PDA

View Full Version : MBB: Duke 87, Colorado State 64 Post-Game Thread



Bob Green
12-07-2011, 08:05 PM
Discuss the game here.

uh_no
12-07-2011, 08:07 PM
Shame andre got hurt. Hope he's back soon.

Mason very good again

despite holding them to a reasonable number of points, they broke us down off the dribble almost at will (it seemed) and it was only our ridiculous size advantage which stopped them from scoring more

after andre hit a couple threes, he started taking a few more ill advised ones


fine bounce back game, but hard to gather anything from a win against a team so overmatched

lotusland
12-07-2011, 08:15 PM
Shame andre got hurt. Hope he's back soon.

Mason very good again

despite holding them to a reasonable number of points, they broke us down off the dribble almost at will (it seemed) and it was only our ridiculous size advantage which stopped them from scoring more

after andre hit a couple threes, he started taking a few more ill advised ones


fine bounce back game, but hard to gather anything from a win against a team so overmatched

Mason and AR played well with the exception of Mason's awful free-throw shooting. Ryan and Seth had their second bad games in in a row. The rest of the team had good and bad moments.

uh_no
12-07-2011, 08:18 PM
Mason and AR played well with the exception of Mason's awful free-throw shooting. Ryan and Seth had their second bad games in in a row. The rest of the team had good and bad moments.

austin and mason have really taken over this team lately. They're really good, so that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think you're right, we do need more "auxiliary" production

FT shooting was horrid. I'm sure its being worked on.

MCFinARL
12-07-2011, 08:19 PM
Shame andre got hurt. Hope he's back soon.

Mason very good again

despite holding them to a reasonable number of points, they broke us down off the dribble almost at will (it seemed) and it was only our ridiculous size advantage which stopped them from scoring more

after andre hit a couple threes, he started taking a few more ill advised ones


fine bounce back game, but hard to gather anything from a win against a team so overmatched

Define "a few." He was 6-8 overall, 3-5 from three-point range. He did take one 3 where he was pretty well defended, which he missed. To be honest I don't remember the other shot he missed, but your statement makes it sound like he started jacking up wild shots all over the place--not the case.

CLW
12-07-2011, 08:20 PM
I still see our three biggest "problems" as:

(1) Defense getting beat off of the dribble;
(2) Poor Free Throw Shooting; and
(3) Not a strong rebounding team

None of these issues appears to have improved (at least to me). Colorado State's players drove the ball fairly easily, we continue to struggle from the free throw line (particularly MP2) and despite an ENORMOUS size advantage we only ended up +2 on the boards tonight (at least according to the ESPN box score).

Rivers is improving but is still clearly a work in progress. Dawkins looked good early but he tends to have a game like this and then follow it up with an egg. Hopefully, his injury isn't too serious and he can build off a strong performance tonight.

DukieInBrasil
12-07-2011, 08:22 PM
I thought it looked like we kept hustling til the end, which is good. I was concerned about the porousness of the D. That's kinda compensated for by the quick hands, we picked up a lot of steals, but it does worry me that, even after a week of intense focus on it, the D only seemed adequate.
It was great to see the non-red shirt players get lots of minutes, Gbinije was lowest with 9. Everybody who played scored.
Loved seeing Miles play so well, and Dawkins too til he got hurt. Hope it doesn't persist.
Liked seeing Austin pass more, still holds it a bit too long at times, but it's good to know he's looking.

uh_no
12-07-2011, 08:23 PM
Define "a few." He was 6-8 overall, 3-5 from three-point range. He did take one 3 where he was pretty well defended, which he missed. To be honest I don't remember the other shot he missed, but your statement makes it sound like he started jacking up wild shots all over the place--not the case.

no no....certainly not.

after he hit 2 in quick succession, he took one running at the top of the key, and then another one heavily guarded from the corner

I don't mean to say it defined his game, just that I feel like when andre gets hot, he sometimes gets a little quick to pull the trigger in situations in which it might not be advisable, which I think we saw for a short stretch after he hit a couple.

mapei
12-07-2011, 08:25 PM
Hmmmm, seems like few people watched tonight. (on edit: several people posted while mine was pending) FT shooting was a nightmare, as was the number of blocking calls. On some of those, I was thinking it's basically become illegal to stand on a basketball court if a guy with the ball decides to run into you.

Saratoga2
12-07-2011, 08:27 PM
Yes we had a size advantage and a talent advantage and were playing in front of the home crowd, so the score wasn't surprising. There were some takeaways that are worth noting.

1. Miles had a very good game on both offense and degense. While Mason is more fluid scoring and can block some, Miles actually didn't leave his feet and wasn't beaten as easily off the dribble. Maybe this game will help with Miles confidence and lead to more on Saturday.

2. Quinn showed himself to be excellent handling the ball and also played very sound and determined defense. Quinn is a strong option for the point guard spot.

3. Dawkins looked very good while in the game. Not just his shooting from the 3 point line but his effort getting to the rim and also making smart passes. Hope his back will recover soon. The team functioned best with him in the game.

4. With Alex not even getting a minute in this game, it appears clear that there is little intent to use him at all this year.

5. Michael got a few late minutes and is still a little raw but his size and athleticism is still a valuable commodity on this team. I trust he will continue to get minutes in the low risk games. That is probably not Washington on Saturday though.

6. Curry has quick hands and played good defense, although was not really impressive on offense.

Not so good.

1. Free throw shooting. Enough of the excuses, this team needs to improve right now or else will lose game at the FT line.
2. Kelly looked rusty as his passing was not up to his usual standards.

An interesting combination going forward would be Austin, Mason, Miles or Kelly, Quinn and Andre. I am not recommending this as a starting lineup necessarily, but as an effective lineup during the game.

weezie
12-07-2011, 08:31 PM
Sorry if this was discussed elsewhere but why was there tape on the right shoulders of the jerseys?

mapei
12-07-2011, 08:31 PM
I'm curious what other people think of Josh. To me he seems serviceable, but maybe not much more. But maybe that's an erroneous impression based on limited observation?

uh_no
12-07-2011, 08:32 PM
1. Free throw shooting. Enough of the excuses, this team needs to improve right now or else will lose game at the FT line.


What do you suggest? we bring out the whip and hit them in practice if they miss????


In all honesty, I would be shocked if they aren't shooting tons of free throws in practice....and that's the best you can do....

porsche5k
12-07-2011, 08:35 PM
I'm surprised at the lack of talk around Austin's game tonight. I thought he played very well and showed patience with the ball. I saw a lot of driving into traffic and dishing the ball to the guards around the perimeter.

lotusland
12-07-2011, 08:36 PM
I'm curious what other people think of Josh. To me he seems serviceable, but maybe not much more. But maybe that's an erroneous impression based on limited observation?

I agree but based on his limited showing tonight I wouldn't look for him on a break unless he is stationary and unguarded.

lotusland
12-07-2011, 08:38 PM
I'm surprised at the lack of talk around Austin's game tonight. I thought he played very well and showed patience with the ball. I saw a lot of driving into traffic and dishing the ball to the guards around the perimeter.

Yep he is getting better every game!

roywhite
12-07-2011, 08:40 PM
I'm curious what other people think of Josh. To me he seems serviceable, but maybe not much more. But maybe that's an erroneous impression based on limited observation?

Since you asked....ahhh, not so good.
Foul prone, seems to drop passes, bad looking FTs tonight (honestly don't know if this is a weakness or just missed a few tonight)
An in-between size but not big enough to be a post player or skilled enough to be a wing

Never know for sure, but don't see much playing time for him.
Sometimes guys in this position transfer, sometimes they like Duke a lot and stay and make a contribution in one or another.

Seems like a good guy and supportive teammate.

Just my .02

MCFinARL
12-07-2011, 08:40 PM
no no....certainly not.

after he hit 2 in quick succession, he took one running at the top of the key, and then another one heavily guarded from the corner

I don't mean to say it defined his game, just that I feel like when andre gets hot, he sometimes gets a little quick to pull the trigger in situations in which it might not be advisable, which I think we saw for a short stretch after he hit a couple.

Fair enough. Maybe part of being streaky is a little overconfidence when things are going well.

Saratoga2
12-07-2011, 08:41 PM
What do you suggest? we bring out the whip and hit them in practice if they miss????


In all honesty, I would be shocked if they aren't shooting tons of free throws in practice....and that's the best you can do....

I would get them to put some arc on the shot. Mason hasn't learned to do that consistently. As a result he hit 2 of 6. Hairston's shot was even flatter. I noted in the OSU game, that while Hairston hit 3 jump shots, his shot was extremely flat as well. Rivers did a little better, hitting 4 of 6 and his form is a little better. The best the coaches can do is to get these guys to alter their form to have a better chance of hitting their shots.

jipops
12-07-2011, 08:41 PM
Y

6. Curry has quick hands and played good defense, although was not really impressive on offense.



Other than not shooting well I thought Curry was very impressive on offense. Not sure how 8 assists is unimpressive. Also, give him credit for initiating just about every transition opportunity we had tonight. He had a bad shooting night, but he was still able to accomplish quite a bit on offense. And his poor shooting night didn't hurt his defensive intensity at all. That is the mark of a mature player.

uh_no
12-07-2011, 08:45 PM
I would get them to put some arc on the shot. Mason hasn't learned to do that consistently. As a result he hit 2 of 6. Hairston's shot was even flatter. I noted in the OSU game, that while Hairston hit 3 jump shots, his shot was extremely flat as well. Rivers did a little better, hitting 4 of 6 and his form is a little better. The best the coaches can do is to get these guys to alter their form to have a better chance of hitting their shots.

I understand....do you think coach K and his staff have no idea how to work with kids to get them to improve their form while foul shooting? or that they're not actively trying to improve it?

at some point its up to the athlete....and due to his considerable "experience" i'm willing to give K the benefit of the doubt that he (or someone) is actually working with guys to get them better

Saratoga2
12-07-2011, 08:48 PM
Other than not shooting well I thought Curry was very impressive on offense. Not sure how 8 assists is unimpressive. Also, give him credit for initiating just about every transition opportunity we had tonight. He had a bad shooting night, but he was still able to accomplish quite a bit on offense. And his poor shooting night didn't hurt his defensive intensity at all. That is the mark of a mature player.

I didn't mean to dis Seth's game, but a good part of it has been scoring, which he was unable to provide tonight. I thought Quinns handle and passing were exceptionally good tonight and his defense was also very sound. We have two guards who can play the point, with each one having their own strengths.

mapei
12-07-2011, 08:49 PM
I think Austin may be the most athletically impressive player we've had since JWill. Maybe Kyrie could have been that, but we hardly got a chance to see it. He's certainly not as good (at least not yet) as Jason, but he's exciting to watch.

CDu
12-07-2011, 08:54 PM
Other than not shooting well I thought Curry was very impressive on offense. Not sure how 8 assists is unimpressive. Also, give him credit for initiating just about every transition opportunity we had tonight. He had a bad shooting night, but he was still able to accomplish quite a bit on offense. And his poor shooting night didn't hurt his defensive intensity at all. That is the mark of a mature player.

I agree. I didn't feel that the offense ran substantially differently (at least not noticeably better for sure) with Cook in the game. In both cases, the offense was ultimately initiated by Curry or Rivers or the ball was dumped inside to a post player. Cook threw a nice alley-oop and had a nice assist off a rebound scramble. But he wasn't, in my opinion, any sort of upgrade over Curry. I felt the offense was at its best when we had Curry, Rivers, and Dawkins in there. Of course, that's in part because Dawkins was playing well tonight.

I thought Curry was terrific in every aspect other than shooting tonight. He was a defensive spark and he racked up the assists.

Our bigs scored easily against a tiny team. But Mason had a lot of trouble defending high ball screens. He either didn't hedge at all (allowing open jumpers) or he stepped out and then was beaten off the dribble. He had an otherwise nice game (again aside from FT%), but struggled in this area. A solid game from Miles. Quiet night for Kelly.

Dawkins was terrific when he was in there. Hopefully the back recovers quickly. I wonder about his availability on Saturday.

Rivers looked terrific at times (driving layups, 3s, setting up others), and like a freshman at other times (airball, turnovers on drives). I'll certainly take more of games like tonight, where he seemed more a part of the offense than a man on an island.

Gbinije got a minute or two in the first half and some late minutes. Again none from Murphy. Even with Dawkins missing the entire second half. Interesting. I think we're starting to get to a point where a redshirt is a possibility. We'll see how the rest of December goes.

roywhite
12-07-2011, 09:07 PM
I think Austin may be the most athletically impressive player we've had since JWill. Maybe Kyrie could have been that, but we hardly got a chance to see it. He's certainly not as good (at least not yet) as Jason, but he's exciting to watch.

I love some of the things that Austin can do, but for athletically impressive, I'd go with Mason Plumlee.
We haven't had many guys like Mason Plumlee.
He's a terrific run/jump athlete especially for a 6'10" guy.
With his length and jumping ability he is able to snag rebounds at an unusual height.
(Miles has some of the same run/jump ability but not the coordination or good hands that Mason has).

Trying to think of a big man we've had with the athletic ability Mason has.
Alaa was impressive, but Mason more so IMO.

Freethrw33
12-07-2011, 09:18 PM
I love some of the things that Austin can do, but for athletically impressive, I'd go with Mason Plumlee.
We haven't had many guys like Mason Plumlee.
He's a terrific run/jump athlete especially for a 6'10" guy.
With his length and jumping ability he is able to snag rebounds at an unusual height.
(Miles has some of the same run/jump ability but not the coordination or good hands that Mason has).

Trying to think of a big man we've had with the athletic ability Mason has.
Alaa was impressive, but Mason more so IMO.

The best athlete (though the definitions of what makes someone an "athlete" is debateable) since JWill in my opinion was Gerald Henderson

CDu
12-07-2011, 09:22 PM
I love some of the things that Austin can do, but for athletically impressive, I'd go with Mason Plumlee.
We haven't had many guys like Mason Plumlee.
He's a terrific run/jump athlete especially for a 6'10" guy.
With his length and jumping ability he is able to snag rebounds at an unusual height.
(Miles has some of the same run/jump ability but not the coordination or good hands that Mason has).

Trying to think of a big man we've had with the athletic ability Mason has.
Alaa was impressive, but Mason more so IMO.

In terms of athleticism, I'd say it's Miles. In terms of basketball-related gifts combined with athleticism, I'd say Mason (though I'm not sure he has "good" hands, but definitely better hands than Miles). I don't feel like Abdelnaby was anywhere near the athleticism of the Plumlees, though he was a terrific basketball player.

FellowTraveler
12-07-2011, 09:31 PM
no no....certainly not.

after he hit 2 in quick succession, he took one running at the top of the key, and then another one heavily guarded from the corner

I don't mean to say it defined his game, just that I feel like when andre gets hot, he sometimes gets a little quick to pull the trigger in situations in which it might not be advisable, which I think we saw for a short stretch after he hit a couple.

Boy, I just could not disagree with this more. First of all, any time a guy shoots 6 for 8, it's hard to question his shot selection.

Second, on the "running" three at the top of the key, Dawkins was moving left, curling around a screen from Miles (?), from whom he took a pass and immediately went up for a jumper; it appeared to be a set play, not Andre freelancing. The play was well-defended, but Dawkins went up straight, got the shot off cleanly, with natural follow-through and good balance. He missed, but not by much. When a 40% three-point shooter gets a shot in rhythm that he's able to release with good form, that's a *good* shot. Those are the kinds of shots I *want* Andre Dawkins -- and Seth Curry -- taking. And those are the shots he has to take if he's going to become a consistent scoring threat. It's a significantly better shot than half the shots Kyle Singler took last year -- and I don't say that as a shot at Singler.

I don't remember the other miss, but I didn't think there was anything noteworthy about it.

More broadly, to the idea that Dawkins has a tendency to force bad shots when he's playing well... I disagree strongly with that, too. His worst-shooting game of the year was probably the Michigan game, when he shot 5 of 12, including 4 of 9 threes. How many bad shots could he have forced while hitting 44% of his threes? How about last year? He basically had 3 bad nights shooting threes all year -- 1-8 on 3s against Fl St, 1-6 against St. Johnís, and 1-5 against VA Tech. When youíre a 40%+ three point shooter, and those are your worst shooting nights all year, you just arenít a guy whoís forcing a lot of bad three pointers.

People often talk about Dawkins as a ďstreakyĒ shooter, but he really isnít. The *volume* with which he shoots is pretty streaky, but not the *success.* His success rate is, to me, remarkably steady, which is a sign of someone who doesnít take many bad shots at all. (In my very first post (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?24732-Phase-V-2010-2011&p=484102#post484102) on these boards back in March, I noted that despite the conventional wisdom at the time that Dawkins hadnít been shooting well lately, he had hit half his threes in his last 5 games and 43 percent over his previous 10 -- he just wasnít taking many shots.)

Now, since Iíve gone over my daily ration of Dawkins defending, Iíll note that in the first half he had one of the most egregious failures to box out I can recall seeing in a long time. His man didnít end up getting the rebound, but I kind of wish he had to make the failure all the more obvious to him. If thereís one criticism of Dawkins that I think is most fair, and hardest to contest, itís that he should be more aggressive -- and smarter -- on the defensive boards.

CDu
12-07-2011, 09:46 PM
Second, on the "running" three at the top of the key, Dawkins was moving left, curling around a screen from Miles (?), from whom he took a pass and immediately went up for a jumper; it appeared to be a set play, not Andre freelancing. The play was well-defended, but Dawkins went up straight, got the shot off cleanly, with natural follow-through and good balance. He missed, but not by much. When a 40% three-point shooter gets a shot in rhythm that he's able to release with good form, that's a *good* shot. Those are the kinds of shots I *want* Andre Dawkins -- and Seth Curry -- taking. And those are the shots he has to take if he's going to become a consistent scoring threat. It's a significantly better shot than half the shots Kyle Singler took last year -- and I don't say that as a shot at Singler.

I agree. I felt like Dawkins played very much within his game. I specifically remember the curl attempt that missed, and thought, that's the "heat check" shot. But it wasn't forced. It was in rhythm and he got a clean release. It's a shot we saw Redick and Langdon take throughout their careers, and frankly it's a shot he's going to have to hit if he wants to jump from a purely secondary option to a go-to shooter. It just didn't go down that time (it did in the MSU game). I had no problem with Dawkins' shot selection tonight.


Now, since Iíve gone over my daily ration of Dawkins defending, Iíll note that in the first half he had one of the most egregious failures to box out I can recall seeing in a long time. His man didnít end up getting the rebound, but I kind of wish he had to make the failure all the more obvious to him. If thereís one criticism of Dawkins that I think is most fair, and hardest to contest, itís that he should be more aggressive -- and smarter -- on the defensive boards.

I'll add one more. After the breakaway dunk, Dawkins got a little too excited and tried to make another steal. That's fine - I like aggressive play. Unfortunately, when he missed, he then failed to recover position and let his man beat him the link of the court. This resulted in a layup on the other end. If you're going to try to make a play 75 feet from the rim, you have time to recover and slow your man down. You just have to put in the effort.

Aside from that though, I thought he played really really well tonight.

loldevilz
12-07-2011, 09:54 PM
Its seems like there is a lot of arguing over the offense. We scored 87 points. I'd say that shows both Curry and Cook ran it well enough. Curry had 7? assists tonight which is a good sign. Cook was fine as usual. I'm not sure that he really brings that much more than Curry. At this point he isn't a break-you-down off the dribble type guy. His one plus is that he feeds the bigs a bit more than Curry does. Perhaps in this game that paid off with both Mason and Miles having nice nights.

The defense on the other hand continues to be a real issue. There were nice periods when we caused some turnovers which gave us a lead but it seemed like the rest of the time we were playing even. CSU also seemed like they got a lot of layups on the other end and more than a few open threes. The only plus on defense to me was that Coach K is giving Hairston and Miles some pt together off the bench. Maybe I'm just being biased but they look to me way more tough on defense than Mason and Kelly who just let people get to the rim. Even when they do get beat like Hairston did that one time, he isn't afraid to body up and make them pay for trying to get a layup.

GO DUKE!

rsvman
12-07-2011, 10:00 PM
I would get them to put some arc on the shot. Mason hasn't learned to do that consistently. As a result he hit 2 of 6. Hairston's shot was even flatter. I noted in the OSU game, that while Hairston hit 3 jump shots, his shot was extremely flat as well. Rivers did a little better, hitting 4 of 6 and his form is a little better. The best the coaches can do is to get these guys to alter their form to have a better chance of hitting their shots.

While I agree that some players need to alter their form a little (specifically, Hairston's shot is WAY too flat), I believe that Mason's problem is between his ears. His form looks fine. He has decent touch elsewhere on the floor. I think he misses free throws because he thinks he will miss free throws.

If I were an assistant coach, I would hire a sports psychologist to help him with his free throw shooting. There are other things that have actually been scientifically proven to improve free throw shooting; one is watching a good free throw shooter for long periods of time. Another is doing visualization; even 10-15 minutes a day of strong visualization of yourself standing at the line making free throw after free throw improves free throw shooting.

In short, I think it is really time to look BEYOND mechanics for Mason.

Fuqua's Finest
12-07-2011, 10:03 PM
1. In regard to Andre tonite, I've been down this road before. He gets me super excited when he's into the game and visibly having fun out there. Stroking his sweet J and driving the lane for an occasional dunk. I tell myself, hey I think he's turned the corner. Only to watch the next 2-3 games in a row where he gets into early foul trouble and just mentally isn't there. Basically, all I am saying is Dre needs to show me some consistency for at least a 4 game stretch for me to venture into LALA land again. It was nice to see him having fun out there though.

2. Count me in the crowd that hopes Silent G gets more minutes. I know I will probably get scolded for saying this, but he is by far our best on-ball defender. He rarely lets anyone get by him. It's nice to see his Defense wayyy ahead of his Offense at this point. His Offense is obviously there and he will have more opportunities to show that once some of the older guys trickle out.

Newton_14
12-07-2011, 10:05 PM
Other than not shooting well I thought Curry was very impressive on offense. Not sure how 8 assists is unimpressive. Also, give him credit for initiating just about every transition opportunity we had tonight. He had a bad shooting night, but he was still able to accomplish quite a bit on offense. And his poor shooting night didn't hurt his defensive intensity at all. That is the mark of a mature player.

Good post Jipops. You pretty much verbatim quoted what Coach Capel said after the game regarding Seth's play tonight. Did not shoot it well, but was great at everything else.

Coach K stated on the the daily DBR this morning that the key thing the staff worked on during the practice time this week was to improve the perimeter defense, and specifically applying better on ball pressure on the opposing team's PG. He said the perimeter defense against OSU was bad and much work was needed. Interesting that all of the pregame rumors about Quinn starting were wrong and it was Tyler that got the starting nod. We picked up full court the entire night to the very end. The perimeter defense is very much a work in progress and something that will take a lot of work and time. It seems some feel one week of practice would magically fix that problem and expected the guys to run out there tonight and be great on ball defenders. It's not that simple. They had their ups and downs but played with good energy on defense most of the time forcing some steals and turnovers. Baby steps.

The other think K mentioned they worked on was trying to be more up tempo on offense. They did that at times tonight pushing the ball ahead with the pass and had moderate success. That is something I hope they can build on as well. Catching defenses napping and generating easy baskets will be helpful.

K put a few new wrinkles in the offense and it seemed to have a good effect. The guys had 21 assists on 31 made baskets which is really good. They shared the ball really well with several connecting plays. The bigs had another good outing especially Mason and Miles. Mason with another double/double and Miles with 14 points and 5 boards. Mason also had a few blocks, steals, and assists. He is turning into a really good player scoring in a variety of ways. If he could just get better at the line... still leaving points there. Ryan did not score the ball well, but played pretty solid. Josh got good minutes, and had the killer baseline dunk. That was sweet. Overall the play of our bigs as a whole is a strength on this team. Opponents will have to respect that which will help open up things a bit on the perimeter.

A solid win and a step in the right direction coming off the bad loss.

Concerning Andre, he tweaked the back before the play in the corner and you could tell it was bothering him long before he went down. They checked him out a couple of times but he was able to play through it until the corner play. He did not warm up with the team at halftime but came out with the trainer just before the half started. It appeared the trainer gave Coach Collins an update on his condition, and Collins immediately sent Andre back to the locker room for treatment. He is having back spasms and said it would be a day to day thing. Capel said had it been a tight game, they would have tried him in the 2nd half, but since it wasn't they decided to be cautious and just give him the rest of the night off.

Billy Dat
12-07-2011, 10:08 PM
Thanks to an opportunity to schedule a Raleigh-based meeting today, I was able to attend my first game in Cameron in 17 years. It was great to be back.

It's a lot different watching a game live from the floor level (I bought one of the bleacher seats that went on sale last week).

I noticed that the students didn't do the "O!" part of the Star Spangled Banner - did K ask that to cease some time back? It is the 70th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor, and, at halftime, they brought out a veteran who was in Hawaii that day to a rousing ovation.

It was so great to be back that objectively reviewing the game feels impossible. I will say that Colorado State's big man Smith seemed like a real player. Also, it seems that Kelly isn't getting the ball where he can go to work. In the last 5 minutes of the first half, K sprang off the bench several times in seaming anger at our not setting up halfcourt. He seemed pissed at a few of Austin's 3s and our push to run. Who knows, maybe they were calling sets and they weren't being run. In the post-game presser, he said the penetration was due to the priority being to shut down their 3s, which was their strength coming in. Let's see how we do Saturday against Washington's speed.

I was also expecting we'd see Murphy. Guess not.

Bob Green
12-07-2011, 10:13 PM
Its seems like there is a lot of arguing over the offense. We scored 87 points.

I can't argue with your point.


The defense on the other hand continues to be a real issue.

Seeing as Colorado State scored only 64 points, what's your point?

sagegrouse
12-07-2011, 10:15 PM
The team was pumped, which showed in the energy from beginning to end, the poor conversion of FTs, and some bricks from 3pt land in the second half.

Austin is playing very well. Not only can he nreak down anyone guarding him, but did you also notice the blind over-the-shoulder pass on the break and the feed to Ryan for a dunk?

Mason is playing far better and more aggressively than he ever has. He is a very exciting player. Better so far than either Henson or Zeller.

Dre was an inspiration in the first half. I got no complaints about his play -- I just hope he's OK.

Our defense was excellent. Colorado State is the leading 3-pt shooting team in the country. The Rams only got 11 shots from there. Not an accident, I think.

sage

superdave
12-07-2011, 11:05 PM
Since you asked....ahhh, not so good.
Foul prone, seems to drop passes, bad looking FTs tonight (honestly don't know if this is a weakness or just missed a few tonight)
An in-between size but not big enough to be a post player or skilled enough to be a wing

Never know for sure, but don't see much playing time for him.
Sometimes guys in this position transfer, sometimes they like Duke a lot and stay and make a contribution in one or another.

Seems like a good guy and supportive teammate.

Just my .02

I disagree with this. I can see Josh grabbing Miles' 15-18 minutes next year. Josh is getting enough time this year to remain hungry and figure out what he needs to do to improve his game. He has bulked up some, has a nice looking jumper and busts his tail out there. He'll be earning rotation minutes next year, and occasionally some crunch time minutes I think. Could be a more physical, but less versatile, version of Lance Thomas.

Kedsy
12-07-2011, 11:25 PM
Shows what we know. We were all talking about Quinn starting over Andre or not. And then Coach K (after giving us the hint that perimeter defense is his number one priority) fools us all and starts Tyler.

It's ironic that on a night that Seth is moved from the starting PG spot he gets 8 assists against 1 turnover and on a night that Andre is pushed from the starting lineup he plays one of the best halves of his career. Hopefully, Andre's back spasms won't be an issue moving forward.

Not too much we can glean from playing such a small and overmatched opponent. Mason, Miles, Ryan, and even Josh (when he held on to the ball) completely had their way on offense. And regarding our defense, it's hard to keep focus when you're obviously going to win by 20+.

Personally, I thought the offense looked a lot worse with Tyler at the point than anybody else. Tyler is a fun energy defender who has great anticipation and help defense but doesn't stay in front of his man so well. His defense is great in short spurts but in my mind is not good enough to justify the drain he places on offense. I'll be very surprised if he keeps the starting PG job for more than a few games. Quinn looks a lot smoother with the ball, but I was not impressed with his performance overall tonight. I will say that Quinn works well with Austin and also with Andre. I'm thinking for now his best use would be as a sub for Seth for around 10 minutes a game. Based on what we've seen so far (and assuming Andre gets healthy quickly), I think our original starting perimeter of Seth/Austin/Andre is still our most effective trio.


Ryan and Seth had their second bad games in in a row.

I thought Seth rushed his outside shots but was otherwise outstanding. By far his best passing game of the year and he was strong on defense.

Other than a couple turnovers, I also thought Ryan played very well. Eight points in 21 minutes (.381 points per minute) is really not that much different than his season average of .474 points per minute. To put it into perspective, if he'd hit the two free throws he missed, he would have hit his season point per minute average exactly. I don't see how you say he had a poor game.


Count me in the crowd that hopes Silent G gets more minutes. I know I will probably get scolded for saying this, but he is by far our best on-ball defender. He rarely lets anyone get by him. It's nice to see his Defense wayyy ahead of his Offense at this point.

Not sure what you've been watching, but to me Mike seems behind the curve at this point. I can't see how you can say he's "by far our best on-ball defender."


His Offense is obviously there and he will have more opportunities to show that once some of the older guys trickle out.

This is an even odder statement. What do you mean by "some of the older guys trickle out"? What have you seen that makes you think Mike's "offense is obviously there"?

Based on what we've seen so far, I'll be surprised if Mike averages more than five minutes a game for the rest of the season.

Kedsy
12-07-2011, 11:28 PM
Could be a more physical, but less versatile, version of Lance Thomas.

I like Josh's enthusiasm and energy. But his defense will have to improve immensely before we can start comparing him to Lance. Josh just doesn't have very good lateral mobility at this point. As an undersized PF, that's potentially a barrier to increased minutes.

uh_no
12-07-2011, 11:46 PM
Could be a more physical, but less versatile, version of Lance Thomas.

I was thinking a less physical, but more versatile, version of Shaq :P

magjayran
12-08-2011, 12:24 AM
First of all, Josh's dunk was my third favorite moment of the year just behind K getting the wins record and a couple of Tyler Thornton threes in Maui. I absolutely loved the reaction from the rest of the team too.

Second, Mason and Miles were supposed to dominate tonight and they did. I thought Ryan would have his way too and I'm surprised he didn't.

Third, Austin appeared to take a big leap forward in the decision making department tonight. I'm liking this kid's game more and more. I just wish he appeared to enjoy the game of basketball more. Oh well, I know he's a good kid.

throatybeard
12-08-2011, 12:44 AM
In terms of athleticism, I'd say it's Miles. In terms of basketball-related gifts combined with athleticism, I'd say Mason (though I'm not sure he has "good" hands, but definitely better hands than Miles). I don't feel like Abdelnaby was anywhere near the athleticism of the Plumlees, though he was a terrific basketball player.

It's a good day in my life when Alaa Abdelnaby gets even a peripheral shout-out.

You know whole I loved even more on those teams? Brickey. Well duh. But you know I also liked and no one talks about him? John Smith. He put the oove in smoove foul shots.

gam7
12-08-2011, 12:47 AM
Three comments:

1. There seems to be a lot of concern about the defense tonight. In my view, it accomplished what it was intended to accomplish tonight. A defense usually can't take away everything from an opponent in a given game. Coming into the game, CSU had a glaring strength - its 3-point shooting. As a team, they averaged 46% from 3. It appeared to me as though our game plan was to pressure the perimeter, even if meant getting beat off the dribble and force CSU to hit mid-range shots or take it into the teeth or our super-sized front line. CSU took only 11 3s (about 4 less than their average), hitting only 4 for 36%. I think our defense accomplished its primary goal tonight.

2. With respect to Murphy: I too am starting to believe he will be redshirted, but I think his lack of action tonight is more an indication that he will not be playing against Washington than it is that he'll be redshirted.

3. I agree with Traveler re: Dawkins. Very good post. If the system would have let me give you official props, I would have.

CameronBlue
12-08-2011, 01:47 AM
It's a good day in my life when Alaa Abdelnaby gets even a peripheral shout-out.

You know whole I loved even more on those teams? Brickey. Well duh. But you know I also liked and no one talks about him? John Smith. He put the oove in smoove foul shots.

After the 86 class graduated many assumed Duke would struggle to find its points. While he was not called upon to score his freshman season everyone knew Ferry was the real deal and could be relied upon for 15 to 18 points a night. After Ferry, Strickland and Amaker were the likely choices to fill the scoring vacuum created by the departures of Dawkins, Alarie, Henderson and Bilas....but the 87 team's offensive capabilities were presumed to be meager in comparison. The surprise that season turned out to be Smith who ended the year as the team's 3rd leading scorer behind Ferry and Amaker. He was a solid contributor who played within himself and made good decisions exemplified by his .576 shooting percentage, the only starter who shot above .500 for the year. He gave Duke a badly needed inside presence and started 30 of 32 games at center, though only 6'7", and had a terrific intermediate range faceup jumper. It was Ferry's team to be sure, but I think John helped preserve a lot of the program's momentum generated by the 86 team. IMO he got a bit of a raw deal when he was relegated to 6th man at the start of the 87-88 season, his numbers fell off as a result. The quiet and reliable guys tend to be my favorite players and so I followed Smith's numbers a little more closely than those of the other members of 86 recruiting class, Ferry and Snyder. A lot of similarities between Carrawell and Smith IMO.

Greg_Newton
12-08-2011, 02:41 AM
I like Josh's enthusiasm and energy. But his defense will have to improve immensely before we can start comparing him to Lance. Josh just doesn't have very good lateral mobility at this point. As an undersized PF, that's potentially a barrier to increased minutes.

Not to mention he doesn't really have the standing reach or vert to disrupt shots from longer PFs; we've seen some simply shoot over him this year.

I do think the effort and emotion is similar though. He's such a good kid and wants to be good so badly... I just wish he were 6'9 instead of 6'7. Then all would be well in Duke world going forward.

MCFinARL
12-08-2011, 07:19 AM
I agree. I felt like Dawkins played very much within his game. I specifically remember the curl attempt that missed, and thought, that's the "heat check" shot. But it wasn't forced. It was in rhythm and he got a clean release. It's a shot we saw Redick and Langdon take throughout their careers, and frankly it's a shot he's going to have to hit if he wants to jump from a purely secondary option to a go-to shooter. It just didn't go down that time (it did in the MSU game). I had no problem with Dawkins' shot selection tonight.



I'll add one more. After the breakaway dunk, Dawkins got a little too excited and tried to make another steal. That's fine - I like aggressive play. Unfortunately, when he missed, he then failed to recover position and let his man beat him the link of the court. This resulted in a layup on the other end. If you're going to try to make a play 75 feet from the rim, you have time to recover and slow your man down. You just have to put in the effort.

Aside from that though, I thought he played really really well tonight.

Agree with this except, IIRC, Dawkins slipped and fell when trying to recover position. So I'm not sure the problem was lack of effort.

I wonder, in fact, if this was when Dawkins first tweaked his back--the fall was a bit awkward and could have had that result.

CDu
12-08-2011, 07:39 AM
Agree with this except, IIRC, Dawkins slipped and fell when trying to recover position. So I'm not sure the problem was lack of effort.

I wonder, in fact, if this was when Dawkins first tweaked his back--the fall was a bit awkward and could have had that result.

He slipped on the steal attempt, and that's what cost him the first step or so. So he still had plenty of time to get back. It looked like he just kept reaching in on the way back trying to tap out a steal from behind rather than really booking it and getting back in front of his man. Now, it may be that this is when he tweaked the back. If so, I'd give him a pass. If not, then I stick by the statement that he had time to recover on the play.

Again, that's a single incident in an otherwise really good half of basketball from him, though.

stillcrazie
12-08-2011, 08:11 AM
http://www.dukeblueplanet.com/

The DBP guys are working overtime. There's already a Top Plays video up from last night. Marshall is fine tuning his interviewing skills. See also the Hawaii 5-0 video for more highlights from the Maui Invitational.

superdave
12-08-2011, 08:24 AM
The official GoDuke.com box score has us knotted with Colorado State at 34 rebounds a piece. They also had 13 offensive rebounds.

We forced them into 15 turnovers and blocked 9 of theirs shots, but we should have out-rebounded them by ten or so. I know a lot of their boards came on long, long rebounds, but that just means they beat us to essentially a loose ball. This needs to improve!

COYS
12-08-2011, 08:54 AM
The official GoDuke.com box score has us knotted with Colorado State at 34 rebounds a piece. They also had 13 offensive rebounds.

We forced them into 15 turnovers and blocked 9 of theirs shots, but we should have out-rebounded them by ten or so. I know a lot of their boards came on long, long rebounds, but that just means they beat us to essentially a loose ball. This needs to improve!

I agree that rebounding needs to be a strength of this team. However, almost ALL of their offensive boards were long rebounds off of missed jumpers from range (some were threes, some were long twos). One of those rebounds came off an almost airball where Miles had perfect position, but anticipated a bounce off the rim (which is logical). A lot of the others were retrieved by Rams players who were being blocked out. Our guards can and should do a better job boxing out, but they were also doing a good job leaking out for outlet passes so we could push the ball. I thought we did a good job pushing the ball when the long rebounds fell to us, which led to some scores against a CSU defense that was not yet set. In addition, we won the turnover battle and got more points in transition off of turnovers than we have at any other point this season. The vast majority of our turnovers were either charges or bad passes into the post (3 of which were from Ryan, which is rare for someone who usually is great at protecting the ball) and so did not lead to easy buckets for the other team. I think that if we can continue to win the points off turnovers battle this decisively and create easy buckets in transition, it makes it easy to absorb a 1-1 rebound ratio . . . especially if most of their rebounds are on long rebounds and aren't leading to easy put-backs, which was the case last night.

COYS
12-08-2011, 09:01 AM
Three comments:

1. There seems to be a lot of concern about the defense tonight. In my view, it accomplished what it was intended to accomplish tonight. A defense usually can't take away everything from an opponent in a given game. Coming into the game, CSU had a glaring strength - its 3-point shooting. As a team, they averaged 46% from 3. It appeared to me as though our game plan was to pressure the perimeter, even if meant getting beat off the dribble and force CSU to hit mid-range shots or take it into the teeth or our super-sized front line. CSU took only 11 3s (about 4 less than their average), hitting only 4 for 36%. I think our defense accomplished its primary goal tonight.


This is a good analysis. We did a great job chasing them off of the three point line.

However, I think there was still plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the team is still struggling to defend ball screens. Unlike against OSU, there weren't as many baseline or interior screens, but our handling of perimeter screens still needs some work. I actually thought Miles, Mason, and Ryan were more to blame this time, though. Their hedges seemed to be either a step slow, allowing the perimeter player to turn the corner against them, non-existent, or over-exuberant, allowing the ball-handler to split our two defenders. In 1-1 situations, our guards acquitted themselves well. My impression from the first half of the game was that Austin and Seth both did a particularly good job staying in front of their man. However, anytime a screen was involved it turned into a mismatch between one of our bigs and one of their guards as our forwards could never seem to contain the ball-handler long enough for our perimeter defender to recover after the screen.

UrinalCake
12-08-2011, 09:15 AM
Since you asked....ahhh, not so good.
Foul prone, seems to drop passes, bad looking FTs tonight (honestly don't know if this is a weakness or just missed a few tonight)
An in-between size but not big enough to be a post player or skilled enough to be a wing

Never know for sure, but don't see much playing time for him.
Sometimes guys in this position transfer, sometimes they like Duke a lot and stay and make a contribution in one or another.

Seems like a good guy and supportive teammate.

Just my .02

I'm a little more optimistic about Josh. He's shown a decent midrange shot in the past and does a lot of the little things. Won't ever be a star but can provide more than just mop-up minutes. And that slam was pretty awesome.

The announcers made a great point that all of the bench players came in with great energy and were excited to get into the game after the long layoff. I think our bench can be a real strength over the course of the season as we have several players who feel they deserve playing time and want to show their stuff. Maybe a silver lining in the OSU thrashing was the extended playing time given to Cook, Gbinije, and Josh that seems to have increased their confidence.

superdave
12-08-2011, 09:18 AM
I agree that rebounding needs to be a strength of this team. However, almost ALL of their offensive boards were long rebounds off of missed jumpers from range (some were threes, some were long twos). One of those rebounds came off an almost airball where Miles had perfect position, but anticipated a bounce off the rim (which is logical). A lot of the others were retrieved by Rams players who were being blocked out. Our guards can and should do a better job boxing out, but they were also doing a good job leaking out for outlet passes so we could push the ball. I thought we did a good job pushing the ball when the long rebounds fell to us, which led to some scores against a CSU defense that was not yet set. In addition, we won the turnover battle and got more points in transition off of turnovers than we have at any other point this season. The vast majority of our turnovers were either charges or bad passes into the post (3 of which were from Ryan, which is rare for someone who usually is great at protecting the ball) and so did not lead to easy buckets for the other team. I think that if we can continue to win the points off turnovers battle this decisively and create easy buckets in transition, it makes it easy to absorb a 1-1 rebound ratio . . . especially if most of their rebounds are on long rebounds and aren't leading to easy put-backs, which was the case last night.


This is a good analysis. We did a great job chasing them off of the three point line.

However, I think there was still plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the team is still struggling to defend ball screens. Unlike against OSU, there weren't as many baseline or interior screens, but our handling of perimeter screens still needs some work. I actually thought Miles, Mason, and Ryan were more to blame this time, though. Their hedges seemed to be either a step slow, allowing the perimeter player to turn the corner against them, non-existent, or over-exuberant, allowing the ball-handler to split our two defenders. In 1-1 situations, our guards acquitted themselves well. My impression from the first half of the game was that Austin and Seth both did a particularly good job staying in front of their man. However, anytime a screen was involved it turned into a mismatch between one of our bigs and one of their guards as our forwards could never seem to contain the ball-handler long enough for our perimeter defender to recover after the screen.


This is a good discussion to have. If you pack it in to control the boards, you sacrifice your transition offense. If you want to run, you are going to give up some long offensive rebounds. If you over-play passing lanes, you are going to get beat on the backdoor cut occasionally. And so forth, and so on.

It will be interesting to see what tradeoffs we settle on this year because I think that is in flux right now. In 2010 and 2011 we used our size and frontcourt depth to be a really solid rebounding team. Plus Nolan was an exceptional on ball defender, so you could also get the one-man fast break a few times per game.

This year, I think we have enough guards in our rotation - Seth, Austin, Tyler and Quinn, plus Andre and even Mike - to do the full-court D thing. We've seen a soft 1-3-1 and I believe last night a soft 1-2-2 with a trap here and there. I saw our guys pick up full-court man last night a few times as well. I do think we will and should see this going forward, for at least parts of games. I'd like to see us use some full-court D at the start of most games and at any point in the game where our opponent is making a run. I think it's a good curveball and it brings energy. If that causes us to break even on the boards while forcing turnovers and increasing our blocks, fine by me.

I am not so sure these guys are skilled enough defenders to play the half-court deliberate ballgame that brought us a 2010 title. I'd be very interested to hear what others think on that issue.

Reilly
12-08-2011, 09:31 AM
I'm a little more optimistic about Josh. He's shown a decent midrange shot in the past and does a lot of the little things. Won't ever be a star but can provide more than just mop-up minutes. And that slam was pretty awesome....

Josh reminds me of John Smith and I think he can contribute somewhat similarly down the road.

John Smith: 6-7, 225 lbs, 18 games as a frosh, 5.1 mins/game, 1.9 ppg, 1.4 reb
Josh: 6-7, 235 lbs, 27 games as a frosh, 6.1 mins/game, 1.4 ppg, 1.2 reb

In his last three years, "Onion" (wasn't that his nickname?) played in 32, 34 and 36 games ... averaged 11.9, 8.1 and 7.0 ppg ... and averaged 22, 16 and 20 mins/game

Of course, 2011-12 Duke does not need Josh to step up the way that 1986-87 needed Smith ... but I could see somewhat similar production down the road.

COYS
12-08-2011, 09:31 AM
It will be interesting to see what tradeoffs we settle on this year because I think that is in flux right now. In 2010 and 2011 we used our size and frontcourt depth to be a really solid rebounding team. Plus Nolan was an exceptional on ball defender, so you could also get the one-man fast break a few times per game.



I think this is spot on. I also think this is the question the staff is trying to figure out. When the 2010 season started, we were going to be a tough defensive team with some added scoring in the post fueled by Miles and the newcomer Mason who was supposed to inject some much needed athleticism into our post rotation. Instead, the staff figured out that the defensive discipline and rebounding of Lance and Zoubs were invaluable and our look changed entirely. I don't think the staff has completely figured out how our players talents will work best yet (which is in large part because everyone on the team is still developing). It doesn't seem like we have a team that would be particularly good with a containing defense. Between Seth, Austin, Andre, Tyler, and Quinn we definitely have the horses to apply pressure all game long. This will lead to layups for the other team, but if we offset that enough with steals, fast break points, and good defense of the three point line, that might not be so bad. That of course was the logic behind the 2001 small-ball lineup. The thing I worry about with this approach is that we don't have anyone as adept at perimeter defense as Duhon or Williams nor do we have Battier as a help defender when the guards are beaten. We might have the depth to pressure, but will Quinn, Seth, Tyler, and Austin be able to disrupt good point guards enough to force enough turnovers to justify the other things we give up? It will be interesting to watch. If we can solve the puzzle on the defensive side of the ball, this team has championship talent. The increase in transition buckets will even help our already strong offense.

dcar1985
12-08-2011, 09:35 AM
Not sure what you've been watching, but to me Mike seems behind the curve at this point. I can't see how you can say he's "by far our best on-ball defender."

He has been solid on D all year so far in his limited minutes...Its kind of a stretch to say he's our best on ball defender but I definitely think he has the potential to be...you've jumped on anyone who's said anything positive about Mike this year. I don't see how he seems behind the curve besides the fact that he's not seeing alot of quality minutes save the OSU game and he played pretty good D on Buford in the 2nd half. I think hard to say much of his offense right now
with him playing limited minutes....its damn near impossible to get into any kind of rhythm.

elvis14
12-08-2011, 09:38 AM
http://www.dukeblueplanet.com/

The DBP guys are working overtime. There's already a Top Plays video up from last night. Marshall is fine tuning his interviewing skills. See also the Hawaii 5-0 video for more highlights from the Maui Invitational.

The Top Plays video was fun to watch. Whoot Whoot Get off the tracks when the train's coming through! Hilarious. Can't wait to see Marshall put a helmet on Mason before Saturday's game.

COYS
12-08-2011, 09:48 AM
He has been solid on D all year so far in his limited minutes...Its kind of a stretch to say he's our best on ball defender but I definitely think he has the potential to be...you've jumped on anyone who's said anything positive about Mike this year. I don't see how he seems behind the curve besides the fact that he's not seeing alot of quality minutes save the OSU game and he played pretty good D on Buford in the 2nd half. I think hard to say much of his offense right now
with him playing limited minutes....its damn near impossible to get into any kind of rhythm.

He missed a few assignments on D last night although he also made a few positive plays, as well. Andre is far from an elite defender and it is certainly possible that Mike will become one. However, he is definitely not one now and, to my eyes, is probably only incrementally better (if at all better) than Andre. I think we need to give Mike a chance to develop. Lance Thomas became an elite defender. Kyle Singler became an elite defender. Nolan Smith, with his defensive ability, took a while to get to the point where he could play a whole game of consistent defense. Kyrie Irving, with all his quickness, was not yet an elite defender at this point of the season last year. Mike has got lots of talent. The fact that he's playing in most of the games shows that he's working hard in practice and the staff likes what it sees from him. However, at this point I don't think he's anywhere near consistent enough to even say he's one of our best defenders, much less good enough to supplant Andre in the lineup. Maybe he starts to show some more consistency and earns some major minutes. But I just don't see that happening just yet.

dcar1985
12-08-2011, 10:15 AM
He missed a few assignments on D last night although he also made a few positive plays, as well. Andre is far from an elite defender and it is certainly possible that Mike will become one. However, he is definitely not one now and, to my eyes, is probably only incrementally better (if at all better) than Andre. I think we need to give Mike a chance to develop. Lance Thomas became an elite defender. Kyle Singler became an elite defender. Nolan Smith, with his defensive ability, took a while to get to the point where he could play a whole game of consistent defense. Kyrie Irving, with all his quickness, was not yet an elite defender at this point of the season last year. Mike has got lots of talent. The fact that he's playing in most of the games shows that he's working hard in practice and the staff likes what it sees from him. However, at this point I don't think he's anywhere near consistent enough to even say he's one of our best defenders, much less good enough to supplant Andre in the lineup. Maybe he starts to show some more consistency and earns some major minutes. But I just don't see that happening just yet.

I agree w/ everything you said...he has to continue to work his butt off in practice to earn those minutes...its hard to show consistency in spot minutes.

Kedsy
12-08-2011, 10:30 AM
...you've jumped on anyone who's said anything positive about Mike this year.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think I've jumped on anyone who's said anything positive about Mike. I think I've jumped on people who are making hyperbolic statements about Mike (like "he's by far our best on-ball defender"; or "he's our best option at the 3," "he should be playing 20+ minutes a game"). People on these boards always pump up freshmen with no experience and attribute the qualities to them that they hope they have, usually without any evidence that they in fact have those qualities. Every year some people are so sure our freshmen will start and our veterans will take a back seat, but it hardly ever works out that way (outside of top 5 talents like Kyle, Kyrie, and Austin).

Mostly I'm just asking for realism. I'm looking forward to Mike (and Quinn and Alex and Marshall) being a big contributor to the team in the coming years. I think Mike has the tools and the talent. I just haven't seen anything to justify the hyperbole.


I don't see how he seems behind the curve besides the fact that he's not seeing alot of quality minutes save the OSU game and he played pretty good D on Buford in the 2nd half. I think hard to say much of his offense right now with him playing limited minutes....its damn near impossible to get into any kind of rhythm.

This is exactly my point. It's hard to say much about any part of Mike's game based on his limited, mostly garbage time, minutes. I think he's behind the curve both because he doesn't see much playing time and also because he looks a little lost out there much of the time when he does play. That will change with experience. I'd be surprised if it changed for the Washington game.

Jderf
12-08-2011, 10:38 AM
Not sure what you've been watching, but to me Mike seems behind the curve at this point. I can't see how you can say he's "by far our best on-ball defender."

This is an even odder statement. What do you mean by "some of the older guys trickle out"? What have you seen that makes you think Mike's "offense is obviously there"?

Based on what we've seen so far, I'll be surprised if Mike averages more than five minutes a game for the rest of the season.

Just like the old saying: "The grass is always greener on the bench."

Fuqua's Finest
12-08-2011, 10:53 AM
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think I've jumped on anyone who's said anything positive about Mike. I think I've jumped on people who are making hyperbolic statements about Mike (like "he's by far our best on-ball defender"; or "he's our best option at the 3," "he should be playing 20+ minutes a game"). People on these boards always pump up freshmen with no experience and attribute the qualities to them that they hope they have, usually without any evidence that they in fact have those qualities. Every year some people are so sure our freshmen will start and our veterans will take a back seat, but it hardly ever works out that way (outside of top 5 talents like Kyle, Kyrie, and Austin).

Mostly I'm just asking for realism. I'm looking forward to Mike (and Quinn and Alex and Marshall) being a big contributor to the team in the coming years. I think Mike has the tools and the talent. I just haven't seen anything to justify the hyperbole.



This is exactly my point. It's hard to say much about any part of Mike's game based on his limited, mostly garbage time, minutes. I think he's behind the curve both because he doesn't see much playing time and also because he looks a little lost out there much of the time when he does play. That will change with experience. I'd be surprised if it changed for the Washington game.

Fair enough, so I'll rephrase the initial point. I believe Mike G will be our best on-ball defender on the team this season and future seasons. He's obviously not getting the minutes now, but I think in limited minutes he has shown the most amount of natural ability defending on the perimeter. Natural ability in the sense to be able to laterally move with quicker guards/forwards. I don't think anyone else on the team at this point has his natural lateral quickness. He is very raw. We all see that especially offensively. He has been beaten at times and missed assignments (He's a Freshman. It's expected). But if you truly take an "realistic" view of the minutes he's played (particularly vs. OSU and last night), I think its hard to argue he's not. Would I rather him start at the 3 over Andre. No, because Andre possesses a certain firepower from the offensive end that Mike doesn't have at this point. I would like to see his minutes increase to be Andre's first sub. But I know with the current group of "veteran players" and no true PG (perhaps Quinn down the road), we need as many ballhandlers on the floor as possible and that isn't Mike's forte. So on this one we can agree to disagree and I'm fine with that. Andre's two biggest weaknesses (and have always been since day 1) is his defense/lateral quickness and his mental state when he's not getting looks.

wilko
12-08-2011, 11:00 AM
Wow... such general negativity from a win. Whodathunk it?
After the OSU game I'm satisfied with a win. Period.

We can figure out the rest as we move forward with a young team.

THE MOST AMAZING thing about Last night....
I must have been having a flashback or something, but it sure sounded to me like Len Elmore said something positive about the development of Masons game this year. For Len it was a "2-fer" His 1st and his LAST Duke compliment. Hes filled his quota for the already.

Fuqua's Finest
12-08-2011, 11:09 AM
This is an even odder statement. What do you mean by "some of the older guys trickle out"? What have you seen that makes you think Mike's "offense is obviously there"?

Based on what we've seen so far, I'll be surprised if Mike averages more than five minutes a game for the rest of the season.

Forgot to respond to this one. Not sure whats unclear about the above statement. Once some of the starters graduate or leave early (trickle out), he'll be called upon a lot more for offense. Mike G is low on the depth chart. He's not the same caliber player of Austin and Kyrie so his minutes are limited as a freshman. On top of that, we have loads of upperclassman (Non-freshman) experience are the G/F position. I don't have the stats in front of me, but he probably shoots the ball on average maybe 2 times a game. I believe based off of game footage and scout coverage that he will be a very solid overall player. When he's in the game, he's rarely even looked upon for shots. Even last night, he was wide open in the corner and the ball wasn't passed to him. He finds himself in what I call the "gray area." He's not good enough at this point to be in the regular rotation, but not bad enough to be on the scrub team. Therefore, his role is simply to be an energy guy and play good defense when he's call upon. I believe his role as we continue on toward ACC season will develop a lot more and he'll be key to helping neutralize guys like Harry Barnes. And to finish my ranting, I believe he will definitely average more than five minutes a game the rest of the way. Andre's defense at this point is not good enough to keep Mike on the bench for less than 5 a game.

Kedsy
12-08-2011, 11:35 AM
He's obviously not getting the minutes now, but I think in limited minutes he has shown the most amount of natural ability defending on the perimeter. Natural ability in the sense to be able to laterally move with quicker guards/forwards. I don't think anyone else on the team at this point has his natural lateral quickness.

This may be true (I'm not entirely sure, though). I agree in general lateral quickness is not a strength on this year's team.

Assuming you're right about Mike's ability in this regard, next thing he needs to learn is how to fit into Duke's team defensive concepts. I haven't seen this from him, up to this point. Often it takes young players a year or more to get this down. Will Mike pick it up more quickly (as Elliot Williams seemed to, his freshman season)? I don't know. All I can say is my opinion based on Mike's limited minutes so far is that he's not there yet.

Kedsy
12-08-2011, 11:41 AM
Forgot to respond to this one. Not sure whats unclear about the above statement. Once some of the starters graduate or leave early (trickle out), he'll be called upon a lot more for offense.

Sorry. What was unclear to me was I thought you were talking about this season. I agree with you that Mike will be called on to make more of an offensive contribution in future seasons.


And to finish my ranting, I believe he will definitely average more than five minutes a game the rest of the way. Andre's defense at this point is not good enough to keep Mike on the bench for less than 5 a game.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. My belief in this regard is more about K's pattern of rotation rather than anything in particular about Mike. Coach K rarely if ever has more than 7 or 8 guys play more than 5 minutes a game (in tough/close games once the ACC schedule rolls around), and there are too many people ahead of Mike on the depth chart for him to be one of those 7 or 8. Right now, even last night, he appears to be 10th in the rotation. Against Colorado State, he played the last 7.5 minutes of the game and only 2 first half minutes before that. Tenth most minutes on the team.

So I don't think it will happen, unless somehow Tyler drops out of the rotation, and Mike takes Tyler's mantle as defensive specialist. But Tyler was the one who got the start last night, obviously he has K's confidence. Also, K said he believes containing the opposing PG is our highest defensive priority, and that won't be Mike's role.

That's why I believe Mike will play 5 or fewer minutes a game in tough/close games after January 1.

killerleft
12-08-2011, 11:49 AM
I disagree with this. I can see Josh grabbing Miles' 15-18 minutes next year. Josh is getting enough time this year to remain hungry and figure out what he needs to do to improve his game. He has bulked up some, has a nice looking jumper and busts his tail out there. He'll be earning rotation minutes next year, and occasionally some crunch time minutes I think. Could be a more physical, but less versatile, version of Lance Thomas.

I'm with you on this, superdave. He's running his own race, and seems to be improving with each passing week. If there's one thing I've learned from many years of fanning (lol), it is to never give up on any player during his sophomore year. I'd say Josh is just beginning to get comfortable on the court, which means better things are still to come.

killerleft
12-08-2011, 12:01 PM
Wow... such general negativity from a win. Whodathunk it?
After the OSU game I'm satisfied with a win. Period.

We can figure out the rest as we move forward with a young team.

THE MOST AMAZING thing about Last night....
I must have been having a flashback or something, but it sure sounded to me like Len Elmore said something positive about the development of Masons game this year. For Len it was a "2-fer" His 1st and his LAST Duke compliment. Hes filled his quota for the already.

ESPN has a working interest in the ACC doing well this year. I wouldn't be surprised if Len hasn't been reminded that negative comments should be kept to a minimum.

DukieInBrasil
12-08-2011, 12:05 PM
ESPN has a working interest in the ACC doing well this year. I wouldn't be surprised if Len hasn't been reminded that negative comments should be kept to a minimum.
They forgot however to remind Len that UNC was not on the court, when he talked about how the UNC bigs need to play big for like 5 minutes. Upchuck almost happened...

Indoor66
12-08-2011, 12:41 PM
Just like the old saying: "The grass is always greener on the bench."

I agree with you. A sage thing to say on this, the anniversary of the German attack on Pearl Harbor.

ncexnyc
12-08-2011, 12:42 PM
I see we're all happy with the big win yesterday. ;)

It would appear that some of you expected a larger margin of victory based on some of the comments I'm reading. I would remind those of you who are disappointed with the team's performance, that this is a team which is still defining their various roles. It will take time, but the talent is obviously there. Just give it time, I promise you the finished product which takes the court come March will be really exceptional.

Austin: He keeps improving game in and game out. What's not to like about his game? Found the open man several times last night. Sure he made a couple of bad decisions, but he's been cutting down on the really blatant mistakes. Let's remember for as skilled as he is, he's still only a freshman.

Seth: Was quiet scoring the ball, but was raking in assist after assist last night. He also played some stellar defense.

Andre: Enough of the stand him in the corner and let him be a decoy garbage. As he showed last night he needs to get involved in the offense early and often. The one supposed defense lapse, where he gambled for a steal, he did attempt to recover, but it appeared he caught the heel of the guy he was chasing, which caused him to fall to the floor. Look, we've talked about Andre's game quite a lot this past week. I've been quite vocal in the belief that he would lose his starting spot, because I didn't beleive he brought it game in and game out. When he scores like he did last night he more than makes up for any defensive shortcomings he may have.

Mason: A solid game on both ends of the floor. Sure we could mention CSU's lack of size, but the fact that Mason didn't vanish and continued his solid post play is what catches my eye.

Miles: Hey let's remember we've still got MP1. A nice game for Big Brother. He actually makes freethrows and he made a really nice pass to Silent G.

Ryan: Dude what gives? Second consecutive quiet game for Ryan.

Quinn: He's working it. He'll continue to improve as the season progresses.

Tyler: As pesky as always. After the OSU game and last night it's obvious that we were leading a charmed life in Maui. Tyler's gotten some nice wide open looks for 3's, but in these past two games he hasn't been able to convert.

Josh: Keep working big man. The energy is always there and good things will eventually come from it.

Silent G: Got some playing time, but as others have said he looked lost at times. You might ask yourself why are people so high on him. Well how about that slam on the allyoop. He cut in from the wing, went up high and caught a pass which was slightly behind him and put it home.

Team D still needs work, but that should be expected. To often last night I thought I was watching a football game where a cornerback got torched because he thought he had help over the top. Ryan had a guy on the sidelines in the 1st half and channels him towards the baseline, but no one was there, resulting in a slam. I believe it was the inbounds play on possibly CSU's first 3, where no one picked up the shooter. There were others, but these blown defensive plays should disappear with more reps.

Freethrow shooting, long a staple of Dule teams is leaving a lot to be desired at this point in time.

All in all a nice bounce back the last week's debacle.

Duke71
12-08-2011, 01:29 PM
Hi Everyone:

First time poster here.

Speaking of surprises, I just had a novel thought about how rebounding stats can be misleading in games like the CSU game where the other team rains a lot of 3's. Typically having a distinct height advantage, an athleticism edge, a heap of MickeyD's All-Americans even on your bench as well as on the court, should all lay claim to your team cleaning up on the boards. But the long rebounds that commonly result from missed 3's can be a game changer on who ends up fighting for those rebounds. The way many coaches approach not turning their guards loose to bang for the boards gives the guards whose coaches give them the green light to crash the boards an advantage on those long missed 3's both offensively and defensively. This could explain some of the resulting surprise of CSU hanging with us on the boards. (Not to bore you with numbers or get too hung up on them either, based on ESPN's box score the officially listed CSU GUARDS hauled in 22 out of their 32 ribbies - there was a discrepancy in the GoDuke box score wherein CSU was awarded 2 "team rebounds" which I typically, personally atttribute to lazy decision-making by a statistician, whereas the Duke guard total was 12 out of our 34 ribbies. The disparity was unmistakeable.)

But speaking of stats, the one that I was also surprised by - and most happy to see - was that for one of the very few times this season our Duke BBallers had f-a-r more assists than turnovers (21 assists vs. only 9 team TO's. Yipeee!!! Kudos to the guys for finally achieving that.) We've actually had game after game after game this season where as a team we had more TO's than assists.

Not just in BBall - interceptions and fumbles in FBall are momentum killers too - developing a high degree of proficiency in coughing the ball up to the other team makes winning the game a whole lot more difficult for your team than it needs to be, no matter which team sport you are playing.

The win was nice and much needed. The other team played smart and scrappy in the early going. Much more chemistry-seeking and gelling-as-a-team still left for the Dukies to work on. They could get real scary good if they seize the opportunity in coming weeks and months. You can say the same for a lot of teams, however, and there always seem to be surprises about which teams do and which ones don't....come tournament time.

CDu
12-08-2011, 01:33 PM
CSU was awarded 2 "team rebounds" which I typically, personally atttribute to lazy decision-making by a statistician

Rebounds are typically classified as "team rebounds" when a missed shot gets knocked out of bounds (or just goes out of bounds on its own). It's not a matter of laziness by the statistician, it's just that no particular player warranted credit for the rebound.

gwlaw99
12-08-2011, 02:05 PM
Wow... such general negativity from a win. Whodathunk it?
After the OSU game I'm satisfied with a win. Period.

We can figure out the rest as we move forward with a young team.

THE MOST AMAZING thing about Last night....
I must have been having a flashback or something, but it sure sounded to me like Len Elmore said something positive about the development of Masons game this year. For Len it was a "2-fer" His 1st and his LAST Duke compliment. Hes filled his quota for the already.

I noticed this too and it was more than once. I couldn't believe his change in attitude.

diesel
12-08-2011, 02:06 PM
THE MOST AMAZING thing about Last night....
I must have been having a flashback or something, but it sure sounded to me like Len Elmore said something positive about the development of Masons game this year. For Len it was a "2-fer" His 1st and his LAST Duke compliment. Hes filled his quota for the already.

For some reason, the sound on my home theater system went out and I had to watch the game last night without the benefit of (??) Elmore. I really enjoyed it! Even when the sound comes back, I may turn it off as an improvement!

Dev11
12-08-2011, 02:19 PM
For some reason, the sound on my home theater system went out and I had to watch the game last night without the benefit of (??) Elmore. I really enjoyed it! Even when the sound comes back, I may turn it off as an improvement!

Driving home from the Denver airport, I got the CSU radio broadcast, one of the very few perks of being a Duke fan on the high plains (anybody else excited for the Duke-DU lax game on April??). Their announcer was very well-versed on Duke, doing a better job than you generally find on tv of distinguishing the Plumlees and not calling our most clutch shooter "Thorton." I got home in time to watch the second half, and considered going for a drive instead of listening to the drivel.

Elmore is the worst.

Troublemaker
12-08-2011, 02:20 PM
Colorado St Box


+-------------+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Opponent | Player | Min:Sec | Duke | Opp | +/- | Off | Net |
+-------------+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Colorado St | Miles Plumlee | 19:42 | 47 | 23 | 24 | -1 | 25 |
| Colorado St | Tyler Thornton | 28:12 | 64 | 40 | 24 | -1 | 25 |
| Colorado St | Austin Rivers | 30:20 | 64 | 47 | 17 | 6 | 11 |
| Colorado St | Andre Dawkins | 11:35 | 32 | 16 | 16 | 7 | 9 |
| Colorado St | Josh Hairston | 13:41 | 29 | 16 | 13 | 10 | 3 |
| Colorado St | Seth Curry | 25:01 | 53 | 46 | 7 | 16 | -9 |
| Colorado St | Mason Plumlee | 25:07 | 49 | 44 | 5 | 18 | -13 |
| Colorado St | Quinn Cook | 15:13 | 27 | 23 | 4 | 19 | -15 |
| Colorado St | Ryan Kelly | 21:30 | 49 | 45 | 4 | 19 | -15 |
| Colorado St | Michael Gbinije | 09:39 | 21 | 20 | 1 | 22 | -21 |
+-------------+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+

Cumulative thru Colorado St


+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Player | Avg Min | Duke | Opp | +/- | Off | Net |
+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Miles Plumlee | 16:06 | 286 | 208 | 78 | 7 | 71 |
| Andre Dawkins | 25:48 | 451 | 390 | 61 | 24 | 37 |
| Austin Rivers | 31:05 | 552 | 497 | 55 | 30 | 25 |
| Seth Curry | 31:17 | 562 | 509 | 53 | 32 | 21 |
| Tyler Thornton | 18:05 | 326 | 279 | 47 | 38 | 9 |
| Quinn Cook | 09:16 | 162 | 118 | 44 | 41 | 3 |
| Josh Hairston | 08:27 | 122 | 89 | 33 | 44 | -11 |
| Mason Plumlee | 30:29 | 514 | 483 | 31 | 54 | -23 |
| Ryan Kelly | 26:06 | 469 | 439 | 30 | 55 | -25 |
| Todd Zafirovski | 03:04 | 3 | 4 | -1 | 42 | -43 |
| Michael Gbinije | 08:50 | 83 | 89 | -6 | 62 | -68 |
+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+

Per 40 thru Colorado St


+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Player | Avg Min | Duke | Opp | +/- | Off | Net |
+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Miles Plumlee | 40:00 | 79 | 57 | 22 | 2 | 20 |
| Josh Hairston | 40:00 | 83 | 60 | 22 | 30 | -7 |
| Quinn Cook | 40:00 | 78 | 57 | 21 | 20 | 1 |
| Tyler Thornton | 40:00 | 80 | 69 | 12 | 9 | 2 |
| Andre Dawkins | 40:00 | 78 | 67 | 11 | 4 | 6 |
| Austin Rivers | 40:00 | 79 | 71 | 8 | 4 | 4 |
| Seth Curry | 40:00 | 80 | 72 | 8 | 5 | 3 |
| Ryan Kelly | 40:00 | 80 | 75 | 5 | 9 | -4 |
| Mason Plumlee | 40:00 | 75 | 70 | 5 | 8 | -3 |
| Michael Gbinije | 40:00 | 75 | 81 | -5 | 56 | -62 |
| Todd Zafirovski | 40:00 | 39 | 52 | -13 | 548 | -561 |
+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+


Link to data prior to Colorado St (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26755-Plus-Minus-2011-2012-through-Ohio-State)

Note: I hope to post some lineups data some time between the Washington game and the UNCG game

CDu
12-08-2011, 03:01 PM
Note: I hope to post some lineups data some time between the Washington game and the UNCG game

I think there's something off with your "Per-40 Net" numbers. I notice it when looking at Zafirovski numbers. Basically, I don't think there's any way that a player should have a per-40 "off" value of 548. It should never be more than than 50 or so, and that's only if a player only appears at the end of EXTREME blowouts. It looks like you're projecting both the "on" and "off" +/- numbers up to 40 minutes based on the average number of minutes that the player played. That's fine for the "on" numbers, but not for the "off" numbers. The "off" numbers should be adjusted based on the average minutes the player DIDN'T play (the complement of the "on" time).

For example, let's say a player averages 10 mpg on court with an "on" +/- of 3 and an "off" +/- of 3, then his per-40 "on" +/- would be 12. But the per-40 "off" +/- should be 4, not 12, because he averaged 30 mpg off the court (not 10). So in Zafirovski's case, his "off" estimate would need to be adjusted based on ~37 minutes of off time, not ~3 minutes of on time. That would bring his per-40 off +/- down to about 45 and subsequently reduce his per-40 net +/- down to about -58.

What that will do is increase the magnitude of the "off" +/- for players who play more than 20mpg and decrease the magnitude of the "off" +/- for those who play less than 20 mpg. The change will be largest at the extremes of playing time.

Troublemaker
12-08-2011, 05:44 PM
I think there's something off with your "Per-40 Net" numbers. I notice it when looking at Zafirovski numbers. Basically, I don't think there's any way that a player should have a per-40 "off" value of 548. It should never be more than than 50 or so, and that's only if a player only appears at the end of EXTREME blowouts. It looks like you're projecting both the "on" and "off" +/- numbers up to 40 minutes based on the average number of minutes that the player played. That's fine for the "on" numbers, but not for the "off" numbers. The "off" numbers should be adjusted based on the average minutes the player DIDN'T play (the complement of the "on" time).

For example, let's say a player averages 10 mpg on court with an "on" +/- of 3 and an "off" +/- of 3, then his per-40 "on" +/- would be 12. But the per-40 "off" +/- should be 4, not 12, because he averaged 30 mpg off the court (not 10). So in Zafirovski's case, his "off" estimate would need to be adjusted based on ~37 minutes of off time, not ~3 minutes of on time. That would bring his per-40 off +/- down to about 45 and subsequently reduce his per-40 net +/- down to about -58.

What that will do is increase the magnitude of the "off" +/- for players who play more than 20mpg and decrease the magnitude of the "off" +/- for those who play less than 20 mpg. The change will be largest at the extremes of playing time.

You're exactly right. I did divide OFF by minutes played rather than the complement.

Great catch, CDu.

Per 40 thru Colorado St (Corrected "Off" and "Net")


+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Player | Avg Min | Duke | Opp | +/- | Off | Net |
+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Josh Hairston | 40:00 | 83 | 60 | 22 | 8 | 14 |
| Miles Plumlee | 40:00 | 79 | 57 | 22 | 1 | 21 |
| Quinn Cook | 40:00 | 78 | 57 | 21 | 6 | 15 |
| Tyler Thornton | 40:00 | 80 | 69 | 12 | 8 | 4 |
| Andre Dawkins | 40:00 | 78 | 67 | 11 | 8 | 3 |
| Austin Rivers | 40:00 | 79 | 71 | 8 | 15 | -7 |
| Seth Curry | 40:00 | 80 | 72 | 8 | 16 | -8 |
| Ryan Kelly | 40:00 | 80 | 75 | 5 | 18 | -13 |
| Mason Plumlee | 40:00 | 75 | 70 | 5 | 25 | -20 |
| Michael Gbinije | 40:00 | 75 | 81 | -5 | 16 | -21 |
| Todd Zafirovski | 40:00 | 39 | 52 | -13 | 45 | -58 |
+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+

MCFinARL
12-09-2011, 07:10 AM
Driving home from the Denver airport, I got the CSU radio broadcast, one of the very few perks of being a Duke fan on the high plains (anybody else excited for the Duke-DU lax game on April??). Their announcer was very well-versed on Duke, doing a better job than you generally find on tv of distinguishing the Plumlees and not calling our most clutch shooter "Thorton." I got home in time to watch the second half, and considered going for a drive instead of listening to the drivel.

Elmore is the worst.

At the risk of going off thread topic, YES. Should be a very good matchup, and coming that late in the season it might have important playoff/seeding implications for both teams.

oldnavy
12-10-2011, 06:13 AM
For some reason, the sound on my home theater system went out and I had to watch the game last night without the benefit of (??) Elmore. I really enjoyed it! Even when the sound comes back, I may turn it off as an improvement!

I do this a lot depending on who is calling the game. If there is a good analyst like Knight or even Bilas I will usually listen, but if it is Elmore or Vitale or a whole host of others I turn down the sound. Mainly because those guys add NOTHING to the game (like how many team fouls we have, etc..) and I usually find myself yelling at the TV to correct their mis-calls, or in the case of Vitale, he is babbeling on about some totally unrelated subject.

Now having said that, I did listen to the CSU game (my wife hates the soundless game) and Len did seem to be MUCH more positive and insightful than in the past.

It is still early, so I am not ready to put him on my "will listen too" list yet.