off the bench) is head and shoulders the best frontcourt in America next year.

I am not saying it is going to happen, but they really do have the potential to have a team without any glaring weaknesses.

dukeballboy88
03-29-2011, 10:07 AM
What if the NBA has a lock out? I read its in worse shape than the NFL!!!

Duke: A Dynasty
03-29-2011, 10:26 AM
Now that is quite a bit short-sighted isn't it? Even last season there were still questions on whether or not Kyle was a 1st round pick. Besides, I will guarantee you that Kyle will have no regrets in life about being a 4 year guy.

Uhh you kinda took that outta context. It said as far as draft stock goes afterthat in which case Kong is correct. Last year Kyle was projected late lottery to late first and this year he is late first early second.