PDA

View Full Version : MBB Duke 87 Bellarmine 62 Post Game Thread



Newton_14
10-29-2011, 09:21 PM
Discuss the game in this thread.

CDu
10-29-2011, 09:48 PM
[Copied and pasted from my post in the in-game thread]

The good:

- We won comfortably after a bumpy stretch late in the first half.
- The Plumlees got a lot of dunk attempts. Mason looked especially active. I can only remember one non-dunk/layup for the Plumlees, and that was a little turnaround 5-7 footer for Mason. Granted, they were much bigger and more athletic than Bellarmine's bigs. But it was nice to see them aggressive and involved.
- Cook looked comfortable out there in limited minutes.
- Thornton showed some good instincts away from the ball. I think he gets a bit too much credit for his on-ball defense (which I don't think is as good as some suggest), but he's been fantastic at helping on switches and picking off or tipping passes.
- Curry looked good out there. His 3pt shot wasn't falling, but he still averaged over a point per shot and added 6 rebounds, 5 assists, and 3 steals. I'd not expect 16.7% 3pt shooting for him on too many nights.
- No one got hurt.
- Rivers seemed to play within the offense rather than forcing the action. So much of his gifts are one-on-one gifts that I feel like it's a difficult balancing act for him to find his niche on a talented team. I think he did a solid job of it tonight.

The bad:

- Bellarmine exploited our defense occasionally with some good ball movement and nice off-ball movement. We lost some assignments at times.
- Our perimeter shooting was terrible.
- Dawkins looked about as involved as he often did last year on offense.
- Murphy and Gbinije looked like freshmen out there (not unexpected, since they are indeed freshmen).

The other:
- The team went with a rotation of the Plumlees, Kelly, and Hairston exclusively at the 4 and 5 spots. I'd expect to see this to be the case throughout the year. The "3" spot was manned by Murphy, Dawkins, Gbinije, and at times Rivers (when we went really small with two of Cook/Curry/Thornton). I can imagine the starting spots varying at the 3, 4, and 5 spots a bit throughout the year. I'd be bit surprised if Curry and Rivers don't start every game at the guard spots.
- No Marshall tonight.
- Deeper rotation tonight than I'd expect once the season starts. Along the same lines, a more equitable split of minutes than I'd expect once the season starts.

Native
10-29-2011, 09:52 PM
The Plumlees got a lot of dunk attempts. Mason looked especially active. I can only remember one non-dunk/layup for the Plumlees, and that was a little turnaround 5-7 footer for Mason. Granted, they were much bigger and more athletic than Bellarmine's bigs. But it was nice to see them aggressive and involved.


I disagree here. In the battle of the brothers, I'd have to give the edge to Miles he played at a higher level on a much more consistent basis than Mason, who really only got going in the second half. Just my opinion.

But it was especially nice that our big men got a lot of looks tonight, especially with Tony Parker in the house. I hope he paid close attention to Miles's play tonight.

CDu
10-29-2011, 10:03 PM
I disagree here. In the battle of the brothers, I'd have to give the edge to Miles — he played at a higher level on a much more consistent basis than Mason, who really only got going in the second half. Just my opinion.

But it was especially nice that our big men got a lot of looks tonight, especially with Tony Parker in the house. I hope he paid close attention to Miles's play tonight.

I was impressed with both Plumlees' energy. And I'd say Mason was pretty active in the first half, too. And why should his second half be discounted? Last I checked, it's a 40-minute game. And Mason's activity came when the game was still close, so it's not like he was just piling on stats in a blowout.

For the record, Mason finished with 16 points, 9 rebounds, 2 steals, 1 block, and 0 fouls in 23 minutes. Miles finished with 14 points, 8 rebounds, 1 assist, 2 steals and 3 fouls in 20 minutes. So I wouldn't say it's a clear edge to either. Both played well. Neither showed an expansion of their games, but both played well. My point about Mason was more in reference to complaints about him in China/Dubai.

MCFinARL
10-29-2011, 10:04 PM
I wanted to respond to a comment in the game thread but it has already been closed. Someone--edit--CDu--I see your post is in this thread now-- mentioned that Andre Dawkins appeared uninvolved in the offense. I didn't see the game, but it sounded as if Murphy, who started instead of Dawkins, looked pretty rough as well.

Obviously, I don't know what happens in practices. And I know Coach K is supposed to be the master of psychology and motivation. But I wonder, looking purely from the outside, if K and Dawkins are on the same wavelength. Last year, it often seemed that any error made by Andre (and there were some) elicited benching and/or harsh words from the coaches, while Seth and Ryan, among others, were allowed more room for error. This summer, It seemed Andre played very well in China, but Coach K barely mentioned him in interviews, instead heaping praise on Curry, Kelly, and Miles. Now K chooses to start a hardworking but inexperienced frosh over Andre at the beginning of the season. Maybe this is supposed to motivate Andre, but I can see how it might also make him feel a little uncertain about his role, wondering whether the coaches have any confidence in him.

I get it that Duke has a lot of good players and people who want minutes have to step up. But people have a tendency to live up (or down) to others' expectations. If Andre is getting the message that he's not a key part of the game plan, or at least not getting the message that he is a key part, it may not be totally on Andre if he looks a little uninvolved.

Native
10-29-2011, 10:07 PM
I was impressed with both Plumlees' energy. And I'd say Mason was pretty active in the first half, too. And why should his second half be discounted? Last I checked, it's a 40-minute game. And Mason's activity came when the game was still close, so it's not like he was just piling on stats in a blowout.

For the record, Mason finished with 16 points, 9 rebounds, 2 steals, 1 block, and 0 fouls in 23 minutes. Miles finished with 14 points, 8 rebounds, 1 assist, 2 steals and 3 fouls in 20 minutes. So I wouldn't say it's a clear edge to either. Both played well. Neither showed an expansion of their games, but both played well. My point about Mason was more in reference to complaints about him in China/Dubai.

Fair enough. No knock on Mason - I thought both were a breath of fresh air for our inside game and looked improved even since China/Dubai. I hadn't had a chance to check the box score, either.

And I wasn't discounting his second half - just that most of his activity (which was well-needed) came during that time period.

CDu
10-29-2011, 10:09 PM
I wanted to respond to a comment in the game thread but it has already been closed. Someone mentioned that Andre Dawkins appeared uninvolved in the offense. I didn't see the game, but it sounded as if Murphy, who started instead of Dawkins, looked pretty rough as well.

Obviously, I don't know what happens in practices. And I know Coach K is supposed to be the master of psychology and motivation. But I wonder, looking purely from the outside, if K and Dawkins are on the same wavelength. Last year, it often seemed that any error made by Andre (and there were some) elicited benching and/or harsh words from the coaches, while Seth and Ryan, among others, were allowed more room for error. This summer, It seemed Andre played very well in China, but Coach K barely mentioned him in interviews, instead heaping praise on Curry, Kelly, and Miles. Now K chooses to start a hardworking but inexperienced frosh over Andre at the beginning of the season. Maybe this is supposed to motivate Andre, but I can see how it might also make him feel a little uncertain about his role, wondering whether the coaches have any confidence in him.

I get it that Duke has a lot of good players and people who want minutes have to step up. But people have a tendency to live up (or down) to others' expectations. If Andre is getting the message that he's not a key part of the game plan, or at least not getting the message that he is a key part, it may not be totally on Andre if he looks a little uninvolved.

I'm guessing your comment is in response to my post. None of the three options at the "3" looked good tonight.

However, I'd say this: I don't want to speculate on what is or isn't going on with Coach K and Dawkins. But it's still on Dawkins for looking uninvolved. He's been in the Duke system for 3 years. It's on him to figure out how to get involved. I'm quite sure the coaching staff has made (and will continue to make) an effort to explain his role and what they expect of him.

That said, I'm not worried about Dawkins right now. I'd expect him to play better against Shaw.

MCFinARL
10-29-2011, 10:20 PM
I'm guessing your comment is in response to my post. None of the three options at the "3" looked good tonight.

However, I'd say this: I don't want to speculate on what is or isn't going on with Coach K and Dawkins. But it's still on Dawkins for looking uninvolved. He's been in the Duke system for 3 years. It's on him to figure out how to get involved. I'm quite sure the coaching staff has made (and will continue to make) an effort to explain his role and what they expect of him.

Fair enough. I'm one of the many DBR posters with a soft spot for Dawkins (at least there seem to be a lot of us) and it may be influencing my thinking a little bit. It just seems like there ought to be a way to help him play more consistently at the level he shows in his better games--but again, I'm just making guesses from the cheap seats.
And yes, it was in response to your post--I edited after I saw you had reposted in this thread.

Just saw the last line of your post--which you may have added after I responded. And of course, you are right. It's far too soon to draw any conclusions about any player's season and the next game may look very different.

Newton_14
10-29-2011, 10:22 PM
Good post CDU. I got in from the game a little while ago, and may have a better write up tomorrow as I am dead tired from a long week, but here are my initial thoughts.

The starting 5 took me by suprise a little, but with Murph having a tough night out there, expect a 3 guard starting lineup Wed against Shaw. More on that later. A couple of things to consider. Having Bellarmine as the opponent, was great for us. They are the defending Div II National Champions, with a lot of returning players, who played really well and were a well oiled machine at time. I think it helped us tremendously that our guys had to work to beat them vs a 40 point snooze fest. Plus, Bellarmine shot the ball really well most of the game.

Make no mistake this is Seth Curry's team. He is our leader, so pencil him in. There is a lot of talent on this team, but it will take time for K to mold them into a top-notch team. I think they will get there, just not as quickly as the last 2 years. As of right now, our true guards (Seth, Tyler, Austin, Quinn) and our bigs are a good bit ahead of where our wings (Dawk/Murph/Silent G) are, in pretty much all phases of the game. There is much work to do with the wings. Their defensive rotations was pretty sub-par in much of the first half. That improved in the 2nd half, but tonight we were much better with 3 guards on the floor than with one of the true wings.

The Plums were active, and both actually scored without dunking CDU. Miles had a nice catch and lay-in in heavy traffic. Also had several post moves where he got fouled. Coach K stated after the game, that once we get in the bonus, he wants perimeter players feeding the bigs inside to draw fouls or driving to draw fouls. He stated that once we get in the bonus, he does not want to see contested jumpshots. One thing I love about Cook is he tries hard to feed the bigs inside when he is in there. Tyler does as well, but not quite as much as Cook.

Austin had a solid game, and seems to be improving game over game with making quick decisions on the wing. Had several really good drives tonight, and finished strong. He got killed on one drive and it looked bad but he shook it off once the cob webs cleared. Took a shoulder to the chest from a really big Bell defender. Austin still has much work to do on defense. That is one thing to follow as the season progresses. I think he has the tools to be a good defender but he will have to work at it.

Wings: All 3 struggled on defensive rotations, with Dawkins playing better defense than the other two. Andre has to assert himself more on the offensive end as well. In fairness we did not run any sets for him until the very end when he knocked in a mid-range jumper on a designed play. His 3 point shot was off but so was everyone else's wearing white. Just an off night from a team perspective from behind the line. I have not given up on any of the wings, especially Andre, and it is early. Murph and Gbinije definitely have Freshman-itis right now. If that continue's, I expect we will see the 3-Guard lineup with Tyler or Cook on the floor with Seth, Austin, and 2 Bigs in the short-term.

Seth played really well, 3-Ball notwithstanding, and I really liked the play of Tyler and Cook. Tyler ran the team well, and was a disruptive out there on D like always. The dropped weight has helped his quickness. I really liked what I saw from Cook as well. His defense is not bad at all. Not sure how that rumor got started actually. I thought he played really well out there. Great quickness, can drive and dish, and drive and finish. We are in great shape PG wise the next 4 years. Way too early to tell, but as of right now I would have to believe Cook plays his way into the bottom end of the normal rotation. Lots of talent there.

Ryan played fine, but not spectacular. Josh has definitely improved and I expect will play more this year than last year. He works hard out there and still has that nice touch on his jumper. I was pleased with his year over year improvement. Ryan and the 2 elder Plums will handle most of the 4/5 minutes with Josh backing them up in cases of foul trouble or injury.

All in all, despite the last 8 minutes of the 1st Half when Bellarmine cut the lead to 1, it was a good start to the season. Looking forward to Shaw. I will be shocked if the starting lineup for that game isn't Tyler, Seth, Austin, Mason, Miles. We will see though.

CDu
10-29-2011, 10:39 PM
The Plums were active, and both actually scored without dunking CDU. Miles had a nice catch and lay-in in heavy traffic. Also had several post moves where he got fouled.

In fairness, I said dunks/layups. And to clarify, I was referring to FG shooting only with that comment. Miles didn't have a FG that wasn't a dunk or layup. He did hit 6-8 from the line, which is very nice. Mason had only one non-dunk/layup, and that was the turnaround jumper I mentioned.

In a game where we have such a size/athleticism advantage inside, the bigs should be expected to play well. And they did, so that's good.


Ryan played fine, but not spectacular. Josh has definitely improved and I expect will play more this year than last year. He works hard out there and still has that nice touch on his jumper. I was pleased with his year over year improvement. Ryan and the 2 elder Plums will handle most of the 4/5 minutes with Josh backing them up in cases of foul trouble or injury.

I agree that Hairston has improved from last year to this year and will play more this year. But I doubt he plays a whole lot more this year. I'd expect the Plumlees and Kelly to be in the 70 mpg range. That leaves about 10 mpg for Hairston. It's definitely more than the 5 mpg he averaged last year (when including DNP), but not a whole lot more.

That said, it's nice to know that we can go to him in a pinch when needed.

loldevilz
10-29-2011, 11:08 PM
Does anybody think that the best situation for Duke might be two sets of bigs like in 2010? Miles and Hairston the starters, Kelly and Mason would then come in together. I feel like that would make Duke extremely difficult to beat down low.

Duvall
10-29-2011, 11:14 PM
Does anybody think that the best situation for Duke might be two sets of bigs like in 2010? Miles and Hairston the starters, Kelly and Mason would then come in together. I feel like that would make Duke extremely difficult to beat down low.

How is that better than a rotation of Miles, Mason and Kelly?

SCMatt33
10-29-2011, 11:23 PM
I think it's important to note that against a team like Bellarmine, some things are more relevant to take note of than others:

Honestly, it's a small thing, but I was extremely impressed with Miles going 6-8 from the line. Foul shots are foul shots no matter who you play. Sure, they may not be as important or there might not be as much fatigue in a game like this, but the Plumlees are going to get sent to the line this year. If they can make even a decent amount of their attempts, it will force opponents to play them more honestly and give them a better chance to score in the post. Miles shot under 60% last year, and Mason shot under 45. They don't need to be Scheyer or Redick at the line, but if Mason could get close to 60 and Miles above 65, it would be huge for this team. Between the two of them, its more reasonable to expect a big improvement from Miles. 6-8 is a small sample size for sure, but its better than 4-8.

What didn't impress me as much were the 30 points and several dunks between the Plumlees. It's fun to watch and all, but from what I can gather from the radio broadcast, they got a lot of garbage points and easy dunks on breaks and broken defensive plays. Even when they did score on someone guarding them, it couldn't impress given Bellarmine's lack of size and talent on the interior. Mason and Miles really couldn't do any better than an "as expected" in this game given their opponent, but again, they certainly could have disappointed as well.

On the bad side of the ledger, I was concerned with the perimeter D. Again, I only listened to the game, so a lot can be missed here, but it seemed like Bellarmine moved the ball well and got a lot of open three point looks. Especially given that outside shooting was the only place that this team was going to hurt Duke, it was disappointing to see the perimeter D come up a bit short here. Without an elite on ball defender like Nolan or Kyrie, the team needs to really step up in playing D together, which it seems like they didn't do tonight.

A few of the bad things didn't bother me so much. A lot will be made of the poor shooting, but it was just a bad night for everyone. Now, "just a bad night" can and has ended Duke seasons before, but there's not much you can do to make them disappear. You have several guys on this team who are much better from the outside than driving or posting up (in Kelly's case), so you have to ride that. When that's the makeup of your team, you can't do anything to avoid the bad nights, you just have to hope that they don't come at the wrong time or that maybe the defense can bail you out. The other one that didn't bother me was the high turnovers. 19 turnovers is way too much for a team like Bellarmine to get, but these guys haven't played a game since August, and it was also the first game in Cameron in a Duke uniform for the freshman, so a little rust is ok.

CDu
10-29-2011, 11:28 PM
Does anybody think that the best situation for Duke might be two sets of bigs like in 2010? Miles and Hairston the starters, Kelly and Mason would then come in together. I feel like that would make Duke extremely difficult to beat down low.

Not really. I think the Plumlees and Kelly are clearly ahead of Hairston. And the separation amongst the top three is not as much as the separation between the top three and Hairston. As such, I think it makes more sense to rotate the first three as much as possible and let foul trouble determine how much Hairston needs to play.

loldevilz
10-29-2011, 11:50 PM
How is that better than a rotation of Miles, Mason and Kelly?

1. Hairston can actually guard mobile undersized big men. Duke will definitely hit some during the NCAA tourney.
2. More fouls to give.
3. More defined roles. The three big rotation means each big is playing both the four and the five.

loran16
10-29-2011, 11:56 PM
Does anybody think that the best situation for Duke might be two sets of bigs like in 2010? Miles and Hairston the starters, Kelly and Mason would then come in together. I feel like that would make Duke extremely difficult to beat down low.

Not exactly comparable. In 2010 the two pairs were the pair of seniors and the pair of younger big guys. That's why they were set up that way really, with Zoubek aand Lance grabbing the majority of minutes after Zoubek broke out against Maryland.

You don't have a comparable here - well you do, but it'd be Hairston in the 2nd pair, not the first. None of our 3 big men are comparable to Zoubek (better scorers but far worse rebounders), and Ryan is completely different from any of the 4 really used big men from that year (yes I know he was the little used 5th guy on that team).

Comparison doesn't work.

Kedsy
10-30-2011, 12:39 AM
Based on the box score, it's interesting that the two guys whose lines were most disappointing were Andre (15 minutes, 1 made shot) and Ryan (1 rebound), who were also the two guys I expected to start who ended up on the bench. Cause, or effect?

wk2109
10-30-2011, 01:35 AM
Considering that last season Duke 'only' beat Cal Poly (the previous season's D-II champ) by 21 with Kyrie, Nolan, and Kyle, Bellarmine is this season's D-II preseason #1 team, Duke shot poorly from three, and this was Duke's first exhibition game (the Cal Poly game was Duke's second exhibition game last year)...this was a pretty good win for Duke.

I didn't watch the game and have only read the threads on this board and a couple of article recaps, but it seems like K is going to have a tough time shortening his rotation -- particularly at the 1-3 spots -- because Tyler, Quinn, Andre, Alex, and Michael offer such different things (e.g. passing, defense, shooting, size, experience, and athleticism) and thus have little separation between them. I think the players might be particularly challenged this year to be mentally ready to see their minutes vary greatly from game to game yet still be able to contribute during whatever playing time they get. K likened Kyle to a queen chess piece last season -- he'll need to make use of this season's rooks, bishops, knights, and pawns extra creatively this year.

davekay1971
10-30-2011, 06:27 AM
I will be shocked if the starting lineup for that game isn't Tyler, Seth, Austin, Mason, Miles. We will see though.

That was running through my mind also - moving Austin over to the 3, Seth to the shooting guard spot, and rotating Tyler and Quinn at the point. That doesn't leave Dre out of the mix - he could earn significant minutes backing up both Seth and Austin. Dre could also earn his way into the starting lineup - in K's system that is always a possibility, to earn your way in to (or out of) starting minutes.

Newton_14
10-30-2011, 06:45 AM
Considering that last season Duke 'only' beat Cal Poly (the previous season's D-II champ) by 21 with Kyrie, Nolan, and Kyle, Bellarmine is this season's D-II preseason #1 team, Duke shot poorly from three, and this was Duke's first exhibition game (the Cal Poly game was Duke's second exhibition game last year)...this was a pretty good win for Duke.

I didn't watch the game and have only read the threads on this board and a couple of article recaps, but it seems like K is going to have a tough time shortening his rotation -- particularly at the 1-3 spots -- because Tyler, Quinn, Andre, Alex, and Michael offer such different things (e.g. passing, defense, shooting, size, experience, and athleticism) and thus have little separation between them. I think the players might be particularly challenged this year to be mentally ready to see their minutes vary greatly from game to game yet still be able to contribute during whatever playing time they get. K likened Kyle to a queen chess piece last season -- he'll need to make use of this season's rooks, bishops, knights, and pawns extra creatively this year.

Based on what I saw last night, there is definite separation with Alex/Michael and the others. Once the tougher games start, I don't see Michael being in the rotation, and Alex would be in the 10 -15 minute range. It's early, so that definitely could change with Murphy. I don't see if changing with Gbinije. It is going to take time for him to develop.

CDu
10-30-2011, 07:54 AM
1. Hairston can actually guard mobile undersized big men. Duke will definitely hit some during the NCAA tourney.
2. More fouls to give.
3. More defined roles. The three big rotation means each big is playing both the four and the five.

1. Except that there's no evidence that Hairston is more capable of defending mobile, undersized big men. He's never shown that skillset before. Lance Thomas showed that skillset. Hairston is a different player than Lance Thomas.
2. No difference in fouls to give. We'll still have 20 fouls to give amongst those four players, regardless of how the minutes play out.
3. Actually, no that's not true. It means that one of the three big men is playing both positions. If you assume that Kelly is a 4 and Miles a 5, then Mason is a 4/5.

My counterpoints:
1. I don't think the benefit gained here (which is very small, if anything) is worth the loss of minutes of one of the better players in favor of more minutes for one of the weaker players.
2. What happens when you get a guy or two in foul trouble? Then you'll have to split up the teams anyway. Might as well have the three key guys comfortable with playing with each other first.

The "two lines" approach worked because seniors Zoubek and Thomas were so far advanced compared to the Plumlees that it made sense to play them together. So they did, for like 75% of the playing time down the stretch. The Plumlees played fill-in minutes. In this year's team, you have 3 players far ahead of the other options. Splitting them into groups of two would either limit all three's minutes too much (if the lines were split equally) or limit one of those player's way too much (if the lines were split 25/15 or more).

CDu
10-30-2011, 08:01 AM
Based on the box score, it's interesting that the two guys whose lines were most disappointing were Andre (15 minutes, 1 made shot) and Ryan (1 rebound), who were also the two guys I expected to start who ended up on the bench. Cause, or effect?

I wouldn't say that Kelly's rebound totals were disappointing. The Plumlees got 17 boards while Kelly frequently played the high post and often had to defend on the perimeter (Bellarmine spread it out).

Between all the long rebounds (Bellarmine shot a lot of 3s) and the fact that the Plumlees were pounding the glass together, I wouldn't read too much into Kelly's 1 rebound. I thought he played just fine.

Dawkins, on the other hand...

gumbomoop
10-30-2011, 08:01 AM
I didn't follow the game at all, except to look at stats and read EK. But K followed it, and his postgame comments focus on Tyler Thornton. [See link in Bellarmine story to Quotes.] To wit:

- "[Tyler] Thornton really gave us a big boost. When he's in the ball game, we just play better. He doesn't have to hit a shot - we just play better when Tyler's in the basketball game."

- "Tyler's communication was so good."

- "Tyler played more in the second half, and that helps. Not everybody needs to shoot the ball."

Tyler is hardly an impressive athlete. Gottlieb, bless him, would find Tyler alarmingly unathletic.. Tyler's handle, for an elite PG, is not elite. He's not a flashy passer, and doesn't blow by defenders to get into the lane. Not a great shooter.

But, K seems to think that winning basketball requires good defense, based in part on effective communication from leaders. Last year, midseason, K said on his TV show that Tyler is a leader. Apparently so.

Billy Dat
10-30-2011, 08:24 AM
-To address the comments about rebounding and perimeter defense, Bellarmine ran en extremely active and efficient motion that set-up lots of drive and kick 3s, and it seemed that everyone on their team could handle and shoot. As a result, our bigs were constantly guarding smaller quicker players on the perimeter who they naturally laid off for fear of the drive but, more often than not, faked drives and rose up for 3s. They also didn't crash the offensive boards fearing our transition so the result was many uncontested rebounds for us an our bigs scrambling around the perimeter chasing quicker smaller guys. Had we tried to match their size by going small, I think that veteran squad may have chewed us up.

ncexnyc
10-30-2011, 08:44 AM
OMG, after just one exhibition game we've already got a Quinn Cook thread and some woe is Dre talk. Can we let things play out over the next few weeks without getting to crazy around here?

CameronBornAndBred
10-30-2011, 08:49 AM
My favorite stat was the zero fouls that Mason recorded. He was very active, so to come up with that goose egg was very nice to see.
I also loved the turnout the fans from Bellarmine put together. They were loud and proud, and have every right to be. I was pretty impressed with them; obviously they can play some good ball. There are some ACC teams this year that wish they could be only down by three at the half. I thought the refs did give a lot of calls to Duke that should have been called to Bellarmine's advantage. I was having fun though watching their fans raise hell every time they got robbed. And I TOTALLY enjoyed watching K go off on an extended rant about something that pissed him off. Poor refs, every time they ran by him they got an earful.

Billy Dat
10-30-2011, 08:51 AM
As for Rivers, I thought he looked really solid. I didn't see the first 5 minutes, but otherwise I saw a guy playing within himself, making simple passes, etc. If anything, I didn't think he was aggressive enough on offense. He can really blow by his man at will. I think he's going to be really good this year.

As for the bigs and post moves, I think our best bet for feeding the post is going to be using Kelly or Murphy in the role playing a little two man game. Our bigs are so used to redirecting post feeds for 3s that I think, if they can develop some good ball fakes, that they should be able to fake and drop step, or fake and spin into the lane for bunnies. We'll see.

watzone
10-30-2011, 10:41 AM
Here is Coach K's presser from last evening http://bluedevilnation.net/2011/10/bdn-video-brings-you-coach-ks-post-game-press-conference/ He says a lot of interesting things which helps one to understand how the game went and the decisions he made. This team is a work in progress and before the year is out, they'll be a tough out. Coach gave props to Tyler Thornton and loved the second half effort.

Kedsy
10-30-2011, 10:46 AM
I wouldn't say that Kelly's rebound totals were disappointing. The Plumlees got 17 boards while Kelly frequently played the high post and often had to defend on the perimeter (Bellarmine spread it out).

Between all the long rebounds (Bellarmine shot a lot of 3s) and the fact that the Plumlees were pounding the glass together, I wouldn't read too much into Kelly's 1 rebound. I thought he played just fine.

Dawkins, on the other hand...

Well, I didn't see the game, but when Ryan was in the Plumlees couldn't have been pounding the glass together, because only one of them was in the game. And presumably Seth and Austin had to defend on the perimeter and they got 6 and 5 boards. Ryan was 3 inches taller than Bellarmine's tallest guy and based on Bellarmine's roster was possibly 4 or 5 inches taller than his man. I assume he also had a lot of weight on whoever he was matched up with. Again, I didn't see the game, but I'd expect a lot more than one rebound from him. And some blocked shots as well, which according to the box score didn't happen, either.

This is not to rag on Ryan. It was just an observation that the two guys who I expected to start and didn't both performed less than optimally. Are they in slumps and that's why they didn't start? Or was it a self-fulfilling prophecy? Or am I reading way too much into a box score for an exhibition game?

Devilsfan
10-30-2011, 10:48 AM
Great to see him giving props to a PG. Thought for a while that this season while truly being a work in progress might be pointless for sometime.

loldevilz
10-30-2011, 10:58 AM
1. Except that there's no evidence that Hairston is more capable of defending mobile, undersized big men. He's never shown that skillset before. Lance Thomas showed that skillset. Hairston is a different player than Lance Thomas.
2. No difference in fouls to give. We'll still have 20 fouls to give amongst those four players, regardless of how the minutes play out.
3. Actually, no that's not true. It means that one of the three big men is playing both positions. If you assume that Kelly is a 4 and Miles a 5, then Mason is a 4/5.

My counterpoints:
1. I don't think the benefit gained here (which is very small, if anything) is worth the loss of minutes of one of the better players in favor of more minutes for one of the weaker players.
2. What happens when you get a guy or two in foul trouble? Then you'll have to split up the teams anyway. Might as well have the three key guys comfortable with playing with each other first.

The "two lines" approach worked because seniors Zoubek and Thomas were so far advanced compared to the Plumlees that it made sense to play them together. So they did, for like 75% of the playing time down the stretch. The Plumlees played fill-in minutes. In this year's team, you have 3 players far ahead of the other options. Splitting them into groups of two would either limit all three's minutes too much (if the lines were split equally) or limit one of those player's way too much (if the lines were split 25/15 or more).

Whoa Zoubs and Thomas didn't play 75% of the minutes. It was almost split 50/50. Go back and look at the season stats. If you remember Zoubs had some trouble staying in games as did the Plumlees. Zoubs started to play better when he was out for 20 minutes and could just give it his all. Obviously Coach K trusted the seniors more down the stretch, but the two frontlines absolutely killed teams. The other team had to make adjustments, and that much size and energy just wore people down.

Anyways your counterpoints don't make any sense. How do we have 20 fouls to give if we play a rotation of 3. I suppose Hairston hasn't shown an ability to guard small bigs, but he hasn't played at all. More importantly Mason and Kelly have shown a marked inabiliy to guard quicker undersized bigs. Look at Arizona, Virginia Tech ect.

My point is that no way does Duke win the national championship in 2010 with a 3 man big rotation. It would've messed everything up. Plus, I just noticed that in the press conference, Coach K mentioned that Hairston had a great game and brings an energy level that the other guys don't bring so we might go to 4 bigs.

El_Diablo
10-30-2011, 11:17 AM
Or am I reading way too much into a box score for an exhibition game?

I think this is probably the case. He had a pretty quiet game overall, but I don't think he played bad at all. I remember Ryan pulled down one offensive board in the first half that had the Bellarmine fans screaming for an over the back call, but that offensive rebound was not included in the box score, so he had at least two. I want to say he also tipped a couple balls to other Duke players, and I distinctly remember Mason knocking one defensive board out of Ryan's hands (causing a bunch of fans to yell "same!") before it was ultimately tracked down by one of the guards--Thornton I believe. We outrebounded Bellarmine 43-24, and Ryan's positioning was fine, so I would not worry too much about his individual rebounding total here.

As for the lack of blocks, Bellarmine shot a TON of jump shots. They frequently would drive, kick it back out, and reverse it around until someone had an open look. Kelly spent a lot of time closing out on three-point shooters (something he did better than Mason, which may also help explain why he did not grab as many rebounds) rather than defending shots in the paint, so again I think it was more a product of the style of play. We only had one block as a team--that should tell you how cautious Bellarmine was in their shot selection.

CDu
10-30-2011, 11:23 AM
Whoa Zoubs and Thomas didn't play 75% of the minutes. It was almost split 50/50. Go back and look at the season stats. If you remember Zoubs had some trouble staying in games as did the Plumlees. Zoubs started to play better when he was out for 20 minutes and could just give it his all. Obviously Coach K trusted the seniors more down the stretch, but the two frontlines absolutely killed teams. The other team had to make adjustments, and that much size and energy just wore people down.

When we went to the "two separate lines" approach (which only happened in the tournament), Zoubek and Thomas played the vast majority of minutes in the post. When the split was 50/50 throughout the year, the guys were subbing (and starting) interchangeably.


Anyways your counterpoints don't make any sense. How do we have 20 fouls to give if we play a rotation of 3. I suppose Hairston hasn't shown an ability to guard small bigs, but he hasn't played at all. More importantly Mason and Kelly have shown a marked inabiliy to guard quicker undersized bigs. Look at Arizona, Virginia Tech ect.

I didn't say we'd only play 3. I said we'd play mainly the first 3, and then sub in Hairston when foul trouble dictates. That means we have 20 fouls.

And neither Virginia Tech nor Arizona beat us because of an undersized big. Virginia Tech beat us because we couldn't shoot (4-20 on 3s, under 40% from the field). We actually held them quite well. And Arizona didn't beat us due to an undersized big. They beat us because their actual big (Williams) was unbelievable, and their PG had a career game. Hairston wasn't going to slow down Derrick Williams.


My point is that no way does Duke win the national championship in 2010 with a 3 man big rotation. It would've messed everything up. Plus, I just noticed that in the press conference, Coach K mentioned that Hairston had a great game and brings an energy level that the other guys don't bring so we might go to 4 bigs.

First, I have never said we'd only go with a 3-big rotation, so that first sentence is irrelevant. Hairston will play. He'll just play about 10 mpg as needed. Not in some set rotation paired with another big. It just doesn't make any sense to do that.

CDu
10-30-2011, 11:34 AM
Well, I didn't see the game, but when Ryan was in the Plumlees couldn't have been pounding the glass together, because only one of them was in the game. And presumably Seth and Austin had to defend on the perimeter and they got 6 and 5 boards. Ryan was 3 inches taller than Bellarmine's tallest guy and based on Bellarmine's roster was possibly 4 or 5 inches taller than his man. I assume he also had a lot of weight on whoever he was matched up with. Again, I didn't see the game, but I'd expect a lot more than one rebound from him. And some blocked shots as well, which according to the box score didn't happen, either.

This is not to rag on Ryan. It was just an observation that the two guys who I expected to start and didn't both performed less than optimally. Are they in slumps and that's why they didn't start? Or was it a self-fulfilling prophecy? Or am I reading way too much into a box score for an exhibition game?

I think you're reading too much into a box score for an exhibition game. Kelly was in position for a few more rebounds, but a Plumlee got to it first. The guards got to a lot of long rebounds because they're quicker. As for shotblocking, there just weren't a ton of chances for such things. Bellarmine shot a lot of threes and got a lot of weakside cuts for layups. They rarely ever beat their man off the dribble (setting up a helpside block) and I don't think they posted up at all (another opportunity for blocks). The only block was a very athletic block by Mason.

Kelly was fine. I didn't come away from that game thinking that Kelly was unproductive. He didn't dominate, but he was fine.

Dawkins, however, was not fine. He just looked his usual passive self. They ran a couple of mid-range curl plays for him (he hit one but missed badly on another), but otherwise he stood around on the perimeter a lot. It looked a lot like last year for him. Hopefully things get better soon.

loldevilz
10-30-2011, 11:40 AM
And neither Virginia Tech nor Arizona beat us because of an undersized big. Virginia Tech beat us because we couldn't shoot (4-20 on 3s, under 40% from the field). We actually held them quite well. And Arizona didn't beat us due to an undersized big. They beat us because their actual big (Williams) was unbelievable, and their PG had a career game. Hairston wasn't going to slow down Derrick Williams.


Well the starting frontline for Virginia Tech scored 41 out their 64 points. So I'd say they pretty much had their way with our bigs. Jeff Allen in particular killed us and if I recall correctly Victor Davilla had his career high against us.

As for that Arizona game, we had to move Singler over to the four because Kelly and Mason couldn't guard Williams.

Maybe the word undersized is the problem. I mean like a quicker, more athletic 6-7 or 6-8 forward.

J4Kop99
10-30-2011, 11:45 AM
Do any of you know where I could find highlights from last nights game?

dcar1985
10-30-2011, 12:04 PM
Do any of you know where I could find highlights from last nights game?

GoDuke.com

MCFinARL
10-30-2011, 12:10 PM
Based on the box score, it's interesting that the two guys whose lines were most disappointing were Andre (15 minutes, 1 made shot) and Ryan (1 rebound), who were also the two guys I expected to start who ended up on the bench. Cause, or effect?

Such a good question--just what I have been wondering.

ChillinDuke
10-30-2011, 12:21 PM
Dawkins, however, was not fine. He just looked his usual passive self. They ran a couple of mid-range curl plays for him (he hit one but missed badly on another), but otherwise he stood around on the perimeter a lot. It looked a lot like last year for him. Hopefully things get better soon.

There was a time or two I saw Dawkins working his man without the ball on the baseline and popping off a screen for a three look. Perhaps these were the curls you refer to. Listen, Dawkins didn't play well, there's no getting around that. But if nothing else, at least this appeared in the first exhibition game so maybe we'll see more of it. And hopefully with better results.

- Chillin

Kedsy
10-30-2011, 12:38 PM
Whoa Zoubs and Thomas didn't play 75% of the minutes.

Before Z entered the starting lineup, to the extent we played "two lines" it wasn't Lance and Z, because Lance was starting and Z wasn't. My recollection, however, is we didn't really play two lines at that point so much as mix and match.

After Z entered the starting lineup (first Maryland game), Z and Lance combined for 64.4% of the inside minutes, with Mason and Miles playing 35.6% of the minutes. That 64% would have been a bit higher if Lance hadn't gotten injured in the UNC game.

So, it wasn't 75%, but it wasn't close to 50/50, either. If CDu had said two-thirds, instead of three-quarters, he would have been correct.

Also, just because an opposing big man scored a lot of points, doesn't mean he "had his way" with the Duke big-man defender. In Duke's team defensive system, opposing bigs often have big scoring nights, even when our bigs are doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing. Look at some of the lines of opposing big men when Shelden Williams was a senior (e.g., Marco Killingsworth for 34 points), and Shelden was the national defensive player of the year.

delfrio
10-30-2011, 01:02 PM
Do any of you know where I could find highlights from last nights game?

Also: http://www.dukeblueplanet.com/

CDu
10-30-2011, 02:27 PM
Well the starting frontline for Virginia Tech scored 41 out their 64 points. So I'd say they pretty much had their way with our bigs. Jeff Allen in particular killed us and if I recall correctly Victor Davilla had his career high against us.

Va Tech's frontcourt consisted of two players (Bell is a wing and played virtually the entire game on the perimeter), and they scored 29 points. Jeff Allen scored 18, but shot only 7-18, which is not very good. I'd say we did a solid job on him. Victor Davila didn't beat us because of quickness. He's actually fairly slow and lumbery. So I'm not sure why you'd think Hairston would have made a difference.

Again - Va Tech shot 39%. Their two bigs shot a combined 43%. Our defense did fine in that game. We lost because of bad offense.


As for that Arizona game, we had to move Singler over to the four because Kelly and Mason couldn't guard Williams.

And Singler didn't do much to stop Williams, either. No reason to think Hairston would have done better than Kelly or the Plumlees. It wasn't that Williams killed us with quickness. He just was bombing threes and posting up.


Maybe the word undersized is the problem. I mean like a quicker, more athletic 6-7 or 6-8 forward.

I haven't seen anything from Hairston to suggest he's quicker than Kelly or the Plumlees. Nor has Coach K to this point, apparently, because otherwise I think we would have seen it at some point last year.

I think Hairston will make regular appearances. But I don't think he'll average more than 10-12 mpg.

MChambers
10-30-2011, 03:03 PM
And Singler didn't do much to stop Williams, either. No reason to think Hairston would have done better than Kelly or the Plumlees. It wasn't that Williams killed us with quickness. He just was bombing threes and posting up.

Actually, my memory is that Kyle did slow Williams quite a bit, at least until he got in foul trouble on some questionable calls. But I agree with your basic point about Hairston. Maybe he will be a defensive stopper, but we haven't seen that yet.

MCFinARL
10-30-2011, 06:36 PM
Actually, my memory is that Kyle did slow Williams quite a bit, at least until he got in foul trouble on some questionable calls.

Yes, IIRC, while Williams was a handful even when Kyle was playing, the key sequence in the game came when Kyle had to go out because he was bleeding (having made a diving defensive play). Over the next minute or two Duke was ineffective on both ends of the court and Arizona built a big lead.

SMO
10-30-2011, 08:07 PM
Yes, IIRC, while Williams was a handful even when Kyle was playing, the key sequence in the game came when Kyle had to go out because he was bleeding (having made a diving defensive play). Over the next minute or two Duke was ineffective on both ends of the court and Arizona built a big lead.

Exactly. I believe around the same time Curry left with a leg injury. I had no idea how much his defense influenced the game until this sequence.

Anyway, I'm getting the sense there will be a lot of questions surrounding this year's team which should make things exciting. I think this season may be the lowpoint for the next few years, which is quite a luxury.

OldPhiKap
10-30-2011, 08:22 PM
Exactly. I believe around the same time Curry left with a leg injury. I had no idea how much his defense influenced the game until this sequence.

Anyway, I'm getting the sense there will be a lot of questions surrounding this year's team which should make things exciting. I think this season may be the lowpoint for the next few years, which is quite a luxury.

If by "lowpoint" you mean not favored to win the conference, that's probably true.

Other than that, this team has the parts to make a great team and the coach who knows how to do it.

Game on.

Troublemaker
10-31-2011, 12:28 AM
Of Duke's 87 total points, the bigs accounted for 42 of them (or 48% of the total). Pretty impressive outing for the big guys and for their teammates who found them for dunks and layins in halfcourt and in transition.

I think it's doable for the bigs to maintain between 30-35% of scoring output for the season. (On a perfectly balanced team, it'd be 40%, but this team's two best scorers are likely to be Curry and Rivers).

OldPhiKap
10-31-2011, 06:52 AM
(On a perfectly balanced team, it'd be 40%).

Not sure that is true with the three point shot. But I agree with your general point. If this team can build an inside-outside game there should be lots of scoring for everyone.

NSDukeFan
10-31-2011, 08:54 AM
Of Duke's 87 total points, the bigs accounted for 42 of them (or 48% of the total). Pretty impressive outing for the big guys and for their teammates who found them for dunks and layins in halfcourt and in transition.

I think it's doable for the bigs to maintain between 30-35% of scoring output for the season. (On a perfectly balanced team, it'd be 40%, but this team's two best scorers are likely to be Curry and Rivers).

To me, this may be the offensive key to the season. I know everyone would like to see our bigs post up, make a move and score, but the best post players get good enough position that they don't have to make much of a move when they get the ball. This is what I would most like to see from our bigs this year and the perimeter players passing to them. The most important moves they can make, will be before they get the ball.

SMO
10-31-2011, 02:17 PM
If by "lowpoint" you mean not favored to win the conference, that's probably true.

Other than that, this team has the parts to make a great team and the coach who knows how to do it.

Game on.

That's exactly what I mean, which is why it's nice to be a Duke fan!

UrinalCake
11-01-2011, 02:24 PM
Someone posted a video of Bellarmine's halftime locker room session

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXe6sJ0zH4M

I thought it was really interesting how the coach started describing a particular situation and the player sort of argued with him. I don't think that would happen in the other locker room. Also, the visitor's locker room really IS small!

dcar1985
11-01-2011, 02:48 PM
Someone posted a video of Bellarmine's halftime locker room session

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXe6sJ0zH4M

I thought it was really interesting how the coach started describing a particular situation and the player sort of argued with him. I don't think that would happen in the other locker room. Also, the visitor's locker room really IS small!

Its quite normal....even though he's the coach, the players are the ones out there on the court if they see something its up to them to speak it up.