Some notes on K's press conference, 8-31-11 [Archive]

jimsumner

08-31-2011, 03:37 PM

Mike Krzyzewski addressed the media today.

Some highlights.

Nothing but praise for the China/Dubai trip. A good time was had by all, Duke blended work and play and K learned some things about his team. Great bonding experience.

K very complimentary towards Seth Curry, who he says "could be one of the better point guards in the country." K says that Curry separated himself. "I liked everything about Seth, the way he passed, he can really handle the ball and made pretty good decisions." K said Curry still needs to learn when to look for his shot and when to set up his teammates. He's in great shape. Never gets tired.

Austin Rivers "has a great deal to improve on. Every play doesn't have to be hard. He wants to learn and has a great attitude."

Ryan Kelly was "really assertive on offense. He put the ball on the floor well." Duke had seen that in practice but wanted to see it in games.

After Curry, K thought the three bigs played the best. Said that Mason "really played well the last two games." He needs to rely more on strength, less on finesse. "That has to be the habit."

Andre is "right there." Not much further on "Dre.

Quinn Cook is "progressing well." Did lots of strengthing work in China. Duke expects him to be ready for basketball work in a couple of weeks.

Top six clearly established. Needs for Murphy and/or Gbinijie to be able to guard big wings. Hairston and Marshall may see only spot minutes if top 3 bigs stay healthy. Thornton capable of giving solid minutes off the bench.

K is giving the team a couple of weeks off. Long season ahead.

No discussion of redshirting anyone.

K says "I think we can really score the ball. We can space you. You have to guard our people. We're getting the ball to the big guys well. We need to cross the bridge and become as good defensively."

Pre-season emphasis will be on team defense and rebounding.

hudlow

08-31-2011, 03:57 PM

Sounds like a good solid Duke team ready to begin the season. With good contributions from the bench, this team will roll.

I hope a strong leader on the court emerges early.

GO DUKE!

hud

OZZIE4DUKE

08-31-2011, 04:06 PM

Thanks for the report Jim.

As to the on the court leader, I think we saw Ryan Kelly really step forward in that way on the trip.

Kedsy

08-31-2011, 04:12 PM

K very complimentary towards Seth Curry, who he says "could be one of the better point guards in the country." K says that Curry separated himself. "I liked everything about Seth, the way he passed, he can really handle the ball and made pretty good decisions." K said Curry still needs to learn when to look for his shot and when to set up his teammates. He's in great shape. Never gets tired.

This is very interesting. On other threads, DBR posters are lamenting over and over the lack of a "true" point guard. Doesn't sound like K is worried.

jimsumner

08-31-2011, 04:15 PM

This is very interesting. On other threads, DBR posters are lamenting over and over the lack of a "true" point guard. Doesn't sound like K is worried.

Nope. Let me emphasize that this was not pro-forma praise. K went out of his way to praise Curry, turning several open-ended questions into opportunities to talk about Seth.

Duke of Nashville

08-31-2011, 04:21 PM

Nice. Thanks for the highlights Jim. I'm confident with Seth running the point this year. Next year could be Tyler and Quinn's year to shine. What is it? Like 44 more days till CTC? Cannot wait. Go Duke!

Alex

SilkyJ

08-31-2011, 04:24 PM

Thanks, Jim.

There's a video on GoDuke.com if you go the Men's BB main page and look along the right side where it says "Inside Access" (don't have to login or anything, just click the video)

SilkyJ

08-31-2011, 04:27 PM

Nope. Let me emphasize that this was not pro-forma praise. K went out of his way to praise Curry, turning several open-ended questions into opportunities to talk about Seth.

Also, this may at least partially answer the question of who are likely captains....though most already thought Curry was well on his way.

Duke of Nashville

08-31-2011, 04:35 PM

Also, this may at least partially answer the question of who are likely captains....though most already thought Curry was well on his way.

Agreed. I watched most of the videos from Duke Blue Planet and when they were off the court Seth seemed to be showing that he was comfortable with his role as being a leader. I can see him playing a mentor role with our younger players and bringing along some of the play we will see out of Austin Rivers this year. Something I think Harrison Barnes (scorn me for the comparison) lacked early last year.

Alex

CharlestonDevil

08-31-2011, 04:53 PM

Not surprised that being such a young team that they are behind defensively. K will definitely fix that.

Also very encouraging to hear K compliment the bigs. If they play well that will take a lot of pressure off of our "scoring guards" to carry the team, including AR giving him time to develop.

licc85

08-31-2011, 05:11 PM

Here's the link to the press conference:

http://www.goduke.com//ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=205264365

Newton_14

08-31-2011, 10:12 PM

Great stuff Jim. Thanks for sharing that. I am very encouraged with our bigs and feel those 3 guys are set to have a great year. Andre and Seth will be really good, and Austin will figure it out quickly. I am also of the belief that one or both of Alex/Mike will develop enough to provide that defense on big wings. If that happens, the ceiling for this team goes up a couple of notches.

There is much work to do, and lots of improvement needed, but it is very encouragin to hear these things from K himself. He has never been big on "coach speak" and handing out praise without merit.

Exciting stuff.

loldevilz

08-31-2011, 10:27 PM

Nice to hear that Murphy and or Gbinije will get minutes. Disappointed to hear that Hairston will only get spot minutes. I think he could be valuable against undersized fours.

OldPhiKap

08-31-2011, 10:58 PM

Nice to hear that Murphy and or Gbinije will get minutes. Disappointed to hear that Hairston will only get spot minutes. I think he could be valuable against undersized fours.

These are statements made after only a few practices and exhibition games. Has little to do with what happens when we get into conference play, if Josh earns it. And I am a BIG Hairston fan.

jimsumner

08-31-2011, 11:30 PM

These are statements made after only a few practices and exhibition games. Has little to do with what happens when we get into conference play, if Josh earns it. And I am a BIG Hairston fan.

For the record, it was the head coach who suggested that--barring injury--minutes for Hairston might be hard to come by this season. He didn't indicate that Hairston wouldn't be given the opportunity to play himself into the rotation or that this was a permanent situtation. But he did imply that the three guys ahead of him are well ahead of him and that the trio should be able to cover much of the 80 mpg at the 4/5.

magjayran

09-01-2011, 12:10 AM

I'm surprised that he didn't have more to say about Dre. I really love that kid and while I do see his flaws, I think he's done a lot in the offseason in terms of stamina and improving his already sweet shot. I also like the way he's been attacking the rim when he gets a lane.

killerleft

09-01-2011, 08:53 AM

jaytoc

09-01-2011, 08:57 AM

Thanks for the info, especially loved hearing about Seth's growth.

But why have a press conference the week of our first football game? That was easily avoidable. We need for all of Duke's focus to be on the Richmond football game! Changing the culture includes everybody. "C'mon!"

Go Duke!!

Check out the actual recording of the conference. K goes out of his way to highlight the game Saturday night and wish Cut and the team well.

jimsumner

09-01-2011, 09:37 AM

Check out the actual recording of the conference. K goes out of his way to highlight the game Saturday night and wish Cut and the team well.

Yes, he did. The timing of the press conference was dictated by the timing of the team's return from the trip. Not much of an opportunity to have it last week!

CDu

09-01-2011, 10:31 AM

Nice to hear that Murphy and or Gbinije will get minutes. Disappointed to hear that Hairston will only get spot minutes. I think he could be valuable against undersized fours.

Not sure I agree with your assessment of Hairston here. But if he does prove to Coach K that he can be valuable against undersized PF (AND if Kelly and the Plumlees have trouble with undersized PF) then I'm sure Hairston would play. I just haven't seen anything that would suggest Hairston will prove better against undersized PF than Kelly or the Plumlees. I think people want to make Hairston a senior-year version of Lance Thomas, but I haven't seen anything to suggest he has that skill set.

I think the only thing surprising from those Coach K comments is the positive statements about Curry's work at PG. Curry looked pretty sloppy and unimpressive as a PG (the ability to shoot was there - the playmaking and passing wasn't) in the 3 games I saw. I'm guessing/hoping that these were aberrant performances for him. But the rest of it (the top-6 having established themselves, one of Murphy/Gbinije needing to be the 8th man, Thornton capable of solid bench minutes, and Hairston and Marshall getting limited minutes behind the three veteran bigs) was pretty consistent with what we've seen in China/Dubai and what should have been expected coming in to the season.

roywhite

09-01-2011, 10:58 AM

Not sure I agree with your assessment of Hairston here. But if he does prove to Coach K that he can be valuable against undersized PF (AND if Kelly and the Plumlees have trouble with undersized PF) then I'm sure Hairston would play. I just haven't seen anything that would suggest Hairston will prove better against undersized PF than Kelly or the Plumlees. I think people want to make Hairston a senior-year version of Lance Thomas, but I haven't seen anything to suggest he has that skill set.

I think the only thing surprising from those Coach K comments is the positive statements about Curry's work at PG. Curry looked pretty sloppy and unimpressive as a PG (the ability to shoot was there - the playmaking and passing wasn't) in the 3 games I saw. I'm guessing/hoping that these were aberrant performances for him. But the rest of it (the top-6 having established themselves, one of Murphy/Gbinije needing to be the 8th man, Thornton capable of solid bench minutes, and Hairston and Marshall getting limited minutes behind the three veteran bigs) was pretty consistent with what we've seen in China/Dubai and what should have been expected coming in to the season.

All things considered (travel, time change, officiating, new position, etc.) I thought Seth played pretty well and was glad to hear Coach K's positive comments. Seth showed good speed and improved overall ball handling; his gains in size and strength since coming to Duke are significant also. He seems ready to be a top level ACC guard IMO, not a pure point, but very capable in his increased role.

Josh? May not get many minutes, but I can see him as an "energy" guy in some situations off the bench.

Kedsy

09-01-2011, 11:03 AM

_Gary

09-01-2011, 11:09 AM

I think the only thing surprising from those Coach K comments is the positive statements about Curry's work at PG. Curry looked pretty sloppy and unimpressive as a PG (the ability to shoot was there - the playmaking and passing wasn't) in the 3 games I saw.

Be careful or you'll be accused of "lamenting over and over the lack of a 'true' point guard." :D

In all seriousness I love the way hyperbole is used here. It's funny to me sometimes. I basically agree with your assessment as it concerns Seth's PG play in China. And it was only his PG play and not his overall play. I was only speaking in terms of running the team, yet some apparently took that as some kind of blast at Seth, when that was the furthest thing from my mind. Heck, Seth will probably be my favorite player on the team this year. I absolutely love him. If I weren't married, I might propose. But that doesn't mean I'm going to overlook the fact that we might have some issues, in general, at PG this year since Tyler and Quinn are the only two PGs we have on the team in the true sense of the word. Seth's a shooting guard by nature, plain and simple. He's going to be trying to duplicate the role Jon took on a couple of years ago and more power to him. And yes, Coach K is not in the habit of giving out false praise. So when he says what he does I do sit up and take notice. Perhaps I wasn't seeing everything on the China trip. That's entirely possible and I said that in the other thread. Here's to hoping we have a great year and Seth plays fantastic at the point!

Go Duke!!!

killerleft

09-01-2011, 11:10 AM

Check out the actual recording of the conference. K goes out of his way to highlight the game Saturday night and wish Cut and the team well.

OK, I take it back.

OldPhiKap

09-01-2011, 11:29 AM

I am more concerned with the upcoming scheduling conflicts:

12/30 vs. Western Michigan -- conflicts with the New Era Pinstripe Bowl, Franklin American Mortgage Music City Bowl, Bell Hellicopter Armed Forces Bowl, and Insight Bowl.

1/4 vs. Temple -- conflicts with Discover Orange Bowl.

1/7 vs. GTech -- conflicts with BBVA Cotton Bowl.

Plus we have a potential conflict on 1/1 vs. Penn, as the GoDaddy.com Bowl has still TBD. Although its on-line content remains unrated, apparently.

(Actually, of these, I think the only ones with ACC tie-ins are the Music City Bowl which may be realistic, and the Orange Bowl for the ACC Champ which would take some doing. Still, preseason is the time to dream big).

jimsumner

09-01-2011, 11:44 AM

Not sure I agree with your assessment of Hairston here. But if he does prove to Coach K that he can be valuable against undersized PF (AND if Kelly and the Plumlees have trouble with undersized PF) then I'm sure Hairston would play. I just haven't seen anything that would suggest Hairston will prove better against undersized PF than Kelly or the Plumlees. I think people want to make Hairston a senior-year version of Lance Thomas, but I haven't seen anything to suggest he has that skill set.

I think the only thing surprising from those Coach K comments is the positive statements about Curry's work at PG. Curry looked pretty sloppy and unimpressive as a PG (the ability to shoot was there - the playmaking and passing wasn't) in the 3 games I saw. I'm guessing/hoping that these were aberrant performances for him. But the rest of it (the top-6 having established themselves, one of Murphy/Gbinije needing to be the 8th man, Thornton capable of solid bench minutes, and Hairston and Marshall getting limited minutes behind the three veteran bigs) was pretty consistent with what we've seen in China/Dubai and what should have been expected coming in to the season.

I suspect Hairston will get some opportunities in non-mop-up situations. Somewhere along the line, someone will sprain an ankle or get the flu and we know darn well that there will be games when two of the three big men will have two fouls with six minutes left in the first half. A good five minutes off the bench can be huge in a close game. And a good five minutes can turn into eight minutes which can turn into 12 minutes.

But I don't think it's disrespecting a 6-7 underclassman to suggest that he may be behind a 6-11 upperclassmen at power forward. But that's a snapshot of where he is now. He's got time.

SilkyJ

09-01-2011, 11:54 AM

I think the only thing surprising from those Coach K comments is the positive statements about Curry's work at PG. Curry looked pretty sloppy and unimpressive as a PG (the ability to shoot was there - the playmaking and passing wasn't) in the 3 games I saw.

All things considered (travel, time change, officiating, new position, etc.) I thought Seth played pretty well and was glad to hear Coach K's positive comments. Seth showed good speed and improved overall ball handling; his gains in size and strength since coming to Duke are significant also. He seems ready to be a top level ACC guard IMO, not a pure point, but very capable in his increased role.

Have to admit I'm leaning towards CDu on this one. I thought Seth scored the ball pretty well, but I saw too much sloppy play, picking up the dribble, turnovers etc. to have guessed Coach K would say that.

That said, I'm confident enough to think I have a better eye for bball that many people, but not arrogant enough to think anyone on the coaching staff are among those people. If they like what they are seeing, then I defer to them. (And I'd say, overall, I like what I saw from Seth. I just thought the "he could be one of the better PGs in the country" statement came as a surprise.)

Kedsy's point below seems reasonable, especially given that we had been hearing even before the China trip that Seth was the best player in practice.

Gottlieb kept saying that Seth had been our most impressive player in the practices. Since I assume he hadn't actually seen any of the practices, my guess is he got that line from the Duke staff. K's comments may have been inspired in part by the practices and in part by Seth incorporating (in the games) subtle things from practices that he hadn't done before (in games) and which we may not have been able to pick up on, watching on TV.

Just a guess on my part.

UrinalCake

09-01-2011, 12:16 PM

I loved this quote from the first article linked in the story on the main page:

“On any team, you’d hope there would be some level of separation at least initially,” Krzyzewski said. “Like Nolan (Smith) and Kyle (Singler) were separated from our team (last year) and then Kyrie (Irving) was there. And then people have to catch up. If you’re always together, you might have a socialistic type of team. But you’re not going to win. There has to be somebody who the other guys chase and who you can count on all the time. And Seth really did that."

We saw him do this with the National team when he labeled Durant as their go-to guy. Even when he struggled initially, K told him that he would have to carry the team - in essence "separating" him from his teammates. And that worked out pretty well. I can kind of see him building up Curry the same way. He might be overstating how well he played to some extent, but he believes that having the coach's and team's confidence will help him get to where he needs to be (and is capable of being).

CDu

09-01-2011, 12:18 PM

Have to admit I'm leaning towards CDu on this one. I thought Seth scored the ball pretty well, but I saw too much sloppy play, picking up the dribble, turnovers etc. to have guessed Coach K would say that.

That said, I'm confident enough to think I have a better eye for bball that many people, but not arrogant enough to think anyone on the coaching staff are among those people. If they like what they are seeing, then I defer to them. (And I'd say, overall, I like what I saw from Seth. I just thought the "he could be one of the better PGs in the country" statement came as a surprise.)

Kedsy's point below seems reasonable, especially given that we had been hearing even before the China trip that Seth was the best player in practice.

Agreed. I'm certainly not saying that Coach K is wrong on this. Just that it was the one thing in his quotes that was inconsistent with what I had seen of Curry's play.

I was very happy with Curry's shooting touch (when discounting the 3pt% due to the extended line). I just remember a lot of sloppy possessions on Curry's part. Obviously, that's a small sample size in a foreign environment, and Coach K has the luxury of having seen Curry in practice.

It just stood out as surprising given what (admittedly little) I've seen so far this year.

CDu

09-01-2011, 12:26 PM

I suspect Hairston will get some opportunities in non-mop-up situations. Somewhere along the line, someone will sprain an ankle or get the flu and we know darn well that there will be games when two of the three big men will have two fouls with six minutes left in the first half. A good five minutes off the bench can be huge in a close game. And a good five minutes can turn into eight minutes which can turn into 12 minutes.

But I don't think it's disrespecting a 6-7 underclassman to suggest that he may be behind a 6-11 upperclassmen at power forward. But that's a snapshot of where he is now. He's got time.

I'd guess he'll get more than 5mpg (he got about that many last year) even without sickness/injury. And they won't all be in mop-up duty, either. I was just commenting on a somewhat-prevalent opinion that Hairston could/would be a Thomas-like option as a defensive "stopper" against quicker PF this year. I think that's an unrealistic assessment of Hairston's skill set at this point.

Hairston has basically the same hurdles in front of him as last year (three more experienced, more talented bigs). He doesn't have Singler there to steal a few minutes at PF, but he now also has Murphy (who might get time in a small lineup) and Marshall Plumlee on the squad. So anything more than 8-10mpg would be surprising this year, and I agree should not be a knock on Hairston at all.

licc85

09-01-2011, 01:52 PM

What I took from Coach K's comments on Seth was that he really thinks Seth is the key to this entire puzzle. Since everyone has said so, I think we can all assume that Seth has been impressive in practices, but I have to agree with other posters that he wasn't spectacular in the Friendship Games. He was solid, and steady, but his shooting percentages and decision making were not indicative of the type of glowing praise Coach K heaped on him.

So, back to my original point. Coach K knows this team needs a point guard. He also knows we need a leader. Nolan Smith left a giant void in both of those categories. Seth is the best candidate for both of those roles. Basketball, like most sports, is a game where confidence makes a huge impact on performance. Perhaps Coach K sees the potential in Seth and used this presser to talk him up in the eyes of his teammates as well as our fanbase, and to boost his confidence in himself.

Seth is an extremely important cog in our machine, and I think he needs to step up and become that great point guard and leader that we so desperately need right now. Fact is, we aren't going very far in March without a great point guard. Everyone knows that the most important position in college basketball is the point guard, especially at Duke. Tyler is not as talented offensively, and I don't have extremely high expectations of Quinn in his first year. Therefore, this team is only going as far as Seth can take us, and I think Coach K is just trying to rally everyone behind him and get him where he needs to be for this team.

CDu

09-01-2011, 01:53 PM

Kedsy

09-01-2011, 02:05 PM

Fact is, we aren't going very far in March without a great point guard.

I disagree that this is a "fact." To me, it's more like a myth. Even if we could agree on what makes a PG "great," plenty of teams have gone far in March without a great point guard. Including several Duke teams in the Coach K era.

MChambers

09-01-2011, 02:52 PM

I disagree that this is a "fact." To me, it's more like a myth. Even if we could agree on what makes a PG "great," plenty of teams have gone far in March without a great point guard. Including several Duke teams in the Coach K era.
Like those teams with well-known, great point guards such as Tommy Amaker, Quinn Snyder, Jon Scheyer, and Chris Duhon. All wonderful Duke players, but none of whom has a jersey hanging from the rafters.

licc85

09-01-2011, 03:50 PM

I disagree that this is a "fact." To me, it's more like a myth. Even if we could agree on what makes a PG "great," plenty of teams have gone far in March without a great point guard. Including several Duke teams in the Coach K era.

I think you are looking too much into my post . . . I kind of casually threw in the word "great" in there, but by great, I just mean one of the top PGs in the nation. I have to respectfully disagree with your theory that it's a myth that you need a great point guard to win late in the year. It's pretty hard to be an elite team when the guy who has the ball in his hands more than any of your other players isn't one of your best players.

Like those teams with well-known, great point guards such as Tommy Amaker, Quinn Snyder, Jon Scheyer, and Chris Duhon. All wonderful Duke players, but none of whom has a jersey hanging from the rafters.

I think all of these guys were great point guards. Just because they don't have their numbers retired doesn't mean they weren't some of the best point guards in the country when they played.

jimsumner

09-01-2011, 03:59 PM

Like those teams with well-known, great point guards such as Tommy Amaker, Quinn Snyder, Jon Scheyer, and Chris Duhon. All wonderful Duke players, but none of whom has a jersey hanging from the rafters.

Well, Duhon and Scheyer were consensus second-team All-Americans and runners-up for the ACC POY in 2004 and 2010 respectively, so I'm not sure they support your argument.

Quin Snyder does. As does Jeff Capel in 1994. Of course, they had Danny Ferry and Grant Hill respectively at forward and none of Duke's current forwards appear to have the kind of ball-handling and passing abilities that enabled Ferry and Hill to augment the PG.

The starting points for K's FF teams.

1986-Tommy Amaker
1988-Snyder
1989-Snyder
1990-Hurley (turnover prone freshman)
1991-Hurley-much steadier sophomore
1992-Hurley
1994-Capel
1999-Will Avery
2001-Jason Williams/Chris Duhon
2004-Duhon
2010-Scheyer

JWill, Duhon and Scheyer are the only three to make first-team All-ACC in the FF season.

Note that only one of Duke's pre-K Final Four teams had an elite PG, Steve Vacendak in 1966. Bill Foster got to the 1978 FF with John Harrell starting at point.

So, it's certainly possible to make the FF without an elite PG, especially if you've got some Heyman, Mullins, Marin, Verga, Gminski, Spanarkel, Banks, Dawkins, Alarie, Ferry, Laettner, Hill, Brand, Redick, Deng-level talent floating around.

Then again, if I had my druthers, I would rather Curry be one of the country's better point guards then not.

Kedsy

09-01-2011, 04:04 PM

I think all of these guys were great point guards. Just because they don't have their numbers retired doesn't mean they were some of the best point guards in the country when they played.

Depends on your definition of great. Amaker was an outstanding defender and a great passer, but wasn't all that good a dribble-penetrator and was not a scorer. Snyder could run a team but was not considered by pretty much anyone to be one of the top PGs in the country. Scheyer was no more a "true point" than Seth Curry is. Duhon couldn't shoot. The OP also left out Jeff Capel, Duke's PG on the 1994 national finalists, who was a decent player but not by a long shot considered one of the best PGs in the country (and was a freshman, to boot).

And that's just Duke. A great many Final Four teams over the past (name your number of) years have not had a PG who was considered one of the best. Sure, it would help, but I stand by my statement that the idea of needing a great PG to "go far in March" is a myth.

licc85

09-01-2011, 04:22 PM

Well, Duhon and Scheyer were consensus second-team All-Americans and runners-up for the ACC POY in 2004 and 2010 respectively, so I'm not sure they support your argument.

Quin Snyder does. As does Jeff Capel in 1994. Of course, they had Danny Ferry and Grant Hill respectively at forward and none of Duke's current forwards appear to have the kind of ball-handling and passing abilities that enabled Ferry and Hill to augment the PG.

The starting points for K's FF teams.

1986-Tommy Amaker
1988-Snyder
1989-Snyder
1990-Hurley (turnover prone freshman)
1991-Hurley-much steadier sophomore
1992-Hurley
1994-Capel
1999-Will Avery
2001-Jason Williams/Chris Duhon
2004-Duhon
2010-Scheyer

JWill, Duhon and Scheyer are the only three to make first-team All-ACC in the FF season.

Note that only one of Duke's pre-K Final Four teams had an elite PG, Steve Vacendak in 1966. Bill Foster got to the 1978 FF with John Harrell starting at point.

So, it's certainly possible to make the FF without an elite PG, especially if you've got some Heyman, Mullins, Marin, Verga, Gminski, Spanarkel, Banks, Dawkins, Alarie, Ferry, Laettner, Hill, Brand, Redick, Deng-level talent floating around.

Then again, if I had my druthers, I would rather Curry be one of the country's better point guards then not.

I think in today's game, you either need an elite point guard (I would say, one of the top 10 guys at the position) or overwhelming NBA talent at other positions to get deep in the tournament. Basketball was more of a big man oriented sport before the 3 point line was instated in 1986, and I think that can be partly attributed to why Duke was able to reach final fours without great point guards before the Coach K era. In any case, you absolutely need a point guard who can handle the ball and limit his turnovers. Look at the championships point guards since the turn of the century:

2011: Kemba Walker (elite)
2010: Jon Scheyer (elite)
2009: Ty Lawson (elite)
2008: Mario Chalmers (elite)
2006-2007: Taurean Green (not elite), played with 4 guys currently on NBA rosters: Al Horford, Joakim Noah, Corey Brewer, Mareese Speights
2005: Raymon Felton (elite)
2004: Taliek Brown (not elite), played with 3 players currently on NBA rosters: Ben Gordon, Emeka Okafor, Charlie Villanueva
2003: Gerry McNamara (not elite, but certainly a very good player), played with 2 players currently on NBA rosters: Carmelo Anthony, Hakim Warrick
2002: Steve Blake (elite)
2001: Chris Duhon, Jason Williams (elite)
2000: Mateen Cleaves (elite)

So, in this century so far, out of 12 teams, only 3 have not had one of the top point guards in the nation, and the other teams who won it all had at least 1 guy who was an NBA all-star, or in Emeka Okafor's case, No. 1 overall pick and NBA rookie of the year. I think it's pretty hard to argue against the fact that today's game almost requires an excellent player at the point.

Kedsy

09-01-2011, 04:25 PM

I think you are looking too much into my post . . . I kind of casually threw in the word "great" in there, but by great, I just mean one of the top PGs in the nation. I have to respectfully disagree with your theory that it's a myth that you need a great point guard to win late in the year. It's pretty hard to be an elite team when the guy who has the ball in his hands more than any of your other players isn't one of your best players.

The problem is, it's too difficult to quantify things like "one of your best players." And how does that make you great?

And it cuts both ways. In 2006, Greg Paulus led the ACC in assists, was I believe 2nd team Freshman All-American. In 2008 I'm pretty sure he was third team All-ACC. Was he one of our best players? Sure. Was he a great PG? I don't know. Did he lead Duke to a Final Four? No.

On the other hand, six times we've had PGs that have led our team to the Final Four and have averaged fewer than 10 points per game (and a seventh time when our PG scored exactly 10 ppg). But their passing and defense perhaps did make them great, despite their lack of production.

Either five or six (depending on whether Jason Williams is considered the 2001 PG or not) of our Final Four PGs have had assist to turnover ratios of less than 2.0 (including three less than 1.75). In fact, three of our Final Four PGs had a/to ratios less than 2 and scored fewer than 10 ppg. Hard to be considered one of the best in the nation with those kind of numbers, isn't it?

OldSchool

09-01-2011, 04:28 PM

Sure, it would help, but I stand by my statement that the idea of needing a great PG to "go far in March" is a myth.

Of course you are correct. And neither does a team need a natural center to go far in March, but the last time we had one, the bearded one led us all the way home his senior year.

But peek into the future for a moment...Quinn Cook and Marshall Plumlee - if those two develop into something, we could see a natural 1 - natural 5 combination that has not been all that common at Duke and could be devastating for our opponents.

licc85

09-01-2011, 04:32 PM

The problem is, it's too difficult to quantify things like "one of your best players." And how does that make you great?

And it cuts both ways. In 2006, Greg Paulus led the ACC in assists, was I believe 2nd team Freshman All-American. In 2008 I'm pretty sure he was third team All-ACC. Was he one of our best players? Sure. Was he a great PG? I don't know. Did he lead Duke to a Final Four? No.

On the other hand, six times we've had PGs that have led our team to the Final Four and have averaged fewer than 10 points per game (and a seventh time when our PG scored exactly 10 ppg). But their passing and defense perhaps did make them great, despite their lack of production.

Either five or six (depending on whether Jason Williams is considered the 2001 PG or not) of our Final Four PGs have had assist to turnover ratios of less than 2.0 (including three less than 1.75). In fact, three of our Final Four PGs had a/to ratios less than 2 and scored fewer than 10 ppg. Hard to be considered one of the best in the nation with those kind of numbers, isn't it?

I don't think being a "true point guard" has anything to do with my argument here. I'm just saying that the guy who has the ball in his hands the most on your team needs to be a top player in the country if you want to go deep in the tournament, whether he's a true point or not. Jon Scheyer was by no means a true point guard, but he was definitely one of the best players in the country, and he didn't turn the ball over. I mean, sometimes you can get away with having a sub-par guy at the point, since anything can happen in March Madness, but the overwhelming majority of the time, the team with the better talent at the ball handler position has the upper hand.

On a side note . . . as much as I love Greg Paulus, and I don't mean to imply that he wasn't a very good player for us, but I would never have considered him one the elite point guards in the country. I think his assist numbers his freshman year were inflated because of the fact that he was playing with 2 senior All-Americans, 1 of whom could score at will. If I was the starting point guard on that team and all I had to do was get the ball to JJ Redick coming off a screen, or dump it down low to the Landlord, I think I could get a few assists too.

Wander

09-01-2011, 04:36 PM

And that's just Duke. A great many Final Four teams over the past (name your number of) years have not had a PG who was considered one of the best. Sure, it would help, but I stand by my statement that the idea of needing a great PG to "go far in March" is a myth.

I agree with this line of thinking, and I'd even expand it a bit farther: there's no magical formula to winning a national championship. Just recently, we've seen really fast and deep teams (UNC), really slow and shallow teams (Duke), teams without great guards (Florida), teams without lottery picks (Duke), teams that don't shoot very well (UConn), etc win the title. There are certainly trends - most notably, I think the "three NBA players" thing is a good rule of thumb - but I don't see many requirements.

Kedsy

09-01-2011, 04:38 PM

I think in today's game, you either need an elite point guard (I would say, one of the top 10 guys at the position) or overwhelming NBA talent at other positions to get deep in the tournament. Basketball was more of a big man oriented sport before the 3 point line was instated in 1986, and I think that can be partly attributed to why Duke was able to reach final fours without great point guards before the Coach K era. In any case, you absolutely need a point guard who can handle the ball and limit his turnovers. Look at the championships point guards since the turn of the century:

2011: Kemba Walker (elite)
2010: Jon Scheyer (elite)
2009: Ty Lawson (elite)
2008: Mario Chalmers (elite)
2006-2007: Taurean Green (not elite), played with 4 guys currently on NBA rosters: Al Horford, Joakim Noah, Corey Brewer, Mareese Speights
2005: Raymon Felton (elite)
2004: Taliek Brown (not elite), played with 3 players currently on NBA rosters: Ben Gordon, Emeka Okafor, Charlie Villanueva
2003: Gerry McNamara (not elite, but certainly a very good player), played with 2 players currently on NBA rosters: Carmelo Anthony, Hakim Warrick
2002: Steve Blake (elite)
2001: Chris Duhon, Jason Williams (elite)
2000: Mateen Cleaves (elite)

So, in this century so far, out of 12 teams, only 3 have not had one of the top point guards in the nation, and the other teams who won it all had at least 1 guy who was an NBA all-star, or in Emeka Okafor's case, No. 1 overall pick and NBA rookie of the year. I think it's pretty hard to argue against the fact that today's game requires an excellent player at the point, unless you have someone else who is just a transcendent talent.

Well, we could argue about whether Chalmers and Blake were "elite" college PGs, and we could certainly argue about whether Chalmers, Kemba Walker, Jon Scheyer, and Jason Williams were "true" points (as opposed to combo guards, which is how I would characterize all four, at least as much as Seth Curry and Austin Rivers). You could also argue which of Chris Duhon or Jason Williams was Duke's PG in 2001 or whether they were both combo guards, and whether Duhon was really elite as a freshman in 2001.

If you look at it that way, the only PGs who were both indisputedly "elite" and also "true" PGs on your list were Cleaves, Felton and Lawson. So I don't think it's so hard to argue the point.

Not only that, I think your qualifier ("unless you have someone else who is just a transcendent talent") renders your main argument useless. Obviously to win a national championship you need talent. If talent can cancel out the "need" for a great PG, then by definition you don't need a great PG to win a national championship.

Finally, looking only at champions is not how I'd define "going far in March." If you expand your sample to all Final Four teams in this century (which I am too lazy to bother with) I'm sure you'd find a slew of non-elite PGs playing in the Final Four. Probably a lot more than half.

OldSchool

09-01-2011, 04:42 PM

I think in today's game, you either need an elite point guard (I would say, one of the top 10 guys at the position) or overwhelming NBA talent at other positions to get deep in the tournament.

You are overstating your point with the "overwhelming NBA talent" part. But my view that it does not bother me much that Seth is not a natural point guard IS based on the talent at the other positions.

AR - a likely first-rounder
Mason - a likely first-rounder
Kelly - too early to tell, if he consistently maintains his elevated game he is at least a second-rounder, maybe a late first-rounder
Dre - depends how consistent he is this year from 3-pt, an athletic consistent 3-pt shooter will be at least a second-rounder if he can show some defensive ability.
Miles - with a solid year, at least a second rounder

So we do have NBA talent at each of the other positions on the floor this year, in my view. In that light, I just don't see the lack of a true point guard in our starting five as a fatal weakness to getting to the Final Four.

licc85

09-01-2011, 04:44 PM

Well, we could argue about whether Chalmers and Blake were "elite" college PGs, and we could certainly argue about whether Chalmers, Kemba Walker, Jon Scheyer, and Jason Williams were "true" points (as opposed to combo guards, which is how I would characterize all four, at least as much as Seth Curry and Austin Rivers). You could also argue which of Chris Duhon or Jason Williams was Duke's PG in 2001 or whether they were both combo guards, and whether Duhon was really elite as a freshman in 2001.

If you look at it that way, the only PGs who were both indisputedly "elite" and also "true" PGs on your list were Cleaves, Felton and Lawson. So I don't think it's so hard to argue the point.

Not only that, I think your qualifier ("unless you have someone else who is just a transcendent talent") renders your main argument useless. Obviously to win a national championship you need talent. If talent can cancel out the "need" for a great PG, then by definition you don't need a great PG to win a national championship.

Finally, looking only at champions is not how I'd define "going far in March." If you expand your sample to all Final Four teams in this century (which I am too lazy to bother with) I'm sure you'd find a slew of non-elite PGs playing in the Final Four. Probably a lot more than half.

Read my previous post, I think it might clear some of the questions you posed here. I think since Jason Williams had the ball much more than Duhon in 2001, I would consider him the "point guard" of that team. It's really just about the primary ball handler. I think labeling the primary ballhandler as the "point guard" is what's throwing you off from the point I'm trying to make.

Aslo, Steve Blake and Mario Chalmers were absolutely elite guys. How can you not say that after seeing that both of them are still playing in the NBA, especially Chalmers who was a KEY guy in the Miami Heat's run the the NBA finals this past year.

Kedsy

09-01-2011, 04:45 PM

I don't think being a "true point guard" has anything to do with my argument here.

Well, if being a "true" PG isn't part of your argument, then why aren't we bringing Austin Rivers into the equation? He'll probably have the ball in his hands more than Seth Curry, and there's a decent chance he'll be considered "elite" by the time we hit March.

If your answer is "he's a freshman," then I would answer that Bobby Hurley in 1990 and Jeff Capel in 1994 were also freshman (as was McNamara of Syracuse in 2003, Rose of Memphis in 2008, and I'm sure others). If your answer is "he'll turn the ball over too much," I give you Jason Williams in 2001 (1.54 a/to ratio), Capel in 1994 (1.59) and Hurley in 1990 (1.73).

The bottom line is if you have two outstanding combo guards you may not need a "great" PG. If you have a good team, you can go far, whether your PG is one of the top in the nation or not.

licc85

09-01-2011, 04:48 PM

Well, if being a "true" PG isn't part of your argument, then why aren't we bringing Austin Rivers into the equation? He'll probably have the ball in his hands more than Seth Curry, and there's a decent chance he'll be considered "elite" by the time we hit March.

If your answer is "he's a freshman," then I would answer that Bobby Hurley in 1990 and Jeff Capel in 1994 were also freshman (as was McNamara of Syracuse in 2003, Rose of Memphis in 2008, and I'm sure others). If your answer is "he'll turn the ball over too much," I give you Jason Williams in 2001 (1.54 a/to ratio), Capel in 1994 (1.59) and Hurley in 1990 (1.73).

The bottom line is if you have two outstanding combo guards you may not need a "great" PG. If you have a good team, you can go far, whether your PG is one of the top in the nation or not.

Hm . . I still think Seth should be the primary ball handler, even if Austin improves a great deal later on. I need to see him slow down significantly before I can make any predictions about him. Seth is just a more steady player right now, and I think he can grow into a Jon Scheyer type of role in our offense. Austin is great, but decision making later in March is something you can't learn in the regular season, and I don't think he'll be as ready as Seth for that burden.

But seriously, I think Seth CAN be an elite point guard . . . I think many of you are underestimating him. He's not quite there yet, but we've seen flashes of what he could become.

Kedsy

09-01-2011, 04:56 PM

Hm . . I still think Seth should be the primary ball handler, even if Austin improves a great deal later on. I need to see him slow down significantly before I can make any predictions about him. Seth is just a more steady player right now, and I think he can grow into a Jon Scheyer type of role in our offense. Austin is great, but decision making later in March is something you can't learn in the regular season, and I don't think he'll be as ready as Seth for that burden.

But seriously, I think Seth CAN be an elite point guard . . . I think many of you are underestimating him. He's not quite there yet, but we've seen flashes of what he could become.

Well, I'll finally agree with you in that I believe Seth has the potential to grow into his role and be pretty darn good, if not elite, by the time March rolls around.

However, I still think Austin will have the ball in his hands more than Seth does. And I don't think it will be a problem. Think Williams and Duhon. Except imagine Duhon being a bit worse of a passer and a whole lot better shooter. And imagine the freshman Williams (14.5 ppg, 42% shooting, 1.58 a/to ratio) instead of the sophomore one we saw in 2001. It's still a pretty fun image.

licc85

09-01-2011, 05:35 PM

I think I need to just simplify what I'm trying to get at, so think of it logically:

So, the primary ball handler on a team is the guy who initiates the offense, and decides where the ball goes on the majority of his team's possessions. Therefore, he inherently has a larger effect on the game than anyone else on the floor. In college, you may only have 1 or 2 guys with the necessary skills to keep the ball safe while moving around the court and looking for teammates to pass to, or to make a play by himself. This is why I think that its just extremely important that the primary ball handler needs to be an elite guy in college if you want to win big games in the postseason. It just makes sense that if you want to win the NCAA tournament, the guy who is making the majority of your team's decisions with the ball needs to be a really really good player.

In the NBA, it doesn't quite matter as much just because there are so many more guys on the wings and even power forwards who are capable of handling the ball at an elite level. (Wade, Durant, James, Nowitzki, Bryant all come to mind)

I'm not saying you CAN'T go deep into March without an elite "point guard," I'm just saying that having an elite guy making the decisions with the ball puts you in a much better position to do so. Think of it as a lesser comparison to football's quarterback, who is the only player who touches the ball on every play (other than the center). How many teams win championships without an elite QB? Not many. Obviously the point guard on a basketball team is much less important than the QB is to a football team, but I think it better illustrates the point I'm trying to make here.

So back to the original reason this argument started, I think that Seth and Austin are the only 2 guys who are capable of the primary ball handler role, and at least 1 of them needs to get to that elite level if we want to get to the final four. I just don't see anyone on the rest of our roster capable of carrying us there without this happening.

OldSchool

09-01-2011, 05:48 PM

OldPhiKap

09-01-2011, 05:52 PM

jimsumner

09-01-2011, 06:43 PM

You are overstating your point with the "overwhelming NBA talent" part. But my view that it does not bother me much that Seth is not a natural point guard IS based on the talent at the other positions.

AR - a likely first-rounder
Mason - a likely first-rounder
Kelly - too early to tell, if he consistently maintains his elevated game he is at least a second-rounder, maybe a late first-rounder
Dre - depends how consistent he is this year from 3-pt, an athletic consistent 3-pt shooter will be at least a second-rounder if he can show some defensive ability.
Miles - with a solid year, at least a second rounder

So we do have NBA talent at each of the other positions on the floor this year, in my view. In that light, I just don't see the lack of a true point guard in our starting five as a fatal weakness to getting to the Final Four.

Duke does have lots of college talent and I wouldn't want to discount Miles' chances of playing for pay. But I think he'll have to be a lot more than "solid" to even get a sniff from the NBA.

DeMarcus Nelson and Jon Scheyer were way past solid as seniors and somehow managed to slip out of the draft entirely. Not seven-footers you say? Well, Brian Zoubek might have been the best rebounder in the country the second half of his senior season and he wasn't picked. Malcolm Delaney was the best Virginia Tech player at least since Bimbo Coles and even 20 ppg in the ACC couldn't get him drafted. Tracy Smith? Ha, ha. And he was pretty darned good. Guys as talented as Carlos Boozer and Chris Duhon slipped into the second round.

It's really, really difficult to stick in the NBA. Chris Carrawell was a second-round pick who didn't stick and he was ACC Player of the Year as a senior. Tommy Amaker, Kevin Strickland, Phil Henderson, Robert Brickey, Thomas Hill, Chris Collins, Jeff Capel, some outstanding Duke players never played a second in the NBA. Not a single second.

How much NBA talent does this team have? As you indicated, the jury is still out on most of these guys. Rivers is a no brainer and Mason will get picked on his potential alone [hopefully, his production also will justify a high pick]. But no one else on this team is a likely NBA player based on what they've demonstrated so far.

Not trying to be Debbie Downer. I've mentioned some great college players who didn't make it in the NBA. Curry, Dawkins, Kelly and Miles may develop into pros but they don't have to be future NBA players to be valuable college players.

licc85

09-01-2011, 06:43 PM

To state it very simply and logically:

Seth does NOT need to be one of the top 10 point guards in the NCAA for Duke to go far in March.

What we need from him is to take care of the ball, give us efficient scoring from places he is comfortable scoring from, continue to provide solid defense and get occasional steals with his quick hands, and make decent entry passes to our big guys when appropriate.

We have NBA talent at every other position on the floor.

Look, I'm just trying to be realistic here. Even if we don't have a top ten point guard, we can definitely make the sweet 16 no problem, elite 8, maybe. Final Four? I don't think so. Look at our competition. UK, OSU, UNC, Syracuse, and UConn all have unbelievable NBA talent at multiple positions. It's going to be hard to beat teams like that without a superior leader and ball handler on our side.

OldSchool

09-01-2011, 07:14 PM

Duke does have lots of college talent and I wouldn't want to discount Miles' chances of playing for pay. But I think he'll have to be a lot more than "solid" to even get a sniff from the NBA.

DeMarcus Nelson and Jon Scheyer were way past solid as seniors and somehow managed to slip out of the draft entirely. Not seven-footers you say? Well, Brian Zoubek might have been the best rebounder in the country the second half of his senior season and he wasn't picked. Malcolm Delaney was the best Virginia Tech player at least since Bimbo Coles and even 20 ppg in the ACC couldn't get him drafted. Tracy Smith? Ha, ha. And he was pretty darned good. Guys as talented as Carlos Boozer and Chris Duhon slipped into the second round.

It's really, really difficult to stick in the NBA. Chris Carrawell was a second-round pick who didn't stick and he was ACC Player of the Year as a senior. Tommy Amaker, Kevin Strickland, Phil Henderson, Robert Brickey, Thomas Hill, Chris Collins, Jeff Capel, some outstanding Duke players never played a second in the NBA. Not a single second.

How much NBA talent does this team have? As you indicated, the jury is still out on most of these guys. Rivers is a no brainer and Mason will get picked on his potential alone [hopefully, his production also will justify a high pick]. But no one else on this team is a likely NBA player based on what they've demonstrated so far.

Not trying to be Debbie Downer. I've mentioned some great college players who didn't make it in the NBA. Curry, Dawkins, Kelly and Miles may develop into pros but they don't have to be future NBA players to be valuable college players.

With respect to Miles' NBA chances:

First, it is nonsense to compare guards to a big guy. You seem to acknowledge this, and then you go on to speak of Malcom Delaney. Speaking of the NBA chances of Jon or DeMarcus or Delaney is absolutely meaningless in relation to Miles.

Second, athletic 7-footers are a limited commodity. I love Zoubeard, but the fact is that Miles is much more athletic and therefore has more potential as an NBA player.

I expect to see all of the following playing for an NBA team at some point: Austin Rivers, Mason Plumlee, Andre Dawkins, Ryan Kelly and Miles Plumlee. I'm not saying all will be first rounders, I'm not saying all will be starters, and I'm not saying how many years in the league, but I expect all of them to be on a roster at some point.

OldSchool

09-01-2011, 07:19 PM

loldevilz

09-01-2011, 07:32 PM

I think its funny that people have a problem that Seth Curry isn't a true point guard considering that the last championship Duke won was without a true point guard in Scheyer. Actually, Seth is a lot like Scheyer. He doesn't turn the ball over, he is crafty fast. He has a better shooting stroke, and is basically a senior since he also played a year at Liberty. I think Seth along with Miles will be the best two players on the team this year. They have the most experience and play more solidly and consistently than anybody else. Both have enormous potential. Seth obviously is the brother of Stephen who obviously could ball. Miles really has all the tools to be one of the best players in the country. I mean he is legit 6-11 leaper who has all the tools to be a dominant center if he can put it all together.

licc85

09-01-2011, 07:44 PM

If AR becomes an elite scorer by the end of the season and we become the defensive team we have the potential to be, then we can beat any of those teams without Seth being a top ten point guard.

Take it from the horse's mouth: in the press conference, K said he foresees no problem with this team scoring and they will be concentrating on defense in practices.

There are two keys for Duke before envisioning the Final Four as a real possibility: AR living up to billing, and the team becoming very tough defensively. Seth needs to be solid, not spectacular.

This is where I think we disagree. . . I don't see this team as one with boundless defensive potential. Miles is probably as close as it gets to Zoubek-like defensive toughness, but Ryan struggles with lateral movement, and isn't the most mobile guy to begin with. Mason still commits silly fouls, although this is fixable.

Outside of the 2 elder plumlees, everything else is full of question marks. We have no defensive stopper on the wing. Gbinije has the most potential for this role, but it remains to be seen if he can establish a position in the rotation to be of any use in that role. Dre will have problems guarding some of the bigger elite small forwards. I just don't see him being able to stop guys like Harrison Barnes, who will probably be a lot better than he was last year. Seth has quick instincts and quick hands, but he's far from being sean dockery on defense. Our team this year looks to be a run-and-gun offense heavy group who will rely as much on offense as defense.

Now look at a team like UK: Anthony Davis up front, Michael Gilchrist (unbelievable defensive player) on the wing, and Marquis Teague on the ball. As far as college basketball is concerned, it might as well be the equivalent of KG, Pierce and Rondo. Now THAT group has the potential to become a shut-you-down defense. And I didn't even mention Terrence Jones. Our defense will be good, probably still one of the best in the nation, but as far as potential, other teams have us beat.

jimsumner

09-01-2011, 08:04 PM

With respect to Miles' NBA chances:

First, it is nonsense to compare guards to a big guy. You seem to acknowledge this, and then you go on to speak of Malcom Delaney. Speaking of the NBA chances of Jon or DeMarcus or Delaney is absolutely meaningless in relation to Miles.

Second, athletic 7-footers are a limited commodity. I love Zoubeard, but the fact is that Miles is much more athletic and therefore has more potential as an NBA player.

I expect to see all of the following playing for an NBA team at some point: Austin Rivers, Mason Plumlee, Andre Dawkins, Ryan Kelly and Miles Plumlee. I'm not saying all will be first rounders, I'm not saying all will be starters, and I'm not saying how many years in the league, but I expect all of them to be on a roster at some point.

Your limited commodity, athletic 7-footer averaged less than five points and five rebounds per game as a junior. I love Miles and would truly love to see him have a break-out senior season. But nothing in his body of work up to this point suggests that "a solid" season this year will convince an NBA team to draft him. He has to demonstrate a consistent ability to translate that size and athleticism into consistent productivity at a high level. It's not a track meet.

The relevance of Scheyer, et. al. is to demonstrate how difficult it is to get drafted. Sixty picks, with a boatload of Euros (if only Miles were Croatian:)), just doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

I understand this is a fan message-board and folks see things through a dark-blue prism. That's great. A few years ago, a few people were trying to make a credible case for David McClure sticking in the NBA. Or Marty Pocius. Gotta love fans like that.

You mentioned Dawkins. Could easily happen. But a long way from a lock. What does he bring to a prospective NBA team that Kevin Strickland, Phil Henderson and Thomas Hill didn't? All were as big as Dawkins, as athletic as Dawkins, all could shoot from the perimeter. All could play high-level D and all were better rebounders than Dawkins thus far in his career and Henderson had a better handle.

My point isn't that the Duke guys aren't good. My point is that a lot of really good college players don't make it in the NBA and I think some are under-estimating how difficult it is to make it.

Hopefully, Miles will lead the ACC in rebounding and make All-ACC and this will become moot. [Hopefully, there will be a 2012 NBA to have a draft]. But it's a long, rough road to travel.

OldSchool

09-01-2011, 08:07 PM

This is where I think we disagree. . . I don't see this team as one with boundless defensive potential. Miles is probably as close as it gets to Zoubek-like defensive toughness, but Ryan struggles with lateral movement, and isn't the most mobile guy to begin with. Mason still commits silly fouls, although this is fixable.

Outside of the 2 elder plumlees, everything else is full of question marks. We have no defensive stopper on the wing. Gbinije has the most potential for this role, but it remains to be seen if he can establish a position in the rotation to be of any use in that role. Dre will have problems guarding some of the bigger elite small forwards. I just don't see him being able to stop guys like Harrison Barnes, who will probably be a lot better than he was last year. Seth has quick instincts and quick hands, but he's far from being sean dockery on defense. Our team this year looks to be a run-and-gun offense heavy group who will rely as much on offense as defense.

Now look at a team like UK: Anthony Davis up front, Michael Gilchrist (unbelievable defensive player) on the wing, and Marquis Teague on the ball. As far as college basketball is concerned, it might as well be the equivalent of KG, Pierce and Rondo. Now THAT group has the potential to become a shut-you-down defense. And I didn't even mention Terrence Jones. Our defense will be good, probably still one of the best in the nation, but as far as potential, other teams have us beat.

There is no question that UK is loaded with talent, but keep in mind that Davis, Gilchrist and Teague are all freshmen. Experience and coaching are tremendously important in team defense.

No matter how well Seth plays, we will have a short post-season if this team doesn't figure it out defensively. I think we could have exceptionally good defensive bigs this year. On the perimeter, a guy as athletic and quick as AR may become an outstanding defender once he gets past the silly fouls stage of his career and absorbs the coaching. We need Dre to make steady improvements and Seth to be solid.

As far as Barnes is concerned, you're talking about a guy that might have been the number 1 NBA draft choice had he come out last year. If he is hitting his jump shots, it is going to be difficult for any team in the country to stop him.

OldSchool

09-01-2011, 08:14 PM

Your limited commodity, athletic 7-footer averaged less than five points and five rebounds per game as a junior. I love Miles and would truly love to see him have a break-out senior season. But nothing in his body of work up to this point suggests that "a solid" season this year will convince an NBA team to draft him. He has to demonstrate a consistent ability to translate that size and athleticism into consistent productivity at a high level. It's not a track meet.

The relevance of Scheyer, et. al. is to demonstrate how difficult it is to get drafted. Sixty picks, with a boatload of Euros (if only Miles were Croatian:)), just doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

I understand this is a fan message-board and folks see things through a dark-blue prism. That's great. A few years ago, a few people were trying to make a credible case for David McClure sticking in the NBA. Or Marty Pocius. Gotta love fans like that.

You mentioned Dawkins. Could easily happen. But a long way from a lock. What does he bring to a prospective NBA team that Kevin Strickland, Phil Henderson and Thomas Hill didn't? All were as big as Dawkins, as athletic as Dawkins, all could shoot from the perimeter. All could play high-level D and all were better rebounders than Dawkins thus far in his career and Henderson had a better handle.

My point isn't that the Duke guys aren't good. My point is that a lot of really good college players don't make it in the NBA and I think some are under-estimating how difficult it is to make it.

Hopefully, Miles will lead the ACC in rebounding and make All-ACC and this will become moot. [Hopefully, there will be a 2012 NBA to have a draft]. But it's a long, rough road to travel.

You can be as condescending as you like with your talk of dark-blue prisms and message-board fans, but the cold reality is that a 7-footer with outstanding athletics who can run the floor, finish in transition, rebound, bang down low and played at a top-5 program has an excellent chance of finding a place on an NBA bench.

I think some people on message boards go too far in the other direction in order to seem more objective and claim a superior perspective than others.

OldPhiKap

09-01-2011, 09:02 PM

You can be as condescending as you like with your talk of dark-blue prisms and message-board fans, but the cold reality is that a 7-footer with outstanding athletics who can run the floor, finish in transition, rebound, bang down low and played at a top-5 program has an excellent chance of finding a place on an NBA bench.
I think some people on message boards go too far in the other direction in order to seem more objective and claim a superior perspective than others.

If that's what he does this year at a consistently high level of productivity, you are certainly correct. And I don't think that Jim is saying anything different. I am not sure we've seen those skills at the level you suggest. YET.

We all hope he has an incredible break-out year. And I am very glad that he plays for Duke, no matter what happens. But if you look at the power forwards in the NBA, or the bodies on centers, you'd have to admit that there is a ways to go.

On another point, I'm not sure that Jim ever claimed to have a superior perspective than others. But most think he does (myself included), regardless.

jimsumner

09-01-2011, 09:02 PM

You can be as condescending as you like with your talk of dark-blue prisms and message-board fans, but the cold reality is that a 7-footer with outstanding athletics who can run the floor, finish in transition, rebound, bang down low and played at a top-5 program has an excellent chance of finding a place on an NBA bench.

I think some people on message boards go too far in the other direction in order to seem more objective and claim a superior perspective than others.

I'm sorry you think I'm condescending. Not my intention. Fan message boards do have different dynamics than other forms of discourse and people do see things through the prism of their allegiances. In my opinion. You're welcome to think otherwise.

Again, I'll be delighted when the 7-footer with outstanding athletics runs the floor, finishes in transition, rebounds and bangs down low with enough consistency to actually warrant NBA attention. But right now, the very best I can say about Miles is that he has not yet been able to leverage his considerable assets into a commensurate on-court performance. When he does, the equation changes.

Can he make the NBA? Sure. Does he have an "excellent" chance, based on what he has done on the court so far? That's a different kettle of fish. I'm sure you see the difference.

My first comment on the subject stated that I thought Miles would need more than a "solid" senior season to show up in the NBA draft. I stand by that statement.

MChambers

09-01-2011, 09:03 PM

Depends on your definition of great. Amaker was an outstanding defender and a great passer, but wasn't all that good a dribble-penetrator and was not a scorer. Snyder could run a team but was not considered by pretty much anyone to be one of the top PGs in the country. Scheyer was no more a "true point" than Seth Curry is. Duhon couldn't shoot. The OP also left out Jeff Capel, Duke's PG on the 1994 national finalists, who was a decent player but not by a long shot considered one of the best PGs in the country (and was a freshman, to boot).

And that's just Duke. A great many Final Four teams over the past (name your number of) years have not had a PG who was considered one of the best. Sure, it would help, but I stand by my statement that the idea of needing a great PG to "go far in March" is a myth.
Thanks to Kedsy, who managed to explain my reasoning awfully well. Jim, I think the world of Amaker, Snyder, and Scheyer, and will be eternally grateful that they went to Duke, but by most definitions of great point guard, they weren't great. Certainly not in the sense that the OP meant: someone who can create offense out of nothing.

Personally, I think Seth will be very good, but not as good as Hurley, Jason Wiiliams, and Irving. That's all I was trying to say.

jimsumner

09-01-2011, 10:21 PM

Thanks to Kedsy, who managed to explain my reasoning awfully well. Jim, I think the world of Amaker, Snyder, and Scheyer, and will be eternally grateful that they went to Duke, but by most definitions of great point guard, they weren't great. Certainly not in the sense that the OP meant: someone who can create offense out of nothing.

Personally, I think Seth will be very good, but not as good as Hurley, Jason Wiiliams, and Irving. That's all I was trying to say.

I agree. I think the question is does Curry have to be at the Hurley/Williams/Irving level for Duke to play deep into March? I think history suggests that it sure would help matters but isn't essential, if the supporting talent base is sufficiently accomplished.

Scheyer may be the closest analog, although Scheyer's height advantage over Curry shouldn't be discounted. A combo guard by nature, Scheyer certainly didn't create as many shots for his teammates as Hurley (who did?). But he valued the ball, didn't make a lot of mistakes and got the ball where it needed to be, when it needed to be there. In 2010 he averaged 4.9 assists per game and had a marvelous 3:1 assist/turnover ratio, all the while scoring a team-leading 18.2 ppg and leading the team in steals by a wide margin.

I'll take that. :)

It might be a reach to expect Curry to play at that level but I think he can be effective in the same manner as Jon was in 2010. Will Duke have players like Singler and Smith to interact with Curry as they did with Scheyer? A big question.

SilkyJ

09-01-2011, 10:27 PM

You can be as condescending as you like with your talk of dark-blue prisms and message-board fans, but the cold reality is that a 7-footer with outstanding athletics who can run the floor, finish in transition, rebound, bang down low and played at a top-5 program has an excellent chance of finding a place on an NBA bench.

Not sure why you call it a cold reality. We're all Duke fans. We're all rooting for Miles. We all hope it happens...most of us just disagree with you, and would LOVE to be proven wrong. He has certainly improved every year, and nothing would make me happier than to see him have a breakout year, ala Zoubs in 2010. But realistically, I expect him to continue on that incremental improvement track, rather than make a quantum leap, which is what I think it would take to get a sniff from the L.

Now here's a cold reality: Jim Sumner probably has a better idea of what NBA scouts think of Duke's players than you (or most of us) do. Don't take as a swipe against you, its just credit to Jim. He does this stuff for a living. He knows what he's talking about.

Also, this is a little nitpicky, but Miles isn't a 7 footer (http://www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&SPID=1845&SPSID=22727). He's not even the tallest guy on the team (or in his family!)

OldSchool

09-01-2011, 10:35 PM

If that's what he does this year at a consistently high level of productivity, you are certainly correct. And I don't think that Jim is saying anything different. I am not sure we've seen those skills at the level you suggest. YET.

We all hope he has an incredible break-out year. And I am very glad that he plays for Duke, no matter what happens. But if you look at the power forwards in the NBA, or the bodies on centers, you'd have to admit that there is a ways to go.

THAT is at least the proper frame of reference. Speaking of Miles's NBA prospects with reference to guards is absurd.

If Miles has a "solid" year, I see him being viewed as comparable to a guy like, say, Sasha Kaun from Kansas, and could see him being picked up as a late second-rounder as Kaun was. I think he is actually a better athlete than Kaun.

If Miles has a "strong" year, I could see him being seen as comparable to a guy like Tyler Zeller of UNC or Hilton Armstrong of UConn, and maybe being taken at the end of the first round or early in the second.

OldSchool

09-01-2011, 10:53 PM

Not sure why you call it a cold reality. We're all Duke fans. We're all rooting for Miles. We all hope it happens...most of us just disagree with you, and would LOVE to be proven wrong. He has certainly improved every year, and nothing would make me happier than to see him have a breakout year, ala Zoubs in 2010. But realistically, I expect him to continue on that incremental improvement track, rather than make a quantum leap, which is what I think it would take to get a sniff from the L.

Now here's a cold reality: Jim Sumner probably has a better idea of what NBA scouts think of Duke's players than you (or most of us) do. Don't take as a swipe against you, its just credit to Jim. He does this stuff for a living. He knows what he's talking about.

Also, this is a little nitpicky, but Miles isn't a 7 footer (http://www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&SPID=1845&SPSID=22727). He's not even the tallest guy on the team (or in his family!)

Well, we clearly disagree. I think continued incremental and consistent improvement will get Miles a look from the league, he does not have to make a quantum leap.

We've seen it over and over in the NBA draft, it always surprises people how they will take take athleticism over someone who may not be much of an athlete but has a high basketball IQ.

Hopefully Miles will show off some high basketball IQ to go with his athletic abilities this year.

OldPhiKap

09-01-2011, 11:01 PM

THAT is at least the proper frame of reference. Speaking of Miles's NBA prospects with reference to guards is absurd.

If Miles has a "solid" year, I see him being viewed as comparable to a guy like, say, Sasha Kaun from Kansas, and could see him being picked up as a late second-rounder as Kaun was. I think he is actually a better athlete than Kaun.

If Miles has a "strong" year, I could see him being seen as comparable to a guy like Tyler Zeller of UNC or Hilton Armstrong of UConn, and maybe being taken at the end of the first round or early in the second.

Not sure what this means. I was talking about forwards and centers, and you read it to mean I was talking about guards. Am I reading that wrong?

OldSchool

09-01-2011, 11:03 PM

Not sure what this means. I was talking about forwards and centers, and you read it to mean I was talking about guards. Am I reading that wrong?

You were talking about what Jim was saying, and I was making the point that at least YOU were correctly speaking with reference to bigs, as opposed to comparing Miles' NBA prospects with Malcolm Delaney or DeMarcus Nelson.

OldPhiKap

09-01-2011, 11:15 PM

You were talking about what Jim was saying, and I was making the point that at least YOU were correctly speaking with reference to bigs, as opposed to comparing Miles' NBA prospects with Malcolm Delaney or DeMarcus Nelson.

Sorry, though that was directed at my comment. Thanks for the explanation.

Not to speak for Jim, but I assume he was talking about level of talent as opposed to position.

We all love Miles, and I think he is a very good player. Could jump to an even higher level this year. I think you and I would agree (as well as Jim) that Miles needs to bring it consistentlly to really draw the NBA scouts' interest. Hope it happens.

Go Duke, and let's beat Richmond on Saturday!

OldSchool

09-01-2011, 11:31 PM

Not to speak for Jim, but I assume he was talking about level of talent as opposed to position.

But that's my point - one has to have such a higher level of talent to make the league as a guard, it's not a meaningful comparison.

Can you imagine what Malcolm Delaney would be like if he had the same level of talent -- shooting, dribbling, basketball IQ and athletic ability in the body of a seven-footer? He would be a perennial NBA all-star. But as a 6'3" guy, he waited by the phone and no one called. Maybe he'll make it in Europe.

Conversely, take a guy like Samuel Dalembert. If he were 6'3", he might have trouble staying on the court in a good pick-up league instead of making millions in the NBA.

Other than that point, I agree with the rest of what you are saying.

Reilly

09-01-2011, 11:45 PM

How does Miles compare to Shav at this juncture?

OldPhiKap

09-01-2011, 11:46 PM

But that's my point - one has to have such a higher level of talent to make the league as a guard, it's not a meaningful comparison.

Can you imagine what Malcolm Delaney would be like if he had the same level of talent -- shooting, dribbling, basketball IQ and athletic ability in the body of a seven-footer? He would be a perennial NBA all-star. But as a 6'3" guy, he waited by the phone and no one called. Maybe he'll make it in Europe.

Conversely, take a guy like Samuel Dalembert. If he were 6'3", he might have trouble staying on the court in a good pick-up league instead of making millions in the NBA.

Other than that point, I agree with the rest of what you are saying.

I don't think we disagree -- unless you're saying that Miles has the same level of shooting, dribbling, and athletic ability as Malcom. (I think Miles more than holds his own agianst anyone in terms of basketball IQ although the silly reach fouls need to come down this year).

I don't want to fight someone else's fight -- Jim is a heck of a lot smarter and more articulate than I am -- but I think that's the disagreement he had with your post. Not that there's a difference in the positions, or that Miles would not be a great NBA player if he showed those talents on a consistent basis. It's the notion that his play to date has established a claim to that consistency is where I see y'all's disagreement.

Miles' junior year in many ways reminds me of Casey Sanders' senior year -- another guy who had very good physical ability, height, speed, and basketball IQ. And Casey averaged about 5 ppg and 5 rpg his senior year, similar to Miles lasy year, albeit Casey played behind Carlos. Miles certainly can make the big senior step forward -- many do, especially in the Duke system -- but I think many (Jim and I included) are looking to see consistency in the flashes he has shown. I truly believe he can do it.

So I do not think that the two of you necessarily disagree. I take it that you believe Miles is already there, and that Jim is taking more of a wait-and-see view of it. Hopefully you are ahead of the curve, and Miles has a Zoubek-like dominant run in the back half of the season. Very few thought that the foul-prone, injury-prone Zubeck of junior year would hit his stride like he did after the Maryland game near the end of his senior year. I can assure you, without ever having met Jim, that he is hoping for the same.

-- OPK

OldPhiKap

09-01-2011, 11:49 PM

How does Miles compare to Shav at this juncture?

I'll take Miles. By a kilometer and a third or more.

OldSchool

09-02-2011, 12:14 AM

I think Miles more than holds his own agianst anyone in terms of basketball IQ although the silly reach fouls need to come down this year.

I may well have quite a different opinion than most other folks on DBR on this point, but I think basketball IQ is precisely the area Miles needs the most improvement over last year and would be the difference between a guy who sits on the end of an NBA bench and someone who gets substantial minutes on the floor for an NBA team.

If I were coach, I would make Miles a captain and stress his responsibility on the defensive end to understand the other team, call out defensive tasks and hold the other players accountable and be the last line of defense. I think those responsibilities might help Miles raise his mental focus and his basketball IQ.

One of the reasons I am more impressed with Miles than I have been before is what I saw on the China trip. Yes, it is a very limited data set and against weak competition but I've noticed that he seems much more likely to be in the right spot on the floor to make a play than before and he is moving more quickly to get into those positions than before. If he keeps it up he is going to impress a lot more people this year.

Andy7207

09-02-2011, 12:21 AM

nbadraft.net has Miles going late second round, for what it's worth!

http://www.nbadraft.net/2012mock_draft

MCFinARL

09-02-2011, 08:13 AM

nbadraft.net has Miles going late second round, for what it's worth!

http://www.nbadraft.net/2012mock_draft

Interestingly, nbadraft.net also shows Olek Czyz going in the second round, and Austin Rivers undrafted (do they believe he will stay in school?). Of course, this is getting a little off thread....

MChambers

09-02-2011, 08:20 AM

I agree. I think the question is does Curry have to be at the Hurley/Williams/Irving level for Duke to play deep into March? I think history suggests that it sure would help matters but isn't essential, if the supporting talent base is sufficiently accomplished.

Scheyer may be the closest analog, although Scheyer's height advantage over Curry shouldn't be discounted. A combo guard by nature, Scheyer certainly didn't create as many shots for his teammates as Hurley (who did?). But he valued the ball, didn't make a lot of mistakes and got the ball where it needed to be, when it needed to be there. In 2010 he averaged 4.9 assists per game and had a marvelous 3:1 assist/turnover ratio, all the while scoring a team-leading 18.2 ppg and leading the team in steals by a wide margin.

I'll take that. :)

It might be a reach to expect Curry to play at that level but I think he can be effective in the same manner as Jon was in 2010. Will Duke have players like Singler and Smith to interact with Curry as they did with Scheyer? A big question.

The other big difference between Curry and Scheyer is that Curry is better equipped to pressure the other team's point. In 2010, although Scheyer played point on offense, Nolan did most of the ball pressure on the other team's point. Scheyer was an excellent defensive player, but was better at covering shooting guards.

It's defense I worry most about this season, because Singler and Smith were both excellent defenders. How we replace their defense will be key.

Kedsy

09-02-2011, 10:55 AM

It's defense I worry most about this season, because Singler and Smith were both excellent defenders. How we replace their defense will be key.

I agree. This team will go as far as its defense takes it. I think we'll go back to Duke's traditional D: Seth and Austin harassing opponent ballhandlers, going for steals and trying to push them further out than they're used to starting their offense (while the remaining players jam the passing lanes). When the opponent gets past Seth or Austin and into the lane, one big will have to step up and intimidate or block the shot while the other will have to rotate over and stop the dropoff or backdoor. How well our bigs do this (and to a lesser extent how well Andre can stick with his man and not allow him to be a safety valve) will determine how fearsome our defense becomes.

I think Miles is there, Ryan is almost there, and Mason is closer than a lot of people think. So I have hopes that we have potential to be even stronger on defense than we were last year, despite the loss of our two best defenders. May not happen, of course. Only time will tell.

jimsumner

09-02-2011, 10:56 AM

The other big difference between Curry and Scheyer is that Curry is better equipped to pressure the other team's point. In 2010, although Scheyer played point on offense, Nolan did most of the ball pressure on the other team's point. Scheyer was an excellent defensive player, but was better at covering shooting guards.

It's defense I worry most about this season, because Singler and Smith were both excellent defenders. How we replace their defense will be key.

In fairness, Smith performed the same role last season when he and Curry were paired together. Nolan usually would guard the opposing team's best offensive guard.

Like Scheyer, Curry lacks elite foot speed. But like Scheyer, he compensates with a high hoops IQ and a great sense of anticipation. Curry has this neat trick of slipping a hand in, deflecting a dribble, and heading the other way with ball in hand.

The ACC doesn't have a lot of super-quick, blow-by points this season. Kendall Marshall is a top PG but doesn't have Lawson-type speed. Durand Scott has a huge size advantage but I'm not sure he's a natural point. Same with Lorenzo Brown. How worried should Duke be by Jontel Evans or Tony Chennault or Andre Young? The ACC just doesn't have the Feltons or Pauls or Vasquezs it has had in the recent past.

Of course, that won't help much come the NCAAs, when Duke likely will have to get by someone more accomplished than Erick Green in order to advance deep. Hopefully, by then Curry will have it all figured out defensively.

I very much agree that defense will define how fat this team can go. Lots of scoring weapons, good rebounders inside, good ball-handlers. Can Duke stop good teams when it has to?

Reilly

09-02-2011, 11:10 AM

Shav and Miles both listed as 6-10, 245 on the goduke stats database.

Through three years:

Shav: 17.5 mins/51%FG/6.3 pts, 4.3 rebs
Miles: 14.3 mins/53%FG/4.2 pts, 4.1 rebs

Pretty similar. I was sort of shocked when Shav got several cups of coffee in the NBA. With one more year of seasoning, similar size, 15-man rosters, perhaps Miles will as well....

Kedsy

09-02-2011, 11:15 AM

Look, I'm just trying to be realistic here. Even if we don't have a top ten point guard, we can definitely make the sweet 16 no problem, elite 8, maybe. Final Four? I don't think so. Look at our competition. UK, OSU, UNC, Syracuse, and UConn all have unbelievable NBA talent at multiple positions. It's going to be hard to beat teams like that without a superior leader and ball handler on our side.

I'm not saying Duke will definitely make the Final Four, but I don't agree with your reasoning at all. Last year, Duke, Ohio State, Kentucky, and Kansas all had "unbelievable NBA talent at multiple positions," and Pitt had as much or more talent as Syracuse will this year. Yet, only Kentucky from that group made the Final Four (and they were the least likely in the group), along with UConn, VCU, and Butler.

Put another way, you don't have to be pre-season top five to make the Final Four. Last year's pre-season top five (AP) were Duke, Michigan State, Kansas State, and Pitt (followed by Villanova, Kansas, UNC, Florida, and Syracuse). So not one of the pre-season top ten made the Final Four. In 2010, the pre-season top teams were, in order (again AP): Kansas, Michigan State, Texas, Kentucky, Villanova, UNC, and Purdue. Only Michigan State made the Final Four from that group, and they did it as a #5 seed, so not quite as scripted.

Why do you think this coming season will be so different?

OldPhiKap

09-02-2011, 11:27 AM

Where was Butler's point guard drafted (or projected to be drafted)? They've been there two years in a row.

Kedsy

09-02-2011, 11:51 AM

Where was Butler's point guard drafted (or projected to be drafted)? They've been there two years in a row.

Shelvin Mack and Ronald Nored started in Butler's backcourt for the past two years (Butler starts three guards). Mack jumped early into the NBA draft and went early in the 2nd round to the Wizards. Nored should be coming back for his senior year. Both are good defensive players who have hovered around 3 assists per game for most of their careers.

Not sure which of the two has been considered the PG, though. Probably Mack, but they're both kind of combo guards. Sound familiar?

OldPhiKap

09-02-2011, 11:54 AM

Not sure which of the two has been considered the PG, though. Probably Mack, but they're both kind of combo guards. Sound familiar?

Exactly. And with Butler, I would argue that the way they play as a team has more to do with their success than talent at any one position. Which also sounds familiar.

ACCBBallFan

09-02-2011, 12:35 PM

One of the things that struck me about coach K's comment was that he's looking for someone to separate themselves from the pack. My guess is that he was referring to both skill and leadership.

Kelly clearly was Duke's best player on the trip and the other 5 were all fairly even, overall effectiveness wise, thanks to Mason playing well the last two games and being the only player with more assists than turnovers over the 4 games.

Since coach K chose to highlight Seth more than Ryan, and virtually nothing abourt Dre, have to conclude he was doing that based on practices, for motivational purposes, and prepping media for Seth being one of the co-captains, with either Miles the lone senior or Ryan.

No sense talking abut "true PG" when K stated Seth can be one of the top PGs in the nation.

Outside of Ryan though, I saw no separation from the pack with all of the other 5 having some offsetting plus and minus relative to each other. I woud actually give a slight edge to Miles and to Dre, with Curry in the middle of the next 5, and Austin and Mason slightly behind, but all pretty darned close.

At this point, those 6 plus Tyler and Alex seem to be the nucleus, pending what Cook can do when he heals, with Josh, Mike and MP3 in cameo roles.

FT Shooting overall was disappointing, but that can be remedied. I know the refs were terrible but Seth having only 1 FTA and Dre only 2 FTA in 4 games is a concern.
On the flip side, Austin and Alex will draw a lot of fouls and just need to convert the FTs.

Wheat/"/"/"

09-03-2011, 11:09 AM

THAT is at least the proper frame of reference. Speaking of Miles's NBA prospects with reference to guards is absurd.

If Miles has a "solid" year, I see him being viewed as comparable to a guy like, say, Sasha Kaun from Kansas, and could see him being picked up as a late second-rounder as Kaun was. I think he is actually a better athlete than Kaun.

If Miles has a "strong" year, I could see him being seen as comparable to a guy like Tyler Zeller of UNC or Hilton Armstrong of UConn, and maybe being taken at the end of the first round or early in the second.

Have to jump in this cat fight here and disagree. I doubt anyone will be discussing similarities of Zeller/Miles game and the NBA. The difference is Tyler Zeller is light years ahead of Miles in his offensive abilities, and that will get Zeller in the first round and Miles undrafted.

The only thing to watch with Duke guards is how they play together, there's more than enough talent.

CameronBlue

09-03-2011, 11:41 AM

uh_no

09-03-2011, 12:02 PM

jimsumner

09-03-2011, 12:46 PM

Wheat/"/"/"

09-03-2011, 01:11 PM

Zeller is more offensively skilled at this juncture no question. But Miles has athletic gifts Zeller can't match IMO--advantages in mobility, speed in transistion, leaping ability, brawn and a baller's mentality that make him, potentially, the better pro prospect. His instincts on offense need nuturing and I hope the coaching staff will encourage him to take more of those 8-10 foot bankshots that he makes with a high percentage, if memory serves. I don't think either's path to "NBA regular" is clear and their pro careers could end up following similar courses, provided Miles can sneak into the draft. It will take a strong senior season for him to do so.

His physical abilities are very good, but they will not impress anyone in the NBA. That's a cold reality check to players who get to the highest levels of college ball mainly on their physical skills.

It will boil down to, can he play, does he have a feel for the game...a feel for the ball?

My opinion is he lacks... ball comfort, I'll call it. That ability to be comfortable with the ball and not think about it, just focus on putting it in the hole with touch or passing it. His touch is poor, and it's not second nature with him what to do to score the ball in tight situations, and I don't think it will ever come naturally to him, it's just not in his makeup.

Zellar shows that "ball comfort" I'm talking about. And even though he's less athletic than Miles in almost every area, everybody knows, including NBA scouts, that a pass down low, or a mid range jumper, to Zeller will be much more likely to get points up than it will ever be for Miles.

I don't really want to sound hard on Miles because I think he's a very good player. Good enough to start and play on one of the top programs in college ball. He works hard and plays hard. He is a success as a player by almost any standard, and I'll grant he could surprise me with a big year and sneak into the second round.

But the NBA is a huge step up from college, and many people refuse or don't want to accept that.

Wheat/"/"/"

09-03-2011, 01:31 PM

Draftexpress.com projects the following ACC players in the 2012 NBA draft

2.Harrison Barnes
10.Austin Rivers
11.John Henson
14.Tyler Zeller
15.Mason Plumlee
25.C.J.Leslie
33.Kendall Marshall
54.Durand Scott

FYI.

Mason is another story. His size, quickness, defensive toughness and rebounding is enough to get him first round, and he can score it well enough in close.

There's a NBA team out there that believes they can teach him a jump hook.

The under-rated guy on that list...John Henson.

loldevilz

09-03-2011, 01:40 PM

Exactly. And with Butler, I would argue that the way they play as a team has more to do with their success than talent at any one position. Which also sounds familiar.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Shelvin Mack and Howard are both unbelievable talents. There is no way in heck that they can just plug in another player to replace those two. How many teams have a 6-11 guy that can shoot threes are rebound like a beast inside. Or a point guard that can do it all like Mack did. I remember that at the USA camp everyone was saying that Mack was the best player there. I think people really underestimate how good those players were because they played in such a slow methodical system. Its the same thing they did to Scheyer and Zoubek.

gumbomoop

09-03-2011, 02:00 PM

Put another way, you don't have to be pre-season top five to make the Final Four.... Why do you think this coming season will be so different?

Calling Jay Bilas, calling JB. But in his absence, I'll weigh in by channeling what I'll guess is his view. [If this isn't his view, don't blame me.]

The last 2 seasons, according to JB, had "no great teams." But this year, according to JB, maybe 4: UNC, UK, tOSU, UConn. So ...... the FF next spring will include at least a couple of the "great" teams, say, UK and tOSU. Then a strong "next tier" team, say, well, Duke. And then, say, Baylor.

This would look a whole lot different from 2011, and even though the Heels get upset by, say, UCLA [.......] in the Sweet 16, the other top 10 teams go deep into the 2012 NCAAT.

Duke nips the Buckeyes for the NC, in their second double-overtime thriller in 2011-12. Piece of cake.

gumbomoop

09-03-2011, 02:18 PM

His [Miles'] physical abilities are very good, but they will not impress anyone in the NBA. That's a cold reality check to players who get to the highest levels of college ball mainly on their physical skills.

It will boil down to, can he play, does he have a feel for the game...a feel for the ball?

My opinion is he lacks... ball comfort, I'll call it. That ability to be comfortable with the ball and not think about it, just focus on putting it in the hole with touch or passing it. His touch is poor, and it's not second nature with him what to do to score the ball in tight situations, and I don't think it will ever come naturally to him, it's just not in his makeup.

Zellar shows that "ball comfort" I'm talking about. And even though he's less athletic than Miles in almost every area, everybody knows, including NBA scouts, that a pass down low, or a mid range jumper, to Zeller will be much more likely to get points up than it will ever be for Miles.

I don't really want to sound hard on Miles because I think he's a very good player. Good enough to start and play on one of the top programs in college ball. He works hard and plays hard. He is a success as a player by almost any standard, and I'll grant he could surprise me with a big year and sneak into the second round.

But the NBA is a huge step up from college, and many people refuse or don't want to accept that.

I mostly second Wheat's analysis of Miles' "discomfort factor." Second, I second his granting that Miles could surprise. I bet I'm hoping a lot more than Wheat for such a surprise.

Third, I congratulate Wheat on both the "good enough to start" [though of course, as Wheat has shown, not all that good, and we can infer what this means for our fortunes next spring] and especially the "one of" comments. That both are literally accurate and deliciously snarky is a mark of Wheat's wit; charm, even. We are lucky to have him, as we need the occasional reminder that we are not perennially Entitled.

Wheat/"/"/"

09-03-2011, 02:30 PM

I mostly second Wheat's analysis of Miles' "discomfort factor." Second, I second his granting that Miles could surprise. I bet I'm hoping a lot more than Wheat for such a surprise.

Third, I congratulate Wheat on both the "good enough to start" [though of course, as Wheat has shown, not all that good, and we can infer what this means for our fortunes next spring] and especially the "one of" comments. That both are literally accurate and deliciously snarky is a mark of Wheat's wit; charm, even. We are lucky to have him, as we need the occasional reminder that we are not perennially Entitled.

Thanks, I think. :)

Actually, I'd have no problem seeing any Duke player do well. It's all about winning the game played on the court for me. And I always want to win, and for the Heels to win by playing their best and showing their talent to the best of their abilities.

The rest of all the fan banter and talk is cheap entertainment for me.

Kedsy

09-03-2011, 02:38 PM

Calling Jay Bilas, calling JB. But in his absence, I'll weigh in by channeling what I'll guess is his view. [If this isn't his view, don't blame me.]

The last 2 seasons, according to JB, had "no great teams." But this year, according to JB, maybe 4: UNC, UK, tOSU, UConn.

Well, if Mr. Bilas said that to me, my response would be I don't understand the whole "great teams" concept.

Last year at this time, Duke was defending national champ, retaining two senior All-American candidates and one of the top three freshman in the country, along with a solid supporting cast. This year, UNC returns most of its players from an up-and-down team and adds a couple top 15 freshman. If pre-season 2010 Duke was "not great," how is pre-season 2011 UNC "great"?

2010-11 UConn was a lousy team that went on a historic run, then lost its best player (who also had one of the highest usage rates in the country) and replaced him with a top-tier freshman. Frankly, I don't see how this year's UConn team (pre-season) is any "greater" than 2010 pre-season Michigan State (#2 in last year's pre-season polls, lots of upperclassmen and coming off two straight Final Four appearances).

Similarly, I don't see how 2011 pre-season Ohio State is "great" if 2010 pre-season Ohio State wasn't. The Buckeyes have lost two senior starters and replaced them with talented freshman.

Finally, Kentucky will be starting two or three freshman and two sophomores. How can anybody call them "great" at this time?

So, Mr. Bilas, I don't see how we have any more "great" teams than last year (or the year before, when both Kansas and Kentucky were at least as "great" as any team this season and probably greater, although of course neither of them made the Final Four).

I'm not saying that UNC, UK, UConn, and Ohio State don't deserve their lofty pre-season rating. They're all good teams who have a shot to win the national championship. I am saying that their credentials don't make them any more likely to make the Final Four than the top four teams last year or the year before. And in the last two seasons, only one (1) pre-season top four has made the Final Four (and as I said in an earlier post, that one team had an awful regular season and sort of stumbled in to the FF from a five seed).

I'll be absolutely shocked if the 2012 Final Four includes all four of your supposedly "great" teams.

loldevilz

09-03-2011, 03:41 PM

Well, if Mr. Bilas said that to me, my response would be I don't understand the whole "great teams" concept.

Last year at this time, Duke was defending national champ, retaining two senior All-American candidates and one of the top three freshman in the country, along with a solid supporting cast. This year, UNC returns most of its players from an up-and-down team and adds a couple top 15 freshman. If pre-season 2010 Duke was "not great," how is pre-season 2011 UNC "great"?

2010-11 UConn was a lousy team that went on a historic run, then lost its best player (who also had one of the highest usage rates in the country) and replaced him with a top-tier freshman. Frankly, I don't see how this year's UConn team (pre-season) is any "greater" than 2010 pre-season Michigan State (#2 in last year's pre-season polls, lots of upperclassmen and coming off two straight Final Four appearances).

Bilas did say that Duke could have been a great team last year. Of course that was with Irving.

This year he said that a few teams "could become great", not that they are going to be. I honestly don't think he's that far off. To me their are two teams that are very close to locks for the final four: UNC and Kentucky.

UNC returns all their players from a team that went to the elite eight that and still has huge upside.

Kentucky to me is the favorite this year. They may have more talent on their team than any in a long long time. Teague, Gilchrist, Jones, Davis not to mention supposedly their "best player" Lamb. I don't care how young they are, they will be incredibly difficult to beat. Honestly I think its a huge upset if they aren't in the championship game.

UCONN and OSU are different matters. OSU has a great player, but I don't think that makes them a great team. UCONN was seriously the worst national championship team of maybe the last 20+ years. They fininshed 9th in their conference! 9th! I don't know how on earth they could be considered great. But they only lose one player and add a diaper dandy.

Duke shouldn't be to far behind. Curry, Rivers, Kelly, and Plumlee are all fantastic players. We some good coaching I think we are only a step or two behind them. Maybe with some luck we could sneak into the final four.

gumbomoop

09-03-2011, 03:53 PM

Well, if Mr. Bilas said that to me, my response would be I don't understand the whole "great teams" concept.

If pre-season 2010 Duke was "not great," how is pre-season 2011 UNC "great"?

Similarly, I don't see how 2011 pre-season Ohio State is "great" if 2010 pre-season Ohio State wasn't. The Buckeyes have lost two senior starters and replaced them with talented freshman.

Finally, Kentucky will be starting two or three freshman and two sophomores. How can anybody call them "great" at this time?

So, Mr. Bilas, I don't see how we have any more "great" teams than last year (or the year before, when both Kansas and Kentucky were at least as "great" as any team this season and probably greater, although of course neither of them made the Final Four).

I'll be absolutely shocked if the 2012 Final Four includes all four of your supposedly "great" teams.

This might get complicated, as we have a 3-way conversation here between you, me, and the Jay Bilas Channel. I'll try to obfuscate things even further.

First, I [gm] do assert in full confidence that JB said, repeatedly, that there were no "great teams" in 2009-10 and 2010-11. Indeed, although you, Kedsy, may not be able to see how "preseason Duke 2010-'11 was 'not great,'" JB on several occasions very pointedly put down Duke's presumed greatness. I took this as another example of JB's amusing need to bend over backwards to assure the assembled multitude that he is not pro-Duke. [Reluctantly, I'll admit the long-shot possibility, too, that JB was correct, though I prefer not to dwell on this possibility.]

Here are 2 JB comments from a recent ESPN/SportsNation chat [might have been Tues, 8/30 - http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/39644/ncaa-bb-with-jay-bilas] : "I have said the last two years that there was not a single great team." And: "This will be a really powerful year at the top." It is surely clear that "the top" includes tOSU and UK, so, Kedsy, it is my unpleasant duty to say, on behalf of JB, that JB seems to disagree with your reasoning re tOSU and UK in the tag quote.

To be clear, I agree with you rather than JB, channeled or not. But I think we can guess that JB thinks that Sullinger will be amazingly good [indeed JB asserts, not at all controversially, that "Jared Sullinger will again be the most dominant big man in the nation"]. And as UK kept Doron Lamb and Terrence Jones, also Darius Miles, to go along with great frosh, that makes them pretty impressive, on paper.

Frankly, I do find it interesting that JB is so high on the Big 3 this year, compared to the Kyrie-Devils in Nov. 2010. Like you, Kedsy, I cannot quite agree with JB on this stuff, comparative-wise, and so find myself speculating about JB's need to prove he doesn't favor Duke.

Finally, a careful correction: the JB Channel in above post #94 said only that "a couple" of the great teams would make the FF this year. Not "all four."

gumbomoop

09-03-2011, 03:58 PM

OSU has a great player, but I don't think that makes them a great team.

Make that 2 great players. Aaron Craft is a great, great defensive player. Big 10 DPOY last season as a frosh.

I don't know how good tOSU will be, but they will certainly be top-3 preseason, and deservedly so.

loldevilz

09-03-2011, 04:59 PM

uh_no

09-03-2011, 04:59 PM

They fininshed 9th in their conference! 9th! I don't know how on earth they could be considered great. But they only lose one player and add a diaper dandy.

Must be nice when the top couple ACC teams get patsies for all but a handful of conference games.

I think what one must consider when naming "great" teams is how good are they at every position, how well do they play as a team, and how deep are they. Last year Uconn had a major problem in that their offense relied so much on a single player. That hurt them in the regular season, but as the post season progressed, they started using other offensive weapons. If they had played that way all year, they could have been considered great. I think the knock against Duke last year is that despite the great frontcourt, we lacked a scoring presence down low, making our team susceptible to hot/cold shooting nights that have doomed duke teams in the past. The year before, we had brian who developed enough to keep defenses honest, and our offensive rebounding and lack of turnovers meant that we could deal with cold shooting nights and win. We still didn't have a go to guy down low.

I'm not saying you need that to win. Certainly not. Just suggesting that the requirements for being a great team are beyond the requirements for a winning championship team. 2004 Duke and Uconn were great teams. 2009 UNC was a great team. The 4 favorites this year have the possibility to be great teams. I don't think anyone can annoint them yet. They each still have things to prove

UNC: bringing everybody back, but will the first half or second half UNC show up...and was the second half UNC as good as advertised, or the result of beating up a weak ACC and having the easiest draw anyone has seen to get to the elite 8 (15, 7, 11)

UK: they were only 10-6 in the sec last year....that doesn't scream "great team" by any means...especially when they only barely scraped by princeton in the first round....calipari's teams have shown to be beatable by teams who force them to play stupid....Uconn last year, UWV the year before forced them to take terrible shots which didn't fall....not sure calipari can instill the discipline that a great team needs...with 4 5 star guys....3 of whom are #1 at their position......WOWZERS

Uconn: went 9-9 in the big east last year and lost their best player....have a ton of potential....can lamb have success without having kemba to take the defenders off? both nappier and lamb have potential to be among the best at their positions in the country. They are returning both of their main frontcourt guys from a team who specialized in defense and rebounding while adding another troll down low who is highly regarded, but again, still just potential....was the play at the end of last year just a fluke and can they keep the attitude they had last year?

OSU: their schedule last year was utterly terribe. their best wins were over purdue and wisconsin...who also beat them once each....they play both us and kansas early next year, so we should get SOME idea of their potential "greatness"

duke: will kelly turn into that frontcourt scoring threat and can we replace the scoring void from last year

Kedsy

09-03-2011, 05:07 PM

This year he said that a few teams "could become great", not that they are going to be. I honestly don't think he's that far off. To me their are two teams that are very close to locks for the final four: UNC and Kentucky.

UNC returns all their players from a team that went to the elite eight that and still has huge upside.

Kentucky to me is the favorite this year. They may have more talent on their team than any in a long long time. Teague, Gilchrist, Jones, Davis not to mention supposedly their "best player" Lamb. I don't care how young they are, they will be incredibly difficult to beat. Honestly I think its a huge upset if they aren't in the championship game.

Nobody's very close to a lock for the Final Four. Nobody. Ever.

UNC returns most everyone from a team that was good, but not so good that returning everyone makes them a lock for anything. If VCU returned everyone from their Final Four team, would that make them a lock?

(And, no, I'm not saying VCU is as good as UNC; I'm saying that the fact that UNC made the Elite Eight does not make them close to a lock.)

In my opinion, Kentucky's team this year is not as talented as Kentucky's team in 2009-10 (and less experienced). And that Kentucky team not only failed to make the championship game, it didn't even make the Final Four.

Here are 2 JB comments from a recent ESPN/SportsNation chat [might have been Tues, 8/30 - http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/39644/ncaa-bb-with-jay-bilas] : "I have said the last two years that there was not a single great team." And: "This will be a really powerful year at the top." It is surely clear that "the top" includes tOSU and UK, so, Kedsy, it is my unpleasant duty to say, on behalf of JB, that JB seems to disagree with your reasoning re tOSU and UK in the tag quote.

Well, I'd be interested to hear why Jay thinks this year's Ohio State team is that much "greater" than last year's Ohio State team, and why he thinks this year's Kentucky team is that much "greater" than the 2009-10 Kentucky team. To say this year's untested versions are significantly better than their similarly talented predecessors makes no sense to me.

Finally, a careful correction: the JB Channel in above post #94 said only that "a couple" of the great teams would make the FF this year. Not "all four."

Well, my first thought was, that's quite a limb to go out and predict that two of the top four ranked teams will make the Final Four. But then I went and checked the last ten years of NCAA tournaments:

Year # of top four ranked teams (pre-season) to make Final Four
---- ---------------------------------------------------------
2011 0
2010 1 (Michigan State)
2009 1 (UNC)
2008 4 (where'd that come from?)
2007 1 (Florida)
2006 0
2005 1 (UNC)
2004 2 (Duke, UConn)
2003 2 (Texas, Kansas)
2002 1 (Maryland)

So only three times in the last ten years have as many as two of the pre-season top four made the Final Four. And only once in the past seven years. So if Jay is right and two of the top teams make it this year, then he may also be right that it's a top-heavy year. Historically speaking, that is.

But whether Jay's right or wrong, if two of the heavyweights make the Final Four, it still leaves two spots for the rest of us. I think Duke is in as good a position for one of the other two spots as anybody in the country. Obviously a lot of things will have to go right for that to happen, and the games will need to be played, but I still completely disagree with the poster who thought Duke has no chance at the Final Four because of all the great teams blocking our way.

uh_no

09-03-2011, 05:24 PM

I still completely disagree with the poster who thought Duke has no chance at the Final Four because of all the great teams blocking our way.

I have to agree with you here. its so easy for top teams to get knocked out that making the final four without ever having to meet one of those top teams is very possible, and even if it is, Coach K always has teams prepared, so no game is ever a guaranteed loss for duke...regardless of how good the opponent...and with duke being really really good as we should be this year, our odds are even higher.

last year Uconn made the final four without having to play any of the top teams in the country....yeah they got SDSU and Arizona who were both hot...but....UNC was very close to making the final 4 last year without having to play anyone better than a 4 seed, and kansas no one higher than a 9.

The point is that you don't have to play a top team to make it to the final 4, and even if you do, you can beat them as so many teams have shown (george mason, vcu) its impossible to know one's odds to make the final 4 even when brackets come out....the only time you can really have any idea is when you're in the elite 8 and you know your opponent

gumbomoop

09-03-2011, 05:30 PM

You guys are absolutely wrong about this. In the beginning of the season when Irving was on the team Bilas said that Duke could potentially be a great team. I'm not sure I can find it because it was during a few pregame and analysis shows, but I can assure you he did say it.

You are right that that he said their weren't any great teams the last two years and its hard to disagree with him, although statistically that 2010 Duke championship team was about as good as UNC the year before. They just played at a much slower pace.

Also, to the poster who says "Aaron Craft is a great player". You have to be kidding me. He didn't even start for OSU last year when they didn't even have a point guard ahead of him on the depth chart! Plus, he's the most overrated player I've maybe ever seen. He couldn't defend Brandon Knight in the sweet sixteen and it was the cause of their loss. Plus he has no discernible offensive talent. He's a hustler and that's about it.

I don't quarrel with your assertion that JB said the Kyrie-led Devils could "potentially" be a great team. But this year, in contrast, he is very high on the top teams. So far I haven't seen him using the hedge-word, "potentially," to characterize the top teams. But he may do so by November; have to wait and see.

I am the [apparently] anonymous poster who says Craft is a great player. Obviously you and I differ on this point. Although it is quite true that Knight hit a great shot to beat the Buckeyes, it isn't at all true that Craft "couldn't defend" him. He shut him down virtually the entire game. And Craft's defense on Knight was perfect on the final shot. As Shane has said, more than once, even great defense doesn't stop every shot.

As for Craft not starting, he played 30 mpg - and that number means something - with an A/TO of 4.8/2.1. He averaged 2.0 SPG; for comparative purposes Nolan had 1.2 and Singleton [FSU] had 2.0. He wasn't much of a scorer, true; but then again he had 4 teammates who averaged double figures, so that wasn't his role. I concede that he may not produce enough offense this year, when the Buckeyes might need it. We'll have to watch this.

I hope you won't find it churlish of me to suggest that whoever voted Craft the Big 10 DPOY did so for reasons beyond the fact that they were smitten with his hustle. I do understand that you think Craft the most overrated player you've ever seen. Please do concede that a fair number of folks who know something about the game just disagree with your judgment on this one.

gumbomoop

09-03-2011, 05:55 PM

Well, I'd be interested to hear why Jay thinks this year's Ohio State team is that much "greater" than last year's Ohio State team, and why he thinks this year's Kentucky team is that much "greater" than the 2009-10 Kentucky team. To say this year's untested versions are significantly better than their similarly talented predecessors makes no sense to me.

So only three times in the last ten years have as many as two of the pre-season top four made the Final Four. And only once in the past seven years. So if Jay is right and two of the top teams make it this year, then he may also be right that it's a top-heavy year. Historically speaking, that is.

But whether Jay's right or wrong, if two of the heavyweights make the Final Four, it still leaves two spots for the rest of us. I think Duke is in as good a position for one of the other two spots as anybody in the country. Obviously a lot of things will have to go right for that to happen, and the games will need to be played, but I still completely disagree with the poster who thought Duke has no chance at the Final Four because of all the great teams blocking our way.

1. Jay, why? I, too, await clarification from the real JB as to his thinking. As I have implied in an earlier post, I think part of the answer relates to Jay's need to be an anti-homer re his alma mater. Beyond that, it must have to do with how good JB thinks Sullinger, Craft, and Buford will be this year, plus some good frosh. It's obvious, too, that Jay [not to mention pretty much everyone else, save a few troublemaking malcontents on EK] thinks any suggestion that UNC was inconsistent last year is, so, last year. Irrelevant to greatness this year. And Jay is presumably, and understandably, impressed with UK's frosh and returnees.

2. "If Jay is right...." - Just to be clear, the "Jay" who "said" that was the JB Channel - me - simply extrapolating from his enthusiasm for the top teams this year, and from his insistence that this season will have great - or "powerful" - teams. He made it clear in that ESPN/SN chat that he thinks we'll see a higher level of play at the top. Great/powerful? Whatever, not the "not great" Duke [or Butler, VCU, UConn] of very recent - and very pleasant to some of us - memory.

3. Duke - Yes, plenty of room for that second tier ['Cuse, Duke, UL, Vandy, Pitt, Fla, whatever] to make deep runs. As I noted in an earlier post, I'm anticipating a UNC-UCLA matchup in the Sweet 16, and a Duke-tOSU rematch in the NC. March Madness in Sept.....

OldSchool

09-03-2011, 06:34 PM

Have to jump in this cat fight here and disagree. I doubt anyone will be discussing similarities of Zeller/Miles game and the NBA. The difference is Tyler Zeller is light years ahead of Miles in his offensive abilities, and that will get Zeller in the first round and Miles undrafted.

The only thing to watch with Duke guards is how they play together, there's more than enough talent.

His physical abilities are very good, but they will not impress anyone in the NBA. That's a cold reality check to players who get to the highest levels of college ball mainly on their physical skills.

It will boil down to, can he play, does he have a feel for the game...a feel for the ball?

My opinion is he lacks... ball comfort, I'll call it. That ability to be comfortable with the ball and not think about it, just focus on putting it in the hole with touch or passing it. His touch is poor, and it's not second nature with him what to do to score the ball in tight situations, and I don't think it will ever come naturally to him, it's just not in his makeup.

Zellar shows that "ball comfort" I'm talking about. And even though he's less athletic than Miles in almost every area, everybody knows, including NBA scouts, that a pass down low, or a mid range jumper, to Zeller will be much more likely to get points up than it will ever be for Miles.

I don't really want to sound hard on Miles because I think he's a very good player. Good enough to start and play on one of the top programs in college ball. He works hard and plays hard. He is a success as a player by almost any standard, and I'll grant he could surprise me with a big year and sneak into the second round.

But the NBA is a huge step up from college, and many people refuse or don't want to accept that.
Wheat, I for one am a big fan of Tyler Zeller’s. If I were Roy I would have made more use of his offensive skills and under Coach OldSchool he would have had quite a few more 20-pt games last year.

The problem is that one can’t directly extrapolate performance in the college game, even at the level of the elite D1 programs, to the NBA, especially for a power forward. One has to look at the individual player and analyze his particular skills in light of what viable role the player might have in the NBA.

At the college level, Tyler's little hook shot from close in is deadly. With Marshall at the point Tyler often gets rewarded against college defenders for running the court or making a quick cut to the rim. He has pretty good basketball smarts. When he gets the ball in the low post, I love his footwork and he has shown some crafty moves to get his defender off-balance and lay the ball off the glass or throw down a dunk. He is smoother with the ball than Miles, you are right about that.

I don’t see that hook shot that I love from Tyler being very meaningful against NBA 4s and 5s. I do think his ability to knock down an open 10-15 footer is quite valuable for a power forward in the league. Tyler is not a bad athlete, but neither is he a very good athlete. He is not very quick.

One must keep in mind that in the league there is a group of stars and then there is a much larger group of role players. Unless we see a radical change in the play of one or both of them, Tyler and Miles will be role players in the NBA.

When he is on the floor in the NBA, Tyler is unlikely to be the first or second scoring option on his team, even if he is coming in with the entire second five. So we’re looking for screening, rebounding, defense, garbage points (including hitting a short jump shot if he happens to find himself open) and energy.

For that kind of role as an NBA big, athletic ability is at a premium. A guy with strong athletic ability who runs the floor well, can play above the rim, has a big strong body to set screens and bang down low, quickness to get to the sweet spots for rebounding, and decent lateral quickness on defense for a big guy will be valued higher than a guy with less athletic ability who had an effective low post game against college defenders but does not look (at least to me) likely to have the same effectiveness against NBA bigs.

Viewing Tyler’s skills in light of a viable NBA role for him, I think he is a legitimate first-round draft choice. However, I wouldn’t take him as high as 14, unless he were to show some new dimension to his game in the coming season.

On the other hand, I think Miles has an advantage in athletic ability over Tyler, holding out the prospect that he may prove to be at least as valuable a player as Tyler for the type of role he would have in the NBA. As I’ve said, I think Miles needs to have a strong year his senior season to better demonstrate that potential before a team would invest a high second-round or low first-round pick on him.

slower

09-03-2011, 06:51 PM

I think Seth along with Miles will be the best two players on the team this year. .

Sorry, but I just can't bite my tongue on this one. You think Miles will be one of the two best players this year? Really?? REALLY??? Come on, man.

Kedsy

09-03-2011, 08:13 PM

Wheat, I for one am a big fan of Tyler Zeller’s. If I were Roy I would have made more use of his offensive skills and under Coach OldSchool he would have had quite a few more 20-pt games last year.

The problem is that one can’t directly extrapolate performance in the college game, even at the level of the elite D1 programs, to the NBA, especially for a power forward. One has to look at the individual player and analyze his particular skills in light of what viable role the player might have in the NBA.

At the college level, Tyler's little hook shot from close in is deadly. With Marshall at the point Tyler often gets rewarded against college defenders for running the court or making a quick cut to the rim. He has pretty good basketball smarts. When he gets the ball in the low post, I love his footwork and he has shown some crafty moves to get his defender off-balance and lay the ball off the glass or throw down a dunk. He is smoother with the ball than Miles, you are right about that.

I don’t see that hook shot that I love from Tyler being very meaningful against NBA 4s and 5s. I do think his ability to knock down an open 10-15 footer is quite valuable for a power forward in the league. Tyler is not a bad athlete, but neither is he a very good athlete. He is not very quick.

One must keep in mind that in the league there is a group of stars and then there is a much larger group of role players. Unless we see a radical change in the play of one or both of them, Tyler and Miles will be role players in the NBA.

When he is on the floor in the NBA, Tyler is unlikely to be the first or second scoring option on his team, even if he is coming in with the entire second five. So we’re looking for screening, rebounding, defense, garbage points (including hitting a short jump shot if he happens to find himself open) and energy.

For that kind of role as an NBA big, athletic ability is at a premium. A guy with strong athletic ability who runs the floor well, can play above the rim, has a big strong body to set screens and bang down low, quickness to get to the sweet spots for rebounding, and decent lateral quickness on defense for a big guy will be valued higher than a guy with less athletic ability who had an effective low post game against college defenders but does not look (at least to me) likely to have the same effectiveness against NBA bigs.

Viewing Tyler’s skills in light of a viable NBA role for him, I think he is a legitimate first-round draft choice. However, I wouldn’t take him as high as 14, unless he were to show some new dimension to his game in the coming season.

On the other hand, I think Miles has an advantage in athletic ability over Tyler, holding out the prospect that he may prove to be at least as valuable a player as Tyler for the type of role he would have in the NBA. As I’ve said, I think Miles needs to have a strong year his senior season to better demonstrate that potential before a team would invest a high second-round or low first-round pick on him.

I agree with most everything you say here. But despite your persuasive reasoning, there's almost no chance that Miles sneaks into the first round. I'll be happy if he gets drafted at all, and late second round is about the best we can hope for.

Zeller, on the other hand, will get drafted mid- to late-first round unless he totally tanks this season.

I think the disconnect between your sound reasoning and what I consider to be the cold facts is that Miles is a senior who hasn't shown much to date. The NBA scouts love athleticism, yes, but they love the potential of youth even more. They'll view Miles as having reached his ceiling. Thus, to get into the first round, that ceiling will have to look pretty amazing -- Miles would (in my opinion) have to have an outstanding year. Not just a "strong" year. Something along the lines of averaging a double-double, or something like 15 and 8. And I don't see him averaging a double-double (or scoring more than 10 or so ppg, if he even gets that high).

Zeller, while also a senior, has already shown a decent ceiling (16 and 7 last year, good chance of 18 and 8 (or better) this year). These are first round numbers, even with his limited athleticism. If he was a better athlete, he'd be lottery, but as it stands he should be mid- to late-first round.

Just my opinion, of course.

Kedsy

09-03-2011, 08:24 PM

Beyond that, it must have to do with how good JB thinks Sullinger, Craft, and Buford will be this year, plus some good frosh.

Not sure this explanation would account for this year's Ohio State team being "great" and last year's Ohio State team NOT being "great." Not without some expansion anyway.

And Jay is presumably, and understandably, impressed with UK's frosh and returnees.

Again, what I don't get is how this group can be "great," while the 2010 version was "not great."

It's obvious, too, that Jay [not to mention pretty much everyone else, save a few troublemaking malcontents on EK] thinks any suggestion that UNC was inconsistent last year is, so, last year. Irrelevant to greatness this year.

I may be a troublemaking malcontent, but how can it be irrelevant before a single 2011-12 game has been played? This is the only data we have right now.

It's possible that with a year of experience behind them, the UNC team will shake off last season's inconsistent play and become a juggernaut. It's also possible teams watch film of Nolan Smith shutting down Kendall Marshall in the ACC championship game and figure out how to neutralize him. And if Marshall is not super-effective, there's no way UNC is "great," on the scale we've been discussing. Neither Jay Bilas, nor anybody else, knows which of these things is going to happen (or some other outcome).

We just have to wait and see. If in mid-February, Jay is sticking to his guns about greatness (or you are, as Jay's advocate), I may still disagree, but it would probably be harder for me to argue against him.

Wheat/"/"/"

09-03-2011, 08:26 PM

Wheat, I for one am a big fan of Tyler Zeller’s. If I were Roy I would have made more use of his offensive skills and under Coach OldSchool he would have had quite a few more 20-pt games last year.

The problem is that one can’t directly extrapolate performance in the college game, even at the level of the elite D1 programs, to the NBA, especially for a power forward. One has to look at the individual player and analyze his particular skills in light of what viable role the player might have in the NBA.

At the college level, Tyler's little hook shot from close in is deadly. With Marshall at the point Tyler often gets rewarded against college defenders for running the court or making a quick cut to the rim. He has pretty good basketball smarts. When he gets the ball in the low post, I love his footwork and he has shown some crafty moves to get his defender off-balance and lay the ball off the glass or throw down a dunk. He is smoother with the ball than Miles, you are right about that.

I don’t see that hook shot that I love from Tyler being very meaningful against NBA 4s and 5s. I do think his ability to knock down an open 10-15 footer is quite valuable for a power forward in the league. Tyler is not a bad athlete, but neither is he a very good athlete. He is not very quick.

One must keep in mind that in the league there is a group of stars and then there is a much larger group of role players. Unless we see a radical change in the play of one or both of them, Tyler and Miles will be role players in the NBA.

When he is on the floor in the NBA, Tyler is unlikely to be the first or second scoring option on his team, even if he is coming in with the entire second five. So we’re looking for screening, rebounding, defense, garbage points (including hitting a short jump shot if he happens to find himself open) and energy.

For that kind of role as an NBA big, athletic ability is at a premium. A guy with strong athletic ability who runs the floor well, can play above the rim, has a big strong body to set screens and bang down low, quickness to get to the sweet spots for rebounding, and decent lateral quickness on defense for a big guy will be valued higher than a guy with less athletic ability who had an effective low post game against college defenders but does not look (at least to me) likely to have the same effectiveness against NBA bigs.

Viewing Tyler’s skills in light of a viable NBA role for him, I think he is a legitimate first-round draft choice. However, I wouldn’t take him as high as 14, unless he were to show some new dimension to his game in the coming season.

On the other hand, I think Miles has an advantage in athletic ability over Tyler, holding out the prospect that he may prove to be at least as valuable a player as Tyler for the type of role he would have in the NBA. As I’ve said, I think Miles needs to have a strong year his senior season to better demonstrate that potential before a team would invest a high second-round or low first-round pick on him.

Fair enough, we can disagree and see how it plays out in the coming years. It's all good.

Athletic ability only takes a player so far. At some point, and for theses guys it's gonna be the NBA, they reach a level where knowing how to play and find the right spot and time to use a skill set becomes more important than how quick, strong, or high they can jump.

Here's the 12 year NBA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPR4E6EFu54 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPR4E6EFu54)and career ceiling I see for Zeller,

OldSchool

09-03-2011, 08:52 PM

Zeller, while also a senior, has already shown a decent ceiling (16 and 7 last year, good chance of 18 and 8 (or better) this year). These are first round numbers, even with his limited athleticism. If he was a better athlete, he'd be lottery, but as it stands he should be mid- to late-first round.

Here's the 12 year NBA [center Will Perdue]and career ceiling I see for Zeller

The problem I would have as a GM taking Tyler at mid-first round is that I don't think I can use him at the 5 in today's league unless Tyler were to get a lot stronger. And I am not sure he has the body type to become the beast he needs to be to hold his own at the 5 given his limited athleticism. But, maybe. He would have to put in a lot more work on that front. If he was successful in that regard, it would open up a larger set of possibilities for Tyler in terms of a successful NBA career.

Guys like JaVale McGee and Joakim Noah can get away with playing the 5 position at their size and strength by compensating with athleticism and quickness.

Otherwise, I can only use Tyler at the 4. And given the talent that I think we are likely to see in the next draft assuming the one-and-done practice continues, I would be surprised if Tyler creeps up to mid-first round. But, as Wheat says, we shall see.

gumbomoop

09-03-2011, 11:58 PM

We just have to wait and see. If in mid-February, Jay is sticking to his guns about greatness (or you are, as Jay's advocate), I may still disagree, but it would probably be harder for me to argue against him.

I hope you're kidding about my being JB's advocate. But just in case you're not pulling my leg, allow me to clarify. When I suggest I'm channeling JB, it's simply my educated guess about where his comments re great teams seem logically to lead, or what this claim seems to be based on.

Here's my summary-educated-guess of JB's position re likely greatness this year from Big 3:
(1) UNC - talent, depth, experience, excellent PG, HB as top 3 NBA lottery pick, Henson/Zeller as 1st-rounders. If one measure of how good a team can be is number of future NBA guys, UNC is loaded. Great coach.
(2) tOSU - lost 2 fine senior scorers, but Sullinger is easily best interior player in college ball, Craft is great D, Buford is senior leader [I'm guessing], good frosh. Keys are greatness from Sullinger and Craft.
(3) UK - lost Knight, but Teague is impressive. Jones returns, a big plus. Anthony Davis maybe #1 lottery. Gilchrist also one of top frosh, and Wiltjer sneaky real good. Doron Lamb budding star. Great coach.

While I do actually think there's a plausible case to be made for claiming that we might see some greatness from UNC, UK, or tOSU, more generally I lean toward the arguments you [Kedsy] have made in this thread.

I don't think Jay's view - for which the link I included in earlier thread provides some concrete statements - is crazy. As I have noted in posts above, however, I do think that Jay is in a weird way "burdened" by what appears to be his felt need to be an anti-homer re Duke.

I'd much prefer that Jay come back to EK and chime in for his very real, and very articulate, self.

loldevilz

09-04-2011, 12:16 AM

Sorry, but I just can't bite my tongue on this one. You think Miles will be one of the two best players this year? Really?? REALLY??? Come on, man.

Did you actually look at his numbers in China? His overall offensive numbers were second only to Ryan's. If Miles averages a double double with good to great offensive rebounding and interior defense, he could be the best player on the team. There are simply not that many guys in college basketball that can do that. I'm not saying he is the most talented or will have the best NBA career, that is clearly Ryan or Austin, but Miles and Seth to me are going to be the anchors of this team and determine how far it will go.

uh_no

09-04-2011, 12:18 AM

I hope you're kidding about my being JB's advocate. But just in case you're not pulling my leg, allow me to clarify. When I suggest I'm channeling JB, it's simply my educated guess about where his comments re great teams seem logically to lead, or what this claim seems to be based on.

Here's my summary-educated-guess of JB's position re likely greatness this year from Big 3:
(1) UNC - talent, depth, experience, excellent PG, HB as top 3 NBA lottery pick, Henson/Zeller as 1st-rounders. If one measure of how good a team can be is number of future NBA guys, UNC is loaded. Great coach.
(2) tOSU - lost 2 fine senior scorers, but Sullinger is easily best interior player in college ball, Craft is great D, Buford is senior leader [I'm guessing], good frosh. Keys are greatness from Sullinger and Craft.
(3) UK - lost Knight, but Teague is impressive. Jones returns, a big plus. Anthony Davis maybe #1 lottery. Gilchrist also one of top frosh, and Wiltjer sneaky real good. Doron Lamb budding star. Great coach.

While I do actually think there's a plausible case to be made for claiming that we might see some greatness from UNC, UK, or tOSU, more generally I lean toward the arguments you [Kedsy] have made in this thread.

I don't think Jay's view - for which the link I included in earlier thread provides some concrete statements - is crazy. As I have noted in posts above, however, I do think that Jay is in a weird way "burdened" by what appears to be his felt need to be an anti-homer re Duke.

I'd much prefer that Jay come back to EK and chime in for his very real, and very articulate, self.

I laid out my opinoions of greatness, but we're seeing several teams that combine loads of experience with NBA potential....and we haven't had a single team to have that in a few years now (i know people will argue that duke has had that, but other than Nolan, and kyrie, no one has had all star potential at duke, and we nolan really exploded after kyrie got injured...and JB admitted they had the possibility to be great) Kentucky has it, UNC has it, i'm not sold on OSU or uconn yet, but harrison barnes is a legitimate POY candidate, and zeller will be a first rounder....plus they hav ea ton of other guys....UK is bringing back a huge portion of their team and adding 3 players who are # 1 at their position (and anothe r5 star to boot)...both will be phenomenal teams.

I'll say this, I don't know how good teams will be before they play....but gosh darn it, it'll be a lot of fun to watch. Duke can be there with kelly's exposed play. We won the national title in '10 flying under the radar....and I think we will end up a #1 seed come march when as we know, anything cna appen

gumbomoop

09-04-2011, 12:38 AM

If Miles averages a double double with good to great offensive rebounding and interior defense, he could be the best player on the team. There are simply not that many guys in college basketball that can do that.... Miles and Seth to me are going to be the anchors of this team and determine how far it will go.

It seems highly likely that if Miles averages even close to a double-double - say, 11 and 9 - he will be an "anchor" to a fine season. And yes, beyond "just" an anchor, he could be our best player.

If.

There's almost surely a consensus on EK that Miles exhibits impressive athleticism, and enticing potential. So far, he has not fully reached that potential, owing to some flaws in his game, and overall inconsistency.

But if he becomes a consistent double-digit scorer and leading rebounder, then every EK poster will be thrilled, and Miles's most fervent advocates, including you and Bob Green, will be justifiably proud of him.

Wheat/"/"/"

09-04-2011, 12:55 AM

I don't think Jay's view - for which the link I included in earlier thread provides some concrete statements - is crazy. As I have noted in posts above, however, I do think that Jay is in a weird way "burdened" by what appears to be his felt need to be an anti-homer re Duke.

I'd much prefer that Jay come back to EK and chime in for his very real, and very articulate, self.

The only thing Jay is "burdened" with is the massive weight on his shoulders created by his oversized brain made "bearable" by an overachieving ego.

Everybody loves Jay, real recognize real, he's the best thing about Twitter.

uh_no

09-04-2011, 01:00 AM

The only thing Jay is "burdened" with is the massive weight on his shoulders created by his oversized brain made "bearable" by an overachieving ego.

Everybody loves Jay, real recognize real, he's the best thing about Twitter.

While I'm nut sure exaclty what you mena here, I think I get the point, and generally agree

Jay picks for duke when he thinks they will win. He picks against duke when he thinks they will lose. People here will likely pick for duke more than the general populace. I think jay does his best to remain as objective as possiblie, and sometimes I think he overrates duke and sometiems I think he underrates duke. I think there is a slight inferiority complex here when Digger phelps is clearly an ND homer, and guys are clearly UNC homers, but Jay refuses to sink to that level and is able to remain objective. It says something about dukies, at least jay, that he can be that way, and perhaps we should all take a moment to think of thay

Wheat/"/"/"

09-04-2011, 01:30 AM

While I'm nut sure exaclty what you mena here, I think I get the point, and generally agree

Trust me....do yourself a favor and follow Jay on twitter for one week and all will become clear :)

uh_no

09-04-2011, 01:35 AM

Trust me....do yourself a favor and follow Jay on twitter for one week and all will become clear :)

oh no! I've tried for the past 3 years to avoid making a twitter account!....do you think I could ask jay to email me his tweets personally instead?

Wheat/"/"/"

09-04-2011, 01:58 AM

oh no! I've tried for the past 3 years to avoid making a twitter account!....do you think I could ask jay to email me his tweets personally instead?

He's WAY too important to bother....and it would take his time away from the mirror.
I'd say ask him, but his seat is way up there on the mountain...
...
Stop fightin' it...follow Jay. :)
...

Jim3k

09-04-2011, 04:05 AM

Note that only one of Duke's pre-K Final Four teams had an elite PG, Steve Vacendak in 1966. ...

So, it's certainly possible to make the FF without an elite PG, especially if you've got some Mullins, Marin, ...-level talent floating around.

Then again, if I had my druthers, I would rather Curry be one of the country's better point guards then not.

I agree with your druthers, Jim. But for the 63-64 season, I'm not certain that Vacendak qualified as a PG, though by 65-66, as you say, perhaps he had. IIRC, in 63-64 the ball was generally brought upcourt by Buzzy Harrison. That, of course, says very little, though he often started the offense. He was the senior while Steve was a soph. (You know better than I, of course, that frosh were ineligible in those years.) That meant Steve was less experienced than Buzzy who had been a starter since the 61-62 season. I should note that Denny Ferguson, he of the heads up dribbling, started frequently, too. Ron Herbster also saw backcourt duty in the 9-man rotation.

I also know that you are aware that assist stats were not kept in those years, so that stat, being nonexistent, doesn't help here.

So...my impression, as a member of that class, was that the very concept of "point" or "lead" guard was pretty unfocused--at least at Duke. It was not until we encountered UCLA that we even saw an elite point guard. And then there were two: Wooden had both Walt Hazzard and Gail Goodrich, with Hazzard being the most-used "lead," though they were interchangeable. I'm not certain that Coach Bubas subscribed to Wooden's philosophy that designated only one position as the lead guard.

So my feeling is that Vacendak, who was a great dribbler, driver and assist guy, should probably be characterized as most often playing the off-guard that year. But mostly, I think the team did it by committee. The team even had two pros as forwards, Jeff Mullins, of course, and Jack Marin. Mullins played guard as a pro and both were excellent ball handlers. So as far as initiating the offense is concerned, if that's the definition of a PG, I think it was most often Buzzy. (Buzzy did occasionally move to a wing.) That's not to understate the PG-assist contributions of the others. That was a very fine team. I am sorry that assist stats are not available, but the general stats seem to bear out my belief that the ball was always moving: Mullins averaged 24 pts, Jay Buckley 13, Hack Tison 12 while Buzzy and Jack were around 8; Vacendak and Ferguson were around 5. Later in the season, as Buckley began to power up, I think all the guards were trying to feed him in the post. The front line was formidable: Mullins, two 6-10s (both Jay and Hack were really 7 footers) and Marin to spell them.

I just think that Vacendak doesn't fit the normal definition of a PG. I do think he was an offensive load, particularly in succeeding seasons. His 63-64 season presaged his later double-digit production. He was a wonderful player for all three years. When Verga came along in 64-65, that was a dynamic backcourt, but since I had graduated and left the area, I can't speak to roles then. Perhaps in 65-66, Vacendak was a PG, no doubt by default, since Verga was the other guard. Neither Ron Wendelin nor Tony Barone, both sophs, found much playing time with that duo running the show.

sagegrouse

09-04-2011, 08:43 AM

I agree with your druthers, Jim. But for the 63-64 season, I'm not certain that Vacendak qualified as a PG, though by 65-66, as you say, perhaps he had. IIRC, in 63-64 the ball was generally brought upcourt by Buzzy Harrison. That, of course, says very little, though he often started the offense. He was the senior while Steve was a soph. (You know better than I, of course, that frosh were ineligible in those years.) That meant Steve was less experienced than Buzzy who had been a starter since the 61-62 season. I should note that Denny Ferguson, he of the heads up dribbling, started frequently, too. Ron Herbster also saw backcourt duty in the 9-man rotation.

I also know that you are aware that assist stats were not kept in those years, so that stat, being nonexistent, doesn't help here.

So...my impression, as a member of that class, was that the very concept of "point" or "lead" guard was pretty unfocused--at least at Duke. It was not until we encountered UCLA that we even saw an elite point guard. And then there were two: Wooden had both Walt Hazzard and Gail Goodrich, with Hazzard being the most-used "lead," though they were interchangeable. I'm not certain that Coach Bubas subscribed to Wooden's philosophy that designated only one position as the lead guard.

So my feeling is that Vacendak, who was a great dribbler, driver and assist guy, should probably be characterized as most often playing the off-guard that year. But mostly, I think the team did it by committee. The team even had two pros as forwards, Jeff Mullins, of course, and Jack Marin. Mullins played guard as a pro and both were excellent ball handlers. So as far as initiating the offense is concerned, if that's the definition of a PG, I think it was most often Buzzy. (Buzzy did occasionally move to a wing.) That's not to understate the PG-assist contributions of the others. That was a very fine team. I am sorry that assist stats are not available, but the general stats seem to bear out my belief that the ball was always moving: Mullins averaged 24 pts, Jay Buckley 13, Hack Tison 12 while Buzzy and Jack were around 8; Vacendak and Ferguson were around 5. Later in the season, as Buckley began to power up, I think all the guards were trying to feed him in the post. The front line was formidable: Mullins, two 6-10s (both Jay and Hack were really 7 footers) and Marin to spell them.

I just think that Vacendak doesn't fit the normal definition of a PG. I do think he was an offensive load, particularly in succeeding seasons. His 63-64 season presaged his later double-digit production. He was a wonderful player for all three years. When Verga came along in 64-65, that was a dynamic backcourt, but since I had graduated and left the area, I can't speak to roles then. Perhaps in 65-66, Vacendak was a PG, no doubt by default, since Verga was the other guard. Neither Ron Wendelin nor Tony Barone, both sophs, found much playing time with that duo running the show.

J3K and Jim S.:

From the minutes played of the 12 games (out of 31) that had the stat and my faulty memory, I believe the late Professor Denny Ferguson was the PG for the 1964 national runner-up. He averaged 26 MPG vs. 25 for future Reverend Buzzy Harrison, 13 for Ron Herbster and 15 for future Coach Steve Vacendak. Moreover, it appeared he only entered the starting lineup after the first few games of the season.

Rev. Buzzy was our classmate and an excellent player -- but a shooting guard. He was not a passer. Prof. Denny was a distributor (he averaged only 5 PPG) but played the point and often led the fast break. And if he were around today, I believe Denny would agree that he was not an elite point guard.

sagegrouse

Kedsy

09-04-2011, 11:34 AM

I hope you're kidding about my being JB's advocate. But just in case you're not pulling my leg, allow me to clarify.

Yes, I was kidding. Sorry.

Kedsy

09-04-2011, 11:42 AM

I laid out my opinoions of greatness, but we're seeing several teams that combine loads of experience with NBA potential....and we haven't had a single team to have that in a few years now (i know people will argue that duke has had that, but other than Nolan, and kyrie, no one has had all star potential at duke, and we nolan really exploded after kyrie got injured...and JB admitted they had the possibility to be great) Kentucky has it, UNC has it, i'm not sold on OSU or uconn yet, but harrison barnes is a legitimate POY candidate, and zeller will be a first rounder....plus they hav ea ton of other guys....UK is bringing back a huge portion of their team and adding 3 players who are # 1 at their position (and anothe r5 star to boot)...both will be phenomenal teams.

I think you're vastly overrating Kentucky's returning experience. Based on what I can tell from their returning roster, they will have one (1) upperclassman in their regular rotation (and just two, maybe three, sophomores to go with their fabulous freshmen). That should be as inexperienced as any team in the country, except probably St. Johns.

uh_no

09-04-2011, 11:46 AM

jimsumner

09-04-2011, 12:02 PM

I agree with your druthers, Jim. But for the 63-64 season, I'm not certain that Vacendak qualified as a PG, though by 65-66, as you say, perhaps he had. IIRC, in 63-64 the ball was generally brought upcourt by Buzzy Harrison. That, of course, says very little, though he often started the offense. He was the senior while Steve was a soph. (You know better than I, of course, that frosh were ineligible in those years.) That meant Steve was less experienced than Buzzy who had been a starter since the 61-62 season. I should note that Denny Ferguson, he of the heads up dribbling, started frequently, too. Ron Herbster also saw backcourt duty in the 9-man rotation.

I also know that you are aware that assist stats were not kept in those years, so that stat, being nonexistent, doesn't help here.

So...my impression, as a member of that class, was that the very concept of "point" or "lead" guard was pretty unfocused--at least at Duke. It was not until we encountered UCLA that we even saw an elite point guard. And then there were two: Wooden had both Walt Hazzard and Gail Goodrich, with Hazzard being the most-used "lead," though they were interchangeable. I'm not certain that Coach Bubas subscribed to Wooden's philosophy that designated only one position as the lead guard.

So my feeling is that Vacendak, who was a great dribbler, driver and assist guy, should probably be characterized as most often playing the off-guard that year. But mostly, I think the team did it by committee. The team even had two pros as forwards, Jeff Mullins, of course, and Jack Marin. Mullins played guard as a pro and both were excellent ball handlers. So as far as initiating the offense is concerned, if that's the definition of a PG, I think it was most often Buzzy. (Buzzy did occasionally move to a wing.) That's not to understate the PG-assist contributions of the others. That was a very fine team. I am sorry that assist stats are not available, but the general stats seem to bear out my belief that the ball was always moving: Mullins averaged 24 pts, Jay Buckley 13, Hack Tison 12 while Buzzy and Jack were around 8; Vacendak and Ferguson were around 5. Later in the season, as Buckley began to power up, I think all the guards were trying to feed him in the post. The front line was formidable: Mullins, two 6-10s (both Jay and Hack were really 7 footers) and Marin to spell them.

I just think that Vacendak doesn't fit the normal definition of a PG. I do think he was an offensive load, particularly in succeeding seasons. His 63-64 season presaged his later double-digit production. He was a wonderful player for all three years. When Verga came along in 64-65, that was a dynamic backcourt, but since I had graduated and left the area, I can't speak to roles then. Perhaps in 65-66, Vacendak was a PG, no doubt by default, since Verga was the other guard. Neither Ron Wendelin nor Tony Barone, both sophs, found much playing time with that duo running the show.

I'm confused. I never suggested that Vacendak was the Duke point guard in 1964. He wasn't even a starter. He was the point guard/primary ball-handler in 1966 and he was pretty good at it.

Kedsy

09-04-2011, 12:04 PM

I think playing in the national semifinals gets one some pretty decent experience. In this day in age, keeping those types of players around for a second year is more experience then they usually have.....they can say, in nolan's words "this ain't my first rodeo"

Possibly. The entire Kentucky roster will have a total of four games of actually playing in the Final Four (one game each for Jones, Miller, Lamb, and Vargas, and Vargas only played 7 minutes and may not play much this coming season). Which granted is four more than UNC or Ohio State have.

Still, calling Kentucky experienced is a major stretch, in my opinion.

uh_no

09-04-2011, 12:09 PM

Possibly. The entire Kentucky roster will have a total of four games of actually playing in the Final Four (one game each for Jones, Miller, Lamb, and Vargas, and Vargas only played 7 minutes and may not play much this coming season). Which granted is four more than UNC or Ohio State have.

Still, calling Kentucky experienced is a major stretch, in my opinion.

That's fair. I guess perhaps I should qualify it by saying experienced for a calipari team.....i mean...he's got returning starters....its a new concept....

given he's probably just depressed that the guys didn't leave because then he didn't have lots of guys in the draft

ACCBBallFan

09-04-2011, 03:58 PM

I think you're vastly overrating Kentucky's returning experience. Based on what I can tell from their returning roster, they will have one (1) upperclassman in their regular rotation (and just two, maybe three, sophomores to go with their fabulous freshmen). That should be as inexperienced as any team in the country, except probably St. Johns.Yes, even UNC's "experience" is often over stated. Two seniors, Zeller and Watts who is not much of a factor. With the McDonald ACL, two juniors Strickland and Henson. So only 3 upperclassmen who play much.

Coach K considers' Duke as a young team and he has 6 upper classmen, which ties him with Miami, Clemson and State for second in ACC. FSU leads with 6 seniors, and 3 juniors. for 9 on paper, but more likely 7 as I have never heard of the senior Jeff Peterson or the junior Kiel Turpin.

UVA, VA Tech and Wake have 4. MD and GA Tech 3, and BC only has two, both transfers, plus 2 sophs and 8 frosh.

I came across a site runthefloor.com that has some decent writeups on ACC 2011-2012 projections, plus some best front court and best back court rankings across the ACC..

http://runthefloor.com/articles/florida-state-seminoles/2011-12-acc-basketball-3-florida-state.html

Jim3k

09-04-2011, 05:02 PM

I'm confused.

No need to be. Just pointing out that Vacendak was primarily a shooting guard in 1964, so he was not then asked to initiate the offense. That came, as you point, later. [/QUOTE]

I never suggested that Vacendak was the Duke point guard in 1964

We are agreed, but this leads to my point, that I think it is far to say that the PG duties were by committee. As Sage has observed, Ferguson's post-season minutes and, to the extent they are available, the post-season assist stats) may well suggest that Ferguson filled the role. But in my recollection, that was really by committee. Even shooting guards like Harrison and Vacendak initiated the offense. Harrison often found Mullins. Plus, it seems the numbers show Herbster and Ferguson alternated their playing time from game to game. So there was no one assigned as the point--leading me to my conclusion that it was a committee effort.

And all this supports your point that a FF team does nodt need an elite PG, if there is sufficient strength elsewhere. In fact, the 1964 team demonstrates that you don't need a PG at all if the depth is there. I see the 1964 team a little differently than Sage, but I grant that Ferguson could be characterized as a point. But only because he wasn't the only one to initiate the offense. Harrison did it; Mullins did it; Vacendak did it, and Herbster did it. Some did it more than others, but the committee approach was the general rule.

He wasn't even a starter.

This is open to debate, I think. At the beginning of the season, Bubas was searching for another guard. He selected Ferguson because he dribbled with his eyes up and could protect the ball at the same time. But Vacendak beat out Herbster and later began pressing both Ferguson and Harrison for minutes. In that time I recall there were some occasions where Vacendak did start. Not sure how frequently that happened.

But he eventually had starter's minutes and he surely was called upon to finish games with his remarkable dribbling and keep-away skills. He could burn a clock with the best of them.

I said earlier that I thought Bubas did not see the PG role in the way Wooden did. I need to retreat slightly from that statement. The class of 1964 included guard Billy Ulrich. Unfortunately, Billy hurt himself so severely he had to withdraw from competition in 1963. When he played as a freshman, he was definitely a PG. He ran that team; as a soph in 1961-62, he appeared in 21 games, including the no-substitution game against WVU. I think, had he remained healthy, he'd have become a recognizable point guard. So Bubas may have wanted to operate with a point guard; he still didn't have one in 1964. He had guards, plenty of them, but no true point--the closest being Ferguson.

In any event, I agree with Jim S. that a FF team does not need an elite PG. It needs other strengths to prevail; only a few teams can do it.

jimsumner

09-04-2011, 05:33 PM

No need to be. Just pointing out that Vacendak was primarily a shooting guard in 1964, so he was not then asked to initiate the offense. That came, as you point, later.

We are agreed, but this leads to my point, that I think it is far to say that the PG duties were by committee. As Sage has observed, Ferguson's post-season minutes and, to the extent they are available, the post-season assist stats) may well suggest that Ferguson filled the role. But in my recollection, that was really by committee. Even shooting guards like Harrison and Vacendak initiated the offense. Harrison often found Mullins. Plus, it seems the numbers show Herbster and Ferguson alternated their playing time from game to game. So there was no one assigned as the point--leading me to my conclusion that it was a committee effort.

And all this supports your point that a FF team does nodt need an elite PG, if there is sufficient strength elsewhere. In fact, the 1964 team demonstrates that you don't need a PG at all if the depth is there. I see the 1964 team a little differently than Sage, but I grant that Ferguson could be characterized as a point. But only because he wasn't the only one to initiate the offense. Harrison did it; Mullins did it; Vacendak did it, and Herbster did it. Some did it more than others, but the committee approach was the general rule.

This is open to debate, I think. At the beginning of the season, Bubas was searching for another guard. He selected Ferguson because he dribbled with his eyes up and could protect the ball at the same time. But Vacendak beat out Herbster and later began pressing both Ferguson and Harrison for minutes. In that time I recall there were some occasions where Vacendak did start. Not sure how frequently that happened.

But he eventually had starter's minutes and he surely was called upon to finish games with his remarkable dribbling and keep-away skills. He could burn a clock with the best of them.

I said earlier that I thought Bubas did not see the PG role in the way Wooden did. I need to retreat slightly from that statement. The class of 1964 included guard Billy Ulrich. Unfortunately, Billy hurt himself so severely he had to withdraw from competition in 1963. When he played as a freshman, he was definitely a PG. He ran that team; as a soph in 1961-62, he appeared in 21 games, including the no-substitution game against WVU. I think, had he remained healthy, he'd have become a recognizable point guard. So Bubas may have wanted to operate with a point guard; he still didn't have one in 1964. He had guards, plenty of them, but no true point--the closest being Ferguson.

In any event, I agree with Jim S. that a FF team does not need an elite PG. It needs other strengths to prevail; only a few teams can do it.[/QUOTE]

Positions certainly were not as rigidly defined in the '60s. Teams started a center, two forwards and two guards.

The 1963 team did have more of a committee approach. I suspect Art Heyman would have led that team in assists, had the stat been kept. Buzzy Harrison and Fred Schmidt were the starting guards and neither was what was called in those days a "playmaker."

But Heyman and Schmidt graduated in 1963 and Ferguson, Harrison, Mullins, Tison and Buckley were the starters the following season. Ferguson absolutely was the primary ball-handler/playmaker. Vacendak and fellow soph Jack Marin came off the bench. Bubas valued experience (Dean Smith didn't invent that) but I've often wondered if that season would have turned out differently with a younger, but more talented starting lineup. Couldn't have gone much further, but one more win would have been nice. :)

Duke went small in 1965, with Ferguson, sophomore Bob Verga and Vacendak starting. The 6-1 Vacendak played small forward and averaged 6.6 rebounds per game against much bigger, stronger players. Vacendak wasn't the most talented played in that era but for intelligence, energy, poise and sheer combativeness, he was off the charts. One of my absolute all-time favorites.

ACCBBallFan

09-04-2011, 06:00 PM

Yes, even UNC's "experience" is often over stated. Two seniors, Zeller and Watts who is not much of a factor. With the McDonald ACL, two juniors Strickland and Henson. So only 3 upperclassmen who play much.

Coach K considers' Duke as a young team and he has 6 upper classmen, which ties him with Miami, Clemson and State for second in ACC. FSU leads with 6 seniors, and 3 juniors. for 9 on paper, but more likely 7 as I have never heard of the senior Jeff Peterson or the junior Kiel Turpin.

UVA, VA Tech and Wake have 4. MD and GA Tech 3, and BC only has two, both transfers, plus 2 sophs and 8 frosh.

I came across a site runthefloor.com that has some decent writeups on ACC 2011-2012 projections, plus some best front court and best back court rankings across the ACC..

http://runthefloor.com/articles/florida-state-seminoles/2011-12-acc-basketball-3-florida-state.html

Just learned that Jeff Peterson was a transfer from Arkansas. Could not read the article, just the teaser, because it was premium.

http://floridastate.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?sid=1061&script=content.asp&cid=1236028&fid=&tid=&mid=

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/09/18/1438971/turpins-son-commits-to-florida.html

Kfanarmy

09-05-2011, 02:17 AM

Sorry, but I just can't bite my tongue on this one. You think Miles will be one of the two best players this year? Really?? REALLY??? Come on, man. The facts, stats, and specificity of your post here, really didn't merit interrupting the discussion did they?

slower

09-05-2011, 08:18 AM

The facts, stats, and specificity of your post here, really didn't merit interrupting the discussion did they?

Sorry if it went over your head. I didn't realize that my post was so cryptic.

DevilDan

09-06-2011, 11:29 AM

It's been many many moons since I posted, but have followed the team day in and day out, nonetheless ... I am very rusty, but here goes ...

Have read with great interest all the talk on this thread about Steve Vacendak, Coach Bubas, and the 1964-1966teams. At the time I was a geeky high schooler, and LOVING the Blue Devils. Coach K is the MAN, but lest we forget, it was Vic Bubas who put DUKE Basketball on the national map in the early 60's. Depending on where you sat, ART HEYMAN was the most loved / hated player in the country. The super-athletic skywalkers at Loyola of Chicago were too much for the Devils in the '63 National Semifinal, then the JEFF MULLINS team fell to UCLA, with Gail Goodrich and Walt Hazzard (and that damn Kenny Washington!) the following year. But my favorite team during that stage of Duke hoops was the 1966 group of Verga/Vacendak/Reidy/Marin/Lewis. They were a truly remarkable starting five ... it took Bob Verga being weakened by the flu, for Kentucky to slip by in the Semifinal, and face Texas Western in that landmark title game at College Park.

Great times for DUKE ! Now to 2011-2012 ... can't wait for November, too see how we fare. The early sked is brutal, and will be an early measuring stick for our guys. I imagine we'll take some early hits, then gradually toughen up in January-February. I suspect we will be somewhere in the 7-10 position in the rankings (but OF COURSE 2nd-3rd in SAGARIN, per usual) as we reach the ACC Tournament. Maybe Coach K will borrow a theory from his friend, the late great Jimmy V ... "stick around the whole way, then nip 'em at the end".

That's more than enough for now .... GO DUKE !!

CDu

09-06-2011, 01:22 PM

Did you actually look at his numbers in China? His overall offensive numbers were second only to Ryan's. If Miles averages a double double with good to great offensive rebounding and interior defense, he could be the best player on the team. There are simply not that many guys in college basketball that can do that. I'm not saying he is the most talented or will have the best NBA career, that is clearly Ryan or Austin, but Miles and Seth to me are going to be the anchors of this team and determine how far it will go.

IF Miles averaged a double-double, he'd very likely be among the team's two best players. I can't really see him averaging a double double this year though. I expect that Mason will play better (and thus play more) than he did in China and Dubai.

Miles had some nice performances overseas. But given that he was arguably the third best big last year (depending on where you rate him relative to Kelly) and given that we have two or three possible threats on the perimeter, I think it's unrealistic to say he'll be the second best player overall on the team. It would take an enormous jump in performance for him to do so.

I hope Miles plays well this year, since he's going to likely need to be one of our top 5-6 players. But I don't expect him to be our second best (or even third best) player this year. If that happens, it'll either mean he really surprised or some other key players had really rough years.

Kedsy

09-06-2011, 01:39 PM

I hope Miles plays well this year, since he's going to likely need to be one of our top 5-6 players. But I don't expect him to be our second best (or even third best) player this year. If that happens, it'll either mean he really surprised or some other key players had really rough years.

We need Miles to rebound and anchor the defense. On offense, all he really has to do is force the other team to guard him. If they have to hesitate before leaving him to double one of our more potent offensive threats, then we're in pretty good shape.

CDu

09-06-2011, 01:52 PM

We need Miles to rebound and anchor the defense. On offense, all he really has to do is force the other team to guard him. If they have to hesitate before leaving him to double one of our more potent offensive threats, then we're in pretty good shape.

I agree that we don't need Miles to be our second best player at all. We just need him to be a consistent presence on the court (something he's struggled with his entire career). I was merely commenting on the likelihood of him actually being our second best player.

jimsumner

09-06-2011, 01:52 PM

IF Miles averaged a double-double, he'd very likely be among the team's two best players. I can't really see him averaging a double double this year though. I expect that Mason will play better (and thus play more) than he did in China and Dubai.

Miles had some nice performances overseas. But given that he was arguably the third best big last year (depending on where you rate him relative to Kelly) and given that we have two or three possible threats on the perimeter, I think it's unrealistic to say he'll be the second best player overall on the team. It would take an enormous jump in performance for him to do so.

I hope Miles plays well this year, since he's going to likely need to be one of our top 5-6 players. But I don't expect him to be our second best (or even third best) player this year. If that happens, it'll either mean he really surprised or some other key players had really rough years.

For the record, Shelden Williams is the only Duke player during Mike Krzyzewski's 32-year tenure at Duke to average a double-double. He did it twice. A short list of bigs who never averaged a double-double would include Mark Alarie, Danny Ferry, Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Elton Brand (came real close) and Carlos Boozer. Boozer averaged 8.7 rebounds per game in his best season at Duke and he was pretty darn good.

OldPhiKap

09-06-2011, 01:58 PM

CDu

09-06-2011, 02:05 PM

Newton_14

09-06-2011, 09:55 PM

I don't think anyone would say that Zoubek was one our best two or three players in 2010. But we don't win it all without him.

Miles does not need to worry about personal stats. He needs to anchor the defense, rebound, and hold position. Get tap-ins and score where he can. If he can start hitting the 12 footers with regularity, that would be even better but is not necessary.

Just be you, Miles, and let the game come to you.

Miles actually did hit that 12 footer with regularity his entire Sophomore year, even in the tourney games. Last year he slipped with that. If he can regain that touch, and there is really no reason why he can't, it will greatly help him and the team. Agree with the others in that he will not nor will need to be, the 2nd best player on the team. He is the best defensive big of the 3 regulars, and has come on strong with his rebounding. If he improves incrementally in all area's of his game, as he mostly has year over year, he will be a strong player and very valuable to the team. Just won't be the 2nd best player overall.

One thing I feel is unfair to Miles, is that due to his superb athletic ability, people forget that he was not a 5-Star recruit, yet they judge his play as though he was. He was actually a 3 Star and outside the Top 100 in one service, and a 4 Star in another service. (Scout & Rivals, can't remember which was which). Still he has progressed into a solid player, who finished strong last year, winning his starting job back, and seems to have carried that over into the beginning of this year. I look for him to have a solid year this year, once again improving his overall game from last season.

I also feel our frontcourt will be a strength this year not a weakness. Those 3 guys are all upperclassmen who have been through the wars and are better off for it. I think the game will slow down for all 3, and given that all 3 bring a different and unique skillset, it makes each player valuable in their own way. Plus they have Josh and MP3 to push them to make them better, and should either of the 3 get hurt, Josh or MP3 could help hold down the fort until the injury heals. I find it interesting that we have 5 bigs and all of them have slightly to significantly different skillsets than any of the others. Even the MP's are all a bit unique among themselves.

gumbomoop

09-07-2011, 07:42 AM

Even the MP's are all a bit unique among themselves.

Yes, this is a point worth noting. It's probably fair to note that Miles and Mason have at times shared some unfortunate traits: committing silly fouls, having weak hands and poor footwork. Thus, they're regularly lumped together by outsiders as "the Plumlees," and even on EK [including by me] as the "MPs." But their respective games, overall, aren't particularly similar at all.

licc85

09-07-2011, 10:25 PM

I don't think anyone would say that Zoubek was one our best two or three players in 2010.

He definitely wasn't one of the 2 or 3 most talented players, but I don't think it's very debatable that he was one of the top 2 or 3 most IMPORTANT players on that championship team. It was no coincidence that our meteoric rise as a team began when Zoubek began dominating later in the year starting with the game vs. Maryland in Cameron. Until that point, we had the look of an Elite 8 team, but when Zoubs unleashed the beard and became a double double machine, as well as an immovable object in the post on D, it was over. His smart defense (without fouling) and offensive rebounding made him probably the 2nd most important player on that team, second only to Jon Scheyer with his steady ball handling. When you don't ever turn it over, and get 2nd or 3rd chances on every possession with a missed shot, that's a pretty good recipe for success.

I don't mean to minimize Guys like Kyle Singler, Nolan Smith, or Lance Thomas at all, each of those guys came through again and again on both sides of the ball in clutch moments. After all, somebody had to hit the shot after Zoubek grabbed an offensive board and kicked it out, but without Zoubek in the middle, I just don't see how we could have done it. We often fed off him on offense, and everyone funneled players toward him on defense.

uh_no

09-07-2011, 10:54 PM

He definitely wasn't one of the 2 or 3 most talented players, but I don't think it's very debatable that he was one of the top 2 or 3 most IMPORTANT players on that championship team. It was no coincidence that our meteoric rise as a team began when Zoubek began dominating later in the year starting with the game vs. Maryland in Cameron. Until that point, we had the look of an Elite 8 team, but when Zoubs unleashed the beard and became a double double machine, as well as an immovable object in the post on D, it was over. His smart defense (without fouling) and offensive rebounding made him probably the 2nd most important player on that team, second only to Jon Scheyer with his steady ball handling. When you don't ever turn it over, and get 2nd or 3rd chances on every possession with a missed shot, that's a pretty good recipe for success.

I don't mean to minimize Guys like Kyle Singler, Nolan Smith, or Lance Thomas at all, each of those guys came through again and again on both sides of the ball in clutch moments. After all, somebody had to hit the shot after Zoubek grabbed an offensive board and kicked it out, but without Zoubek in the middle, I just don't see how we could have done it. We often fed off him on offense, and everyone funneled players toward him on defense.

I'll say it like this: There were 5 players who were most important on that team.

Greg_Newton

06-29-2012, 02:21 AM

Your limited commodity, athletic 7-footer averaged less than five points and five rebounds per game as a junior. I love Miles and would truly love to see him have a break-out senior season. But nothing in his body of work up to this point suggests that "a solid" season this year will convince an NBA team to draft him. He has to demonstrate a consistent ability to translate that size and athleticism into consistent productivity at a high level. It's not a track meet.

...

I understand this is a fan message-board and folks see things through a dark-blue prism. That's great. A few years ago, a few people were trying to make a credible case for David McClure sticking in the NBA. Or Marty Pocius. Gotta love fans like that.

But despite your persuasive reasoning, there's almost no chance that Miles sneaks into the first round. I'll be happy if he gets drafted at all, and late second round is about the best we can hope for.

...

I think the disconnect between your sound reasoning and what I consider to be the cold facts is that Miles is a senior who hasn't shown much to date. The NBA scouts love athleticism, yes, but they love the potential of youth even more. They'll view Miles as having reached his ceiling. Thus, to get into the first round, that ceiling will have to look pretty amazing -- Miles would (in my opinion) have to have an outstanding year. Not just a "strong" year. Something along the lines of averaging a double-double, or something like 15 and 8.

His physical abilities are very good, but they will not impress anyone in the NBA. That's a cold reality check to players who get to the highest levels of college ball mainly on their physical skills

....

He is a success as a player by almost any standard, and I'll grant he could surprise me with a big year and sneak into the second round.

But the NBA is a huge step up from college, and many people refuse or don't want to accept that.

The difference is Tyler Zeller is light years ahead of Miles in his offensive abilities, and that will get Zeller in the first round and Miles undrafted.

:D :D

2688

OldSchool probably deserves some retroactive sporks...

Oh, and couldn't help noticing:

Go Duke, and let's beat Richmond on Saturday!

:mad:

CDu

06-29-2012, 09:25 AM

MChambers

06-29-2012, 09:36 AM

I thought I remembered myself responding in the "virtually no way Miles goes in the 1st round" camp last year, but I couldn't find any of my posts saying this (must have been in another thread). I felt he could go second round on athleticism alone. Turns out, I was very wrong about that. In fairness to me, I didn't anticipate him being THAT ridiculous at the combine. But still, kudos to Miles and OldSchool, no kudos to me.

Unfortunately, I was not wrong about Curry struggling a bit at PG and Hairston not becoming our Lance Thomas defensive stopper. Sounds like next year we won't see much of Curry at PG, and with Mason, Kelly, Marshall, and Jefferson I wonder if we'll see much of Hairston on the floor.

It looks like I didn't mouth off on Miles's first round chances, which is good, because I think I would have been wrong. In fact, I think I would have been wrong a month ago. Congrats to Miles!

I was right, however, to be concerned about Duke's defense. I'm a bit more optimistic this year, because I think our 4 new players will be more a little more defense-oriented than the players on last year's team, because Murphy should give us a better matchup at the 3 (if we played positions), and because I think some of our returning players will improve on the defensive end, particularly Mason and Quinn.

Still worried about who really sets the tone on defense.