PDA

View Full Version : Would Duke have really been a final 4 team had Kyrie not been hurt?



Class of '94
04-02-2011, 08:18 PM
I'm looking at the Butler-VCU game right now and I can't help but wonder what if Kyrie had not been hurt. Butler looks good right now and I think about how Duke played them earlier in the season and won the game by double digits. And considering how good Duke looked in the early part of the season with Kyrie, it would not be hard to think that Duke would have continued to grow and become a very dominant team. Yet, I'm not so sure that this year's team had the mental toughness of last year's team; and I think it was that toughness and will to win/refusal of last year's team that was every bit as important in their success as their ability to defend, rebound and make timely shots when needed. And when I consider the second half meltdowns and losses to VT, UNC, Fla. ST and Arizona, I can't help but think that even with Kyrie for a full season, Duke could've still lost in the sweet 16 by a hot team like Arizona and might not have made it to the final 4. Saying that, I'm still very proud of what this team has accomplished this year and thankful for what Nolan and Kyle brought to this team. I just wanted to get thoughts from other posters about this.

Duke: A Dynasty
04-02-2011, 08:24 PM
I do not know about the final four but I think we would not have lost in the regular season. Actually I think we would be in the final four.

DukeBlueNikeShox
04-02-2011, 08:24 PM
Both VCU and Butler doesn't have any McDonald's All-Americans on the team. How many does Duke have? With or without Kyrie, Duke had enough players and talent to make the Final Four...but didn't.

wtm001
04-02-2011, 08:25 PM
Hard to believe that if Duke would have made it to the championship game they would be playing Butler again

stillcrazie
04-02-2011, 08:30 PM
Hard to believe that if Duke would have made it to the championship game they would be playing Butler again

If the Duke team pre-Kyrie's injury played the current Butler team in the final game, who wins? I know we beat them in December, but this Butler teams seems to have improved from then.

DukeBlueNikeShox
04-02-2011, 08:32 PM
I also think back to the 2002 team, which had Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy, Chris Duhon, and Dahntay Jones. 5 NBA players. They also lost in the Sweet 16. However, Jason has later said that that team's focus was not there that season. Players had a lot of outside influences in their ears, especially regarding draft status and the NBA. Maybe this example of distractions is something that's common for higher profile teams to encounter, while others, such as Butler, don't have to experience...

wtm001
04-02-2011, 08:33 PM
If the Duke team pre-Kyrie's injury played the current Butler team in the final game, who wins? I know we beat them in December, but this Butler teams seems to have improved from then.

Considering I thought Duke was gonna blow them out last year (and in December), I think Duke would won a close one

Atlanta Duke
04-02-2011, 08:35 PM
I'm looking at the Butler-VCU game right now and I can't help but wonder what if Kyrie had not been hurt. Butler looks good right now and I think about how Duke played them earlier in the season and won the game by double digits. And considering how good Duke looked in the early part of the season with Kyrie, it would not be hard to think that Duke would have continued to grow and become a very dominant team. Yet, I'm not so sure that this year's team had the mental toughness of last year's team; and I think it was that toughness and will to win/refusal of last year's team that was every bit as important in their success as their ability to defend, rebound and make timely shots when needed. And when I consider the second half meltdowns and losses to VT, UNC, Fla. ST and Arizona, I can't help but think that even with Kyrie for a full season, Duke could've still lost in the sweet 16 by a hot team like Arizona and might not have made it to the final 4. Saying that, I'm still very proud of what this team has accomplished this year and thankful for what Nolan and Kyle brought to this team. I just wanted to get thoughts from other posters about this.

They probably would have been the overall #1 seed and been in the East Regional, at which point maybe Kentucky would have beat Duke rather than Ohio State - stuff happens in the tournament - IMO the greatest Duke team of them all needed the Laettner shot to even get to the Final Four in 1992 so I agree having Kyrie Irving all season would have guaranteed nothing in the tournament

dukelifer
04-02-2011, 08:37 PM
Both VCU and Butler doesn't have any McDonald's All-Americans on the team. How many does Duke have? With or without Kyrie, Duke had enough players and talent to make the Final Four...but didn't.

How many do they have? Less than UNC.

dukelifer
04-02-2011, 08:38 PM
If the Duke team pre-Kyrie's injury played the current Butler team in the final game, who wins? I know we beat them in December, but this Butler teams seems to have improved from then.

Butler has a knack of counter punching and keeping games close. I still think Duke wins.

ncexnyc
04-02-2011, 08:40 PM
I'm looking at the Butler-VCU game right now and I can't help but wonder what if Kyrie had not been hurt. Butler looks good right now and I think about how Duke played them earlier in the season and won the game by double digits. And considering how good Duke looked in the early part of the season with Kyrie, it would not be hard to think that Duke would have continued to grow and become a very dominant team. Yet, I'm not so sure that this year's team had the mental toughness of last year's team; and I think it was that toughness and will to win/refusal of last year's team that was every bit as important in their success as their ability to defend, rebound and make timely shots when needed. And when I consider the second half meltdowns and losses to VT, UNC, Fla. ST and Arizona, I can't help but think that even with Kyrie for a full season, Duke could've still lost in the sweet 16 by a hot team like Arizona and might not have made it to the final 4. Saying that, I'm still very proud of what this team has accomplished this year and thankful for what Nolan and Kyle brought to this team. I just wanted to get thoughts from other posters about this.

It's only been a short time since we last played Butler, but it seems to have clouded your memory of that game. That game was a back and forth battle and Butler fans beleive they were victimized by a couple of iffy calls, throw in the fact that Mack went out with cramps and I can't honestly say we were that much better than them back then.
Butler struggled early in the season but came on strong at the end. Let's not sell them short. They're a very good team and their fan base is getting very cocky as witnessed by the, "Where's Duke" sign that was sported at today's game.

Chris Randolph
04-02-2011, 08:40 PM
Based on how well Duke looked early in the year and that they would have only gotten better as the year went on, sure you'd say they'd be in the Final Four. But then again the most talented teams in the country (not just Duke) didn't make it. Crazy crazy tourney. Takes one bad half and one great half by one player to knock you out

Duvall
04-02-2011, 08:42 PM
It's only been a short time since we last played Butler, but it seems to have clouded your memory of that game. That game was a back and forth battle and Butler fans beleive they were victimized by a couple of iffy calls, throw in the fact that Mack went out with cramps and I can't honestly say we were that much better than them back then.
Butler struggled early in the season but came on strong at the end.

That game was one of Butler's *better* efforts of the regular season. They struggled even worse for much of their conference slate.

They aren't a very good team. They're an okay team that has had a good tournament.

stillcrazie
04-02-2011, 08:51 PM
That game was one of Butler's *better* efforts of the regular season. They struggled even worse for much of their conference slate.

They aren't a very good team. They're an okay team that has had a good tournament.

I have no problem with this. People said the same thing about us last year (although we had a better regular season). I have a lot of respect for this team and the way they play (Howard's screen on Singler last year notwithstanding).

loldevilz
04-02-2011, 08:59 PM
I have no problem with this. People said the same thing about us last year (although we had a better regular season). I have a lot of respect for this team and the way they play (Howard's screen on Singler last year notwithstanding).

Duke was #2 in Kenpom at the end of the regular season last year and barely behind Kansas.

This year, Butler was like #46 or something like that. VCU was even worse at #85. The best teams are not in the final four. IMO Kentucky is the only one that can even be close to be claiming to be the best overall team this year. UCONN was barely in the top half of their conference.

I think that Duke would have been there had Irving not been injured. Irving and Mason were both starting to break out when the injury happened. We become a very good team in spite of that with Curry and Miles, but that team never got to play in the tournament.

JG Nothing
04-02-2011, 09:12 PM
That game was one of Butler's *better* efforts of the regular season. They struggled even worse for much of their conference slate.

They aren't a very good team. They're an okay team that has had a good tournament.

Let's see Butler is not a very good team, just an okay team, and having a good tournament. Did Brad Stevens run over your dog or sleep with your boy/girlfriend?

Duvall
04-02-2011, 09:17 PM
Let's see Butler is not a very good team, just an okay team, and having a good tournament. Did Brad Stevens run over your dog or sleep with your boy/girlfriend?

I have nothing against Brad Stevens or Butler. I just don't see why we should pretend that the four months of the regular season didn't happen.

1 24 90
04-02-2011, 09:21 PM
I have nothing against Brad Stevens or Butler. I just don't see why we should pretend that the four months of the regular season didn't happen.

Along those lines, do these Final Four teams have the most combined losses ever for a Final Four? I guess it makes sense since there are no #1 & #2 seeds left. They all have at least 8 losses.

JG Nothing
04-02-2011, 09:34 PM
I have nothing against Brad Stevens or Butler. I just don't see why we should pretend that the four months of the regular season didn't happen.

You seem to pretend that the last two months of basketball did not happen. I don't see any reason to define the current Butler team in terms of the entire season. Teams can develop and improve. Butler was mediocre the first half of the season. The last two months speak for themselves. As Brad Steven's said, they finally "got it."

Duvall
04-02-2011, 09:44 PM
You seem to pretend that the last two months of basketball did not happen. I don't see any reason to define the current Butler team in terms of the entire season. Teams can develop and improve. Butler was mediocre the first half of the season. The last two months speak for themselves. As Brad Steven's said, they finally "got it."

Sure, if "getting it" means beating terrible teams in-conference and escaping good teams out of conference.

I didn't say Butler was a bad team. But if you look at their body of work, including the narrow escapes in the NCAAs, but also including their diffident play in December and January, it's hard to conclude that they are much more than an okay team on a nice run.

roywhite
04-02-2011, 09:47 PM
Not sure if Duke would have made the Final Four if Kyrie played healthy all year. While the team would have been different and possibly better, did we have an answer for Arizona with Derrick Williams and their penetration on offense?

SuperTurkey
04-02-2011, 09:53 PM
Not sure if Duke would have made the Final Four if Kyrie played healthy all year. While the team would have been different and possibly better, did we have an answer for Arizona with Derrick Williams and their penetration on offense?

Well, if Kyrie's healthy all year, who knows is we actually face Zona? Chances are we would come in as the overall one seed, so the whole tourney deck would have been reshuffled.

This whole what-if game is just a depressing bummer of sadness and suckitude, though. Go Butler!

hurleyfor3
04-02-2011, 09:54 PM
Butler struggled early in the season but came on strong at the end. Let's not sell them short. They're a very good team and their fan base is getting very cocky as witnessed by the, "Where's Duke" sign that was sported at today's game.

Awwwww, they miss us.

DukeGirl4ever
04-02-2011, 10:17 PM
The NCAA tournament, more specifically the Final Four, has become something more than just a tournament for the best teams in the nation. If that was the case, we would be there.

A lot of my friends have asked me what it takes to win a National Championship and I think I have a formula (but please feel free to add).

1.) Talent/Upperclassmen leadership (that's a duh statement)
2.) Coaching (another Captain Obvious statement)
3.) Depth (shocker, I know)
4.) A team that has not had to deal with injuries
5.) A team that is peaking at the right time (I think back to the NOVA team last year that a lot of people expected great things from and they tanked HARD at the end of the year - they had hit their peak earlier in the season).
6.) Match-ups - Seeding doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot of you if you have potential match-up problems against a particular team (us vs. D. Williams)
7.) A little bit of luck (Anyone remember Matt Howard's buzz beater in the opening round and all of the countless crazy endings/questionable calls?)

If you have all of these factors, I think you've got a good shot to make a run.
Butler has all of those factors. Sure, they may not have played great earlier in the year, but we have this tournament for a reason and the teams that take advantage of it at the right time and as Brad Stevens said "finally get it"...those teams deserve to be there.

I think our National Championship run last year also shows that we peaked at the right time....as Coach Norman Dale said, "All the pistons were firing"! (God I love that movie!).

moonpie23
04-02-2011, 10:23 PM
That game was one of Butler's *better* efforts of the regular season. They struggled even worse for much of their conference slate.

They aren't a very good team. They're an okay team that has had a good tournament.

really?? you don't go to back to back finals games and not be a very good team...

Buckeye Devil
04-02-2011, 10:23 PM
They were the best team early in the season when Kyrie was at the point and Nolan played the 2. They were a different team when Kyrie returned for the NCAAT-clearly not the same team that beat up UNC in the ACC tourney. Had Kyrie been in the lineup all year Duke's draw would have been different and I think they easily make the Final 4. Heck, this year they might have been better off to have been a 2 seed on the other side of the bracket which was weaker.

moonpie23
04-02-2011, 10:25 PM
we might have been seeded differently...

_Gary
04-02-2011, 10:51 PM
This is one of the easiest questions this board has ever asked. Would Duke have really been a final 4 team had Kyrie not been hurt?

H-E-C-K Y-E-S!!!!!

This team was THE team before the injury and had Kyrie not gotten hurt we'd have rolled through the regular season unbeaten, with a possible loss in the ACC Finals (Here, I'm just assuming that someone would give us a game and might beat us in the finals). But there can be no doubt about it. With Kyrie we had, hand's down, the most dynamic pg in the country, bar none! The national title would have been ours for the taking.

ncexnyc
04-02-2011, 10:57 PM
It's so sad to read some of the comments made making light of what Butler has accomplished. Unfortunately every time someone tries to discount what they've done it only adds fuel to the Duke haters who say the very same thing about our title run last year.

Making it to the Championship games two years running should be enough to prove to anyone just how good this Butler team really is. As I said on another thread their run only validates just how good we were last year.

uh_no
04-02-2011, 11:32 PM
Butler is one heck of a team, and brad stevens is one hell of a coach. it's impossible to find a single thing to criticize about them, their players, or their program. They should be a model the likes of duke on how to run a program. Gotta love butler, even last year in indy, they couldn't have been better hosts (I had just a great experience in indy)

Kudos to butler...great school...great city...great people.


Uconn is also one heck of a team. What they've done in tournament games this season is incredible. They've beaten several different styles of teams and until tonight, hadn't really shown tiring. They beat a phenomenal arizona team, and then a kentucky team that had one of the most impressive set of wins to get them to the final 4? This game was a defensive classic.

Character issues set aside, I look forward to the matchup monday.

rsvman
04-03-2011, 12:00 AM
To be fair, at the end of the season Butler was #37 on Kenpom, which was behind both Maryland and Virginia Tech. They lost to Evansville. They lost to Wisconsin-Milwaukee by 24 points on the road and lost to them again (in overtime) at home. They lost to Wright State, Youngstown State, and Valparaiso. Heck, they almost lost their first-round game to ODU. Had Howard not gotten that put-back as time expired, they would have been watching the Final Four in Indiana on their televisions and everybody would've said "Look how far they fell; from the Final game last year to a first-round loss this season; it's kinda sad, isn't it? Hayward was the engine that drove the Butler team."

Point is that the NCAA tournament is fickle. I agree with the poster who said that Butler is not all that good.

They are certainly playing well now, and they are tough and very well coached. They don't wilt when the going gets tough. They're obviously better now than they were when they lost to Valpo and Evansville.

But are they one of the two best teams in the country? No, and neither is UConn. We have got to get over this idea that the NCAA tournament is an effort to find the best basketball team in the country. It's not; it's an effort to see who can win this tournament. Whoever wins on Monday will have managed to win this tournament, and will thus be legitimate NCAA tournament champions. They will not, however, necessarily be the "best team" in the country.

uh_no
04-03-2011, 12:04 AM
But are they one of the two best teams in the country? No, and neither is UConn.

You could, however, argue that uconn has been the best team in the country since the end of the regular season. No, they never saw OSU or kansas, (they did beat pitt)...but like people said about duke last year, all you can do is beat the team in front of you, and so far, uconn and butler are the only teams who have managed to do that

sporthenry
04-03-2011, 12:09 AM
If the Duke team pre-Kyrie's injury played the current Butler team in the final game, who wins? I know we beat them in December, but this Butler teams seems to have improved from then.

But the point is that Duke would have been better too. KI and the chemistry with Duke would have improved greatly b/c as good as KI was, he still made some freshman mistakes. So that argument holds little weight especially since they were a more experienced team coming into the season.

rsvman
04-03-2011, 12:12 AM
Agreed. Not taking anything away from either team. But the tournament is the tournament, and "best" is "best." The two don't necessarily jive. I don't really think Duke was necessarily the "best" team last year, either, but we won the tournament.

It's better this way, anyway. Think about it. College football tries like the dickens to actually crown the "best team" as their champion, and it's just a disaster. Basketball gave up on the concept a long time ago. We just play a tournament, and crown an NCAA tournament champion.

People just need to remember not to confuse "best team" with "tournament champion." Sometimes the same team fits both descriptions, and sometimes not. It doesn't really matter.

JG Nothing
04-03-2011, 12:49 AM
To be fair, at the end of the season Butler was #37 on Kenpom, which was behind both Maryland and Virginia Tech. They lost to Evansville. They lost to Wisconsin-Milwaukee by 24 points on the road and lost to them again (in overtime) at home. They lost to Wright State, Youngstown State, and Valparaiso. Heck, they almost lost their first-round game to ODU. Had Howard not gotten that put-back as time expired, they would have been watching the Final Four in Indiana on their televisions and everybody would've said "Look how far they fell; from the Final game last year to a first-round loss this season; it's kinda sad, isn't it? Hayward was the engine that drove the Butler team."

Point is that the NCAA tournament is fickle. I agree with the poster who said that Butler is not all that good.

They are certainly playing well now, and they are tough and very well coached. They don't wilt when the going gets tough. They're obviously better now than they were when they lost to Valpo and Evansville.

But are they one of the two best teams in the country? No, and neither is UConn. We have got to get over this idea that the NCAA tournament is an effort to find the best basketball team in the country. It's not; it's an effort to see who can win this tournament. Whoever wins on Monday will have managed to win this tournament, and will thus be legitimate NCAA tournament champions. They will not, however, necessarily be the "best team" in the country.

Who in this thread said Butler was one of the two best teams in the country? Who in this thread said the NCAA tournament determines the best basketball team in the country?

If Butler is "not all that good," then I would like you to define what it means to be good. Butler is 14-1 since the beginning of February and have won its past 14 games in a row. They've beaten Pitt, Wisconsin, and Florida, a solid ODU, and a hot VCU. What does Butler have to do to simply be a "good" team?

Look, I dislike Butler because I have to hear and see their idiot fans everyday, but give me a break. Butler is a darn good team.

Saratoga2
04-03-2011, 07:58 AM
If you look at the final four this year (or any other year) there are no perfect teams out there. Look at Kentucky last night. With all the talent they possess, they were only still about 7 deep and tired noticeably. Also they were a very poor foul shooting team and that contributed to their loss.

VCU had a very pesky style of pushing the ball relentlessly. They had 10 players they used to sustain the pressure and had better talent than they were given credit for. They got outrebounded by Butler and missed at least 10 bunnies from less than 2 feet out.

Butler is an experienced team, who rebounds well and has a couple of decent scorers. They play really good defense and play consistently for the entire game. They can be beaten and a team like Arizona would have had they played the kind of game they showed against Duke.

UCONN is a fairly complete team, yet Kentucky had a good chance of beating them, but missed a ton of free throws. They can go down, and I hope they do to Butler.

The point I am trying to make is that we have gone on about all of the issues that Duke had this year, and how some of them showed up against Arizona. Many of the observations made on the board were accurate, but it is also clear that no team is without fault. Depending on the matchups and the particular team chemistry on any given night, we might well have made it to the final four and even won the championship. We need to enjoy the ride and appreciate the fine kids and coaches we arre blessed with.

rthomas
04-03-2011, 09:54 AM
Just think how good Duke could've been if Kobe had gone to Duke instead of the NBA. And stayed all 4 years.

Troublemaker
04-03-2011, 10:41 AM
Heck, even the Duke team that played in the ACC tournament would've done major damage in the NCAAs, imo. Hopefully that aspect of this 2011 season does not become lost as time goes by.

If you followed the team closely this year, watched nearly every game, read the beat reporting, etc., you know that this Duke team really came together the week of the ACC tournament. The team had great practices and everyone in the rotation found a role and the team played great basketball and was extremely confident.

The proof is in the scoreboard.

Duke 87 - 71 over Maryland
Duke 76 - 63 over Virginia Tech, and finally, and most awesomely,
Duke 75 - 58 over UNC

MD and VT were on par with the last few at-large teams that got into the NCAAs (maybe not VCU in hindsight, but you see what I'm saying). And Carolina was a 2 seed. And Duke rolled all of them.

That Duke team would've done damage in the NCAAs. As I've said before, I'm not bitter. I'm not regretful. I'm not blaming. Stuff happens in a basketball season and in life; you roll with it.

But I just hope no one forgets the tremendous job that this 2011 team did to come together after their best player got injured. The team developed throughout the season. Every role player improved at various points in the season and, by ACC tournament time, everyone in the rotation was pitching in. This was a GREAT season for Duke and a GREAT job of leadership by Nolan and Kyle to steer the ship after Kyrie got sunk.

Nolan and Kyle should get their jerseys retired. Don't let the NCAA tournament performance when the team was in the midst of re-adjusting and re-integrating sway you otherwise.

jipops
04-03-2011, 12:02 PM
Not sure if Duke would have made the Final Four if Kyrie played healthy all year. While the team would have been different and possibly better, did we have an answer for Arizona with Derrick Williams and their penetration on offense?

Chances are, with a full season of a healthy Kyrie we could have conceivably had a couple fewer losses. That would have most likely placed us as a #1 seed in the East where we probably would not have played Arizona in the sweet 16 anyways. Injuries, wins and losses do have their ripple effects.

marinbobbyduhon
04-03-2011, 12:02 PM
Heck, even the Duke team that played in the ACC tournament would've done major damage in the NCAAs, imo. Hopefully that aspect of this 2011 season does not become lost as time goes by.

If you followed the team closely this year, watched nearly every game, read the beat reporting, etc., you know that this Duke team really came together the week of the ACC tournament. The team had great practices and everyone in the rotation found a role and the team played great basketball and was extremely confident.

The proof is in the scoreboard.

Duke 87 - 71 over Maryland
Duke 76 - 63 over Virginia Tech, and finally, and most awesomely,
Duke 75 - 58 over UNC

MD and VT were on par with the last few at-large teams that got into the NCAAs (maybe not VCU in hindsight, but you see what I'm saying). And Carolina was a 2 seed. And Duke rolled all of them.

That Duke team would've done damage in the NCAAs. As I've said before, I'm not bitter. I'm not regretful. I'm not blaming. Stuff happens in a basketball season and in life; you roll with it.

But I just hope no one forgets the tremendous job that this 2011 team did to come together after their best player got injured. The team developed throughout the season. Every role player improved at various points in the season and, by ACC tournament time, everyone in the rotation was pitching in. This was a GREAT season for Duke and a GREAT job of leadership by Nolan and Kyle to steer the ship after Kyrie got sunk.

Nolan and Kyle should get their jerseys retired. Don't let the NCAA tournament performance when the team was in the midst of re-adjusting and re-integrating sway you otherwise.

I would vote this post of the day, if we had such a thing. I also thought Saratoga2 had some great points. We should celebrate our Duke team's accomplishments, which were many. These guys are winners in every respect. I sure am going to miss Kyle and Nolan, but next year's team will have its story to tell, too; and I will be blessed to follow along.

Buckeye Devil
04-03-2011, 12:41 PM
Heck, even the Duke team that played in the ACC tournament would've done major damage in the NCAAs, imo. Hopefully that aspect of this 2011 season does not become lost as time goes by.

If you followed the team closely this year, watched nearly every game, read the beat reporting, etc., you know that this Duke team really came together the week of the ACC tournament. The team had great practices and everyone in the rotation found a role and the team played great basketball and was extremely confident.

The proof is in the scoreboard.

Duke 87 - 71 over Maryland
Duke 76 - 63 over Virginia Tech, and finally, and most awesomely,
Duke 75 - 58 over UNC

MD and VT were on par with the last few at-large teams that got into the NCAAs (maybe not VCU in hindsight, but you see what I'm saying). And Carolina was a 2 seed. And Duke rolled all of them.

That Duke team would've done damage in the NCAAs. As I've said before, I'm not bitter. I'm not regretful. I'm not blaming. Stuff happens in a basketball season and in life; you roll with it.

But I just hope no one forgets the tremendous job that this 2011 team did to come together after their best player got injured. The team developed throughout the season. Every role player improved at various points in the season and, by ACC tournament time, everyone in the rotation was pitching in. This was a GREAT season for Duke and a GREAT job of leadership by Nolan and Kyle to steer the ship after Kyrie got sunk.

Nolan and Kyle should get their jerseys retired. Don't let the NCAA tournament performance when the team was in the midst of re-adjusting and re-integrating sway you otherwise.


Is this to say that the team that played so well in the ACC tourney would have played differently in the NCAA tournament? I think Duke lost its best and most consistent player, as he demonstrated throughout the entire season, in late March at NCAA tournament time. He never recovered and the team never fully recovered. I think AZ was a tough matchup for Duke regardless of who played, but Duke did not have its best player in that game.

Wheat/"/"/"
04-03-2011, 12:52 PM
Just a thought since I see the "if" game being played...how is the board going to react "if" the polls rank UNC higher than Duke in the final rankings, which is possible, "if" not likely :)

Wander
04-03-2011, 01:02 PM
Heck, even the Duke team that played in the ACC tournament would've done major damage in the NCAAs, imo. Hopefully that aspect of this 2011 season does not become lost as time goes by.

The proof is in the scoreboard.


In 2009, Duke won the ACC tournament and got thrashed by Villanova. In 2006, Duke won the ACC tournament and was exposed by LSU. The 2005 team also won the ACC tournament and was upset in the Sweet 16. We can go farther back, and consider teams other than Duke, but I think the point is made.

I see no reason to believe the team that won the ACC tournament would have done any better against Arizona than the team we actually put on the floor.

Richard Berg
04-03-2011, 01:32 PM
I don't find most of the comparison in this thread very useful. Too many variables, too many imprecise terms. (silly to argue who the "best team" is when nobody agrees what "best" means)

I will say this: the Arizona team that showed up on 3/24/2011 would have handily beaten Butler, UConn, OSU, and Kansas. Even Duke-with-a-full-year-of-Kyrie would've had their hands full, probably requiring a feat of Laettner-esque heroism for us to survive & advance.

All of the above would have waxed Arizona's 3/26 team.

That's basketball for ya.

hurleyfor3
04-03-2011, 01:40 PM
I will say this: the Arizona team that showed up on 3/24/2011 would have handily beaten Butler, UConn, OSU, and Kansas. Even Duke-with-a-full-year-of-Kyrie would've had their hands full, probably requiring a feat of Laettner-esque heroism for us to survive & advance.

All of the above would have waxed Arizona's 3/26 team.

Agree completely, although maybe 2001 could have beaten Zona. Not only that, we would have slaughtered last night's Kentucky or Uconn teams.

Slot us where Kansas was, and there was a fair chance we would have lost to vcu. And if not, we would've gotten Butler one game earlier.

Crap happens.

sagegrouse
04-03-2011, 02:01 PM
Just a thought since I see the "if" game being played...how is the board going to react "if" the polls rank UNC higher than Duke in the final rankings, which is possible, "if" not likely :)

Wheat --

The AP poll is done. Duke finished #5, UNC finished #6.

The ESPN/USA Today coaches Poll is a mystery, if not an outright fraud. It is published the day after the Final Four. And #1 is always the NCAA champion and #2 always seems to be the runner-up. Last year the first four teams in the final ranking were Duke, Butler, WVa, and Mich State -- the Final Four. At the end of the regular season they were #3, #8, #5, and #12. In the final poll last year, #5 and #6 were Kentucky and Kansas the #2 and #1 in the regular season. Baylor moved into the top ten from #21 on the basis of -- well -- losing to Duke in the Elite Eight.

This year I expect to see the same crapola -- but it will be humorous, to be sure. In the final regular season poll neither Butler nor VCU were ranked in the top 25. And not only unranked -- they didn't receive A SINGLE VOTE from the coaches, placing behind Tommy's Hah-vahd team, which did receive one vote.

So, therefore, the coaches will effectively say, "We were full of it. These were top five teams all along, as the NCAA tournament verified. And we should be red-faced that not a single one of us voted for either team in the top 25. But since we don't pay any attention to what we submit or to what the final results show, we aren't embarrassed at all." Such nonsense!

sagegrouse
'So, Wheat, you may well be right about the final coaches poll'

BobbyFan
04-03-2011, 02:02 PM
I will say this: the Arizona team that showed up on 3/24/2011 would have handily beaten Butler, UConn, OSU, and Kansas. Even Duke-with-a-full-year-of-Kyrie would've had their hands full, probably requiring a feat of Laettner-esque heroism for us to survive & advance.

It's funny that you mention this. As I was watching the 2nd half of the Arizona game, I mentioned to my friend that the last time I remember a team playing over their heads offensively to this degree was the UK game in 92. Of course, we happened to be just as brilliant on offense in that game and survived.

Richard Berg
04-03-2011, 03:43 PM
It's funny that you mention this. As I was watching the 2nd half of the Arizona game, I mentioned to my friend that the last time I remember a team playing over their heads offensively to this degree was the UK game in 92. Of course, we happened to be just as brilliant on offense in that game and survived.
I agree, and said something similar.

Something people often forget, however: '92 was not a very good defensive team. Aside from a few lapses (at really bad times, aided by foul trouble and a freakish laceration to Singler), I think our guys played over 30 minutes of solid D. Substitute the '92 squad, jack up the # of possessions to match their average pace, and Zona might've scored 110! As good as our O was in '92, we only achieved that feat a few times: vs Harvard, Clemson, & State, all of whom had defenses in the bottom 20% of D-1, all of them occurring in CIS. In fairness I'll balance that against Christian & Bobby's knack for playing up to the level of their opponents -- but you still have, at best, a dead heat. I think we lose 6 times out of 10.

Only in '99 and '01 would we match up well, IMO. Elton, Shane, and 'Los wouldn't have let the lead evaporate so quickly. (you could argue that defense doesn't matter, the way Zona was making shots, but if nothing else those guys would've corralled more rebounds and loose balls) And obviously those teams had the firepower to keep up the pressure once the endgame barrage started, *if* they played at or above their average. Call it even money.

Just to illustrate how crazy it is to compare "average" or "expected" performance (based on a whole season) against a strong outlier: the great teams from '91, '98, '02, '04, '06, and '10 would be at least 2-1 dogs against Zona that night. You'd have to cherry pick a performance like 12/10/2005 (vs #2 Texas) or 2/14/2002 (vs #24 NC State) to make us a believable favorite. I honestly doubt whether recent squads' best games (say, 3/28/2010 vs WVu or 3/13/2011 vs UNC) would've been good enough.

Who else might've survived with a singular performance? The Terps on Greivis' senior night? Still an underdog, methinks. UNC on 2/11/09? (57 pts in the 2nd half, while shutting us down, in Cameron) Tossup. Kansas on 4/5/2008 (with that delicious 40-12 opening)? Call them 1.5/1 favorites -- but don't forget they almost gave it away when the Holes started playing out of their minds.

As wild as these conjectures get, I'm not adding injury-free '11 to the list. Way too many unknowns; we don't even know what our "average" performance looked like, much less the variance etc etc. Maybe they lose focus like '02. Or maybe they truly become the most dominant team in the land...like '99, or Vegas '91...

omar
04-03-2011, 03:57 PM
Kyrie, Kyrie, Kyrie, enough already. His talent indeed matched his performance. It was, and perhaps will be, a pleasure to watch him play. It was refreshing to see his positive mental attitude on the bench, he was "all in" as the expression goes. The late season speculation of whether he would return stoked the dreams of back-to-back success. Personally, I cannot help but feel that the flow of the game changed when he returned to the madness of what is surely March. Nolan, Nolan, Nolan was the heart and sure shot of this team. Something called the bulk of the basketball season separated Kyrie's two act performances. K's statement that Kyrie would play, "a significant amount of time" was a thrill and put more octane in the tank. IMHO, however, the engine didn't run as efficiently as it used to. Could it be that our guard play was hampered by small amounts of indecision, a hesitancy to make a play rather than do what you did all year? You don't always go home with the person who took you to the dance. Perhaps less would have been more in this instance.

Duvall
04-03-2011, 04:49 PM
IMHO, however, the engine didn't run as efficiently as it used to. Could it be that our guard play was hampered by small amounts of indecision, a hesitancy to make a play rather than do what you did all year?

Well, that and Seth Curry's hip pointer.

loldevilz
04-03-2011, 05:43 PM
I agree, and said something similar.

Something people often forget, however: '92 was not a very good defensive team. Aside from a few lapses (at really bad times, aided by foul trouble and a freakish laceration to Singler), I think our guys played over 30 minutes of solid D. Substitute the '92 squad, jack up the # of possessions to match their average pace, and Zona might've scored 110! As good as our O was in '92, we only achieved that feat a few times: vs Harvard, Clemson, & State, all of whom had defenses in the bottom 20% of D-1, all of them occurring in CIS. In fairness I'll balance that against Christian & Bobby's knack for playing up to the level of their opponents -- but you still have, at best, a dead heat. I think we lose 6 times out of 10.

Only in '99 and '01 would we match up well, IMO. Elton, Shane, and 'Los wouldn't have let the lead evaporate so quickly. (you could argue that defense doesn't matter, the way Zona was making shots, but if nothing else those guys would've corralled more rebounds and loose balls) And obviously those teams had the firepower to keep up the pressure once the endgame barrage started, *if* they played at or above their average. Call it even money.

Just to illustrate how crazy it is to compare "average" or "expected" performance (based on a whole season) against a strong outlier: the great teams from '91, '98, '02, '04, '06, and '10 would be at least 2-1 dogs against Zona that night. You'd have to cherry pick a performance like 12/10/2005 (vs #2 Texas) or 2/14/2002 (vs #24 NC State) to make us a believable favorite. I honestly doubt whether recent squads' best games (say, 3/28/2010 vs WVu or 3/13/2011 vs UNC) would've been good enough.

Who else might've survived with a singular performance? The Terps on Greivis' senior night? Still an underdog, methinks. UNC on 2/11/09? (57 pts in the 2nd half, while shutting us down, in Cameron) Tossup. Kansas on 4/5/2008 (with that delicious 40-12 opening)? Call them 1.5/1 favorites -- but don't forget they almost gave it away when the Holes started playing out of their minds.

As wild as these conjectures get, I'm not adding injury-free '11 to the list. Way too many unknowns; we don't even know what our "average" performance looked like, much less the variance etc etc. Maybe they lose focus like '02. Or maybe they truly become the most dominant team in the land...like '99, or Vegas '91...

I understand that Arizona had a bizarrely good game against Duke. The best in at least 8 years according to kenpom. But Duke's poor play had a lot to do with it. Duke was a bad matchup for them. No doubt in 91, Grant Hill would have taken Williams out of the game.

Thinking back on it, it wasn't Kyrie Irving who was missed but Harrison Barnes, who with Singler could have handled Derrick Williams.