the point guard conundrum

[scheyerfan]

we have five guards on the team. right now we are starting 3- Curry/Rivers/Dawkins. None of them are pure point guards. As a result we bring two point guards off the bench.Wouldn't it make more sense for the rotation to be starting either Thornton or Cook? It doesn't matter which of the other three guards are coming off the bench as long as the Seth/Austin and Andre get their minutes- I subscribe to the maxim "it is not who starts the game but who finishes it". I imagine Andre would be the one off the bench IF Austin could play the three.

I realized this last night when Tyler and Quinn came in together. That didn't make a lot of sense for them to be on the court together but it made sense in the context of the game

To expand on the idea- you would have a pure point guard in the game most of the time. If Tyler started then Andre could be the first substitute for Austin or Seth. Quinn would replace Tyler or Seth could get minutes at the point as well

Everything would be smoother with a pure point guard on the court

[elvis14]

Everything would be smoother with a pure point guard on the court

You have to admit, there is a certain amount of irony that this thread was started by a user using the handle "scheyerfan" :rolleyes:

[Newton_14]

we have five guards on the team. right now we are starting 3- Curry/Rivers/Dawkins. None of them are pure point guards. As a result we bring two point guards off the bench.Wouldn't it make more sense for the rotation to be starting either Thornton or Cook? It doesn't matter which of the other three guards are coming off the bench as long as the Seth/Austin and Andre get their minutes- I subscribe to the maxim "it is not who starts the game but who finishes it". I imagine Andre would be the one off the bench IF Austin could play the three.

I realized this last night when Tyler and Quinn came in together. That didn't make a lot of sense for them to be on the court together but it made sense in the context of the game

To expand on the idea- you would have a pure point guard in the game most of the time. If Tyler started then Andre could be the first substitute for Austin or Seth. Quinn would replace Tyler or Seth could get minutes at the point as well

Everything would be smoother with a pure point guard on the court

Seth Curry is our starting PG and playing at a high level. He will and should start every game as our point guard. I think we are fine at PG, with how K is managing things right now. I just do not see an issue here.

[OldPhiKap]

K is looking for combinations that work and rotations that work. I think for now he is starting the strongest offensive players we have, and then bringing in some defense (TT) and a distributor (Cook) to change things up. Both TT and Cook were important in the second half last night.

I thought Austin made a very concerted effort to pass more in the second half, and I assume that was "suggested" by the coaches at half. He did well I thought.

Bottom line is that Seth is a captain and the most experienced guard we have. The guy is a stone cold killer and I want him in the game when it is on the line. Austin has the potential to be a lottery pick after this year, and is learning to make the adjustment to this level of competition. I want him on the floor too. And as for Andre, the MSU game shows why he belongs in the line-up.

Nice problem to have, depth that will rotate through the system over the next few years.

[rthomas]

K is looking for combinations that work and rotations that work.

word.

And he does this almost every year. And I have come to the conclusion that he knows what he is doing.

[Kedsy]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the rotation to be starting either Thornton or Cook?

* * *

Everything would be smoother with a pure point guard on the court

"Pure point guard" is only a label. To me, Tyler is really more of a defensive specialist. He hasn't shown the ability to break down opposing teams off the dribble or thread the needle for spectacular assists. Quinn is still learning the defense. So I don't think it would make sense to start one of them or to take steps to insure one of them was in the game most of the time.

It's not like they're showing amazing PG skills when they play, either. I thought Quinn played well last night, but he didn't have any assists (in 12 minutes). Tyler had just two, in 17 minutes. For the season, Quinn and Tyler have combined for 119 minutes and have 10 assists. Seth has played 114 minutes and has 12 assists. So why do you think it's imperative that Quinn or Tyler start?

[jamesfrommaiden]

we have five guards on the team. right now we are starting 3- Curry/Rivers/Dawkins. None of them are pure point guards. As a result we bring two point guards off the bench.Wouldn't it make more sense for the rotation to be starting either Thornton or Cook? It doesn't matter which of the other three guards are coming off the bench as long as the Seth/Austin and Andre get their minutes- I subscribe to the maxim "it is not who starts the game but who finishes it". I imagine Andre would be the one off the bench IF Austin could play the three.

I realized this last night when Tyler and Quinn came in together. That didn't make a lot of sense for them to be on the court together but it made sense in the context of the game

To expand on the idea- you would have a pure point guard in the game most of the time. If Tyler started then Andre could be the first substitute for Austin or Seth. Quinn would replace Tyler or Seth could get minutes at the point as well

Everything would be smoother with a pure point guard on the court

Let's give Seth some credit. I think he is doing a solid job at this point considering he has never had had to handle the ball and start the offense like he is now. After the crosses half court the offense does not depend on Seth's ability to drive and create. You can look at that as a good or bad thing, but that is the way it is. I have not seen the offense struggle in the half court so far. The ball movement is the primary thing for this team. The only time the ball does slow down is when it is in Austin's hands, but that is what we all want. He gets to the rim at will and if he doesn't score he gets to the line if not both. If Austin can work his ability to drive, draw, and than dish, we would be even more deadly from three, but i think that will come with time. We just have to remain patient. I mean can any Duke fan out there really be that worried with the Coach K and his track record? I don't think so. I am more concerned about MP1 and the level of his play on a night to night to basis. I like what I see from MP2, I hope he continues to improve and get better as we get into conference play. We are more than alright at the PG position right now. When think about what the team lost, and the level they are performing at now, the future is looking very bright for this team. GO DUKE!!!

[jamesfrommaiden]

we have five guards on the team. right now we are starting 3- Curry/Rivers/Dawkins. None of them are pure point guards. As a result we bring two point guards off the bench.Wouldn't it make more sense for the rotation to be starting either Thornton or Cook? It doesn't matter which of the other three guards are coming off the bench as long as the Seth/Austin and Andre get their minutes- I subscribe to the maxim "it is not who starts the game but who finishes it". I imagine Andre would be the one off the bench IF Austin could play the three.

I realized this last night when Tyler and Quinn came in together. That didn't make a lot of sense for them to be on the court together but it made sense in the context of the game

To expand on the idea- you would have a pure point guard in the game most of the time. If Tyler started then Andre could be the first substitute for Austin or Seth. Quinn would replace Tyler or Seth could get minutes at the point as well

Everything would be smoother with a pure point guard on the court

Andre off the bench? No way. He has more than earned a starting spot right now.

[JasonEvans]

John Havlicek, Vinnie Johnson, Kevin McHale, Toni Kuoc, Jason Terry, and Manu Ginobli take umbrage with your insistence that "who starts" matters at all.

If TT and Quin are going to play about 25 or so minutes combined in a game, what does it matter if those minutes come at the very start of the game or elsewhere?

-Jason "K has sometimes shown an appreciation for having 2 PGs on the floor together (Duhon and JWill were lethal together), which may be why we sometimes see TT and Quin coming in the game at the same time" Evans

[Bob Green]

I do not believe we have a point guard issue. There are plenty of minutes for all five guys to play. I have been a long time fan of Quinn Cook and believe his minutes will increase and I'm a big fan of Tyler Thornton as well. The intensity Thornton brings onto the court is exciting from a fan's perspective. However, I'm not ready to argue for either to start. The Seth Curry, Austin Rivers and Andre Dawkins starting back court is solid with Cook and Thornton bringing energy off the bench. I do believe it is necessary for both the reserves to see consistent action so they are ready to step in and play extended minutes if required due to foul trouble.

[Greg_Newton]

While I like Seth as our halfcourt facilitator, I'd like to see Austin bring the ball up more often. I think that, against better teams, Seth is going to get harassed for 35-40 minutes full-court by quicker guards, and it will wear him down mentally and physically. His offensive value (aside from shooting) comes from his sneaky, opportunistic penetrations, and I think his confidence/energy kind of wears down when he's spending most of his time concentrating on his somewhat-shaky handle and looking down at his dribble rather than surveying the court.

Austin, in the other hand, is someone who doesn't have to think about his handle at all, and will generally embarrass anyone trying to press him. I also think it wouldn't hurt to give him a few more touches that end in him passing, rather than trying to split 3 defenders because he glimpses a sliver of a lane. That's one... habit I wouldn't mind being broken...

Just my initial take, the next week should give us a much better idea of how Seth handles the pressure.

[Devilsfan]

There was a pure point guard available but he recommitted to Texas when we chose to sign Quinn. Hope we were right.

[Bob Green]

There was a pure point guard available but he recommitted to Texas when we chose to sign Quinn. Hope we were right.

Well I'm glad we were successful in recruiting Quinn Cook. I'd rather have Cook than Myck Kabongo. Time will tell, but IMO, we were right.

[Newton_14]

One important point to remember. Duke starts/initiates their offense from the wing position. In the motion set that K runs, the PG brings the ball up the court, and thru either a short pass or hand-off, delivers the ball to the wing, and then cuts through to the basket. The wing then starts the play. It does not take a "pure point guard" skillset to do that. When the starting 5 is in the game, that wing is Austin, so it is he and not Seth that starts the set.

I like our personnel in the back court because of the diversity in skill sets. Seth is a combo guard with a good handle who can wear teams out from 3 and from mid-range with his craftiness and killer stroke. Austin is a combo guard with superior PG type ball handling skill who can attack the basket with ease and finish in a variety of ways. He is also excellent from downtown but has not gotten that going yet. Off the bench, Tyler brings a defensive specialist skill with good ball handling, toughness, and a very solid set-shot 3-Ball. He makes that shot a lot. He also looks to feed the big fellas. Then you have Quinn with an excellent handle, speed & quickness, also really good from 3, and the best passer and post feeder on the team. Weakest of the 4 on defense but is showing improvement in that dept game over game.

So 4 guys, all of whom can be trusted by K no matter who the opponent is, and no matter what point of the game. Tyler and Quinn's minutes will fluctuate, but I think it is safe to say we will see all 4 each game.

The opponent is forced to adjust to each guy because of how different they are, which makes it incredibly difficult to get comfortable guarding them. Just when you think you have the man you are trying to guard read well, you find yourself guarding a new guy who is totally different. I think that is an advantage K can exploit, especially against younger teams.

As for who starts, Seth and Austin will start every game barring injury. I think Tyler and Quinn will come off the bench all year (which is fine), unless our Small Forward situation goes south with Andre, Mike, and Alex.

[gep]

Maybe Tyler and Quinn will be Duke's "twin subs" like Miles and Mason were in 2010 :cool: That was just awesome.

[greybeard]

John Havlicek, Vinnie Johnson, Kevin McHale, Toni Kuoc, Jason Terry, and Manu Ginobli take umbrage with your insistence that "who starts" matters at all.

If TT and Quin are going to play about 25 or so minutes combined in a game, what does it matter if those minutes come at the very start of the game or elsewhere?

-Jason "K has sometimes shown an appreciation for having 2 PGs on the floor together (Duhon and JWill were lethal together), which may be why we sometimes see TT and Quin coming in the game at the same time" Evans

TT and Quin grew up playing in the two most storied programs in the most storied league in these United States--they know the game the way few do, and were capable of shining, while leading excellent teams in very different ways. These guys are GREAT ballplayers, we are talking GREAT. And, don't talk to TT about point, or shooting, or 1,2.3 positions--they are meaningless nothings to that kid. We are talking Tommy Amakar with another 20 lobs. that bespeak much, much more strength. I'm betting that when a guy makes solid contact with TT, no matter who intiates, he remembers the moment none too fondly for the rest of his natural born life. Playing Quin and TT on the court at the same time is having too old school basketball minds, one with a futuristic skill set, that would be Quin, and both with an ability to make the easy penetrating pass that makes an athletic big make an athletic play that creates opportunity, creates a defeat of the defender even if the ball is quickly thrown out, which is how Duke is finally at long last playing this year.

If, as has happened, Curry forgets that the game is about making the bigs athletic receivers with the space and potential advantage to score the ball inside, either of these two can easily take his place--you ain't seen a fraction of what cook can do for that team yet, btw. And, if Rivers doesn't learn that game, and I mean quickly, when other teams shut his paths to the basket down with serious muscle (2 guys at a minimum), he can see his minutes shrink too--you want Cook to score you the ball, all you need to do is tell him to, and, in the process, he will always feed the big dogs first.

Yes, Curry is playing terrifically at both ends, escept (1) he sometimes forgets to empower the bigs to wear people out instead of wearing himself out by those beautiful but draining early (in the game and even sometimes the clock) attacks to the basket; and (2), especially when he has done (a), he runs out of gas and starts making awful decisions and executing them worse down the stretch. Now, he might develop the stamina to have it all ways and play well down the stretch, he didn't in 903 at the garden, not by a long stretch, but I think that that is expecting too much, that is, if you want to continue to score the ball the way he tries and often succeeds doing in the first half, 2/3 of the game. We have seen how Rivers can be taken out of his attack-the-basket, you-know-it's-coming-and-you-can't-stop-it game; what we haven't seen his deployment of an alternative approach to being valuable on the court when that happens. I should think that between he and Capel they will figure it out, but it might take time. How much? Time. In the meantime, give me those two kids from DeMatha and Gonzaga, places where the roots of the game are flourishing in this day of "prime time" play, and watch the guys they play with get better and together they hurt people in ways that are timeless.

BTW, both Miles and Ryan (Ryan especially on three balls), need to earn how to differentiate moving their eyes from moving their heads--in other words, they need to be able to look up with their eyes with only moving their heads a fraction of what they currently do. By moving their heads and eyes as of one piece, they throw their heads back to look up, bringing their weight to their heals, which in both cases produces arm shots that have no repeatability. Learning to differentiate movement of the head and eyes is a key element, often overlooked, in athletic performance. It is not difficult to learn. Nope, that's why they pay guys with training like mine the big bucks. (Ryan learns this skill and he will kill people from the three line; as it is, he seems like standing behind him is downright dangerous when he gets to looking up at the basket--differentiating movement of the eyes and the head, baby and the dude will be nailing them the way everyone expects.)

Well, I have to say that I like this Duke team an awful lot, really like the way the exterior guys have been learning to empower the bigs, not my fancy passes, but by getting it inside early and multiple times per possession, and taking advantage of the receiver's athleticism, which, aside from anything else, is by far the most fun and rewarding thing in all of sports--making a pass that asks of the receiver that which takes quick decision making, vision, and modes of movement that are uniquely necessary to accomplish the task at hand. That is, that brings the big and the passer, or passers (it might be gy 1 who sees the entry if guy 2 gets the ball and as the ball goes to guy 2 or before, all three are on the same page) into relationship to create a synergy that defines the best that the game has to offer. You let the Plumlees and Ryan and the other quasi big be full partners in that fashion, and their vision on defense, their positioning for rebounds, their running the floor, their getting the ball in a crowd, starts to amaze.

Duke needs that this year. It is there for the taking, they have the kids to make it work, and it seems also the coach (again, I'm saying Capel) who understands its value.

In sum, if you are a guard playing for Duke this season, I wouldn't forget that letting the bigs be the terrific athletics and creators they are is the number one priority;. You forget that, except in games where the defense commits overwhelming resources to shut that part of the game down, at your peril.
There are guys who are waiting who will not forget; who were born to lead in that fashion.

\It's me, Mr. Greybeard, just kicking it back.:cool:

[tele]

TT and Quin grew up playing in the two most storied programs in the most storied league in these United States--they know the game the way few do, and were capable of shining, while leading excellent teams in very different ways. These guys are GREAT ballplayers, we are talking GREAT. And, don't talk to TT about point, or shooting, or 1,2.3 positions--they are meaningless nothings to that kid. We are talking Tommy Amakar with another 20 lobs. that bespeak much, much more strength. I'm betting that when a guy makes solid contact with TT, no matter who intiates, he remembers the moment none too fondly for the rest of his natural born life. Playing Quin and TT on the court at the same time is having too old school basketball minds, one with a futuristic skill set, that would be Quin, and both with an ability to make the easy penetrating pass that makes an athletic big make an athletic play that creates opportunity, creates a defeat of the defender even if the ball is quickly thrown out, which is how Duke is finally at long last playing this year.

If, as has happened, Curry forgets that the game is about making the bigs athletic receivers with the space and potential advantage to score the ball inside, either of these two can easily take his place--you ain't seen a fraction of what cook can do for that team yet, btw. And, if Rivers doesn't learn that game, and I mean quickly, when other teams shut his paths to the basket down with serious muscle (2 guys at a minimum), he can see his minutes shrink too--you want Cook to score you the ball, all you need to do is tell him to, and, in the process, he will always feed the big dogs first.

Yes, Curry is playing terrifically at both ends, escept (1) he sometimes forgets to empower the bigs to wear people out instead of wearing himself out by those beautiful but draining early (in the game and even sometimes the clock) attacks to the basket; and (2), especially when he has done (a), he runs out of gas and starts making awful decisions and executing them worse down the stretch. Now, he might develop the stamina to have it all ways and play well down the stretch, he didn't in 903 at the garden, not by a long stretch, but I think that that is expecting too much, that is, if you want to continue to score the ball the way he tries and often succeeds doing in the first half, 2/3 of the game. We have seen how Rivers can be taken out of his attack-the-basket, you-know-it's-coming-and-you-can't-stop-it game; what we haven't seen his deployment of an alternative approach to being valuable on the court when that happens. I should think that between he and Capel they will figure it out, but it might take time. How much? Time. In the meantime, give me those two kids from DeMatha and Gonzaga, places where the roots of the game are flourishing in this day of "prime time" play, and watch the guys they play with get better and together they hurt people in ways that are timeless.

BTW, both Miles and Ryan (Ryan especially on three balls), need to earn how to differentiate moving their eyes from moving their heads--in other words, they need to be able to look up with their eyes with only moving their heads a fraction of what they currently do. By moving their heads and eyes as of one piece, they throw their heads back to look up, bringing their weight to their heals, which in both cases produces arm shots that have no repeatability. Learning to differentiate movement of the head and eyes is a key element, often overlooked, in athletic performance. It is not difficult to learn. Nope, that's why they pay guys with training like mine the big bucks. (Ryan learns this skill and he will kill people from the three line; as it is, he seems like standing behind him is downright dangerous when he gets to looking up at the basket--differentiating movement of the eyes and the head, baby and the dude will be nailing them the way everyone expects.)

Well, I have to say that I like this Duke team an awful lot, really like the way the exterior guys have been learning to empower the bigs, not my fancy passes, but by getting it inside early and multiple times per possession, and taking advantage of the receiver's athleticism, which, aside from anything else, is by far the most fun and rewarding thing in all of sports--making a pass that asks of the receiver that which takes quick decision making, vision, and modes of movement that are uniquely necessary to accomplish the task at hand. That is, that brings the big and the passer, or passers (it might be gy 1 who sees the entry if guy 2 gets the ball and as the ball goes to guy 2 or before, all three are on the same page) into relationship to create a synergy that defines the best that the game has to offer. You let the Plumlees and Ryan and the other quasi big be full partners in that fashion, and their vision on defense, their positioning for rebounds, their running the floor, their getting the ball in a crowd, starts to amaze.

Duke needs that this year. It is there for the taking, they have the kids to make it work, and it seems also the coach (again, I'm saying Capel) who understands its value.

In sum, if you are a guard playing for Duke this season, I wouldn't forget that letting the bigs be the terrific athletics and creators they are is the number one priority;. You forget that, except in games where the defense commits overwhelming resources to shut that part of the game down, at your peril.
There are guys who are waiting who will not forget; who were born to lead in that fashion.

\It's me, Mr. Greybeard, just kicking it back.:cool:


I think that about sums it up, nice to see Mr Greybeard posting again. Duke has good depth at guard this season, and for the team in general, but it is young depth. Not counting the frosh, it's a seven deep team. So, I don't think Coach K putting the ball in his most experienced ballhandlers hands should come as any surprise. And when it is crunch time in a game, that is where I'd expect to see it. Seth has done a good job distributing the ball and still getting his shots and points. How well he can continue to do that will be key for the success of this team. If one of the other guards, like austin, or tyler can contribute some assists along the way that will take some of the load off of Curry. Cook looks like he has a lot of talent, it will be fun to watch how he develops over the course of the season.

Also nice to see improvements in Masons game, he seems to be playing more continuously offense to defense and enjoying the game more. Not to mention his footwork, nice reverse pivots and pivots into his hook shots. I've only seen one of the turnaround jumphook shots, don't miss see the ball spinning off the rim from those.

Competition in Maui will step up so some of the points about roles and minutes will get sorted by game pressure.
For that, the MSU game should be a better indicator than the Davidson game. Should be fun. May turn out Duke guards are more like shades of corundum than conundrum.

[CarmenWallaceWade]

Quinn Cook has impressed me so far. If he demonstrates an ability to play defense consistently, I can see him being a part of our core rotation come March. And I think he will become a fan favorite with his play and positive attitude.

[Saratoga2]

Let's give Seth some credit. I think he is doing a solid job at this point considering he has never had had to handle the ball and start the offense like he is now. After the crosses half court the offense does not depend on Seth's ability to drive and create. You can look at that as a good or bad thing, but that is the way it is. I have not seen the offense struggle in the half court so far. The ball movement is the primary thing for this team. The only time the ball does slow down is when it is in Austin's hands, but that is what we all want. He gets to the rim at will and if he doesn't score he gets to the line if not both. If Austin can work his ability to drive, draw, and than dish, we would be even more deadly from three, but i think that will come with time. We just have to remain patient. I mean can any Duke fan out there really be that worried with the Coach K and his track record? I don't think so. I am more concerned about MP1 and the level of his play on a night to night to basis. I like what I see from MP2, I hope he continues to improve and get better as we get into conference play. We are more than alright at the PG position right now. When think about what the team lost, and the level they are performing at now, the future is looking very bright for this team. GO DUKE!!!


One concern with Seth was his ball handling skills.He seems to be doing that quite well now as he must have worked over the past off season on that. Where Seth still needs work is on his decision making, which has shown up as a problem in end of game situations. Still, Seth is a proven scorer and decent with the ball, so in my mind he remains a better choice at the point than either Quinn or Tyler. Its great to have both of those guys for backup roles though. In the end, I think Quinn has the best chance of being an all around guard that can also play the point.

[sagegrouse]

Several thoughts on who plays the point for Duke:


Dean Smith invented positions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. K never bought into it and IMHO (where the H is invariably silent), would love to start a team of five players with Grant Hill size and versatility. I thought he palpably favored the "small" lineup on the USA Olympic Team, where the highly mobile Chris Bosh played instead of Dwight Howard.

That said, K like any coach would prefer to have a quarterback on the court through whom decisions are made and who touches the ball on nearly every play. The string of Duke more-or-less pure Point Guards is impressive: Amaker, Quin Snyder, Hurley, Wojo, Avery, Duhon, Ewing, Paulus, and Kyrie. Sure, Paulus -- a classic Point Guard -- was not a star and Hurley, while at the point was a heckuvan offensive player in his own right. I left out JD and JWill as PGs because they were combo guards, and I could have left off Ewing for the same reason. Duke has had success without a real point guard in 1994 (Capel and Hill) and NC 2010 (Scheyer and Nolan).

But in the last 15 years, multiple players bring the ball up the court and initiate plays. Think of Nolan for Scheyer in 2010 and Seth for Nolan last year. Point is a tiring role. And the five players listed at guard are all expected to both penetrate and pass, as are virtually all guards at Duke.



In sum, isn't being point guard a difference of degree in the Duke program and not a difference in kind?

sagegrouse
'The quote in the title is from a bridge book by Marty Bergen on a totally different subject, except that it indicates that every bridge hand (and basketball team?) has unique qualities'

[loldevilz]

To me the only problem with Seth is that he really can't push the ball. With Mason, Miles, and Kelly, bigs that can really run the floor it would be nice to have a pg that could play in transition. I think Rivers rather than Quinn needs to be the guy with the ball in his hands more often. Cook will obviously play a big role off the bench, but I don't think he is ready to be a starter especially at the expense of Dawkins, Rivers, and Curry who are all among the best scorers in the country.

[SMO]

John Havlicek, Vinnie Johnson, Kevin McHale, Toni Kuoc, Jason Terry, and Manu Ginobli take umbrage with your insistence that "who starts" matters at all.

If TT and Quin are going to play about 25 or so minutes combined in a game, what does it matter if those minutes come at the very start of the game or elsewhere?

-Jason "K has sometimes shown an appreciation for having 2 PGs on the floor together (Duhon and JWill were lethal together), which may be why we sometimes see TT and Quin coming in the game at the same time" Evans

Vinny Johnson? I love that you just went "Microwave" on us.

[scheyerfan]

I started this thread so let me be clear if I wasn't clear before- I was not suggesting that Austin or Seth's minutes should be cut. I was only suggesting the possibility that the point guard rotation MIGHT be changed to allow Seth to play some at the point and sometimes at shooting guard. The combinations of Tyler and Austin and/or Seth and Quinn (or some combination thereof) might be more effective than Seth/Austin and Tyler/Quinn.

As Jason correctly pointed out- it is not who starts the game but who finishes it.

[Kedsy]

The combinations of Tyler and Austin and/or Seth and Quinn (or some combination thereof) might be more effective than Seth/Austin and Tyler/Quinn.

Why do you think that the only options are (a) Tyler playing only with Quinn; and (b) one of Tyler or Quinn starting? So far this season, Tyler and Quinn have played very few minutes together and neither of them has started, yet between them they've averaged almost 30 minutes a game. Personally, I think it would be most effective if things continued more or less the way they've gone so far: Seth/Austin/Andre starting at the perimeter positions and playing most of the perimeter minutes. Tyler and Quinn subbing in and combining for 20 to 30 minutes.

It's worked so far without Tyler or Quinn starting (or finishing, for the most part). And the only way Quinn's and/or Tyler's role can increase is if somebody's minutes are cut. It might happen, or it might not, but I assume that if it does happen, it won't be because Quinn and/or Tyler are "pure points."

[hustleplays]

With respect, PG is not just a label. Great PGs see the whole floor quickly, intuitively, and they have an uncanny ability to make the right decision, the way KI did [and every other great PG we have seen over the years -- think Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, etc, etc. -- it's a special art and a joy to watch.] Yes, our current lineup has "worked so far" but our sample size is very small and some of us [me, of course, and others] see the signs of an offense that "works" but doesn't work at the level it could be. Sometimes it's passes that aren't made, brief hesitations, passes to receivers under pressure and at inopportune spots.

I watched KI come down the floor -- he looked at the entire court, scanning for something I know that I cannot understand, but resulting in the ball in the hands of the right person at the right moment and place. I have watched Seth coming down the floor, looking at one teammate, and then, maybe, another, but not at the whole court. I know that Coach K has our current guards passing to the wings. This is a sensible offensive strategy given the guards we now have. But it's not the formula when one has a true, great PG.

Certainly some minutes of other proficient players [guards] would have to be cut. Andre's minutes are the most likely expendable. This is not a zero-sum situation -- this is about the catalytic value that a true PG brings. I am well aware that Quinn is not there yet. My belief is that he is our best investment for a winning team come March and April.


Why do you think that the only options are (a) Tyler playing only with Quinn; and (b) one of Tyler or Quinn starting? So far this season, Tyler and Quinn have played very few minutes together and neither of them has started, yet between them they've averaged almost 30 minutes a game. Personally, I think it would be most effective if things continued more or less the way they've gone so far: Seth/Austin/Andre starting at the perimeter positions and playing most of the perimeter minutes. Tyler and Quinn subbing in and combining for 20 to 30 minutes.

It's worked so far without Tyler or Quinn starting (or finishing, for the most part). And the only way Quinn's and/or Tyler's role can increase is if somebody's minutes are cut. It might happen, or it might not, but I assume that if it does happen, it won't be because Quinn and/or Tyler are "pure points."

[Kedsy]

With respect, PG is not just a label. Great PGs see the whole floor quickly, intuitively, and they have an uncanny ability to make the right decision, the way KI did [and every other great PG we have seen over the years -- think Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, etc, etc. -- it's a special art and a joy to watch.] Yes, our current lineup has "worked so far" but our sample size is very small and some of us [me, of course, and others] see the signs of an offense that "works" but doesn't work at the level it could be. Sometimes it's passes that aren't made, brief hesitations, passes to receivers under pressure and at inopportune spots.

I watched KI come down the floor -- he looked at the entire court, scanning for something I know that I cannot understand, but resulting in the ball in the hands of the right person at the right moment and place. I have watched Seth coming down the floor, looking at one teammate, and then, maybe, another, but not at the whole court. I know that Coach K has our current guards passing to the wings. This is a sensible offensive strategy given the guards we now have. But it's not the formula when one has a true, great PG.

Certainly some minutes of other proficient players [guards] would have to be cut. Andre's minutes are the most likely expendable. This is not a zero-sum situation -- this is about the catalytic value that a true PG brings. I am well aware that Quinn is not there yet. My belief is that he is our best investment for a winning team come March and April.

If Quinn Cook were Kyrie Irving then I'd agree with you. He's not. Frankly, I doubt he'll ever get to that level, although I do expect him to shine over the course of his Duke career.

Right now, today, I disagree with you. I'd rather have Andre out there with Seth and Austin than Quinn with Seth and Austin. I expect that come March 2012 I'll still rather have Andre in there than Quinn (don't have a clear vision as to whether, come March, I'll rather see Quinn than Tyler, though). At the present time, I think Quinn's best role is as a backup, learning how to play at this level, especially defense. No need to rush it.

[Kedsy]

Great PGs see the whole floor quickly, intuitively, and they have an uncanny ability to make the right decision...

One last reason why I don't think Quinn is anywhere close to this yet -- he only has two assists (in four games/40 total minutes). I realize assists are somewhat of a flawed statistic and don't tell the whole story, but if he was seeing the floor the way you've described, he'd have more than 0.5 assists per game, even if he were primarily playing off the ball (in contrast, as I pointed out earlier, Kendall Marshall had 16 assists in his first 44 minutes (3 games) last season).

And if Quinn's that far away at this point, I can't see why we should disrupt Seth and Andre to forcefeed Quinn. Despite your belief, there's insufficient evidence "that he is our best investment for a winning team come March and April."

Hopefully if we revisit this question in a few months, Quinn will be further along.

[greybeard]

One last reason why I don't think Quinn is anywhere close to this yet -- he only has two assists (in four games/40 total minutes). I realize assists are somewhat of a flawed statistic and don't tell the whole story, but if he was seeing the floor the way you've described, he'd have more than 0.5 assists per game, even if he were primarily playing off the ball (in contrast, as I pointed out earlier, Kendall Marshall had 16 assists in his first 44 minutes (3 games) last season).

And if Quinn's that far away at this point, I can't see why we should disrupt Seth and Andre to forcefeed Quinn. Despite your belief, there's insufficient evidence "that he is our best investment for a winning team come March and April."

Hopefully if we revisit this question in a few months, Quinn will be further along.

When you play through the pivot, then assists in the half court game come mostly when you go away from your intention--that is, you play off dribble penetration. Now I get that that is Rivers' game, that is essential to all else he does, which is finish whenever he gets inside the defense, shoots when the defender backs away. To a lesser extent, Curry goes to that game more than I think is good for Duke. When he does that, the offensive paradigm that most label as "man, do you see how much progress Mason and also Mills have made this off season, how much more aggressive and confident they have become." I see it differently, that Duke with Capel's help has fashioned an offense that plays through them when the offense is functioning at its best. So, if Curry penetrates as often he sometimes has, rather than generating an effective pass penetration early in the offense and have the pass out create scoring chances and a chain of passes on the outside, it stands to reason he will get assists--he is a good finisher but no where near Rivers' class. Rivers gets inside the defense, he scores the ball or gets fouled or goes down trying; Curry will kick it.

Cook has not shown you his dribble penetration game yet, because, as a freshman getting little playing time, he sticks to the paradigm. You don't get assists giving it up easily to a teammate who has a better angle to an opening that a big can and will get to as the ball arrives, a better pass penetration possibility than Cook himself has, or Cook will see an interesting pass penetration opening and let it go himself. Much different game that produces team offense and inside dominance but much fewer assists for the point. Cook can finish as well as or better than Curry and has an in-the-lane short shot game, and an assist game, that puts your boy KI away. KI, in my opinion, made last year's team less effective, even while he put on a terrific show. The only guy in the country who could stop Nolan was not his coach, aka el Deano and Michael, but rather his running mate when KI was in the game, or am I the only one who noticed that?

I am very impressed with Curry's game on both ends. But, please, if K gave Cook the ball and said "do your thing" and the playing time to do it, you'd see assists and scoring inside the lane that I believe would have you wondering who on Duke was actually the best at going to the basket, Cook or Rivers. By the way, if you want to wear the other team's bigs out, to deflate their spirit, to elevate the all around play of Duke's bigs, even money sys that that guy would be Cook. But I don't think that we'll see that game from Cook this season, unless something happens to Curry, and maybe not even then--Thorton is playing spectacularly, imo, and some of Duke's very best play happens when he is on the floor. If you see Cook with the same green light that Curry has and the time to get a feel for the game to really be effective, well, I'm thinking that we'd all enjoy it very, very much, and you'd see more assists from the kid than you've seen in Cameron in years.

[Bob Green]

To me the only problem with Seth is that he really can't push the ball....

Luckily for Seth, he doesn't play guard for Coach Williams over at Chapel Hill. Traditionally, the proper start for a fast break is the outlet pass off a rebound. Now, I realize the game has changed over the years with the 3-point line resulting in more long shots being taken, which results in more long rebounds being grabbed by guards; however, it isn't necessary for a guard to "push the ball" on every possession while his coach jumps around on the sideline animately windmilling one arm sending the "hurry up, hurry up" message 60 times per game.


With respect, PG is not just a label. Great PGs see the whole floor quickly, intuitively, and they have an uncanny ability to make the right decision, the way KI did...

During the Duke-MSU TV broadcast, Coach Knight stated, "I don't know what a point guard is."

[hustleplays]

During the Duke-MSU TV broadcast, Coach Knight stated, "I don't know what a point guard is."[/QUOTE]

And I'm assuming you are not interpreting this literally, I appreciate the humor here. Coach Knight has been known to be just a bit contrary at times. :)

But if Coach Knight is in fact agnostic about PGs, I suggest he call my good buddies Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, Walt Frazier, Chris Paul, Bobby Hurley, KI, [they may not remember me right away], and so forth. These guys will explain what they do and why they are so important. Also, on NBA Classics :( they can be spotted running their offenses -- not hard to miss -- whatever we do or don't call them!

And re several earlier replies to my prior post, I know that Quinn is not nearly ready to excel right now. He played 8 minutes tonight against UT, and he made mistakes but also showed flashes of what will help us down the road, particularly with this team that is relatively inexperienced in their current roles. Quinn's development will be fun to watch.

[shoutingncu]

John Havlicek, Vinnie Johnson, Kevin McHale, Toni Kuoc, Jason Terry, and Manu Ginobli take umbrage with your insistence that "who starts" matters at all.

As do Danny Green and Jon Scheyer, circa 2008.

[Oriole Way]

John Havlicek, Vinnie Johnson, Kevin McHale, Toni Kuoc, Jason Terry, and Manu Ginobli take umbrage with your insistence that "who starts" matters at all.

If TT and Quin are going to play about 25 or so minutes combined in a game, what does it matter if those minutes come at the very start of the game or elsewhere?

-Jason "K has sometimes shown an appreciation for having 2 PGs on the floor together (Duhon and JWill were lethal together), which may be why we sometimes see TT and Quin coming in the game at the same time" Evans

It's funny that you mention Jason Terry, because I really believe that Terry is the best NBA comp for Seth Curry. I watch hundreds of hours of NBA ball every year, and the similarities between Terry and Curry are very strong. Terry is quicker than Curry, and a better passer, but their skill sets are strikingly similar.

I think Curry could possibly be best-suited towards coming off the bench for this team, similarly to Terry. Aside from him not turning the ball over very much, I have been underwhelmed by Curry's point guard skills. Curry's ability to run the team - at least in the mold of Jon Scheyer - is mediocre. One issue with Duke's offense is that both Rivers and Curry are combo guards. Each is capable of bringing the ball up the floor and initiating the offense, but neither excels at running the team in the Bobby Hurley/Jason Williams/Kyrie Irving mold. Furthermore, with big men like Mason and Miles, who would both benefit greatly from a breakdown point guard and facilitator, Duke's perimeter interaction with the post could stand to improve greatly. Bottom line, I think Duke should give Quinn Cook a more extensive look as a more integral part of the rotation running the team.

If Curry were to come off the bench, I think the starting lineup should ideally be Cook/Rivers/Dawkins/Kelly/Mason. Curry should get his minutes at the expense of Dawkins.

I think the most alarming stat for this Duke team, and a metric which I feel has been greatly overlooked by the fan base thus far, is the team's current assist to turnover ratio. 5 games is a very small sample size, but the team currently has a negative assist to turnover ratio - 70 assists to 86 turnovers. Despite the small sample size, I think that given our roster makeup and our style of play, those numbers are still a decent indicator of our team's efficiency. With Michigan, Ohio State, and potentially Kansas on the schedule in the near future, and with ACC play not too far behind, it's quite possible our assist to turnover ratio could actually worsen. I don't expect it to improve drastically.

This Duke team, if it keeps up anywhere near it's current pace, could potentially be the first team since 2006-2007 Duke - one of the worst Coach K teams in the past 15 years - to have a negative assist to turnover ratio. Even if Duke manages a positive ratio this season, this team looks to be the worst A/T team since 2006-2007. Luckily, this team not only has much more talent and depth than the 2006-2007 edition, but it has a few quality guards who are capable of improving the current A/T ratio. Installing a pure point guard as a more integral part of the rotation will be key to improving Duke's efficiency.

I think Greybeard is spot on in his assessment of Quinn Cook's skills, as well as how he would impact the team if he were given more playing time. I think that Cook will need some more time to establish himself, but I also think that Coach K will need to actively seek to give Cook more PT and leeway to make mistakes and learn the defensive schemes if Duke is going to take steps forward and realize its full potential. One of Coach K's signatures is having a great point guard leading his teams. Sure, the 2011 championship Duke team featured a lead guard in Jon Scheyer who was more about valuing the ball than explicitly setting up and facilitating his teammates. But I would be very surprised if K leaves his most talented PG very far down in the rotation for too long. The only other time I can recall a PG of Cook's caliber being relegated to a strict backup role was William Avery in 2007-2008. But on that team, Wojo was a senior PG who was a clear pass-first option who could effectively run an offense, and I believe that Avery's passing and team-running skills were not quite as advanced as Cook's are at the same stage.

This Duke team does not currently have a guard who can consistently run an offense at a high level and set up his teammates - aside from, potentially, Cook. Curry is a featured guard in the Scheyer mold, but he falls well short of Scheyer in terms of running an offense, and I believe that Cook could very well be the ultimate answer at the PG position this season.

[Kedsy]

I think the most alarming stat for this Duke team, and a metric which I feel has been greatly overlooked by the fan base thus far, is the team's current assist to turnover ratio. 5 games is a very small sample size, but the team currently has a negative assist to turnover ratio - 70 assists to 86 turnovers. Despite the small sample size, I think that given our roster makeup and our style of play, those numbers are still a decent indicator of our team's efficiency. With Michigan, Ohio State, and potentially Kansas on the schedule in the near future, and with ACC play not too far behind, it's quite possible our assist to turnover ratio could actually worsen. I don't expect it to improve drastically.

The Pomeroy definition of offensive efficiency is points scored per 100 possessions. The numbers he uses to calculate possessions are:

FGA - off reb + turnovers + FTA*0.475

So, the factors determining efficiency are turnovers, offensive rebounding, and shooting percentages. After five games, this year's team has a lot more turnovers than its immediate predecessors (86 in 2011-12; 68 in 2010-11; 56 in 2009-10). It also has fewer offensive rebounds (59 in 2011-12; 63 in 2010-11; 71 in 2009-10). Our free throw shooting is significantly worse (.684 in 2011-12; .736 in 2010-11; .743 in 2009-10). None of those things have anything to do with assists.

Our three-point shooting this season (.410) is similar to 2009-10 after 5 games (.415) and worse than 2010-11 (.434). Our two-point shooting this season (.503) is much better than 2009-10 after 5 games (.478) and worse than 2010-11 (.531). One could argue that the reason we shot better last year was because of Kyrie's assists, but I'm not sure if we can show it statistically or not. It may simply be a function of the competition. Since we've shot better than in 2009-10, it would seem the better passing that season did not contribute to that team's much higher offensive efficiency (although the lack of turnovers for that team clearly did).

We've also played a much tougher schedule this season (in my opinion), which may have led to our seemingly low raw offensive efficiency (especially our higher turnovers and possibly our lower shooting percentages). Pomeroy adjusts for schedule (and on his page we have the 7th best offensive efficiency in the nation, a bit ahead of UNC), but it's too early for his adjustments to be reliable.

So I would argue that while we do have to cut down on our turnovers to be more efficient, our assist to turnover ratio is actually not that important to our overall offensive efficiency. If we cut down on turnovers, hit our free throws and if Austin finishes a few more of his layups, our efficiency numbers will look just fine, even if our assists don't go up (although I do recognize that if turnovers go down and our assists stay the same, our a/to ratio will improve).

As far as whether Quinn Cook could help solve our problems, I don't know. So far Seth has a higher assist rate (4.27 per 40 vs. 2.50 per 40 for Quinn) and their turnover rates are about the same (1.45 (Seth) vs. 1.50 (Quinn)). Would that change if Quinn is given the reins? I don't think anybody could possibly know that, but last year Seth was pretty good about protecting the ball and, to me at least, it's hard to imagine having fewer turnovers with an all-freshman backcourt.

[Kedsy]

As far as whether Quinn Cook could help solve our problems, I don't know. So far Seth has a higher assist rate (4.27 per 40 vs. 2.50 per 40 for Quinn) and their turnover rates are about the same (1.45 (Seth) vs. 1.50 (Quinn)). Would that change if Quinn is given the reins? I don't think anybody could possibly know that, but last year Seth was pretty good about protecting the ball and, to me at least, it's hard to imagine having fewer turnovers with an all-freshman backcourt.

I just realized I misspoke in my previous post. Seth's turnover rate (2.93 per 40) is currently much worse than Quinn's (1.67 per 40 in a small sample). It is their assist to turnover ratio that is about the same (1.45 (Seth) vs. 1.50 (Quinn)).

Seth's turnover rate from last year (1.51 per 40) was really good, though, so I expect him to bring his turnovers under control and probably have a better turnover rate than Quinn over the course of the year.

[CDu]

I think the most alarming stat for this Duke team, and a metric which I feel has been greatly overlooked by the fan base thus far, is the team's current assist to turnover ratio. 5 games is a very small sample size, but the team currently has a negative assist to turnover ratio - 70 assists to 86 turnovers. Despite the small sample size, I think that given our roster makeup and our style of play, those numbers are still a decent indicator of our team's efficiency. With Michigan, Ohio State, and potentially Kansas on the schedule in the near future, and with ACC play not too far behind, it's quite possible our assist to turnover ratio could actually worsen. I don't expect it to improve drastically.

Well, I think GoDuke has the assist and turnover numbers wrong. I think we're actually at 61 assists and 71 turnovers. The point remains though - that's not a stellar ratio at all. That said, I think that's almost the ONLY alarming stat for our offense (the only other one being Mason's FT%). Our FG% and 3pt FG%, and FTA rates are all very good. And our overall offensive efficiency has been decent (1.12 points per possession), though we'll play a tougher schedule in the near future. We seem to be a team that has several players capable of creating their own shot (Curry, Rivers, Kelly, and Mason) and scoring fairly efficiently.

Some have said that Cook would be the "true PG" that would improve the efficiency. But he's not really shown that in his limited time so far. Maybe he'll eventually show that this year. But given how little he's played and how little he's created for others when he has played, I'm guessing that Coach K doesn't think he's ready to run the offense at Duke yet.

[CDu]

Seth's turnover rate from last year (1.51 per 40) was really good, though, so I expect him to bring his turnovers under control and probably have a better turnover rate than Quinn over the course of the year.

I think Curry is doing fine at PG for us. But I don't think comparing his turnover rate from last year is reasonable. He was asked to shoulder so much less of the playmaking burden last year compared to this year, so it's natural to expect his turnover rate to go up some.

By that same token, Cook's turnover rate is pretty high given that he's not been asked to carry much of the playmaking burden when out there so far this year (he's played mostly in an off-ball wing role in the half court offense this year - similar to what Curry did primarily last year).

[Kedsy]

Well, I think GoDuke has the assist and turnover numbers wrong. I think we're actually at 61 assists and 71 turnovers.

Well, I just checked, using the game by game box scores, and I think you're correct. All the GoDuke numbers for this season are wrong. This makes my previous analysis incorrect as well, but it actually argues more forcefully that assist to turnover ratio is not hurting our offensive efficiency.

Stats after 5 games
-------------------


Year FGA OR TO FTA Pts Raw Off Eff 3-pct 2-pct FT pct
---- --- -- -- --- --- ----------- ----- ----- ------
2009-10 313 71 56 101 439 126.54 .415 .478 .743
2010-11 313 63 68 125 450 119.24 .434 .531 .736
2011-12 260 45 71 155 406 112.90 .448 .531 .677


Looking at the numbers, the biggest discrepancy between this year and last year is offensive rebounding. In 2010-11, we rebounded approximately 36.4% of our misses over the first five games. This season we've only rebounded approximately 29.4% of our misses. The second biggest discrepancy is free throw shooting.

If we shot the same free throw percentage as last season in the first five games, and rebounded the same percentage of our misses, our offensive efficiency would be 118.70, pretty much the same as last year and probably much better if you adjust for schedule. Nothing that could be improved by Quinn Cook running the team.

Of course, if we turned it over significantly less, our offensive efficiency would be higher despite the poor free throw shooting and offensive rebounding. But I don't know that adding assists would help our efficiency, especially considering how well we're shooting from the field -- better than last year and significantly better than 2009-10.

[CDu]

Of course, if we turned it over significantly less, our offensive efficiency would be higher despite the poor free throw shooting and offensive rebounding. But I don't know that adding assists would help our efficiency, especially considering how well we're shooting from the field -- better than last year and significantly better than 2009-10.

To follow on this, the questions would seem to be:

1. Would Cook (or Thornton) at PG dramatically reduce the turnover rate? Given that Thornton's rate is higher than that of Curry, I doubt he'd make things better in the turnover department. Cook's turnover rate has been lower, but that's also in part because he hasn't handled much of the playmaking duties in his limited minutes. So it's unclear whether he'd improve the turnover rate over Curry. Maybe it would cut down on some of the Plumlee turnovers if they got touches in better spots, but I haven't seen much to suggest that Cook (or Thornton) is better at setting the Plumlees up than Curry.

2. Would Cook (or Thornton) at PG dramatically increase the assist rate? Again, I don't think Thornton would do so based on his low assist totals. Because Cook has not played much PG for us this year, it's just hard to say whether he'd make a difference yet.

3. Would an increase in assists lead to a dramatically higher FG%? Despite the lack of assists, we're shooting at a very high percentage on FGA. I guess it's that we could get more easy buckets and fewer foul shots (meaning fewer missed points) for the Plumlees with a better draw-and-dish option. But I doubt we'd see Curry, Dawkins, or Kelly become any more efficient than they have been so far. And Rivers has done most of his scoring as the primary creator, so I doubt a "true PG" would affect his efficiency a lot anyway.

[Kedsy]

To follow on this, the questions would seem to be:

1. Would Cook (or Thornton) at PG dramatically reduce the turnover rate? Given that Thornton's rate is higher than that of Curry, I doubt he'd make things better in the turnover department. Cook's turnover rate has been lower, but that's also in part because he hasn't handled much of the playmaking duties in his limited minutes. So it's unclear whether he'd improve the turnover rate over Curry. Maybe it would cut down on some of the Plumlee turnovers if they got touches in better spots, but I haven't seen much to suggest that Cook (or Thornton) is better at setting the Plumlees up than Curry.

2. Would Cook (or Thornton) at PG dramatically increase the assist rate? Again, I don't think Thornton would do so based on his low assist totals. Because Cook has not played much PG for us this year, it's just hard to say whether he'd make a difference yet.

3. Would an increase in assists lead to a dramatically higher FG%? Despite the lack of assists, we're shooting at a very high percentage on FGA. I guess it's [possible] that we could get more easy buckets and fewer foul shots (meaning fewer missed points) for the Plumlees with a better draw-and-dish option. But I doubt we'd see Curry, Dawkins, or Kelly become any more efficient than they have been so far. And Rivers has done most of his scoring as the primary creator, so I doubt a "true PG" would affect his efficiency a lot anyway.

Yes, I agree with everything you say here. Our point guard situation is really only a "conundrum" in certain posters' minds.

[jamesfrommaiden]

One concern with Seth was his ball handling skills.He seems to be doing that quite well now as he must have worked over the past off season on that. Where Seth still needs work is on his decision making, which has shown up as a problem in end of game situations. Still, Seth is a proven scorer and decent with the ball, so in my mind he remains a better choice at the point than either Quinn or Tyler. Its great to have both of those guys for backup roles though. In the end, I think Quinn has the best chance of being an all around guard that can also play the point.

Seth does need to improve, but that can be said for all the guys. My major concern is will he wear down too much by seasons end. I might be crazy but Seth worries me more on the defensive end. He is solid. But I am worried about having to chase around smaller and quicker points in the future. Not against UNC though. LOL

[NSDukeFan]

To follow on this, the questions would seem to be:

1. Would Cook (or Thornton) at PG dramatically reduce the turnover rate? Given that Thornton's rate is higher than that of Curry, I doubt he'd make things better in the turnover department. Cook's turnover rate has been lower, but that's also in part because he hasn't handled much of the playmaking duties in his limited minutes. So it's unclear whether he'd improve the turnover rate over Curry. Maybe it would cut down on some of the Plumlee turnovers if they got touches in better spots, but I haven't seen much to suggest that Cook (or Thornton) is better at setting the Plumlees up than Curry.

2. Would Cook (or Thornton) at PG dramatically increase the assist rate? Again, I don't think Thornton would do so based on his low assist totals. Because Cook has not played much PG for us this year, it's just hard to say whether he'd make a difference yet.

3. Would an increase in assists lead to a dramatically higher FG%? Despite the lack of assists, we're shooting at a very high percentage on FGA. I guess it's that we could get more easy buckets and fewer foul shots (meaning fewer missed points) for the Plumlees with a better draw-and-dish option. But I doubt we'd see Curry, Dawkins, or Kelly become any more efficient than they have been so far. And Rivers has done most of his scoring as the primary creator, so I doubt a "true PG" would affect his efficiency a lot anyway.

I agree with just about everything you have said here, but would add that there is another side of the court where the team spends 50% of the time and at this point I think Curry is a better defensive player than Cook.

[Bob Green]

Al Featherston weighs in:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=42865


I first heard the term point guard used in the late 1960s, when Dean Smith began to win and draw attention to his system at North Carolina. I guess in hindsight, Larry Brown was a prototype point guard, but what I remember most is a photograph of Smith’s 1965-66 freshman team. The five starters are not wearing their usual numbers in the picture. Instead, they are numbered 1 (Dick Grubar), 2 (Gerald Tuttle), 3 (Joe Brown), 4 (Bill Bunting), 5 (Rusty Clark) to illustrate the numbering system that Smith invented.

Does that make Dick Grubar the first point guard?

Another very good article from Mr. Featherston. I recommend everyone take the time to give it a read.

[MChambers]

Al Featherston weighs in:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=42865

Another very good article from Mr. Featherston. I recommend everyone take the time to give it a read.
I concur. I especially liked his points about defense. He points out that in 2010 Scheyer was the point guard on offense, but not on defense, and that this year none of our starters have yet shown a skill in pressuring the ball. Nolan's pressure on Marshall in the ACC title game last year was the key to Duke's success, and I think to beat UNC this year you need to take Marshall out of the offense. The question is whether Duke can do that.

[The Gordog]

Al Featherston weighs in:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=42865

Another very good article from Mr. Featherston. I recommend everyone take the time to give it a read.

Enjoyed Al's read on our PG situation. Particularly the part about Scheyer being 4/5 of a "true" PG.

Just one nit to pick at the very end: "Gerrymander" should be "Jerry-rig". Totally different concepts, might have been a spell checker created error.

[-jk]

Enjoyed Al's read on our PG situation. Particularly the part about Scheyer being 4/5 of a "true" PG.

Just one nit to pick at the very end: "Gerrymander" should be "Jerry-rig". Totally different concepts, might have been a spell checker created error.

Um... "Jury rig" ("Jerry" goes in "Jerry-built".)

Not to nit-pick, or anything...

-jk

[MChambers]

Um... "Jury rig" ("Jerry" goes in "Jerry-built".)

Not to nit-pick, or anything...

-jk
I thought it was "nitpick" (no hyphen).

[Jderf]

I thought it was "nitpick" (no hyphen).

The use and disuse of the hyphen in the word nitpick has long been the subject of scholarly debate. For preliminary readings on the topic, I would begin with either Thompson (1962) or any of various essays by Langford (1960; 1963; 1964a; 1964b). Or, for a decent conspectus of more contemporary viewpoints, see T.P. Arnold (2007).

[OldPhiKap]

The use and disuse of the hyphen in the word nitpick has long been the subject of scholarly debate. For preliminary readings on the topic, I would begin with either Thompson (1962) or any of various essays by Langford (1960; 1963; 1964a; 1964b). Or, for a decent conspectus of more contemporary viewpoints, see T.P. Arnold (2007).

I blame Gutenberg :mad:

[Josephd0]

but then I remembered a play from last night (Michigan). Thornton was bringing the ball up, Rivers was ahead on the break and he was calling for the ball on the right side. Thornton looked him off and cut towards the middle of the court drawing the defense towards him. He found Seth on the left side trailing the break for a three. Curry can sometimes make these plays, but Rivers hasn't shown an ability to create for his teammates, only for himself. I think mixing in Thornton and Cook could help us at times. Currently, Duke ranks 207th in assists per game with 12.3. Having someone in to distribute the ball might be a nice contrast to all the one on one from Rivers.

I think there was a stretch in the first half in the Michigan game where I thought we were having trouble running our offense. I'm not sure who we had in the game, but I think that maybe Cook would have been a good choice to insert there to help create shots for others. He can get in the lane like Rivers instead of someone like Dawkins who stands out by the three point line waiting for a pass. I do agree that Dawkins, Curry and Rivers deserve the most minutes, but Curry and Rivers are logging quite a bit right now. They can't keep that up all year long or else the talk will start about K's rotation. :)